This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 18, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Latin Mid‑importance This article 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Books: Reference works This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Just, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.191.128 (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, because it gives Wikipedians a chance to practice Latin and because it shows the linguistic diversity of Wikipedias. J.K.Rowling has had her works translated in Latin - has any one asked "Why"? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Latin is hawesome. —Wiki Wikardo 22:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quod latina est lingua di. Hoc verum est, ea "hawesome" est.

Distinguishing between v and u is a “modern late 20th century” innovation?? —Wiki Wikardo 22:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Non, istud super non i et iota distinguere dicit. Enim mediaevalii i et iota distinguebant, sed romani non ve scribebant.--67.249.199.167 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing: there is nothing “modern” about it. I’d call it “contemporary nonsense”, that is suppression of the real modern orthographical rules which made latin orthography coherent and facilitated comprehension; a suppression of the natural evolution of latin orthography which was refined through the centuries. I propose to substitute ‘modern’ with ‘contemporary’. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.228.31 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this piece of nonsense: «Another reason is that, among those who use accents, there are at least three distinct methods of indicating accents. Thus the Vicipaedia policy has the benefit of avoiding the visual clash of different accenting schemes being used by different users.» This makes me smile. There is no “benefit” such as the the one mentioned, since if a rule is established, everybody would comply to it and no «visual clash» would happen (not to mention the fact that a simple script would solve the problem once and for all); there is only the didactic disadvantage of not properly marking long vowels: period. Sounds more like a poor excuse to justify their choice to prohibit the correct accentuation of long vowels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.43.76 (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say this. It says «Accents, however, are encouraged [sic!] if an ambiguity would result by not indicating the length of the vowel.» First it says that accents are totally removed for the sake of “clarity” and to avoid «visual clashes». Then it is stated that they are «encouraged» in some cases. But which one of the three? What about the resulting «visual clash»? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.43.76 (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where to post this on the Latin wikipedia itself, but the gadget for setting spelling options could be considerably improved if it were possible to add js back in where they belong (for those of us who think they do). A perl script for doing this is available here that could be used; it also has the advantage of applying ligatures less blindly than the current gadget, by including common exceptions. http://latin.craven.fr/clean.pl --194.98.58.121 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike other pages concerned with Wikipedias in different languages (including those in artificial languages like esperanto), this page seems to be consecrated to giving (apologetic?) explanations about just two controversial issues. The core of the information seems to stem from the contribution of one user in early February 2009, both regarding Latin neologisms and spelling. In my modest opinion, the one on neologisms is wise and pondered, and contributors deserve congratulations; but the one on spelling is ... shocking. That section (more or less unchanged for almost three years now, although emphasis may have shifted as minor editing took place) currently contains the following paragraph:

The rationale behind this policy is that there are two primary linguistic communities in which Latin is spoken today: secular academics and the Roman Catholic Church. Academics generally seek to emulate classical pronunciations used by the Romans themselves which do not strongly distinguish the u-vowel from the u-consonant/v. However, in the pronunciation system used by the Catholic Church, the v is pronounced as an English v.

I can't believe it. Surely this is not right. Apart from embarrassing linguistic manipulation (does the classical pronunciation not strongly distinguish the u-vowel from the u-consonant? as much as English does between the u in put and the w in wick: what does strongly distinguish mean?), the core of the message seems to be that «there are two communities, academic and catholic, and the Latin Wikipedia has chosen to stick to catholic practices»! That's it. Well, it's good to know that this what the whole spelling dispute really boils down to, but personally I find it a real pity. Cumæus (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you raised this, and I agree with you both about the neologism question and about the spelling/pronunciation.

That explanation, as you quote it above, doesn't really correspond with linguistics as I know it, nor with our reasoning at Vicipaedia (unless the anonymous editor was in some conversations I missed, which is possible). It's a bit difficult to put this right, because I know of no published comment on Vicipaedia's spelling practice, so there's a risk of Original Research. FWIW, I think we use that spelling system because it agrees with the consensus in modern Latin publishing, so far as there is a consensus, and other current practices are not very different from it. Also it's easy to type on a normal keyboard. For those reasons, anyone used to reading modern printed Latin can easily read it and edit in it. Andrew Dalby 18:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Prof. Dalby, thank you for your reply, and I consider it an honour that you support what I say. The editor is not anonymous, because his contributions (linked to above both for Latin neologisms and spelling) are signed, and I believe he is a rather active and otherwise excellent member of the Latin Wikipedia, perhaps even a magistrate there (I think that's the term used). This is however beside the point. The point is that, if this rationale is not really the rationale of the Latin Wikipedia, then the paragraph should be deleted from the body of the article. Regarding your further explanations, I understand them very well. However, since there really is no unified spelling practice in Latin (in my Bibliotheca Classica Oxoniensis I find examples of all sorts), and obviously no consensus; but, on the other hand, all forms are really easy to read and the differences are minute, I strongly believe that a flexible approach should be adopted, as in the English Wikipedia, being perfectly open to both American and British spellings without further qualms. Also, if the issue is keyboards, I can only say that I cannot think of many ones that make spelling the j any more complicated than spelling the v, but correct me if I'm wrong. I won't go into debating what a normal keyboard might be beyond that, but mine has a key for æ very readily available. Anyway, let's try to improve this page, and perhaps you have the authority to delete that paragraph, however much it betrays the real thinking that guides many people's approach to Latin spelling. Best wishes, Cumæus (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cumæus, even as a new user here you are at liberty to edit the article boldly, but when considering changes which may be controversial you are right to raise them here on the talk page first. May I suggest you leave the matter hanging for a day or two? Then if no contrary opinion has been raised here, you can feel free to change the article on the lines indicated and say in your edit summary "per talk page".

By the way, it is a misunderstanding to believe that the English Wikipedia is "perfectly open to both American and British spellings". The general rule here is to use one or the other style of spelling in articles which have a clearly U. S. or British character, such as Broadway theatre or Somerset, and to follow the predominant style in articles which rise above such distinctions, such as hydrogen or Morocco. We do try to avoid mixing spelling styles, the aim being consistency within an article or family of articles. By way of a warning, articles can be tagged with a "use British English" template. (As a user of Oxford spelling, I find that also sets off some discussions, but the aim is still consistency.) Moonraker (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Moonraker. I have added some clarifications regarding the pronunciation that underlies the spelling, and linked to the main article on Latin spelling and pronunciation. That I think is fair enough and philologically sound. However, I don't dear touch that paragraph on the religious considerations, as I'm not an expert on that (although I have a catholic Missale Romanum that uses the j throughout and various other catholic liturgy books all of which use the ligature æ for the diphthong, as it is pronounced [e] in the Italianate pronunciation, and separate the two letters for hiatuses, as they are pronounced [a.e] in the Italianate pronunciation). I think only Latin Wikipedia magistrates can explain to English Wikipedia readers (and to themselves) what the rationales are behind their restrictive policies (on their own pages the explanations verge on the infantile). Regarding English Wikipedia policies, there is no misunderstanding. I never meant there is chaos. I know they are as you describe, which is: freedom across articles, but internal consistency within articles, of course, this being culturally determined by the topic (British or American or open). I think it is a tremendously sound policy, which must successfully minimise friction and disrespect for the various perfectly legitimate spellings of the English language, making the English Wikipedia thrive across our wide and colourful world. I think the Latin Wikipedia would be wise do likewise, perhaps leaving the catholic spelling for catholic articles and the academic spelling for academic articles, if that's their rationale. I was of the opinion, in any case, that an encyclopædia was an academic pursuit from the start, and certainly in the 21st century, rather than a prayer book, but only the few Latin Wikipedia magistrates can really determine what their policies are going to be, for better or for worse, so I'm going to have to leave it at that. Thanks though for the useful clarifications. Cumæus (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, Moonraker, anyone can correct and improve this page.

The best thing for Vicipaedia is surely to get more good Latin written. Feel free to join us, anyone who reads this! Andrew Dalby 11:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of editing myself. I removed the link in the text because it didn't work for me: there must be some error. It should really be in a footnote, anyway. I took out "compulsory" because this is just a policy like any other wiki policy, nothing special about it. I put the detractors into the past tense because there haven't been any for quite a long time. (But this could change tomorrow!)

Not sure whose text I was changing: if it was yours, Cumaeus, and you're sure you're right, put your words in again. I don't edit-war. Andrew Dalby 12:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also now removed the whole short paragraph explaining Vicipaedia's orthography on the basis of pronunciations. I think Cumaeus was quite right to object to it, I have never seen it stated anywhere else as the reason for Vicipaedia usage, and in truth pronunciation isn't very relevant to a site like Vicipaedia which is based on written text.

Again, if I moved hastily, others can correct me. But really the page required an external source for this line of argument, and no source was cited. Andrew Dalby 14:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Prof. Dalby, thank you for your changes. I don't think you've done anything hastily, on the contrary. The page does require those external sources, and that paragraph in particular did need removing (not because it used inaccurate information regarding pronunciation, that was not my point, as all arguments about Latin spelling are inevitably linked to pronunciation in one way or another; but because it used as rationale the existence of two communities, academic and religious, and an unexplained adjudication in favour of the religious one). So thank you ever so much for removing it. Regarding the external link to the actual policy as expressed in the Latin Wikipedia itself, I think it is particularly relevant for this article. If the link didn't work, I would have requested correction by someone with greater technical skill. If it must be in a footnote, then it can easily be moved to a footnote. With your permission, I will try to reinstate it. Best wishes, Cumæus (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took out this anonymous addition "However, the [w] sound after ‹q› (pronounced so in both classical and Italianate Latin), is spelled ‹u› and not ‹v›, following Italianate Latin pronunciation." I could be mistaken, but it strikes me as one of a series of occasional edits that try to slant the article towards Italy. The spelling/pronunciation habit that's referred to here (how do you spell and say "qu"?) is a broader European thing, interesting, but not specially relevant to Italy. So I suggest, if this comment goes back in, it should be sourced; and if Italy is to be fetched in again, maybe a non-Italian source! Anyone else want to comment? Andrew Dalby 08:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian is the only descended language that preserved the pronunciation of the letter combination ‹qu›. Moreover, a non-Italian source doesn't make anything more authentic. How can there be any source about someone making this obvious statement? --147.142.185.230 (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the basic statement is obvious; too obvious to be worth saying at all. Very few orthographies have "qv"; nearly all orthographies in relevant languages have "qu", so why bother to say so?

The phrase "Italianate Latin" is mentioned twice in the sentence as I removed it. It's not a phrase you encounter elsewhere, and you could make that statement without using the phrase even once. So the anonymous addition appeared to me to be saying something obvious just for the sake of getting that phrase in twice.

I could be wrong: I often am! The way to prove it, and to show that this information is notable after all, would be to cite a reliable source for it. Andrew Dalby 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latin Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618130408/http://www.radiobremen.de/nachrichten/latein/ to http://www.radiobremen.de/nachrichten/latein/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vicipedium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vicipaedium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vicipaedius. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vicipedius. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]