Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Latin (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Deleting Stubs[edit]

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 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 [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 [[1]]. Nothing is being deleted and extra work is not being created for anyone. ajpruns (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Translation help needed[edit]

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

Original Latin source: [2] (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 [3] (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). -- (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"?[edit]

Hello, I don't know if that's the right place to ask, but I hope so. I read on 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 ) Thank you for your help. (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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 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[edit]

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

"Fons memorabilium universi"?[edit]

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[edit]

Could you add the expression: "Cave linguam! = Mind your words!" to your list, please? I think it is a very important expression. (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: This is a German website. "Cave linguam" is used by medical doctors when they talk to each other in the presence of patients. (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)


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![edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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#Translation of the Latin inscription. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sequence of tenses[edit]

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)


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: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_6#Template:Latin_outtro -PC-XT+ 07:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Delectare[edit]

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

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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 Jeremiah 32:39: 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[edit]

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

Popular pages tool update[edit]

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 tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs: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[edit]

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

Eclogue 4[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)