Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin/Archive 2

Deleting Stubs
With a mind to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia, I opened the list of stubs tagged as Latin-related articles. It seems to me that a good number of them are pages that merely define a Latin phrase and give a sentence or two of background information. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but I've begun to nominate some of them for deletion. As of now, I've only nominated a few, and those are the Wikipedia articles that merely define a term that is already defined in Wiktionary (where, in my opinion, they really belong). Many of them are legal terms or phrases; for these, I suggest merging the information in the article into this |Wiktionary Glossary of Legal Terms. Any help or criticism would be much appreciated. I am of the opinion that if we clean up some of these articles and move the information to the correct place, we can focus on improving the Latin-related articles that are actually important. Thank you ajpruns (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling this project page isn't viewed too often, but just to leave an update, another user suggested to me that rather than delete the articles I expand [|This list of legal latin terms] to include defintions and have the various stubs redirect here. So thats my current mission. Any help would be appreciated. If you need help with the format, Just copy and paste the table that I already made and continue the list. THank you ajpruns (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the zeal that some users have for deleting articles in subjects they don't know much about. It would be more productive to write and expand on the subject rather than delete that which was begun by others. Perhaps you will find a more valuable use of your time on expanding stubs.  It is the policy of wikipedia to expand stubs when possible, not delete them.  Each of the articles you deleted could have its own article.  You have succeeded in making more work for those who would write them. Gx872op (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I didn't delete any stubs, as mentioned in my second post above. The foolishness of my mission was pointed out to me and I changed gears and began to redirect ONLY those articles that contained nothing more than definitions of legal Latin phrases to []. Nothing is being deleted and extra work is not being created for anyone. ajpruns (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Translation help needed
Translation help needed for the articles Rus' people, Rus (name), Kievan Rus', Rus' Khaganate, and probably also Varangians and Annales Bertiniani.

Original Latin source: (starting with "Venerunt etiam legati Graecorum a Theophilo imperatore directi, Theodosius videlicet, Calcedonensis metropolitanus episcopus, et Theophanius spatharius, ferentes cum donis imperatore dignis epistolam quos imperator quinto decimo Kalendas Iunii in Ingulenheim honorifice suscepit" on that page, and continuing AFAIK for two more pages).

The Latin source I need help on is the Annales Bertiniani, which is a collection of Frankish annals that was completed in 882 AD. The issue behind this is the historical first mention of the Rus' people, which was a Norse tribe, also known as the Varangians from Sweden that, starting in the 9th century from Novgorod and Kiev (Kievan Rus') and allegedly under the leadership of their chieftain Rurik (or rather RøRikR in Old Norse) conquered portions of the Baltics and today's northwestern Russia, a realm which was soon known as the Rus' Khaganate (with the result that lots of placenames, such as Novgorod, actually have an Old Norse etymology). Eventually, the Rus' Khaganate, even though the Norse ruling elite was but small and soon assimilated to the Balto-Slavic population, became the nucleus and namegiver for modern Russia.

The thing is, this so-called Normannic theory is still kinda controversial, as modern Russian scholars often regard it as a modern romantic nationalist myth originating with late-19th century Pan-Germanism. What the Russians are saying is that the original Rus were actually Slavs. Now, these 9th century Annales Bertiniani seem to be a rather authoritative, and, given their time of origination, pretty concise, source to refute these Russian scholars.

What I get of this Latin text is only the gist of it. Apparently, a delegation of Rus people were interrogated by Frankish Emperor Louis the Pious at Ingelheim am Rhein in 839 AD, where they said that:
 * the name of their tribe was Rus (spelled "Rhos" in this Latin text, maybe via Byzantine Greek translation? As far as I can tell, a letter from Byzantine Emperor Theophilos or Michael III is mentioned),
 * they originally came from Sweden
 * but had settled in what is northwestern Russia today (I find this information several times in modern sources, attributing it to the Annales Bertiniani, but *WHAT THE HECK* was their contemporary name for "northwestern Russia"?), and
 * that they had switched to calling their chieftains chacanus now.

Chacanus is Latin for Khagan, a title they had likely borrowed from contact with the Avars while conquering from the Baltic coast southward. It's why their realm in centuries to come was to be known as the Rus' Khaganate.

But what I need for good sourcing is an exact translation of portions relevant to the informations bulleted above. Original Latin text at (starting with "Venerunt etiam legati Graecorum a Theophilo imperatore directi, Theodosius videlicet, Calcedonensis metropolitanus episcopus, et Theophanius spatharius, ferentes cum donis imperatore dignis epistolam quos imperator quinto decimo Kalendas Iunii in Ingulenheim honorifice suscepit" on that page, and continuing AFAIK for two more pages). --79.193.34.87 (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your passage is translated (and discussed) by what appears to be a WP:RS fit for citing (Leiden: Brill, 2004) here. How far does that go to clearing things up? Wareh (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"mobilis in mobili" or "mobilis in mobile"?
Hello, I don't know if that's the right place to ask, but I hope so. I read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Nemo#Emblem that the motto of Captain Nemo/the Nautilus is "mobilis in mobili". But there were often heavy errors in the editions of Jules Verne books, so I'm wondering if that could be another one, too, and also I thought in the past that that latin "saying" is rather "mobilis in mobile", and that is what is most familiar on google searches (although there are a few for the variant with "i", too). Because of course a more hits in google does not mean something is more true, I'm now doubting what the correct term is: "mobilis in mobili" or "mobilis in mobile"? So is one of them correct and the other false, or are both correct forms of the same meaning? Or even with different meanings? (compare http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/mobile ) Thank you for your help.46.142.38.209 (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They would mean different things. If you say mobilis in mobili, then mobili is in the ablative, and it means "moving around within the moving thing". If you say "mobilis in mobile", then mobile is in the accusative, and it means "moving into the moving thing". Angr (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is also one of the points on which Latin spelling is inconsistent. The more common ending of an -i- stem ablative is -i, but -e is found by assimilartion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My Latin is rusty, so I'll assume that Septentrionalis is correct about i-stems having an ablative ending in -i which is sometimes changed into an -e because that's the way most other third-declension nouns work. In any case, it has to be an ablative phrase, "moving in the moving thing" or something comparable.  "Moving into the moving thing" makes no sense in this context, since the idea is travel in the Nautilus and not entry into the Nautilus.  But I also don't recall any accusatives that would end in -e, so I'd say we could rule that out grammatically too.


 * The bottom line is, the motto is ablative and means something like "moving in the moving thing," but either spelling is theoretically valid. Mobili is technically correct, but most Latin speakers (at least today) would probably assume that mobile is.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Grammatically, you cannot rule out mobile as an accusative. The two- and three-form third-declension adjectives like fortis and celer all end in -e in the neuter nominative/accusative singular; mobile is the neuter nominative/accusative singular of mobilis. Maybe it's sometimes found as the ablative too, but at the very least it's definitely nominative/accusative. Angr (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But are we talking about adjectives or nouns? It seems to me that we're working with nouns here.  Anyway, we can rule out the accusative because it makes no sense.  It has to be ablative, and apparently both spellings are valid, although mobili appears to be the "classical" spelling.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for help
Hello. Would you mind to help me with the correct English translation of the following Latin inscription "Pessime mus, saepius me provocas ad iram. Ut te deus perdat"? It is a part of the article Hildebert and Everwin and I'm not sure if my translation ("Evil mouse, for how long will you bother me. May God destroy you.") is accurate. Thanks for any help. Regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Most wicked mouse, you incite me to anger once too often." That would be a bit closer to the Latin (pessimus superlative, and first sentence not a question). Wareh (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and expert help, Wareh. I'll replace the current wording with your translation. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment of article

 * How do I go about getting Otium reassessed to possible B-Class and getting an assessment of "importance"?--Doug Coldwell talk 22:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Could the "importance" be raised to "Mid"? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. And the quality of any article which uses dignitate cum otium should be reassessed also - downwards. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The question was HOW to go about it. Not could you please bash an editor around a little? If you don't want to collaborate with others to improve the encyclopedia why are you even here?

I am raising this level on this project and if anyone objects, please feel free to state exactly why so that the appropriate work can be done. We do not berate or belittle others for any reason. Get to work on the article and your manners.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A question
This is from the article Indirect speech. Latin section, first example. Dicit me amare libertatem. Does this mean "He says that he loves freedom", or "He says that I love freedom"? Victor Yus (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It means "He says that I love freedom". "He says that he loves freedom" would be Dicit se amare libertatem. Angr (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So am I right in thinking that in the example as given, me should be changed to se? (Since it's supposed to represent the reporting of someone else's saying the words "I love freedom".) Also if any Latin-competent editors could have an overall look at that section, and possibly annotate it a bit, that would obviously be great :) --Victor Yus (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I made some corrections in person in the examples and added glosses. Angr (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool stuff, thanks! --Victor Yus (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam
HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research. —Wavelength (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Today's date in Latin
Here is a useful link: Today's date in Latin. —Wavelength (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Fons memorabilium universi"?
Hi, what would be the proper translation of the book title Fons memorabilium universi? It was pointed out on the Talk page of that article that the given one is wrong. Thanks! AxelBoldt (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fons here is not a literal fountain; it's "source," nominative singular. Memorabilia are "things worth remembering", given in the genitive plural. Universi is the genitive neuter singular (substantive from universus the adj.) = universitatis. So literally "Source of notable information of the universe," though in English we would say "about the universe." I suspect, however, that a better way to represent in English what the title was intended to mean would be Source of Universal Knowledge, but if you give that you'll have pedants "correcting" you.


 * Memorabilia might also mean "curiosities," but doesn't seem to here given the outline of the work. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that clarifies it. I have changed the translation accordingly. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Cave linguam
Could you add the expression: "Cave linguam! = Mind your words!" to your list, please? I think it is a very important expression.93.212.74.173 (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it actually exist in Latin, or did you just make it up? Angr (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have found it here: http://latinum.tantalosz.de/c.php  This is a German website. "Cave linguam" is used by medical doctors when they talk to each other in the presence of patients.93.212.74.173 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because somebody says it doesn't mean that there needs to be an article written about it. The number of things you can say in Latin (or any other language) is practically unlimited, and the fact that you might say some things more often than others doesn't make them notable.  In this case, it doesn't even seem to be an old expression, just a modern translation of "watch your language" or "hold your tongue" into Latin.  Unless there's evidence of widespread usage (not merely that it's possible that German physicians might say it in peculiar circumstances), it doesn't require inclusion in English Wikipedia.  If it conveyed any unique meaning (as opposed to merely translating a common expression) or had some historical importance (such as an often-quoted saying of Cicero, or being illustrated in a famous mosaic unearthed at Pompeii), then inclusion might be justified.  Merely being included in a long list of things you might say in Latin, however, isn't really enough.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Logo
I just tagged an article as part of the WikiProject. (I didn't even know the WikiProject existed, incidentally.)

But that logo: eww. Has someone contemplated turning File:Latin WikiProject Logo.jpg into a PNG? When reduced, it has horrible JPEG compression elements that make it look rather unsightly. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A pretty SVG logo has long been a desideratum here. Do you know how to go about getting one made? Angr (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please translate!
Aspice rem caram: tres cingunt Virginis aram: Rex, Dux, Regina, quibus adsint Gaudia Trina Dum licuit, tua dum viguit rex Bela, potestas, Fraus latuit, pax firma fuit, regnavit honestas.

I wish to add the English translation (the most appropriate one) for the Bela IV of Hungary article - this is the tomb inscription. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I dunno if this is till needed. Here's my best guess:
 * "Three surround the altar of the Virgin:
 * King, Leader, Queen,
 * to whom triple joys are present
 * While it was permitted, while your power
 * was vigorous, King Bela,
 * Guile hid, peace was firm, [and]
 * Honesty reigned"
 * It's about two years too late, but I hope it will help.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Catullus 16 peer review
This is a notification that a request has been made for Catullus 16 to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of that article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Mercat Cross, Edinburgh
There is an Latin inscription in the Mercat Cross, Edinburgh a translation would be nice. If you can help please see Talk:Mercat Cross, Edinburgh. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sequence of tenses
Somewhat related to my previous question on this page: could someone please take a look at the section on Latin (or indeed the article as a whole) in Sequence of tenses. The text is very unclear, and seems to require a lot of tidying up and illustration with examples. Would be great if someone knowledgeable could help. Victor Yus (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_6
This is more of a debate on wikicode organization, rather than content or visible layout. The template in question is used in List of Latin phrases, so I'm notifying the two projects listed on that page's talk page. Your comments are welcome: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_6 -PC-XT+ 07:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Delectare
Members of this project may be interested in discussion at Articles for deletion/Delectare. Cnilep (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin
There is a debate over a deletion proposal. All comments are welcome. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC for proposal at Talk:Alter ego
An editor has made a proposal on dividing the article Alter ego in three distinct parts or separate articles, as they have different meanings/interpretations in different fields. Community input is greatly appreciated. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Query about a botanical Latin phrase
Hello, could someone help with us the botanical latin phrase that is abbreviated as ''comb. rej.'', meaning a name that is a combination (such as a binomial for a species) that has been rejected by the International Botanical Congress? The phrase is not often used, but as discussed on my talk page, it appears in the Flora of China, e.g., "Edgeworthia tomentosa (Thunberg) Nakai, comb. rej.". We've been guessing what the full spelling is. There are related phrases documented in the code of nomenclature, combinatio nova, new combination, and nomen rejiciendum, rejected name. From Lewis & Short, the noun combinatio is feminine, with genitive form combiationis, which makes it third declension, I think. So the singular nominative would seem to be combinatio rejicienda (zero google hits!), and the plural might be combinationes rejiciendae (which gets two google hits that are duplicates). It seems odd that Google searches don't confirm this guesswork, even for the singular form. Can anyone set us straight about the correct forms? Thanks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In other botanical terms, combinatio seems to be treated as neuter; combinatio illegitimum, combinatio invalidum. The word isn't in my Bantam New Latin & English Dictionary (1995), nor in the original edition (1966), nor in my revised Cassell's (1997).  So it seems to be either rare or modern.  However, the past participle of rejicio is rejectus, so I would say that, following the examples above, it should be combinatio rejectum.  I note the phrase nomen rejectum, which popped up while checking for this phrase, although Google didn't come up with combinatio rejectum in any gender.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's all very New Latin, not the sort of thing you'll find in ordinary Latin dictionaries, which are geared to Classical Latin. Anything spelled with -ji- is New Latin; the classical spelling would be reiciendum (which is a gerundive, so nomen re(j)iciendum means more "name to be rejected" rather than "rejected name". Combinatio is feminine and a quick Google search reveals that combinatio illegitima and combinatio invalida are both more common than the versions with neuter adjectives, which must be regarded as mistakes. As for comb. rej., it is most likely to stand for combinatio rejecta, which however unfortunately gets no Google hits at all. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for those scholarly replies! It was my mistake to translate nomen rejiciendum as "rejected name"; the official translation is "suppressed name" and the meaning is that botanists when they come across that name are instructed to ignore it. I'm not sure when the concept of suppressed combinations first arose in the code of nomenclature, so I'll see if I can trace that history. My hunch is that it might even be 20th century. If true, that could explain the lack of helpful expansions of the abbreviation. P.S.: biologists seem to be generally quite dreadful at Latin, lurking in their offices with posters on the wall that say things like "nil illegitimum carborundum", so I suspect that combinatio illegitimum, combinatio invalidum is something in that line. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Very informative, thanks from me, too. Quod lingua Latina mortua est, non! (this is from a google machine translation). Hamamelis (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Google needs to go back to school. What it wrote is "Because the Latin language is dead—not!" (I'm reminded of the scene in Life of Brian: "'People called Romanes, they go, the house'?!!" "It says, 'Romans go home'!" "No, it doesn't! It says, 'People called Romanes, they go, the house'!") Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that too. It's a wonderful scene. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"Cor unum via una": what's the meaning?
Hi, everyone. I'm trying to add a translation to Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná's motto in his article. The motto was "Cor unum via una". What's the best translation? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It means "one heart, one way"; it's from : et dabo eis cor unum et viam unam ut timeant me universis diebus et bene sit eis et filiis eorum post eos. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What does it means, then? --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It means "one heart, one way". Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

More opinions needed
Please submit your comments regarding on-going discussions at Talk:Latin_peoples 79.117.160.159 (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Latin peoples article deletion
Article Latin peoples has been nominated for deletion. Please discuss. Diego (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Eclogue 4
I just wrote an article for Virgil's Eclogue 4. Feel free to look over it, make corrections, and ping me if you need any of the texts I cited if you want to verify/check what I wrote. I'd particularly like it if someone can double-check my Latin translations (there's only a few, and they're short). Thanks!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   21:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Latin homographs and homonyms
Dear Latin experts: Is this old AfC submission something that should be kept and improved? It will be deleted soon as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource Latin textbook
There's a scanned copy of a Latin grammar book at Wikisource: s:en:Index:The New Latin Primer (Postgate).djvu  It needs to be proofread and formatted. Proofreading at Wikisource isn't very difficult, especially if you're working on the yellow "proofread" pages, which just need a double-check. It's possible that someone who reads Latin would find that easy to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Feminine second declension nouns
Over at WT:PLANTS there is discussion as to whether the feminine gender of many tree names in -us is a feature of Classical Latin, or an innovation of Botanical (or Medieval) Latin. Can any Latinist shed light on this matter? Lavateraguy (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Vive, Viva listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Vive, Viva to be moved to Long live. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Posse comitatus (common law) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Posse comitatus (common law) to be moved to Posse comitatus. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Names of Ballio's slaves
If I may use this talk page as a reference desk, I'm just wondering why some of Ballio's slaves in Pseudolus, act 1, scene 2 have names that seem to be neuter, such as Hedylium and Phœnicium. &mdash; Sebastian 05:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Small caps
Latin spelling and pronunciation styles Latin text with small caps. This is, as far as I know, a convention not used except here on Wikipedia, and some editors have objected to it on the talk page. Currently the page uses small caps, which uses CSS font-variant: small caps;, but there is a problem: i longa, the letter for long i, is not affected by the CSS property, so it displays at full size, about twice as tall as the surrounding small caps. In addition, i longa is not present in all fonts, and it seems not to be in the Unicode fonts specified in MediaWiki:Common.js: Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode (at least, those fonts aren't listed here).

There is a solution: to convert Latin text in the article to capitals, change font size, and specify fonts containing i longa (which can all be done using inline CSS included in a template), but that's only necessary if editors actually want Latin text to remain in small caps. (Latin text should also all be marked with, and this would be best included in the same template to minimize the amount of code in both Wiki markup and HTML.)

So I'd like input (maybe a vote, though I don't know how to set up a poll). Do editors want Latin text in Latin spelling and pronunciation to remain in small caps with apices and i longa, or should it be represented in what seems to be the usual way in English books on Latin (lowercase, proper names capitalized, u and i for both consonant and vowel values, macrons)?

I personally like the small caps style, because it's a good way of representing actual usage during the Classical period of Latin (which the article is meant to describe), but I am not sure it is appropriate for Wikipedia, since I've never seen a book that uses it: it's kind of WP:OR. — Eru·tuon 17:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * For passages written in Latin, I usually use normal English rules of capitalization and forgo diacritical marks or special characters. If I'm not mistaken, these were never consistently used in written Latin; the writer (or carver) could choose whether or not to use them, and I think they're confusing to modern readers (perhaps not to specialists, but I find them distracting myself).  I try not to be dogmatic about pronunciation; as a recent note I came across while looking for an answer for the plant question above said, there are many ways for English speakers to pronounce Latin, and even in classical Latin there are disagreements about pronunciation.


 * If you want to provide a pronunciation, that's fine; but generally macrons and such shouldn't be in the main text of an article, unless pronunciation itself is being discussed in the article (rather than an example given for words that might otherwise be confusing).


 * As for the original question, small caps, I sometimes use that when quoting inscriptions (or giving examples as if they were inscriptions). But again, I try to avoid anything that non-specialists wouldn't expect.  And to be honest, I think that whether to use small caps is probably best left to the preference of the writer.  As long as the use of small capitals doesn't become distracting, confusing, or make the article harder to read, as it would with long passages or frequent shifts between small caps and normal text, I believe it's best thought of as an option, rather than a requirement.  P Aculeius (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * When in doubt don't regulate. Let it be up to context and individual editor preferences.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a combined template. Say, a SC option in the lang tag.  I find it easier to read combined text w SC's, as the Latin is nicely set off from the English, and it's clear that it's Classical rather than modern Latin.  — kwami (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I created the template Sqc, which stands for "square capitals", as in Roman square capitals, the letterforms used in Roman inscriptions. It was originally Latin-epigr, but I thought an abbreviated title would be best, if this template is to be used for almost all Latin text in Latin spelling and pronunciation. Currently the inline CSS of the template specifies fonts containing i longa, and converts text to uppercase and makes it 73% height, which seems to be x-height in some fonts at least. This has to be used as a replacement for the font-variant: smallcaps; property, which does not appropriately convert i longa to small caps. I've also added.


 * I'd like to replace smallcaps with sqc throughout the article. You can see an example of its output in (the Aeneid example). Let me know if there are problems or objections. — Eru·tuon 04:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't heard any objections, so I went ahead and added sqc throughout the article.

Does anyone know of any more fonts that have i longa (ꟾ)? Check in sqc to see if they're there, and add them to the inline CSS if they're not. — Eru·tuon 20:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say not an objection but an opinion as I still rarely edit articles concerning Latin and I do not much worry about the style standards. The main driven motive of the proposed standardisation as I understand is to represent Latin as authentic as possible and creating a "feeling" of the language. Here the square capital writing has been proposed. But I say these considerations. Square capitals were most often carved onto stone. But this type of writing (let's say "font" in modern terms) was not the only and exclusive way. Even if we look at the late Classic era there have been preserved quite a lot of papyri with Roman cursive from the beginning of the I millennium, and it seems to be the predominant everyday way of writing of Latin as it's much easier and economical than capitals. Then, most Latin works were preserved neither in Roman cursive nor capitals but in many other book-hands of the post-Roman era which resemble and in fact are the predecessors of the modern minuscule writing. For me it seems quite unauthentic to write, say, Cicero's works in square capitals of stone inscriptions if we know that first remained manuscripts with Cicero are written in later Uncial and other mediaeval book-hands. We may, of course, postulate and retrospect that Cicero might have written in capitals, but it rather would be anachronistic as most likely he might have written in cursive as well. And both Roman cursive and post-Roman book-hands in many respect are similar to our minuscule, which we are to disregard here. Not to mention that most Latin texts became to be known for the wider public through the help of the Blackletter and Antiqua typefaces. To sum up. In my opinion writing in minuscules is no less authentic and historical than in capitals. As it was already said above, the context is the key what way to use.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Classical Latin letterforms, so can't comment on which would have been originally used by Cicero and other Classical Latin writers. However, regrettably Roman cursive couldn't be used for the examples in the Latin spelling and pronunciation: it wouldn't be legible to most readers since letter forms differ so much from modern letterforms, and it would require special fonts that most readers would not have. Square capitals may be the only Classical Latin "font" that is legible to modern readers, and they only require special fonts in the cases of and.


 * However, a problem with the "square capitals" has occurred to me: if a reader searches for a word with in it, using the modern Latin orthography, they won't be able to find it. (For instance, if they search for equus, they won't find .) So it might be best to restructure the article and restrict the "square capitals" to a table of examples, with the modern Latin orthography side-by-side with it.


 * Also, it would be good to have a section on Classical and post-Classical Latin letterforms, much like in Archaic Greek alphabets. Old Latin letterforms are shown in, and File:Evolution of minuscule.svg shows square capitals, rustic capitals, and uncial, but not Roman cursive, but I don't know of an article that systematically presents the letterforms used for Classical to Late Latin. — Eru·tuon 20:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I object. This is neither standard usage nor at all helpful to the general reader. Please use italics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it is very helpful in cases such as Latin spelling and pronunciation, where it elegantly distinguishes the Latin spelling from any of the other texts, such as English translation and phonetic rendering. Since these are also derived from Latin, it adds clarity to reserve a dedicated font for Latin proper. I see Lüboslóv Yęzýkin's point that it would be unauthentic for Cicero's works. However, among all contemporary scripts, it is the only one in which every letter would be readily understandable to every reader, and it is the writing for which the reader would be most likely to accept that U and V are represented by the same letter. One disadvantage is, as describes, that reading will be slowed down by about 10%, which would come to bear in longer passages.

Italics is not available, since it's already taken (for emphasis and book titles). It also slows down reading,*, and its tight spacing makes it particularly hard to distinguish differences in individual letters - one of the main concerns of Latin spelling and pronunciation. &mdash; Sebastian 04:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Italics are available. It's normal to present foreign words in italics on Wikipedia, and italics are used in most language articles: for instance, French phonology. Emphasis is rare on Wikipedia, because it has an unencyclopedic tone, and book titles are typically not in the same text as example words. Hence, 's request to replace small caps with italics is entirely possible. — Eru·tuon 04:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear. As introduced by my first paragraph, I was looking for a dedicated font. In that sense, it's available, just as a married guy might be "available". ;-) &mdash; Sebastian 04:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Well, regrettably fonts are not monogamous on Wikipedia. :-) — Eru·tuon 04:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is if we want authentic representation of Latin texts both the contemporary majuscule and minuscule (or upper and lower cases) are unauthentic but lower case is much less unauthentic then all caps. Except for very rare and scarce examples the Latin majuscule was used predominantly as the special letter forms for stone inscriptions. It would be strange to use the letters for stone inscriptions in a general encyclopedic text unless we want to "reproduce" those stone inscriptions (like it's done here). While the minuscule is more or less how Latin texts have been looked for at least the last 15 centuries, especially the last 500 years or so (since the wide introduction of the Italian humanist minuscule, now known as lower case). So I am for the well-accepted typographic status quo (see WP:AINT). For example, in this quite reliable book they use Latin words inside of the English text a lot and they use italics, not small caps. Better to accept such books as a model. The things we should really discuss, and they are really important, is the consistent usage of v and j, and when and why to use the macrons and breves.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Latin"
The usage and topic of Latin is under discussion, see talk:Latin -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Ecclesiastical Latin
Help:IPA for Latin indicates that in Ecclesiastical Latin $⟨e ae oe o⟩$ have either close-mid or open-mid pronunciation: or. The close-mid pronunciation is supposedly used for long e and for oe, the open-mid pronunciation for short e and for ae. I haven't seen verification of this claim. All pronunciation guides for Ecclesiastical Latin indicate a five-vowel system, with no distinction in mid vowels. However, the pronunciation guides I've seen have been in English, and English speakers are unlikely to be able to produce the distinction between close-mid and open-mid vowels. Italian, on which Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation is based, does have a distinction between close-mid and open-mid vowels in stressed syllables (I think), and this makes it likely that Ecclesiastical Latin has the same distinction.

Does anyone know anything about this? — Eru·tuon 01:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd look for an answer in a reliable source. I believe your question already has an answer: "Ecclesiastical Latin of native Italians has the same distinction". Ecclesiastical Latin of all others may or may not retain the distinction, it depends on phonotactics of their native language.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The book you link seems to indicate that mid vowels are not distinguished in closeness, and since I made my first post, I realized two facts that make it highly unlikely.


 * The first: The IPA help page asserts that the long vowels ē and ō were pronounced as close-mid, and the short vowels e and o as open-mid. However, Ecclesiastical Latin doesn't even mark long vowels, and a distinction can't be made when it isn't marked in spelling. Thus, while Italian speakers pronouncing Classical Latin (which does have macrons) might make this distinction, Italian speakers pronouncing Ecclesiastical Latin (which does not use macrons) cannot.


 * The second is that in Ecclesiastical Latin ae and oe are confused, indicating they are pronounced the same. Confusion occurs in the phrase Regina Coeli, which would be Rēgīna Caelī in Classical Latin. Since the two digraphs are confused, they can't be pronounced differently.


 * Because of these two facts, it would seem that no distinction between close-mid e, oe, and o and open-mid e, ae, and o is made in Ecclesiastical Latin. A distinction was made in Vulgar Latin, shown by the fact that close e and o and open e and o had different developments in the Romance languages. However, this distinction is apparently erased in Ecclesiastical Latin. — Eru·tuon 03:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the open-mid and close-mid distinction from the IPA help page, because so far all evidence indicates that Ecclesiastical Latin has a five-vowel system:. There may be allophonic open-mid vowels before sonorants in Ecclesiastical Latin pronounced by Italians, because this allophony exists in Italian according to Help:IPA for Italian, but there is no evidence for a phonemic distinction. — Eru·tuon 21:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources I'm finding say those vowels are /a e i ɔ u/ or /a ɛ i ɔ u/. The English sources always use "aw" to represent o. The source above also uses /a ɛ i ɔ u/, so I will change it to that. — trlkly 23:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A fortiori argument listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for A fortiori argument to be moved to Argumentum a fortiori. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Desiderius Erasmus listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Desiderius Erasmus to be moved to Erasmus. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Help with a translation
Does someone here read Latin well enough to improve the transliteration and translation at Talk:Clio (Hendrik Goltzius), from the base of the image on the corresponding article page? Thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Your Latin's much better than mine, I think, but your translation looks pretty good to me. I'd go with that, and if someone wants to suggest an improvement they're always free to do so.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC on ALL CAPS or Title Case with Latin phrases
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography for the RFC. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Latin alphabet listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Latin alphabet to be moved to Roman alphabet. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Pharsalia or De Bello Civili?
I was wondering if I could get a consensus on this. The Wikipedia page for Lucan's poem is Pharsalia, but almost all academic sources refer to the poem as De Bello Civili, and many scholars, such as James Duff Duff and Susanna Braund make argument after argument about how the poem was never called Pharsalia in antiquity/the Middle Ages. Would it be unreasonable to move this page to "De Bello Civili (Lucan)"? Thoughts?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   14:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably better where it is now. this ngram seems to show that Pharsalia is far more common as the title in published works, and always has been (the search was not case-sensitive, and will have included other works titled De Bello Civili, of which Caesar's is actually more prominent than this, probably accounting for most of the instances).  It's tempting to use a title that the poem "should" be called by, since it would be a more accurate description of the work; but the general policy in Wikipedia is to give articles on literary works the name by which they're best known in English.  In this case, that's clearly the present title, both because it's been published under that name for a long time, and is mentioned by that title in many other works, including reference works, and also because De Bello Civili usually refers to Caesar's commentaries on the Civil War.  While the disambiguating "(Lucan)" would help, the present title is probably more helpful for identifying the work than a lesser-known title that just happens to be a better description of the work.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Just thought I'd check!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   00:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It was a perfectly valid question. I've been in a number of debates where the most common title was hard to determine, or not as a good for Wikipedia.  Someone else might still want to weigh in.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it might be best to treat it like a person better known by another name (e.g. Prince). In other words, the article is still located at "Pharsalia", but the first line notes that this is just the popular name: "On the Civil War (De Bello Civili), more commonly referred to as the Pharsalia..."-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   17:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's usually a good approach in cases like this, although I would probably place the Latin title first in this instance, and make the English parenthetical. Either way works, though.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Byzantine Latin categories
Two categories about Byzantine Latin are currently being discussed at WP:CFD (see Category:Byzantine Latin language and Category:Byzantine Latin inscriptions). This WikiProject's input would be welcome to try to reach a consensus. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Latins listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Latins to be moved to Latins (Middle Ages). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

"Hortensius" Peer-Review request
If anybody is interested, I've requested a peer-review for Cicero's Hortensius. All comments are greatly appreciated!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  15:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Augustus (title) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Augustus (title) to be moved to Augustus (honorific). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

SVG version of the logo
Hi. I saw a banner today, and noticed that the project logo is an artifact-ridded JPEG. So I popped it into Inkscape, traced it, and uploaded the result to Commons. What do y'all think of this version? Eman 235 / talk  03:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed it in the . Let's see if anyone objects... Eman  235 / talk  22:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of chorisepala
I have posted a question in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics regarding the etymology of the botanical Latin epithet chorisepala. I would like to have some input from members familiar with Latin and ancient Greek. Thanks in advance. Wimpus (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Quantitative scansion
I've started a discussion about Wikipedia guidelines for quantitative scansion at Wikipedia talk:CGR. Join in if you like. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Which Version of Latin should I be using?
I noticed Ecclesiastical Latin's macrons are being used often, and I was wondering what the standards are for the varieties of Latin, and which to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emicho's Avenger (talk • contribs) 17:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure of the context in which you mean to use it. Obviously not in your personal life, since that would be entirely your choice, so somewhere on Wikipedia.  In that context, I would say that you should use whichever variety is most relevant to the article you're working on.  One thing I would caution against, however, is using macrons for anything other than indicating pronunciation.  Classical Latin didn't generally use macrons; there were multiple ways in which long vowels could be indicated, but none of them were universally adopted, and in modern orthography Classical Latin is only written with macrons, breves, or similar marks in grammars and dictionaries to indicate pronunciation; they do not appear in ordinary text.  Our article on Medieval Latin doesn't mention macrons; the one on Ecclesiastical Latin says that it uses acute accents instead of macrons, to indicate stress.  I would say that if an original text or inscription contains such marks, you probably should include them when quoting that text; but if not, then don't supply them unless you're giving a pronunciation—which you rarely will except in the first sentence of the lead.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Latin spelling and pronunciation listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Latin spelling and pronunciation to be moved to Latin phonology and orthography. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proto-Romance Language listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Proto-Romance Language to be moved to Proto-Romance language. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Translation of "Oedant Arma Toga"
You're are invited to join a discussion at. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Aldhelm listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Aldhelm to be moved to Saint Aldhelm. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Latin Church listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Latin Church to be moved to Latin Catholic Church. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

translation requested
Please see this. I studied Latin for five years but that part of my brain has rotted away. Thanks. Zerotalk 05:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ex nihilo listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ex nihilo to be moved to Creatio ex nihilo. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject
Decree nisi	21,813	727	Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Re-latinization of Romanian listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Re-latinization of Romanian to be moved to Modernisation of the Romanian language. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Talk:Marlowe_portrait
If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Florio engraving


Someone want to translate the Latin for me, "outer" and "inner"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

And if possible, the "below" as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * An answer, thanks to several Vicipaedians, appears at la:Vicipaedia:Taberna. Andrew Dalby 15:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Dalby Beat me to it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"Pie Jesu"
Is there a consensus re how the phrase "Pie Jesu" is/should be translated? I have seen it rendered as "Dear Jesus", "O Sweet Jesus", Blessed Jesus", and "Merciful Jesus" -the latter most often. The above-linked article renders it "Pious Jesus" Thx. Manannan67 (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Pie in this case (two syllables) appears to be the vocative of pius, which has several possible meanings. "Pious" is the most literal meaning, or at least the most familiar in English, but "dutiful", "blessed", and "holy" are all among the possibilities—the latter two making more sense in this context.  "Dear" is a possible translation, but might be misinterpreted as a form of address, rather than a description of virtuousness.  "Sweet" and "merciful" would seem to be equivalent phrases, but not translations.  However, it would be correct to begin with "O", since the phrase is vocative, and the speaker is thus addressing Jesus directly.  It's not required, but it would be appropriate, particularly if the speaker intends to be respectfully formal.  So "(O) blessed Jesus" or "(O) holy Jesus" are probably the closest possible translations.   P Aculeius (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thx. -copied to Talk:Pie Jesu Manannan67 (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

plural form for conditio sine qua non
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_qua_non

Correct plural form ? The article states as plural form of the phrase: *conditio sine quibus non. Wouldn't the PLURAL of this phrase have to put conditio into plural form as well ??? Isn't that conditiones sine quibus non then ? I.e. Conditions without which there is no etc. Not sure. Heeelp ! Discussion on the respective page is newest from 2011, that's why I pose my question here as well. Article is rated C importance, but I do find it helpful nevertheless. --MistaPPPP (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Condicio certainly does need to be plural if it's included. Fixed.  P Aculeius (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Help understanding inscription: how many people are there, and how are they related?
Found this inscription while working on an article about the Titedia gens: "L(uci) Titiedi Flacci / Petroniani / Mindiae Paetil/lae N(umeri) Mindi / Paeti pron(epoti) s(acrorum) p(ub)l(icorum) R(omanorum) / pr(aecepto) pont(ificis) m(aximi) cur(atoris) sacel(lorum) p(ublicorum) // L(uci) Titiedi L(uci) f(ilii) Flac/ci / Mindiae Paeti/llae / pronep(otis) / ossa / vixit a(nnos) IIII d(ies) IIII" Normally I can tell who's being buried by whom based on which name is in the dative and which is in the nominative. Here all of the names appear to be genitive—possible that Mindia Paetilla is in the dative, but it seems clear that she's not the one being buried, since the subject is a great-grandson aged four years and four days. But is the great-grandson Lucius Titiedius Flaccus Petronianus, at the beginning of the inscription, or the Lucius Titiedius L. f. Flaccus at the end (they could be the same person, but that's not clear either; the second one has a filiation and isn't called "Petronianus"). And who's Numerius Mindius Paetus? Is he Mindia's father? Seems unlikely that he could be her husband, since they share both nomen and cognomen, and just as unlikely that he could be the great-grandson, who shouldn't have the same name as his great-grandmother. If Mindia Paetilla isn't the great-grandmother, then who is she? Is it possible to figure out the relationships between the people in this inscription from grammar and syntax? I could just say that they're all "mentioned" in it, but that's not very satisfactory—and the fact that I can't be sure if there are one or two people named Lucius Titiedius Flaccus makes it worse. P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Romani ite domum


The article Romani ite domum has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Handily fails WP:PLOT & WP:N (nominated at the request of User:Michael Bednarek)"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Romani ite domum for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Romani ite domum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Romani ite domum until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

New Latin listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for New Latin to be moved to Neo-Latin. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of Basic Latin characters
I've created the List of Basic Latin characters to show the evolution of the Latin alphabet from Classical Latin through its integration into modern languages and its codification in the C0 Controls and Basic Latin Unicode block. I would appreciate any help with this article.

This article is also being considered for deletion. Please share your thoughts at this article's deletion discussion page. Thanks, Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Pannonian Romance
This article has been completely rewritten in a way that flatly contradicts earlier versions. More eyes would be welcome. Srnec (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Romance languages: Representation of Classical Latin–Vulgar Latin split in infobox?
If anyone here is interested in this discussion, it can be found at Talk:Romance languages Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)