Talk:Wp/grc/Κυρία Δέλτος/ϝ

From Wikimedia Incubator
Jump to navigation Jump to search

< Οὐΐκαδε

Here is where we are talking about the improvement of the Main Page;
if you want to discuss another topic relevant to this project please visit the Ἀγορά

Will anyone[edit]

... get the joke that Οὐίκαδε is a pun on οἴκαδε, but wikineologized? Or will everyone think it's a mistake?--Ioshus 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I got it, and I'm anything but perfect in ancient greek, so I think it's comprehensible. ;-) But why do we need a link form the discussion to the article? Or is it just for fun?-- Lefcant 23:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Just while it's in incubator mode... There's no one button click on the left to get back to the Greek test, the icon takes you back to the main incubator page. I guess I could always click "article"... so I guess yeah, just for fun =] --Ioshus 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I got a chuckle. Could it be a portmanteau?? Oreibates 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
HA! Definitely. Unlike its use in almost all Latin applications, here the ouiki prefix has actually lost a letter, and oikade has lost two letters. So yes, good eye! --Ioshus 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[Note: the above discussion had taken place before the replacement of ου by ϝ/β.] --Omnipaedista 03:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Κυρία Δέλτος[edit]

Is this name proper? isn't there another word to express "main page"?Crazymadlover

I don't know who came up with it (SPQRobin I suppose), but I think it is proper, since the only word that translates main is κυρία, feminine allomorph of the adjective κύριος "potent, main". Unless you mean, that it is not a good rendering of main page's meaning. In this case it is true that a phrase like
Πρωτίστη Δέλτος (most significant page, prime page) would be more appropriate. Omnipaedista 06:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Correction: SPQRobin's suggestion was Δέλτος Μεγίστη. It was Leigh who proposed Κυρία Δέλτος.

(outdent) Δέλτος seems more problematic than κυρία. If you want to keep the same basic idea "page", then it should be σελίς, which was borrowed from the technology of scrolls and applied to the nascent codex. It almost seems that σελίς is being avoided just to make it seem more distinct from the Modern Greek front page (Κυρία σελίδα). 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In order to give a full explanation of every term used here I'd have to compile a brief history of this pedia's history. I don't have time right now for that, so I'll just talk about δέλτος. The term is based on a consensus of the following users: Lefcant, Leigh, Nychus, and SPQRobin; it means "tablet for writing". Their consensus (which is respected by the newest contributors) was that wiki-jargon-terms such as page, village-pump (ἀγορά), article (ἐγγραφή or χρῆμα), bureaucrats (γέροντες), admins (ἐπίτροποι), stub (ὑπόλειμμα) [only the two last ones are are more recent suggestions by me] etc. should not be rendered literally but in a playfully "Attic Greek" way. Σελίς has been rejected immediately since in Attic Greek it meant "transom, beam" and had nothing to do with writing until the stage of Koine. However, I want to clarify that this doesn't mean that everything else here must be Attic: grammatical/syntactic/phonemic elements from non-Attic dialects, and technical terms from Koine and Kath. (=Katharevousa) are welcome in individual articles, unless they are in a very evident contradiction with the prestigious classical form of Attic (as judged by consensus). Omnipaedista 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The link to the discussion on this Wikipedia's basic terminology, which had reached consensus by June 2007 cn be found here: translatewiki:Portal_talk:Grc (this terminology is followed untill today with only slight modifications). Other information about the first appearance of certain conventions may be found in each individual article's: i) log of edit summaries, and/or ii) talk-page. --Omnipaedista 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
How about Ἀρχιδέλτος? Žekřil71pl 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Interface-translation message[edit]

I suggest the removal of the Help_us_translate-message because right now the percentage of the translated grc-interface is 76% (the second highest for a classical language after zh-classical: 83%). After all, Leigh and me have already established a very specific and homogeneized vocabulary and style in our translations and if a new translator is recruited, he will not be aware of these conventions and will inevitably deviate from them, producing an ambiguous result (it has already happened a couple of times lately). Of course, new translators are welcome in general, but i.m.h.o. we don't have to keep this huge "banner" in the first page, anymore, as if we are in desperate need for them. Omnipaedista 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Crazymadlover

the main page should be redesigned[edit]

I guess, the main page should be redesigned. the model could be similar to the main page of Pontic Wikipedia; which, we could add, in the end, a section of "Wikipedia in other languages" ordered by numbers of articles (100 000+, 10 000+, 1 000+, etc), that could show like this. Crazymadlover

I believe that this is true. The current image isn't consistent with the appearance of the most of the Wikipedias' main pages. However, who's gonna take the responsability of redesigning it? I'd suggest the main contributors of the Pontic wiki: they know the basics of the grc language and they're experienced enough, since they've done a very good job with the pnt main page. Omnipaedista 03:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The important is the frame, we could rehearse in the sandbox. Crazymadlover
OK, then. If you feel like beginning trying it, go ahead. I don't know when I might have the chance to do it myself! (too busy with other wikiprojects right now =) Omnipaedista 11:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I am currently working on a redesign. It is actually based on the pontic design and will be uploaded tomorrow, I guess. Then it's up to you to make the neccessary changes. :-) --Sinopeus 14:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Whenever you are ready, you could notify me about the completion of your redesigning; in case you want someone to check it out first, you can copypaste it on the sandbox, or if you are bold enough you may just make the change directly to the main page. Omnipaedista 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I am sooo sorry you had to wait, but I've had a chaotic week. I have finished a first design and decided to put it on the sandbox, because in the last days there have been made new changes in the Κυρία Δέλτος. (OK, I'm not that bold... ;-) Feel free to experiment with it. --Sinopeus 23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
When I saw it, I immediately thought to myself "wow, that's it!". I mean, there weren't too much to change, so I have imported it to the main page, essentially, as-is. Your effort is cordially appreciated, Σινωπεῦ! Omnipaedista 13:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Well done Sinopeus! Thanks a lot! Crazymadlover
On the contrary, the mark-up is a mess. I shall try to make something out of it while retaining the look. The font-family declarations are especially out of place; the result is that accented glyphs are significantly bigger than bare ones, making the text hard to read (interestingly, the οὐ version does not exhibit this particular problem). I am not sure, however, how to implement the language-wide stylesheet that is needed to do it right. I think the necessary declarations could go to MediaWiki:Common.css under the selector :lang(grc) but one would have to persuade the administrator to include them for us. This, however, would have an adverse effect on all other projects, in terms of bandwidth, so there is a problem to be solved. I prepared a demo at User:Žekřil71pl/Strona głóvjna; you will need to @import my style sheet into your style sheet to get the correct rendering. Žekřil71pl 15:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of the digamma (ϝ)[edit]

The discussion has been transferred here. --Omnipaedista 06:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Language box[edit]

I have created a language box template, please help me translating the English text in it. Crazymadlover.

Done. However, I'm a bit wary about the term βαρβαριστί. I remark here, for the sake of Linguistics, that the word means "spoken(ly) barbarically", literally "barbar-iz-ed-ly", and comes from βαρβαρ- "barbar(ian)", -ισ-τ-(ός) "-iz-ed-", and the ending -ί "-ly" (probably from the dative ending -ί, as in πατρ-ί). This term was used by the ancient Greeks, to describe the way all others than them spoke: non-sensically. Though, most likely, it wasn't always derogatory, during the last century it acquired very bad connotations; in modern Greek, it often means "in a culturally inferior language". This is not a matter of void political correctness; we are in a project written in a language that in Greece is sadly associated with political conservatism and nationalism. If the project opens sometime, many of its readers will inevitably be modern Grecophones, who, when seeing the use of derogatory (in a contemporary context) adjectives, such as βαρβαρικός, being used, they might get appalled (I am definitely one of them); this is a project whose main aim, as I see it, is copyleftizing encyclopedic knowledge in a culturally prestigious and influential language (prestigious as opposed to inherently superior), and there should be no hints about anything beyond that. For all these reasons, I propose to replace it by a Katharevousian word, which is nevertheless compatible with the ancient semantics and morphology: ἀλλογλωσσιστί "spokenly in (an)other language(s)". Omnipaedista 19:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
One question related, the project should be limited or restricted by political correctness?Crazymadlover.
In principle no. This would constitute censorship and Wikipedias are not censored. However, the situation in this case is slightly more complicated. This very word has acquired so negative/aggressive connotations in the Modern Greek version of the Revived Ancient Greek language that it has become very easy for someone to misunderstand its intended meaning and consider it pejorative or biased. For me this is enough of a reason to replace this word by a less ambiguous one. If you disagree we could discuss it further, of course. --Omnipaedista 07:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually i do not oppose to the word ἀλλογλωσσιστί, on the contrary i find it beatiful. My question refers to a more general context, the principles that rule all the project. Crazymadlover.
OK, then. Just in order to be explicit on that matter, I invite you (and everyone) to exhibit any case of restriction or misguided application of political correctness (that has appeared in the project in the past or will appear in the future) in the Agora, where we can work out a solution. :) --Omnipaedista 05:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you also translate the name of each languages?. Crazymadlover.

I tried to, but as I wrote in my summary: "the names of the languages are a bit problematic, since there isn't an agreed-upon translation of them to AGreek". I could have just used the equivalnt Kath. terms, but, in many cases, they are totally incompatible with the ancient morphophonology. I need some time to maybe coin new names based more-or-less on the corresponding Latin ones (coined by Vici-pedians). I know that this may be seen as constituting OR, but when it comes to bureaucratic/technical terminology, especially in the case of classical languages, it happens all the time in other Wikipedias, since, generally, the various Wikimedia projects have coerced many languages to acquire a non-canonical vocabulary in order to fit their needs. Omnipaedista 13:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Done (eventually). Omnipaedista 03:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ϝικιπηγή or Ϝικιθήκη (Wikisource)[edit]

Which translation is the best for Wikisource? Ϝικιπήγη or Ϝικιθήκη, the first i found in Ancient Greek Wikisource test, and if you review my last contributions in translatewiki, i used it for translating betawiki messages. If i am wrong, please correct me. Crazymadlover.

Ϝιπηγή (πηγή "source") is the appropriate translation; θήκη just means "case" as in bibliotheca "book-case". Omnipaedista 00:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

N.B. The Modern Greek Wikisource is called βικιθήκη. The point is not that it is a direct translation, but rather a pleasant pun on βιβλιοθήκη. 21:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is a pleasant and witty pun. The problem is in that it is dubious how many will get it; I haven't encountered anyone (non-Neogrecophone) so far. Βιβλιοθήκη (a Koiné-period word) doesn't seem to be a term that an average studier of strictly Attic Greek (most of the contributors here are) is familiar with. Another reason why the pun works is that the two words [vi.vli.o.'θ] & ['θ] are very close phonetically when reading them using the late Byzantine pronunciation; this is not the case with the ancient one. So, while the first contributors of that test (who were Greeks) have rendered it as Οὐικιθήκη [εέ.kὲε] (in accordance with the el-project), the new generation of (potential) contributors of its test-project (almost all of them nonGreeks) seem to prefer a rendition according to that of the other major Classical language (Latin): Vicifons ['] ~ Ϝικιπηγή [εε.ɡεέ]. Note, in general, that Ϝικιπαιδεία has two major differences from the el Βικιπαίδεια and the pnt Βικιπαίδεια(ν): i) it uses the Classical phonological system (mainly Attic plus a phoneme /w/ from Ionic Greek, plus a phoneme /z/ from Koiné), and ii) it has an international scope. Omnipaedista 03:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Note also, that the use of /z/ is said to be taken from Koine, since in Attic there was no phonemic /z/, and ζῆτα denoted strictly /zd/. This means that when using "foreign" names containing a /z/ (such as Modern Greek Τερζόπουλος "(surname)" or English Zazaki "(language name)"), in a wiki whose phonology is mainly Attic, it is useful to consider ζ as having a more flexible function. Omnipaedista 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: This project no longer uses the Classical phonological system or any other pre-Classical one. After long discussions in the Agora, it was decided that a phonological system closer to Late Koine/Byzantine Greek should be adopted in the transcriptions of foreign names. --Omnipaedista 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Polytonic template[edit]

Your removal of the polytonic template seems to be a good idea, Cml. The template's main advantage is its aesthetics; it makes the diacritics look much more discernible and legible. Its great disadvantage, on the other hand, is that it doesn't behave very good when combined with more advanced "markupping" such as graphic design, bulleted lists, and LaTeX. Omnipaedista 00:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

However, I believe that each author should decide whether (s)he wants the template (in the article (s)he begins) or not. For example, I, for one, would like to have it in a couple of articles I've began. In other words, we can treat the use of the template, as we treat the personal style of each article.
Omnipaedista 05:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Polytonic style[edit]

Tip for everyone who wants to have the polytonic-template look on their page but not the dysfunctional template itself. When editing a page (that you want to have that look) just insert on top of it the following MediaWiki code:
<div lang="grc" class="polytonic" style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;">
Reminder: this is intended to be used only for userpages and specific articles per the current consensus.
--Omnipaedista 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the standard?[edit]

Which form of Ancient Greek is the standard (e.g. classic, koine, etc)? Or should I have seen the answer to my question already. Thanks. Gott wisst 04:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, isn't this ready to graduate? The Gothic Wikipedia has only about 100 more pages than this. Or does it not fit some standard for fully-fledged Wikimedia projects (if so, I'd be interested to see which ones!)? Gott wisst 04:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Got wisst. Effectively, there is no single standard. The three forms of grc that have been used so far the most are Attic Greek, Koine Greek, and Ecclesiastical Greek (which is the literary Koine of the Greek Orthodox Church). A consensus on which of the three forms is the most "legitimate" has never been accomplished, so all three of the above are regarded as equally legitimate. Regarding the graduation now: the problem does not lie in the number of articles but in the fact that the current Wikimedia policy does not allow the opening of projects in languages with no native speakers (a policy that did not exist when the grc test-project started in the Incubator). See also some of the extensive discussions on these matters that have taken place in the Agora. Thank you. --Omnipaedista 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Question: are these forms mutually intelligible? If not, they shouldn't be in the same encyclopaedia imo. sv:användare:aaker
Yes, they are mutually intelligible (in their written form). Koine Greek and Ecclesiastical Greek are effectively slight variations of Attic Greek; there are only minute vocabular differences among them. --Omnipaedista 18:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, is there a neologism project on here? Gott wisst 04:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is. --Omnipaedista 13:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Wikisource[edit]

Please note that the Main Page for Ancient Greek Wikisource is here. The link at the bottom of this Main Page can be changed. Dovi 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

An unfair issue[edit]

The Ancient Greek Incubator Wikipedia has now 549 articles and it is still a test wiki, but, for example, the Ancient Gothic Wikipedia has only 282 articles and it is a real Wikipedia. Am I the only person who thinks it is unfair? - 12qwas - Noli pugnare gladio, sed verbis! 17:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That is because the Gothic Wikipedia was created before the implementation of the m:Language committee. The current policy is more strict. SPQRobin 23:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The current policy wrongly prevents the creation of a serious project like this one, which quite a few serious language scholars and high-level hobbyists have contributed to over the years, and support making it into a full-fledged project. A couple of years ago the community worked hard to formulate a moderate, sensible, alternative policy, and then offered it as a proposal, but the language committee simply vetoed it. Dovi 10:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


I have created a wiki and will import all the pages from here to my wiki, can someone please help me out with this, for I do not like how a incubator wiki with so many pages, stays here, I know the reason for this, but I have made a separate wiki because I like it that way, it is located at [1]] --TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But that is wikia, not the formal wikipedia...--Obonggi (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to barge in...[edit]

But who speaks Ancient Greek natively? This wiki would have a small user base. Wschlitz (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree to it. It woudn`t be a useful wiki --DJ EV (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
But latin Wikipedia's being shows how a Wikipedia written in a dead Language can be useful!--Memnone di Rodi (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
What actually would be extremely useful though -- to scholars! -- would be to have a wiki database with the material on topics as they are actually covered in the Ancient Greek corpus -- straight from the sources, but quoted in passages by topic, not (as Wikisource) by text/author. As in an encyclopedia, which gathers what the ancient (and mediaeval) authors did write on various subjects together, in an accessible cross-referencing wiki format. (That is, not this Harry-Potter-in-Ancient-Greek kind-of-thing...)

Best wiki I've ever seen on Incubator...[edit]

...but it can never have its own domain. So sad.--Seonookim (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • you're so right: And I add so an important Language for the civilisation without its own domain but the Romans were used to say: Ubi maior, minor cessat!