Disputatio:Vicipaedia

How do you say "online"? The best I could come up with was "on the Internet." --Emufarmers 03:27, 7 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What context? We say "conventum xxum apertum" for a user being logged on, and "in interrete" means on the web. What's the exact sentence?--Ioshus Rocchio 04:03, 7 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say something like "Wikipedia is an online Latin language encyclopedia." --Emufarmers 04:42, 7 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Vicipaedia est encyclopaedia liberA in interrete Latine(or ablative, latina lingua) scripta." --Ioshus Rocchio 05:16, 7 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have both encylopeaedia and liber? Does encyclopaedia mean something slightly different in Latin? --Emufarmers 05:52, 7 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, libera, not liber. Libera means free...--Ioshus Rocchio 08:54, 30 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Disputatio Usoris:Trulexicon.--Ioscius ^(disp) 17:44, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the English pronunciation of Wikipedia be reflected here instead of the Latin pronunciation of... Vicipaedia? Sabbut 19:56, 12 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is. The four IPA pronunciations given are all variant English ways of saying the English name -- which is what you'd expect, because Wikipedia is the English name. Not sure if I've answered your question ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:07, 12 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, maybe I didn't express myself properly in the first place. The same word, Wikipedia, with the same spelling, is pronounced differently in other languages, such as Spanish, so having the IPA for the English pronunciation without specifying anything seems a bit Anglocentric to me. I am suggesting the Latin pronunciation be placed here (if possible) or that the article specified that the IPA pronunciations given are the English ways of pronouncing "Wikipedia", for instance, by placing "Anglice:" before the IPA symbols. Sabbut 21:30, 29 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean now. Good point.

We seem to reserve the Latin name Vicipaedia for the Latin version (and as for specifying pronunciation, we generally don't do that for Latin words because customary pronunciations differ and we're not in the business of prescribing a pronunciation standard). So, maybe set the Latin name aside.

We have already a few articles about the individual Wikipedias, and in those the precise name and pronunciation should be given in each language. The proper place for the English pronunciation would then be in the article about the English Wikipedia ... which we don't yet have.

This is an article about all the versions, considered as a unity. I suppose we could abstain from giving a pronunciation at all in this article. Does that make sense? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 30 Iulii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's the correct thing to do. Sabbut 00:06, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicipaediae aliis linguis scriptae nomine in suam linguam translato uti solent, ergo invenimus commentationes appellatas Wikipédia apud Francogallos, Vicipéid apud Hibernos, विकिपीडिया apud hi:, Vikipedya apud lad:, Wikipedija apud mt:, etc. Quam ob rem censeo hanc commentationem ad Vicipaediam movendam esse. Mattie 15:54, 22 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quae sequuntur e pagina disputationis mea repeto. [Sic ibi explicavi: "I'll now copy this to Disputatio:Wikipedia, which is where Mattie suggested that the page be renamed: that's the best place to discuss this (not unimportant) point."] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:28, 17 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salve Andree, Administrator es, itan? Ego non, ergo nequeo commentationem Wikipediam ad Vicipaediam movere, cum "Vicipaedia" ad "Vicipaediam Latinam" redirigat... Si vis, possisne quae in disputationem mense Octobri scripsi legere commentationemque movere? Gratias, curaque ut valeas! Mattie 18:18, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I overlooked this till now. Writing in haste and therefore in English: sorry about that too! I could move it for you; the objection is that many links point to Vicipaedia and intend "Vicipaedia Latina". All those links would be misdirected if this page was moved. But I agree the renaming is logical. Therefore, would it be better to move it to "Vicipaedia (series)" or something like that? I'm happy to do what you think best, I just want to be sure you've considered the outcomes! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:56, 17 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albert non Albrecht, Smith non Smyth, Vicipaedia non Wikipedia est. As a proper name, Vicipaedia can't be confused with Wikipedia. Brands are unique. No adjective is needed. Of course to distinguish in Latin the German Wikipedia from the Spanish Wikipedia, then the adjectives will romp! IacobusAmor 18:10, 17 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do all other languages (or nearly all; I don't remember) use their native language's name? It's not rare to translate brandnames (see e.g. our next pagina mensis). In Latin, the project as a whole is called Vicipaedia, not Wikipedia, which is the English (&c.) name of the project. Mattie 23:10, 17 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, trademarks are by definition unique marks, fixed in form—sometimes even so far as to include their typographical font—and are therefore untranslatable within the law, except by the holders of the marks, who may register their own translations, as J. K. Rowling has done with versions of her books in various languages. Unregistered words aren't subject to this restriction; for which reason it may be pertinent to note that Warner Bros. (is alleged to have) tried to register all the fictitious placenames in "Harry Potter" books, films, and merchandise. The titles of many (most?) books aren't registered as trademarks, and conceivably therefore they're freely translatable by all & sundry, unless their form is fixed & protected by some other legal restraint. The name of the present wikipedia is not Wikipedia Latina, but Vicipaedia ; perhaps, however, it could be said to be a wikipedia Latina, and even a vicipaedia Latina. If doubt remains, maybe a magistrate could ask the legal folks over at Wikimedia. IacobusAmor 11:17, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who feels doubt can do that. It doesn't take a magistratus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, come on, Iacobe... If this were so, someone more knowledgeable than we are in this field would have told the other-language Wikis to name their page "Wikipedia." Mattie 18:44, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mattie is right. Whether this is a title or a brand name, translation of it has been permitted and our translation "Vicipaedia" has become official.

To solve the problem I raised (of the incoming links), I have suggested an initial solution, moving the substantive page to e.g. "Vicipaedia (series)" or "Vicipaedia (situs)" (call this step 1). This could be followed by making "Vicipaedia" tout court a discretiva page and altering as many as possible of the incoming links that need to be altered (call that step 2); then moving the substantive page from its temporary name to "Vicipaedia" tout court (step 3). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word series is potentially problematic when it's going to be used, well, in series, because its genitive & dative do not occur. IacobusAmor 11:23, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit moot a point to debate if we're going to change it back anyway :) I do think "situs" is better, though. Mattie 18:44, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quae vocales longae vocabuli "Vicipaediae" sunt? Num "Vīcīpaedīa" dicitur? Num "Vicipaedīa" tantum est? Cocenpoma (disputatio) 10:57, 27 Decembris 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sicut iam anno 2009 dixi (vide supra) "as for specifying pronunciation, we generally don't do that for Latin words because customary pronunciations differ and we're not in the business of prescribing a pronunciation standard". Nobis neque necesse est neque licet inter pronuntiatus distinguere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:52, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoc tempore pagina incipit "Vicipaedia (Vicipædia quoque videtur) ..." Ita inter orthographiam nostram normalem orthographiamque rubricae publicae distinguimus. Si ergo apicem vel macron in lemma imponimus, orthographiam nostram normalem non iam praefingimus, quia in nostra scriptura neque apice neque macro utimur. Si fontes de pronuntiatu exstant, certe de pronuntiatu disserere oportet, sed fortasse melius erit id facere in sententia quae sequitur? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:20, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Andrew. Macron addideram quia vocabulum est verbum amalgamatum a vici + (encyclo)paedīa, et ergo eandem penultimam quantitatem servat; sed vocalis longa ante aliam vocalem est res rara, et pronuntiatio Latina ordinaria – si intercessionem linguae Graecae nesciamus (paideíā > -paedīa) – sit “Vicipaedĭa” (“Vocalis ante vocalem corripitur”…). Haec est ratio quae me duxit ad sonum irregularem signandum, et evidens etymologia mihi suasit tale macron nullam fontem requirere. Notas diacriticas, cum opus sit, haud in titulis sed in prima sententia solemus scribere, sed credo in secundum paragraphum quoque inseri posse. --Grufo (disputatio) 12:26, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago propter responsum. Rationem tuam bene intellego, neque certus eram, an bona ratione hoc macron a lemmate removi! Ita, optime erit vocalem longam explicare in paragrapho secundo, ubi iam de etymologia loquimur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mihi videtur excogitatio esse bona. Macron in secundo paragrapho restitui. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:19, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]