Disputatio Formulae:Capsa taxinomica

message: Should it be nomen binominale? I can't grasp the grammar of nomen binomine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neuter of  ... of the later formation binominalis I had not heard. However Google Books gives neither nomen binominale nor nomen binomine — what the actual technical term is (surely there must be one) I don't know. —Mucius Tever 23:48, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oh, yes, I get it. Thanks for the explanation. I see the word was a favourite of Ovid and perhaps invented by him -- excellent pedigree! Certainly let's stick with Nomen binomine unless we eventually hear of a more-used term. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:27, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::While I can grasp "nomen binomine" grammatically, my ears don't. Once we have binomen, why not use it? --Neander 15:19, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::According to the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, the English word for "a biological species name consisting of two terms" is binomial (first used so long ago as 1557, though in a mathematical sense), and it's a derivative of the New Latin (but obviously pre-1557) word binomium, a neuter noun derived from the Medieval Latin adjective binomius 'having two names'. IacobusAmor 17:56, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Yes, but this is Latin, and we have binomen (see reference on that page); a recent word, but very neat. So, yes, I think we should use it!

text: ::::I have inserted it now. This formula looks terrifying in the raw state, but the alteration seems to work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:45, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Do we have attestations of binomen that antedate attestations of binomium (that is, before 1557)? IacobusAmor 21:13, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::The concept we are discussing was invented or systematized, in Latin, around 1758. I guess technical terms for it are likely to be found then or after, not before.

text: ::::::But I think it makes more sense to discuss this at Disputatio:Binomen, maybe? Whatever term is agreed on there, should then be inserted in the formula here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:25, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Before going over to Disputatio:Binomen, let me point out that we need both binomium (for math) and binomen (for biology). --Neander 22:04, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

message: Is there a preference between using this formula and using the set beginning ? The effect appears very similar. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:05, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Taxobox begin" is older—from a time when templates were less powerful. This formula works on a lot more magic and is presumably more up-to-date.  —Mucius Tever 21:45, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: : There are currently about 120 pages that still use the old format and could be updated to the new format. --UV 23:04, 12 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another question

message: I remember a question from about a year ago: if it was possible to include IUCN status information within the taxobox (after example to the other wiki's) for use in the species articles, i can't find this discussion (was it in the Taberna??) and also i still see no use of it in the taxoboxes?? 
replies: text: I still would appreciate this kind of info to appear, Hendricus 16:41, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Why not? ... Could you just copy the magic from another language, maybe? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:45, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

text: : Yes, this is possible (although some messages still need to be translated to Latin). See e. g. Lupus. --UV 23:15, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::If i recall correctly was the problem(?) to translate the images into Latin: :File:Status iucn3.1 LC.svg, Hendricus 00:21, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Most of the images (I think all from iucn3.1) are translated and will automatically be displayed correctly, see commons:Template:Pengo IUCN/la. --UV 21:40, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN information 

message: In principio paginae dicitur “Vide de usu in Vicipaedia Anglica”; tamen documentatio Latina Anglice scripta est. Cur? Haec documentatio inutilis est… --Anedia (disputatio) 11:19, 27 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quia pauci sumus: adhuc nemo convertit. Si potes e lingua tibi cognita Latine hanc rem rescribere, fac! et bene venisti! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:23, 27 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias! sed puto id difficile esse. Iam addidi nexus ad ceteras linguas… --Anedia (disputatio) 17:09, 27 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latining