Disputatio Vicipaediae:Latinitas
E Vicipaedia
Index |
[recensere] Translitteratio
We're going with ISO? I suppose it's best to have SOMETHING. But for the love of God, please do not render Arabic ẗ as t: that's just absurd! --Iustinus 17:43, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Nomen locorum
- I do not understand no. 2:
- Nomina loci saepe etiam convertuntur, bonis nominibus Latinis inveniendis (vide fontes nominum locorum). Si nomen loco Latinum non iam est, nomen ne sit convertendum.
- "Often place names are converted by finding good Latin names. If the place has not yet a Latin name, don't convert!"
- I think this is contradictory. --Alex1011 17:56, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, good point: I meant that gerundive to be purely an indicator necessity in the ablative absolute (i.e. "with good (i.e. correct) Latin names needing to be found"), but it looks an awful lot like it's in a gerund construction (i.e. "by finding good Latin names.") The point is that we shouldn't be making up Latin placenames ourselves. THis brings me to another question: Ioshus, for personal names you contrasted latinizare with convertere, which left me a bit confused about what you meant by convertere for place names. Surely you didn't mean that Tokyo should become Caput Orientale. --Iustinus 18:03, 20 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Delenda
For a good example at how bad machine translators are at translating Latin, see this entry in my lj. THough perhaps we should mention {{tiro}} in this section. --Iustinus 01:55, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect, at the risk of offense, that you can find great examples of how awful machine translators are at our pages on thomas the train, and the first versions of sailor moon. I fear it happens alot here. Good example, though, maybe we should include here in this section an example of how awful machine translations are.--Ioshus (disp) 02:18, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Rating
I have made a table with levels from -9 to +8. Maybe this seems to much. However, just this counts:
- Is the article -7 or below, then it should be deleted
- Is the article -4 or below, than it is rather bad
- Is the article better than -3, then it needs some cleanup
- An article from -1 to +4 might be of the same quality, when the first author did a good job, because the reviews did not bring up mistakes and he has provided some nice phrases
- An article at +4 or better can even be a +7, but an la-1 user might not see this
This fine rating makes it easier to rate an article, because it does not really matter if it is -5 or -3, it is a game. Even a beginner could turn a -6 in a -5 by making some cleanup. This could motivate him. And I hope this fine rating will avoid disputes about one or two points more or less.
Another interpretation:
- we have the "delete" level
- the "bad" level
- the "cleanup" level
- the "ok" level
- the "good" level
- the top articles
We could even match that with or Babel levels: la-1, la-2, la-3, ...
Maybe like this:
- a la-1 might create articles from -6 to -4, maybe better
- a group of la-1s might create articles from -3 to -1, maybe better
- a la-2 might create articles from -3 to +4, maybe better
- a group of la-2 might create articles from -1 to +4 or better
- a la-3 will mostly create articles at -1 or better
This is just a first idea ...
I think such levels, seen as a game, can improve the quality of our articles.
We need not to rate all articles. It is optional.
--Rolandus 17:58, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
[recensere] Levels of latinitas
- (Moved this old discussion to here. --Rolandus 09:54, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC))
Just a try ...
Maybe we could have a template {{latinitas}}, used like
- {{latinitas|-4}} or
- {{latinitas|2}}
| Level | Image | Description | Examples | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| curious/interesting/crazy |
|
|||
| curious/interesting/crazy |
|
|||
| curious/interesting/crazy |
|
|||
| +9 | (we might not need that) | perfect latinitas | ||
| +8 | outstanding (just the latinitas!) |
|
||
| +7 | exemplary (just the latinitas!) | |||
| +6 | really good | |||
| +5 | nice to read | |||
| +4 | looks good |
|
||
| +3 | looks ok (checked three times or more) |
|
||
| +2 | looks ok (checked twice) |
|
||
| +1 | looks ok (checked by an la-2 or better) |
|
||
| 0 | (not rated) | |||
| -1 | maybe ok |
|
||
| -2 | some errors |
|
||
| -3 | many errors |
|
||
| -4 | mistakes |
|
||
| -5 | bad mistakes |
|
||
| -6 | very bad mistakes |
|
||
| tiro, we know what you mean (at least we think so) | ||||
| -7 | nearly understandable, but only when you try hard |
|
||
| -8 | word by word translations, nearly unreadable |
|
||
| -9 | looks like Latin but isn't ("perfect nonsense") |
|
||
| not even Latin (for pages in the Vicipaedia namespace) |
|
|
- comment: I like the idea of having the latinitas of articles rated. The details would of course have to be worked out (how many levels, descriptions for each level in order to reduce subjectivity, …) but I like the general idea very much! --UV 17:47, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
- comment: Could someone please give an example article for each level of latinitas on the table above, i.e. an article on vicipaedia exemplifying -3, +1, +5 et cetera? -- LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 15:23, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
I have created such a template to play with it. Try levels between -9 (terrible) and +8 (outstanding). Example: {{latinitas|-5}}.
[recensere] De Latinitate Vicipaediae
ok on the navigation bar that is in the articles, it shouldnt be celare it should be cela because cela is the command form, celare means "to hide" -- Usor:207.166.7.200
- Sed cur in lingua Anglica vertis? Si loquimur Latine de operationibus computatri, bene utimur forma infinitiva quod exprimit significationem fundamentalem verbi.
- But why must you translate it into English? If we're talking about computer functions in Latin, it's quite logical to use the infinitive, because the infinitive expresses the basic meaning of the verb. Forget the English. AndrewDalby 21:29, 15 Martii 2007 (UTC)
For previous discussion of this topic, see Disputatio:Pagina_prima/Tabularium2#Infinitives vs. imperatives (it's an archive, so please do not try to edit further). (Though I'm sure both Andrew and I woudl love to reply to that last comment about Cato). --Iustinus 01:09, 16 Martii 2007 (UTC)

