The name of KRecensere

Hello. I am very sorry for not being able to speak Latin. I have a question on the name of K. Most of the books I have checked say the Latin name of K is , but Le latin sans peine (written in French) says it is kappa just like Greek. Did K have two names in Latin? Do you think it is a reliable source of information? — TAKASUGI Shinji (d) 01:11, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

I believe ka is the usual name. Does Le latin sans peine cite evidence for its assertion? I can see how it might be possible; perhaps, taking the opinion of someone like Isidore who wrote Omnia autem Graeca nomina qualicumque sequente vocali per K sunt scribenda, "All Greek words should be written with K, whichever vowel follows it," someone might take that to mean K was a foreign letter that thus kept its foreign name — but I've never seen that opinion held elsewhere. Neither 'kappa' nor 'cappa' appear to be in Lewis & Short (though koppa is, [1]). —Mucius Tever 05:06, 22 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your answer. It seems to me to be a consensus here that K be read ka. — TAKASUGI Shinji (d) 07:18, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)


Another question. I have found you use the Unicode apostrophe instead of the ASCII apostrophe ' in I’m, Rome wasn’t built in a day, and wasn’t. Is that intentional? As far as I know, only French Wiktionary uses the former, and we have an interwiki problem (see the table in my page). — TAKASUGI Shinji (d) 01:11, 21 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think there are bigger interwiki problems than apostrophe if you are looking for all pages to have the same title. I don't think many other Wiktionaries use disambiguation pages, either. The apostrophe is intentional, and there ought to be redirects from the ' versions to the ’ versions. —Mucius Tever 05:20, 22 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
We French Wiktionarians first tried to have interwiki links with different titles (such as ’ for '), but finally we have accepted the de facto same-title rule (vigorously maintained by User:Interwicket). We had no other choice, because the English version works as a pivot of interwiki links. Several other language versions rejected our solution (namely Frisian, Dutch, and Limburgish: see fr:Utilisateur:TAKASUGI Shinji#Interwikis et redirections). You have the same problem as ours. — TAKASUGI Shinji (d) 07:40, 25 Februarii 2011 (UTC)


Ahoy, I'm new here to Victionarium (not to wikis though). I'm currently trying to figure out the structure of the wiki, but all these category names with the section sign (§) in them and the fact that the category names have "Exempla" in them are confusing me, so my question is, why are a lot of the categories like this at the moment?

-CeNobiteElf 15:16, 22 Maii 2011 (UTC)
The § categories were meant to be those meta-categories that are relevant to Victionarium itself and the editing thereof (as opposed to categorization of the lemmas themselves). There are a few exceptions that have not been updated to use this convention yet—in particular, I believe Categoria:§ Exempla inflexionis came first but some editors have been using Categoria:Formulae declinationum etc. sans § instead.
'Exemplum' is one thing templates were called before namespaces had translations. (The Template: namespace was translated to 'Formula:' due to a consensus at Vicipaedia, I believe.) I seem to remember at one point trying to make 'exempla' the generic form and 'formula' specifically for those templates that took parameters or otherwise needed to be filled in (but I don't think this was ever very rigorously done, or officially instituted). —Mucius Tever 01:08, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok, are there any plans to actually fully update these categories and fix the structure, ie merge the categories, get rid of redundancies, etc.? Victionarium is relatively small at the moment, gonna be a bigger problem when it reaches higher number of pages and templates...
-CeNobiteElf 10:40, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC)
Eventually, I'm sure. My own work here is pretty slow, due to juggling time with other projects. —Mucius Tever 22:56, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC)

Call for image filter referendumRecensere

The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of images strictly for their own account.

Further details and educational materials will be available shortly. The referendum is scheduled for 12-27 August, 2011, and will be conducted on servers hosted by a neutral third party. Referendum details, officials, voting requirements, and supporting materials will be posted at Meta:Image filter referendum shortly.

Sorry for delivering you a message in English. Please help translate the pages on the referendum on Meta and join the translators mailing list.

For the coordinating committee,
Philippe (WMF)
Robert Harris

Terms of Use updateRecensere

I apologize that you are receiving this message in English. Please help translate it.


The Wikimedia Foundation is discussing changes to its Terms of Use. The discussion can be found at Talk:Terms of use. Everyone is invited to join in. Because the new version of Terms of use is not in final form, we are not able to present official translations of it. Volunteers are welcome to translate it, as German volunteers have done at m:Terms of use/de, but we ask that you note at the top that the translation is unofficial and may become outdated as the English version is changed. The translation request can be found at m:Translation requests/WMF/Terms of Use 2 -- Maggie Dennis, Community Liaison 01:02, 27 Octobris 2011 (UTC)