Vicipaedia:1000 paginae

Haec pagina dedicatur 1000 paginis quas omnibus Vicipaediis contineri oportet. Tabula nominum apud nos est haec pagina. Vide etiam Usor:Amahoney/1000 Paginae epitome, Categoria:1000 paginae. De paginis 10,000 hic legere potes.

Meta 1000 paginas quas Vicipaediae omnium linguarum habeant proposuit. Quidni operam des in commentationes addendas, augendas, et emeliorandas!?

• Elenchus Vicipaediarum quantitate commentationum varietateque ordinatarum apud Metam
• Usor:Secundus Zephyrus/1000 paginae sizes - Haec paginae monstrat quam magnae sunt nostrae 1000 commentationes. Propositum est omnes 1000 commentationes ultra 30 000 verba augere.

Ab Andrea: Alexander Magnus (0.05), Caseus (0.05), Homerus (0.03), Honglou meng (0.05), Malum (0.03), Marcellus Proust (0.03), Media communicationis socialis (0.01) = 0.25

Ab Iacobo: Apartheid (0.04), Bellum Centum Annorum (0.03), Bomba atomica (0.03), Carbohydratum (0.01), Cetacea (0.03), Contagio sexu transmissa (0.01), Cursus autocinetorum (0.01), Debilitas auditus (0.01), Energia renovabilis (0.04), Fissio nuclearis (0.01), Impressio (0.01), Informationis technologia (0.01), Inrigatio (0.01), Insecta (0.03), Iracum (0.03), Lipidum (0.01), Littera (0.03), Magna Culturae Conversio Proletariana (0.04), Medicamentum pharmaceuticum (0.01), Metabolismus (0.03), Musica (0.08), Mythologia (0.08), Nederlandia (0.03), Nicotinum (0.01), Nubes (0.03), Oceanus Pacificus (0.03), Olympica (certamina) (0.03), Opera (olim Theatrum lyricum) (0.08), Parthenon (0.04), Placita Marxiana (0.03), Religio Christiana (0.03), Res Novae Francicae (0.03), Res Novae Russiae (1917) (0.04), Selachimorpha (0.03), Socialismus (0.03), Systema endocrinum (0.01), Systema integumentarium (0.01), Systema reproductionis (0.01), Systema respiratorium (0.01), Systema solare (0.03), Tectonica laminarum (0.01), Tempus (0.03), Theoria catervarum (0.01), Theoria copiarum (0.01), Vincentius van Gogh (0.03), Yoga (0.03) = 1.23

Ab Ioscio: Diurnariorum ars (0.01), Ernestus Guevara (0.03), Leonardus Vincius (0.03), lingua Anglica (0.03),Napoleo I (imperator Franciae)‎ (0.03), Numerus (0.03), Radioactivitas (0.01) = 0.16

Ab Utilone: Nederlandia (0.05), Publius Ovidius Naso (0.03), Restauratio Meiji dicta (0.01), Sahara (0.03), Vindobona (0.08) = 0.23

A Secundo Zephyro: Penuria victus (0.01) = 0.01

Ab Amphitrite: Cancer (morbus) (0.03) = 0.03

A Neandre: Moda (0.01) = 0.01

Summa: 1.89.

Mense Augusti 2011 -- en:Spaceflight nunc est in tabula; nullam paginam habemus. Mihi videtur en:Concrete mox addetur. Quod Romani hanc materiem inveniunt, fortasse nobis oportet de ea scribere. Mense Octobris -- en:Arab-Israeli Conflict iam additur, de quo paginam nullam habemus. Equis vult de hoc bello scribere?

Et deus ille Indicus en:Trimurti additur, de quo ipsa scribere possum, nisi quis vult qui melius scribat. Nimis mutatio hac in mense, ut opinor!

Abhinc 5 dies en:Writing system in tabulam additur. en:Three Gorges Dam fortasse mox in tabulam intrabit, et plures saltatores, pictores, musici paginis honorandi quoque sunt. Si quis nomen latinum huius molis scit, quaeso, paginam crea. Ego autem de systemate scripturae aliquid scribam (nisi alius velit?), sed serior quam in numeros comptetur. :-( A. Mahoney (talk) 16:52, 1 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mense Maii 2012 -- Propositum est paginam de Civitate sui iuris removere, illam de Civitate modo addere. Periti rerum politicarum possunt apud Metam disputare. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:23, 2 Maii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto 2012 -- Propositum est paginam de Scriptura removere, illam de Systemata scripturae addere, id quod mihi non tam malum videtur. Propositum est etiam paginam de Abecedario removere et novam paginam addere de versione, vel de acto textus vertendi -- hoc est anglice en:Translation. Hac cum notione valde consentio -- sed nescio quomodo paginam latine nominare. "Versio"? "Vertere"? Qui nomen habet, paginam facito! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 22:38, 20 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apud Cassell's, 'translation' "as an action" = translatio, interpretatio, sed 'translation' "[as] a work translated" = liber conversus ~ translatus. Similiter apud Ainsworth's, "a removing from one language to another" = translatio, sed "a turning into another language" = versio. Ainsworth's monet versio non esse verbum classicum. Praeterea, translatio = "a metaphor." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:35, 20 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verbum temporale autem "vertere" vox est propria apud Plautum (qui "vortit barbare," Asin. 11, Trin. 19). Smith's Copious & Critical dicit actionem per verbum temporale exprimendam, ut "in patrium sermonem convertere"; potest dicere "liber translatus," secundum illum Smith, sed nomen quod est translatio in eius paginis non exstat. Smith etiam dicit verbum temporale "transferre" apud Quintilianum et Plinium esse, non apud Ciceronem, qui "vertere" vel "convertere" dicit (quae verbae apud Quintialianum quoque invenimus). Vides ergo quare de titulo paginae rogabam! Fortasse "vertere," sed tituli apud nos sunt nomina, non verba temporalia; fortasse "libri translati" aut "libri in alios sermones converti" aut "conversio sermonis" (hic autem non bene sonat)? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:49, 21 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Versio neque apud Georges invenitur neque apud Du Cange (quod est mirandum, quod "versio vulgata" iam Medio Aevo in usu erat), contra apud auctores saeculorum duodevicesimi et undevicesimi saepissime pro libro translato adhibetur! Ex quo Ciceronianus alia ac Neolatinista concludat.--Utilo (disputatio) 19:30, 21 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apud Aulum Gellium interpretatio video. Cicero dum de hoc loquitur in Latinum convertere habet; nullum nomen inveni. Quid censetis de interpretatio, o collegae doctissimi? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:37, 22 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mutatio iam hodie apud Meta facta est: debemus ergo novam paginam hac in septimana creare ut omnes 1000 habeamus. Equis vult scribere? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:31, 25 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretatio nunc exstat, etiamsi pagina parva est. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:08, 26 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amici nostri Catalauni, qui quam maxime sunt periti in rebus ad 1000 Paginas tendentibus, formulam habent quae hoc signum in alta pagina mittit: . Omnes ergo vident paginam hac in categoria esse. Propono eandem rem apud nos facere: hoc est, velim formulam creare et scribere {{1000 paginae}} pro [[Categoria:1000 paginae]] ut nunc habemus. Scio novam formulam brevior esse quam nomen categoriae, 10 litteris rectis, hoc est 11 litteris rationis calculandae ("language-weighted characters"); hoc est, magnitudo media paginarum nostrarum 11 litteris minor erit -- sed, ut opinor, possumus tantas litteras faciliter recuperare. Quid censetis? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:23, 12 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ambabus rebus uti velimus: categoria caeca et formula conspicua! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:30, 12 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fortasse possumus numerum scribere modo Romano: ↀ. Conabor novam imaginem facere. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:03, 12 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formula {{1000 paginae}} iam exstat! Propono eam recreare; vide formulam et disputationem. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:54, 17 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actum est: qui volunt novam formulam videre possunt e.g. paginam de Mathematica legere. Nondum novam imaginem feci, id quod velim facere. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:38, 19 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginem iam feci, numerum Romanum praebentem: -- quam licet admeliorare apud Communia, si vultis. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:36, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imago tua decies aliá melior est! Colores, quibus usa es, mihi placent et typus. Nonne numerus paulum iacet ad laevam? Mattie (disputatio) 04:06, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi, Mattie, cui imago placet! Recte dicis tamen numerum nimis ad laevam esse -- si potes corrigere, fac quaeso. Quam minime perita sum imaginum faciendarum, praecipue GIMP utens :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:12, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoc et ego mirabili programmate utor. Annon rem .xcf servavisti? Facilius ita moveatur textus, quam si imago omnino reficienda sit. Mattie (disputatio) 03:35, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heu, non, .png tantum feci -- non .xcf, non .svg, nihil aliud. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:44, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Textum conatus sum movere, sed non potui (inter alia) typum quo usa es invenire ut eo uterer... Oh well :) Mattie (disputatio) 16:07, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propositum est per mensem Augusti Mille Paginas elaborare, ut notam meliorem inter Vicipaedias habeamus. Omnes qui vellent hunc ludum ludere quam libentissime accipientur.

Quid debemus facere?

• Paginas longiores facere: pagina 10,000 litteris longa quattuor puncta fert; pagina 30,000 litteris longa novem puncta fert.
• Paginas meliores facere: si latinitas sit mala, si pagina non omnia dicat quod debeat, si paginae annectae non exstent, possumus corrigere.
• Paginas novas praevertere: tuerimur paginam apud Meta ubi disputatur de 1000 Paginis.

Quid volumus videre?

• Notam meliorem et altiorem gradum inter Vicipaedias
• Minus quam 600 parvas paginas ("stipulas")
• Magnitudinem mediam > 10,000 litteris
• Nullas paginas malae latinitatis
• Nullas paginas minores quam 1,000 litterarum

Quibus uti possumus?

• Tabula paginarum, et versio Latina
• Epitome magnitudinum paginarum apud nos

Hodie, mense Iulii exeunte, 38a Vicipaedia sumus. Possumusne proximo mense super Vicipediam Esperanticam salire, vel etiam super Vicipediam Gallaicam? -- A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:42, 26 Iulii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Esperantica contundenda est! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:09, 22 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euge! Hodie, mense Septembris ineunti, 32a Vicipaedia sumus, 28.00 puncta habemus, et super sex alias Vicipaedias saluimus! Maximum incrementum omnium Vicipaediarum habemus (2.84). Gaudeamus omnes! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:37, 3 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudeo! Tuam salutem, Anna, et tuam, Iacobe, et tuam, Utilo, atque salutem omnium qui hic laborant, propino! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:03, 3 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spero me post Mahometum (quae commentatio ulterius elaboranda est) etiam Abecedarium Graecum trans 30 000 litteras movisse!--Utilo (disputatio) 15:47, 21 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haud dubie movisti. Macte! Lingua Esperantica contundenda est! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:47, 21 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perbella est pagina: valde amo partem de ligaturis librorum manu scriptorum, quae et difficiles et pulchres sunt. Spero tabulam cras renovare, ut videamus quot puncta habeamus! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:06, 21 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aliquis multas mutationes nuper fecit in tabula apud Metam, inter quas pagina de Abecedario Graeco removit et alias de fabulis et de syllabario addidit -- haud recte, ut opinor. Si quis vult se ad disputationem adiungere, bene te accipiam! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:43, 24 Octobris 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains en:Comics, which is a broader concept than en:Comic book. We have Liber nubeculatus, which has an IWL to "comic book"; this makes sense. But up until recently it also had an IWL from en:Comics. The duplicate link (both English pages pointed to the same Latin page) was cleaned up by a bot on Tuesday -- with the result that we no longer appear to have a page on the topic. We could:

• change Liber nubeculatus to link reciprocally with en:Comics, though this doesn't seem quite accurate
• add a page about the broader category of comics (including comic strips and webcomics)
• any other proposals?

It would be nice to have something in place before the new figures are calculated; the existing Liber nubeculatus page is under 3,000 characters so we'd only need a small page to retain our score. What's our collective preference? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:22, 27 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, the English article is called "Comics" but begins with Trajan's Column (which is not comic) whereas the French article is called "Bande dessinée" (a term that doesn't demand comicness) but begins with American comic strips. So, in our equivalent article, do we emphasise comicness or image-based narrative? It's up to us, but (I think) we need to decide that question before we choose a name for the article! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:07, 27 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about, say, Scott McCloud's books, I'd say the important thing is image-based narrative. Although the term "comics" is still around, larger-scale works are "graphic novels" (e.g Maus or Persepolis), and there are also what we might call "graphic non-fiction," such as precisely the theoretical works of McCloud (what other medium would you use for the theory & history of "comics"?), or Logicomix about philosophical logic. Bandes dessinées include all of these, doesn't it? Having meditated on this a bit overnight (well, yes, I do have a life, but nonetheless...) I came to the conclusion that we should have an article on image-based narrative in general, alongside subsidiary articles on "comic books" properly so called (Astérix, Archie & Veronica, Superman), "graphic novels," and "comic strips" (as in the newspaper). So I propose a page on "Historia imaginibus narrata" or the like (singular or plural? best terms?), with reciprocal IWL to en:Comics. "Comic books" haven't been strictly comical in a long time -- all those DC Comics and Marvel Comics super-hero series, for example, aren't intended to be funny. For that matter, the "funnies" in the newspaper include strips like Doonesbury, which can be quite amusing but isn't always trying to be. The field has moved beyond its name, I'd say.

Now the question is, who's to write it? I'll cheerfully take a stab at it this afternoon if nobody more branché(e) gets to it first: yeah, I've read one basic theoretical work so I sort of have a clue, but somebody who actually reads these things regularly, or does scholarship on them, or teaches them, would be the right candidate, if we have such a person! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:30, 28 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this keyboard is concerned, the field is all yours! I'm concentrating on Opera this month. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:03, 28 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to imagine something briefer, like "Narratio picta", but if Anne's prepared to start the page Anne has the choice! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 28 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I never claimed to be good at the epigrammatic form that is an article title. I'm happy with "Narratio picta" since it's shorter. Grading first, then I'll turn my hand to it (and then update the stats table so we see where we are before the end of the month). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:45, 28 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—unless you want to maintain a distinction of narratio for the telling and narratus for the thing told. There's also the possibility of fabula picta. But don't worry: just forge ahead! Lemmata can always be changed! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:01, 28 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Narratio picta now exists, and is longer than Liber nubeculatus, for what that's worth. :-) More to be done, of course, but there's enough here to be minimally usable anyway. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:50, 28 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice beginning! I wondered about "Fabula", but it struck me that the form is used (and has been since Trajan and William the Conqueror) for facts as well as fabulae. Well, the winner's interpretation of the facts, anyway :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:37, 29 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the last minute I raissed Sancta Sophia to 10,000. I think it should be moved to Aedes Sanctae Sophiae, but I won't do so till the count has been taken! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:08, 30 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By my clock, we've still got more than two hours till tomorrow (GMT), so let's see if a few more links will help it out. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:17, 30 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're up to 31st place this month because Belarussian (Taraškievica) lost 3.50 points; I assume this is because of incorrect inter-wiki links in Wikidata, since the list hasn't changed since last month. Thus even though we only grew a little, we've gained a place in the standings. We should try to hold on to that even as our Classical Belarussian colleagues tidy up their data! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:30, 4 Martii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the various bugs have been fixed and we're back to 32nd place. :-( The scores were calculated based on the list as it was on the first of the month, not including the change made on the 4th. We're tied for 47th largest mean, and we're 46th by median. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:31, 8 Martii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iacobus just noticed a problem. This is it. Our slightly better page Columba (avis) is listed by Anne here among our 1000, but in truth the nearest equivalent we have to the other wikis on this subject is our slightly worse page Columbidae. (The relevant English 1000-page title en:Pigeons and doves is silly, of course. No wonder there are problems.) Worse still, at Wikidata no Latin page at all is currently linked to en:Pigeons and doves. Since Columba (avis) has a non-1000 English equivalent, viz. en:Columba (genus), the quickest thing to do is to link our Columbidae to en:Pigeons and doves. If this is what we choose to do, it would be a good idea to improve it slightly. Please, anyone else, check that I have this right. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:25, 23 Maii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No time now, but tomorrow could be another story. In any (prescriptive) case, "pigeons and doves" is hardly one of the 1000 most important topics in the world, so we shouldn't be surprised to see it deleted from the list someday. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:41, 23 Maii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal: the list at Meta now goes by Wikidata entries, not by the English pages. I think this is ultimately an improvement, because in principle it gets the 1000-page list away from the organization of English WP (and it was my idea, in fact). Our Columbidae is connected to the Wikidata entry called "Pigeons and doves" on the list (which is in fact en:Columbidae) -- and, yes, it's not yet of featured-article quality (or even close) but at least it's no longer a redirect to a page that links to it (from Columba (avis)). I simply wanted to ensure we're not tagged with a bogus "missing page." We have a similar issue with Necropolis Gizensis which I hope to do something about over the weekend; I'll be travelling for 2 weeks after that so won't be able to tweak things at the last minute this month. What's going on is that various people are adjusting inter-wiki links within Wikidata; we might want to make a habit of checking there and either rectifying mistakes or responding to plausible changes. I think it makes sense to have an article for the family Columbidae, so that's why I made one rather than reverting the changes in WD. I think it's also not unreasonable to have separate articles for the necropolis at Giza and for the pyramids proper, so that's what I propose to do in that case. But the rest of you should obviously adjust as needed. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:41, 24 Maii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I must have got this wrong (I often do!) but I think you added the Wikidata link after I wrote my message. That's fine, of course, and I'm happy you have it in hand. (Our Columbidae didn't look like one of your typical pages, so I never guessed you'd just created it.) Yes, I was wrong to say that the English page is at en:Pigeons and doves -- that's a redirect. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:39, 24 Maii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean about Necropolis Gizensis. At least, I see a problem all right. Right now the topic linked from meta's 1000-page list ("Giza pyramid complex") to Wikidata (d:Q12508) doesn't have either an English pagelink or a Latin one -- no, nor even a Catalan one!! Who knows what's going to change there ... Anyway, sorry for worrying unnecessarily. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:58, 24 Maii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about worrying! :-) I'm actually delighted to see that English will be missing a page, for the first time ever. I fixed Wikidata late Thursday morning (Boston time), so that probably is after your note here; I'll do some more with all this once I finish with a book review that has to be done before I leave for vacation (good book, worth the effort), and I'm glad to see you and Iacobus keeping tabs on the 1000 Pages as well! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 22:29, 24 Maii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need an assist from somebody who knows more about physics than I do! Over at Meta, the list has just changed (last Friday) so that "electromagnetism" is now d:Q849919 (about the force or interaction between electrically charged particles) when it used to be d:Q11406 (about the branch of physics that studies that force). Our Physica electromagnetica, naturally, connects to the branch-of-physics Wikidata item. We don't have a page for the force itself (Vis electromagnetica and Electromagnetismus are re-directs to the Physica electromagnetica page). So I think what we need is a page about Vis electromagnetica, linked to Wikidata d:Q849919, talking about how electrons 'n' stuff work. On the other hand, since as far as I can see every other language has one page or the other but not both, maybe the correct answer is that the two Wikidata items need to be merged: maybe there's really only one topic here. I don't feel qualified to judge that. Anybody? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:09, 16 Iunii 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added Electromagnetismus -- and Arma nuclearia, another Wikidata change. Both are pretty small stubs, a pity as the pages they're replacing are longer and better; physics mavens, please dive in! But at least we're no longer missing anything.