Talk:Niger

RFV discussion: April 2016–January 2018
In some cases I don't doubt that these names are used, but that there are durably archived Latin sources. For example, Finish Nuntii Latini and German Nuntii Latini don't seem to be durably archived but might use some of these New Latin country names. -Maggidim (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC) In another Latin text one can find this: "[...] Somalia Gallicam cuius urbs primaria (Gibuti, Djibouti) appellatur Gibutum, i, n." The text might include more Latin terms related to Africa like Somaliensis (Adj.), Mogadiscium (Mogadishu), Congus (i, f.) or Congus Leopoldopolitana (a Congo), Chenia (Kenya), Chenianus (Adj.), Nairobia (Nairobi), but is from 1964 and doesn't seem to have Tanzania or Tansania (the country was founded in 1964).
 * This is a rather counterproductive thing to do. I know for a fact that some of those are citable, and you didn't even check. Try Google Books and please remove the ones that can clearly be cited (which, I suspect, is most or all of these). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't search for all of these at google books, but I searched for some and wasn't able to find any results. Now I've searched for all and removed those which I was able to cite. Kenia and Tanzania can be cited. With some good will and turning a blind eye to some doubts one could say that Quataria and Tzadia exist too.
 * Chilia gives many results and might exist. But I wasn't able to find an example.
 * Searching for Dzibutum gives two results. One is in Latin and has "in urbem Dzibutum (Gibuti, Djibouti)". That could attest Dzibutum as a name for a city, but not as a name for a country. But Dzibutum could also be the accusative of Dzibutus like one can find "in urbem Romam" where Romam is the accusative of Roma.
 * Searching for Iracum gives some results. But Iracum could also be the accusative of Iracus like Iraci could be the genitive of Iracus, and in "in urbe Iraci persici Qom" which should mean something like "in the city Qom of the Persian Iraq" Iraci or Qom has another meaning as Qom is a city in Iran.
 * Searching for Irania has too many non-Latin results and adding other Latin words gives results with OCR errors for ironia.
 * Omania often gives results for "om- nia". In a 21st century results one can find "Omania", but according to the book title "Documentos medievales del Reino de Galicia: Doña Urraca, 1095-1126" it's related to the Middle Ages and thus it should have another meaning.
 * Searching for Papua-Nova Guinea one can find "atque Papua-Nova Guinea Apostolicum Delegatum" in a text which should be related the Catholic Church. That might refer to the country, but is spelled differently anyway.
 * Searching for Quataria gives few results. One is in English and could refer to the country. One is in Latin and in a section entitled "Exercitia militaria americanorum" there is "Americani in Quataria exerci- [...]". It's just a snippet, so I can't read the whole text. That could refer to the country, but I can't verify it.
 * Even simply searching for Swazia didn't have any Latin result.
 * Kenia and Tanzania brought up a Nuntii Latini text (in the 1990s some of the news were printed) in which one can read "in Kenia et Tanzania sunt". That should be ok. But if that's the only source, shouldn't there be any note informing the reader that the word is rare and was coined in the 1990s?
 * Tzadia brought up a Nuntii Latini text in which one can read "In Tzadia, quae civitas Africana desertis [...]". It's just a snippet, but could be ok.
 * -Maggidim (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I am of the opinion that three cites should be required for Neo-Latin, but we don't actually have an official position on that yet. Regardless, it appears that you did not bother to search for inflected forms. Searching shows that  is easily citable. I've removed the easily cited ones from your list below. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with one cite, but IMHO recent or modern New Latin (20th/21st century) with just one cite should have a note.
 * In some cases I also searched for inflected forms, but not in all cases and not for all possible inflected forms.
 * Iraquia: Ok. That can be found in 20th/21st century Latin. And there's also Vietnamia, Afganistania.
 * Chilia: I'm not sure if that can be found in classical New Latin (like 15-19th centuries), but in the 20th/21st century it can be found, and one can also find Aequatoria, Uruguaia. But it would be interesting to mention dates. There are classical New Latin terms for Chile. So Chilia could be classical New Latin too, or it could be a modern New Latin invention most likely from people who didn't know the older terms.
 * Swazia: One can find the name Suazilandia. So it might rather be spelled Suazia instead of Swazia. But there could be many other forms using u, v or w and using s or z.
 * Irania The word Irania can be found in those results. But what about the meaning? Old texts from the 19th century obviously do not refer to the modern Islamic republic. The entry Iran mentions two English meanings. So Irania could refer to all "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" or a geographical region, and not necessarily to a country or political state (be it an old monarchy or a modern Islamic republic). dictionary.com states: "In 1935 the government of Reza Shah Pahlavi requested governments with which it had diplomatic relations to call his country Iran, after the indigenous name, rather than the Greek-derived Persia." That makes it more likely that Irania refers to something like "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" and not to a state. Also in old lexica one can find definitions of Iran referring to a geographical region which includes countries like Afghanistan and Persia. That meaning might be the same as the second definition in Iran, but might also be another meaning. One can find Irania (or Iraniam) in 20th/21st century texts too and there it might refer to the country. But the google books results don't seem to convey any meaning.
 * Iracum: I don't know what you searched for and I don't know your results, but here could be to problems: 1. Iracum might be the accusative of Iracus, and some inflected forms of Iracum could be inflected forms of Iracus too. So one needs a result with the nominative or a result which indicates the gender. 2. Similar to Irania, Iracum could have another meaning. In older lexica one can read that Iraq or Irak was a geographical region, maybe partly or at some times a province of Persia. With that one can explain the example "in urbe Iraci persici Qom". It says that Qom is a city in a certain region, and does not refer to the country Iraq.
 * So while the words Irania and (nominative?), Iraci, Iraco, Iracum, Iraco exist, I can't see a cite for the meaning Iran (country) or Iraq (country) respectively.
 * -Maggidim (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is total nitpickery... Second-declension placenames in Latin are virtually always -um and not -us. I've added a more obviously nominative Iracum cite. So as far as I can see, these are all cited now -- can we close this and move on? — Kleio (t · c) 19:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not "total nitpickery". There are second-declension placenames in -us, as for example Aegyptus, and there are reasons why one could assume a nominative *Iracus. -Slœtel (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad, I'll amend that to mostly nitpickery. Besides, have a look at Category:la:Place names or Category:la:Countries. The placenames in -us are often loans from Greek (Aegyptus, Monoecus, Epirus, etc.), and New Latin coinages seem to pretty much always be -um. Anyway, since New Latin isn't considered a WDL yet (as it really shouldn't be), it's attested now with certainty with a nominative singular -um. — Kleio (t · c) 17:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've split off Irania (after broadening the definition) so it can be archived, since it is citable per this discussion. Some of the others may fail RFV. - -sche (discuss) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The brackets around it, likely already meant that the RFV is resolved (cp. your "since it is citable per this discussion") or at least somewhat resolved (cp. your "after broadening the definition"). -84.161.37.107 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Technically, with Latin being an LDL, even a single usenet/google groups citation from whenever would be fine. (I wouldn't like it either, but Latin isn't a WDL, and that's why there were some suggestions of making New Latin an in-between language neither LDL nor WDL.) Also, as pointed out before, some people (seem to) interpret WT:CFI's "should" as a recommendation not as a must. For example, there are some living* LDL entries based on a single usage or mentioning but without the template or without its sources in it. So you could interpret the cited line "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list ..." as a recommendation too, and use that journal as a single source. (I wouldn't like that either, but that's not just a matter of Latin, and that's why I made some suggestions regarding the shoulds and (New) Latin.)
 * The two votes on treatment of post-1500 Latin threaten to bring more confusion than clarity; normally, if a proposal does not gain enough consensus to pass the status quo remains, and the status quo has been to require three citations for modern Latin, but the vote (which is close to the line between consensus and no consensus) is for, in effect, one mechanism of that.
 * It has also been pointed out that modern Latin were only required to have one citation, "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries". Would there be consensus to consider a modern source like "The Scientific Journal of the American Orchid Society" sufficient, or would we prefer to continue regarding modern sources as insufficient?
 * (Some might even argue that single texts from 2016 should be allowed because the continuing use of Latin into the modern day demonstrates that it is an extinct language, which would get really interesting, but I doubt that change would gain consensus...)
 * 21:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The line you were quoting is about mentionings: "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". And from my experience "citation" refers to usages as a short form of citation with or of a usage and not as citation with or of a mentioning. So with Latin being an LDL a single usage in the journal would be fine, while with Latin being a WDL it wouldn't be fine.
 * I'm not sure what WT:CFI states regarding "extinct languages". Maybe it's saying that entries based on a single usage or mention in an extint language should have the template in them too; or maybe it's stating that the template is only required for living and not for extinct languages. Some entries in Category:Latin hapax legomena do have the template in them (e.g. amosio), while some don't (e.g. neuroides). -Slœtel (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Niger

 * Since the main thread above does not discuss this particular entry (the overall thread's titular entry), I'm adding a specific subsection for it. Is Niger attested, as the name of an area (not just a river)? - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to be unattested from my searches. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Papua Nova Guinea

 * I've added two citations; we need a third. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I tracked down a third citation of this exact form, which makes this cited. Some more citations exist that use hyphens, and I also find George Shaw's Vivarium naturæ or the naturalist's miscellany saying "Papuam seu novam Guineam incolit, ..." and Giovanni Battista de Toni's 1987 Sylloge algarum omnium hucusque cognitarum: Sylloge floridearum saying "Hab. in oceano Pacifico ab oris Peruviae meridionalis usque ad «Concepcion» [...]; ad Novam Guineam seu Papuam", and various instances of "Papuae sive novae Guineae". "Nova Guinea" by itself also appears to be citable. - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Dzibutum

 * Has only one citation, and I can find no others. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One citation is sufficient, but that's another or just one Djibouti. "in urbem Dzibutum" refers to a city, not to a country. Furthermore it could be an accusative Dzibutum for *Dzibutus m. or f. and not necessarily for *Dzibutum n. A neuter *Dzibutum might be more likely (for that younger NL), but that doesn't attest any nominative, and as the Arabic term is m. or f. according to wiktionary (m. in Djibouti, f. in the Arabic entry) one could also argue for *Dzibutus. -84.161.7.226 23:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * One citation is sufficient for classical Latin, but not for modern Latin. (This is not explicitly written in policy anywhere as far as I know, but it is how Latin is typically treated in RFV discussions.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * AFAIK that's neither a rule (Latin is a WT:LDL as it's not a WT:WDL), nor common practice. There sometimes where comments that some users sometimes would like that 3 cites for NL would be required, but expressing that wish means that it is not required. Also, before having such a rule, it could make sense to split NL: From 1500 till 1800 Latin wasn't rare, but in the 19th century it declined and in the 21st century it's rare, almost an extinct language (some people even do leave out the "almost"). So while 3 cites for 1500-1800 NL might be a good idea, for 21st century NL it's less good. (Many terms from Harrius Potter would still be excluded by WT:CFI.) Compared with other LDLs it could even be some kind of discrimination to require 3 cites for 21st century NL. Of course, one could still try to find three cites, but sometimes that's not possible, also because Latin is a LDL. -84.161.37.107 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Requiring three citations for modern Latin is common practice. Here are two examples: Talk:birotula, Talk:Hogvartensis. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's standard practice, to the extent that I can't think of a case where a modern Latin word has been passed with only one citation. To that extent, it's as if modern Latin is treated like the conlangs we include (and for similar reasons; new coinages in it are like conlang words). - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * One book suggests the form Dzibuti (indeclinable), and la.WP for its part uses Gibutum, citing some sources; there is enough chaff (homographic words, scannos) to make searching difficult, but Gibutum may well be citable, in which case perhaps this entry should be moved. (Well, the RFV should be left open until this and this are closed.) - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Quataria

 * I can only find one citation where it's clearly a place. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I can find these instances, but it's not entirely obvious whether they mean a place, or are taxonomic names:


 * 1970, Excerpta Botanica: Taxonomica et chorologica. Sectio A.:
 * Pyxidanthera 385
 * Q
 * Quadripollis 68
 * Quassia 3, 60
 * Quataria 92
 * Quercoxylon 107, 117, 120
 * Quercus 7, 12, 15, 19, 25, 53, 54,
 * 1966, Sheffield Airey Neave, ‎Marcia A. Edwards, Nomenclator Zoologicus: A List of the Names of Genera and Subgenera:
 * Col. Quasitermes Emerson 1950, Amer. Mus. Novit., no. 1444, 10. — Isopt. Quataria
 * It does get mentioned in the context of "Saudia", "Broeckinella", "et Dohia". - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It does get mentioned in the context of "Saudia", "Broeckinella", "et Dohia". - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)