Disputatio:Hemisphaerium boreale

message: In regard to the hemisphere in question, that's a POV, not a fact, though it apparently has a majority of wikis on its side:
Nomen proprium:
*af:Noordelike Halfrond
*ast:Hemisferiu Norte
*cbk-zam:Hemisferio Norte
*ceb:Amihanang Pikas
*el:Βόρειο Ημισφαίριο
*en:Northern Hemisphere
*ku:Nîvkada Bakur
*ms:Hemisfera Utara
*simple:Northern Hemisphere
*tl:Panghilagang Hemispero
Non nomen proprium:
*ang:Norðerne healftrendel
*az:Şimal yarımkürəsi
*be:Паўночнае паўшар'е
*be-x-old:Паўночнае паўшар’е
*bg:Северно полукълбо
*br:Hantervoul norzh
*bs:Sjeverna hemisfera
*ca:Hemisferi nord
*cs:Severní polokoule
*cv:Çурçĕр çур чăмăрĕ
*da:Nordlige halvkugle
*eo:Norda duonglobo
*es:Hemisferio norte
*eu:Ipar hemisferio
*fi:Pohjoinen pallonpuolisko	
*fr:Hémisphère nord
*fy:Noardlik healrûn
*gl:Hemisferio norte
*hr:Sjeverna polutka
*hu:Északi félgömb
*id:Belahan utara
*it:Emisfero boreale
*kk:Солтүстік жарты шар
*krc:Шимал джарымтоб
*lt:Šiaurės pusrutulis
*lv:Ziemeļu puslode
*mk:Северна полутопка
*nds-nl:Noordelijk halfroend
*nl:Noordelijk halfrond
*nn:Den nordlege halvkula	
*no:Nordlige halvkule
*pl:Półkula północna
*pt:Hemisfério norte
*ro:Emisfera nordică
*ru:Северное полушарие
*sh:Sjeverna hemisfera
*sk:Severná pologuľa
*sl:Severna polobla
*sq:Hemisfera veriore
*sr:Северна хемисфера
*sv:Norra halvklotet
*tr:Kuzey yarıküre
*tt:Төньяк ярымшар
*uk:Північна півкуля
*vi:Bắc bán cầu
The best argument in favor of capitalization (as a proper noun) may be that it's a particular hemisphere of a particular astronomical body, not any old hemisphere of any old round object. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:52, 11 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, there are ten "facts" here, and so many "POV's" that I lost the count. Hem ... But seriously, emisfero boreale, hemisfero norte, &c may still be nomina propria (or not), because cross-linguistically, there's no necessary connection between nomina propria and capitalisation; as a case in point, take the days of week in various languages; or German nouns. I'm afraid that your "best argument" is at best a rationalisation of the English convention. But notice that the best argument for any convention is the convention itself. ¶ I changed "Septentrionale" into "septentrionale", because that's the mos editorum philologorum which is in line with many if not most languages with Latin alphabet. ¶ Whether Northern Hemisphere is nomen proprium or not, more important is to determine how a comparable compound is treated in modern editions. Let's take the North Pole: apud editores Ovidii, Senecae, &c polus glacialis (without caps) but in Vicipaedia, kind of not unexpectedly, Polus Septentrionalis. Neander (disputatio) 13:36, 12 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Opinion is a little less lopsided with regard to the North Pole. On the one hand:
*an:Polo Norte
*ast:Polu Norte
*br:Pennahel an Norzh
*ca:Pol Nord
*cy:Pegwn y Gogledd
*el:Βόρειος Πόλος
*en:North Pole
*es:Polo Norte
*hif:North Pole	
*fr:Pôle Nord
*gl:Polo Norte
*ilo:Amianan nga Ungto
*id:Kutub Utara
*jv:Kutub Lor
*ku:Cemsera Bakur
*la:Polus Septentrionalis
*mg:Tendrontany Avaratra
*ms:Kutub Utara	
*oc:Pòl Nòrd
*pt:Polo Norte
*ro:Polul Nord
*scn:Polu Nord
*simple:North Pole
*tl:Hilagang Polo
*tr:Kuzey Kutbu
*vi:Bắc Cực

text: And on the other:
*az:Şimal qütbü
*ba:Төньяҡ полюс
*zh-min-nan:Pak-ke̍k
*be:Паўночны полюс
*be-x-old:Паўночны полюс
*bg:Северен полюс
*bs:Sjeverni pol
*cs:Severní pól
*eo:Norda poluso
*hr:Polovi sjeverne polutke
*it:Polo nord
*krc:Шимал полюс	
*kk:Солтүстік полюс
*sw:Ncha ya kaskazini
*ky:Түндүк уюл
*lt:Šiaurės ašigalis
*mk:Северен пол
*mn:Умард туйл
*pl:Biegun północny
*qu:Chinchay qhipa
*rue:Северный пол
*ru:Северный полюс
*sah:Хоту полюс
*sk:Severný pól	
*sl:Severni tečaj
*so:Cirifka waqooyi
*sr:Сјеверни пол
*sh:Sjeverni pol
*roa-tara:Pole nord
*tt:Төньяк котып
*tk:Demirgazyk polýus
*uk:Північний полюс
*fiu-vro:Põh'anaba
*war:Katungtungan Amihanan
*wo:Dottub Bëj-gànnaar
*bat-smg:Šiaurės puolės
replies: text: :And we know that North Pole is a proper noun because of the settlement in Alaska:
*ca:North Pole
*en:North Pole,  Alaska
*es:North Pole
*fr:North Pole
*it:North Pole
*ht:North Pole (Alaska)
*mrj:Норт-Поул
*nl:North Pole
*no:North Pole (Alaska)
*uz:North Pole (Alaska)
*pl:North Pole
*pt:North Pole
*ru:Норт-Поул (Аляска)
*simple:North Pole, Alaska
*fi:North Pole (Alaska)
*vo:North Pole

text: :IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:23, 12 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :: But the North Pole is polus glacialis (without caps) in Latin. Have you lost your Cassell's? :–) Neander (disputatio) 18:02, 12 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Physics.org highlights the conceptual obfuscation you want us to indulge: "note the use of capitals for the place and lowercase letters for the magnetisation": the North Pole (of the earth) is not the same thing as the north pole (of a magnet), but your recommended typography implies that it is. In the universe around us, north poles abound, but there's only one North Pole. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:13, 14 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Well, this is an interesting point. Once again, your argument stems from orthographic practices of English. I give you that there may be seen a conceptual difference between the (geographical) North Pole and the (magnetic) north pole — a difference that is, in principle, worth expressing somehow. I'm saying "in principle" because there's no absolute necessity. Polysemous / homonymous clashes generally don't hamper understanding; most of the time, there's enough disambiguating context. This being the case, your verdict that I'm indulging conceptual obfuscation may be overly dramatic. There are languages like Italian or Swedish in which there's no necessity to make the orthographic distinction we're talking about, and yet, no damage done. And please, bear in mind that I have no interest in tampering with English orthographic practice. What I am critical of is the tendency to universalise it to other linguistic contexts. ¶ But let's move on to Latin and posit, for the sake of argument, that it's an asset to make the distinction we're talking about. Now, the (magnetic) north pole is of course polus septentrionalis, and the (geographical) North Pole, Polus septentrionalis, and of course, the toponomastic North Pole, North Pole like in those other languages listed. ¶ Writing Polus Septentrionalis would run counter to the current editorial principles of Oxford Classical Texts, Bibliotheca Teubneriana, "Les Belles Lettres", etc according to which septentrionalis begins with a small letter. On the other hand, Polus septentrionalis does the distinctive job, insofar as it is needed.  Neander (disputatio) 18:40, 15 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I think the capitalization issue pales against a more important issue of inconsistent vocabularies at Vicipaedia with regards to south and north. I would think the preferred terms would be septentrionalis and meridionalis when it came to naming continents and directions on the earth (since it refers to the stars (meridionalis meaning more specifically southern as opposed to meridianus which primarily means midday). Or alternatively, borealis and australis (referring to the winds in central italy), but right now we have America Septentrionalis right beside America Australis. This remarkable inconsistency in terms is present despite the fact that the latin maps that I am aware of (see nationes mundi) state specifically America Meridionalis. I would also be happy with polus borealis and polus australis for instance (even if not traditional) but not the presently-used, inconsistent combination. A further argument can be found in Hoffman's encyclopedia ()

text: :::::Secondly as to magnetic north and south, I should remind everyone that the magnetic south pole is located in Canada, while the magnetic north pole is in the ocean between Australia and Antarctica. The logic of naming a magnetic pole north or south derives from which way the pole would point if, hypothetically, the magnetic were place on the surface of the earth near the equator.--Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 03:40, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Before Neander went off on a tangent about the magnetic North Pole, I was talking about the north pole of a magnet—an object of the sort you might hold in your hand, a kind of north pole quite different from the (one and only) North Pole, whether magnetic or geographical. ¶ It's good of Rafael to raise the other issues. As a point of personal consistency, I've been using meridianus for places more or less north of the equator and australis (see Australia, Africa Australis, America Australis, Oceanus Australis) for places more or less south of it. Is meridionalis a newfangled (i.e. postclassical, medieval) word, fashioned on the model of septentrionalis ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:29, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::: Iacobe, pale issue or not, it was you who reacted to my redirect Hemisphaerium Septentrionale ⇒ Hemisphaerium septentrionale. Do you still think that was a wrong move? ¶ Yes, meridionalis has obviously been fashioned on septentrionalis. I have myself used the classical adjective meridianus as a personal preference, but of course there may be other reasons for preferring meridionalis.  Neander (disputatio) 07:34, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::As to whether "the Northern Hemis." should be Hemis. Septen. instead of Hemis. septen., the answer to that depends on the convention apud Vicipaediam regarding proper nouns....What is the convention here?  It seems by looking at pages, that the convention has been to capitalize all the nouns involved. (Hoffman usually does the same in his Lexicon when he states the lemma or states the name as a noun, but he is not always consistent and sometiems does not capitalize the common noun parts of the proper names.) We also have the page Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis that seems to suggest capitalizing all nouns with the examples, but a clearly stated rule is not given. If there is a desire to change the usntated convention or to formalize it with a rule, perhaps the appropriate place would be the Taberna for a discussion. --Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 07:57, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::: Whatever capitalising conventions might be set up by Wikipediae Anglicae aemulatores, I'll follow dependable fontes, viz. the conventions of Oxford Classical Texts, Bibliotheca Teubneriana, "Les Belles Lettres", etc., with the exception that instead of paragraphs, I begin sentences with caps. Neander (disputatio) 09:08, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::We can all do our own preferred thing, but it would be better at least to try to agree on a convention. That way, we have a standard to work to when improving other people's pages. Since we are writing Latin, and since this is the way the Wikipedias work, we shouldn't make up our own standard but base it on some established usage.

text: ::::::::::My past usage, without really thinking about it, has been to reduce to lower-case the common nouns in geographical names (especially in running text and especially when setting out in a new area of work; I probably do it because this is what those commonly-read text series, cited by Neander, also do) but to use upper-case for all significant words in the names of institutions (probably because, a., those same text series give me few if any examples in this field and, b., this is the rule that my favourite library catalogue, on which I was trained, used to apply). I am happy to amend either practice in the interest of general agreement, and I would prefer to have some standard explicitly stated, based on the usage of some easily-available Latin source. Might others also agree on that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:04, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::: This is what spurred me on to this little "crusade" of mine. Neander (disputatio) 11:21, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::::::Or why not, mare Aegaeum? I would think consistent use of word order in the lemma is even more important than capitalization.--Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 12:17, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::::::Yes, we have already discussed and agreed to use natural word order in these cases. It should be "mare Aegaeum" (in which case, the pagename will perforce be "Mare Aegaeum"!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

text: ::::::::::::Regardless, in the case of Hemis. sept. I dont think it is necessary to have a separate page for the earth's northern hemis., as opposed to northern hemisphere in general, so the question is moot for this page, as far as I see it.

text: ::::::::::::For Polus sept. I don't think we need a proper name either, as we can distinguish between polus sept. geographicus and polus sept. magneticus. That is unless there is a city or camp at the north pole.

text: ::::::::::::Nevertheless, there is the issue of capitalization. I like Andrew's idea of stating that we adopt the usage of a particular reputable, external latin source. In the past, we've justified our punctuation by reference to the vulgata, but I am not aware of them using any binomial proper nouns for geographical locations. Hoffmann seems to follow what Andrew suggests, though not in lemmas where every word is usually capitalized. Regardless, shouldn't we put this up for discussion on the Taberna? --Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 12:09, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::::::You're right, that's where we should continue.

text: :::::::::::::Just to comment on the Vulgata: the problem with using it as an authority for capitalization would be that we're reading the texts of later editors and printers, who will have followed their own preferred practices. Jerome and his contemporaries had no upper-case lower-case distinction (I think).

text: :::::::::::::I'm looking through Hofmann's article on America with great interest. Thanks for the link, Rafael. My impression is that what he does in running text is usually as follows:

text: :::::::::::::(a) he capitalizes compass points when they are nouns, e.g. "Septentrio".

text: :::::::::::::(b) in lemmas (as you say) he capitalises the whole first word and the initial of words following the first, thus "AMERICA Meridionalis" (as lemma).

text: :::::::::::::(c) in any geographical term that designates a place or region, i.e. a proper name sensu laxissimo, he capitalizes (1) an initial common word, whether noun or adjective, that serves to distinguish this one place from another, and (2) any word that is a proper name sensu stricto, whether noun or adjective; (3) in any case, always at least one word. Thus "America meridionalis" (in running text), "Nova Andalusia", "Novus Orbis", "Novum regnum Granatense", "Cuba insula", "Terra nova insula", "mare Boreale", "terrarum Orbis", "terrae Arcticae", "pars Orientalis". "California Insula" is written thus to make the distinction between this and "California" proper, as if he were writing "California insula". "Oceanus Aethiopicus" is written thus because Oceanus is a proper name sensu stricto. "Insula Madera" I can't explain :)

text: :::::::::::::Have I got this more or less right? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::::::Yes to me it appeared that Hoffman was being inconsistent in his capitalizing, but Andrew may have put a finger on his system. Lemmas do constitute a special case for capitalizing, as do names of persons. Personally, I am happy with any system, but we ought to have some kind of preferred system and it would be nicer if we could strive to be consistent with it.

text: ::::::::::::::right now I am more worried taht we have so many articles with grammar issues so serious that they can't be understood and what impression that it would give students who visit us and land on one of those pages.--Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 17:03, 16 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Non est nomen proprium"