Disputatio Formulae:Latinitas

Latest comment: abhinc 28 dies by Andrew Dalby in topic Inscriptiones ostentae

Introduction recensere

Perhaps the template should link to a page explaining

  • the meaning of the levels and
  • some information on how the levels are assessed (i. e. if you disagree with the level, change it as you deem appropriate and reasonable)

--UV 22:43, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template is just a start to play with the levels. Please change it as you want. What is missing:

  • A category for all the level-categories (Categoria:Latinitas -9, ...)
  • Maybe for the "bad" level there should be displayed a note at the top of the page (via stylesheets; hope this is possible)
  • For the level "terrible" there should be a note that the page will be deleted after some time (in case nobody cares for it)
  • The helptext (=default) should explain more. It shoud mention the "tiro" template.
  • The template itself should be translated.
  • etc.

Much work to do ... ;-) Make your changes/tests as you like. --Rolandus 22:56, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then, do these new formulae substitute the previous ones like {{dubium}}, {{maxcorrigenda}}, {{tiro}}, etc?--Xaverius 00:06, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, except for {{tiro}}.-Ioshus (disp) 00:17, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. The problem is, that we do not have a clean relation between the current templates. Myces says that "reddenda" was intended to mean "non latine". However, "reddenda" is not used like this. With {{latinitas}} it is rather easy to invent new words (=parameters) and later map them to levels. So people can use the words they want and later we try to find a relation between these words. After the cleanup, words like "dubium" could be a shortcut for "latinitas|dubium". However, it would be better to stay with "latinitas", since "latinitas|infecta" is clear but "infecta" could also mean the content or some other aspect which can be infected. At the moment we have just negative levels. We should also find words (attributes, levels) for "good" articles. Then we should decide what images to display with the several words/levels/attributes. We can also have synonyms. We could even make "latinitas|tiro" to display {{tiro}}, however, theoretically we should not do it, because "tiro" means "unrated". --Rolandus 00:21, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we should check every page we have under unrated and then rate them/correct accordingly, isn't it? Sholud this be done in an organised way rather than randomly? I mean if we manage amongst two usores every day to check, let us say, half of those starting with A, and so on, we could have things more or less sorted. And if we have two or three correcting teams among who to divide the pages to rate, things would go faster.---it is just a wild suggestion, because I can see that if this is not organised, pages will be unrated for months!--Xaverius 23:26, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A cautionary note recensere

I love the look of this, and admire its intent. However: for most of the world, only a few levels of discrimination are adequate. The Michelin restaurant guides rate food on a three-star scale and luxury on a five-crossed-fork-and-spoon scale. A five-star system has spread to all sorts of places, including Amazon.com's ratings for books, Google Groups' ratings for posts, and Mobil's ratings for U.S. restaurants. Similarly, the American Automobile Association (AAA) rates restaurants on a five-diamond scale. Also, at least in America, educational institutions from first grade through Ph.D. coursework have traditionally used five main grades (A, B, C, D, E; or A, B, C, D, F). Yet here you're proposing an eighteen-grade system. It may take a native speaker to make such fine distinctions accurately! IacobusAmor 22:45, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the facts. But let me explain, why I have chosen these many levels:

  • I thought we should have levels > 0 and levels < 0, where "0" should be something like "this article is ok"
  • I tried to have "main" levels: "terrible", "bad", "checked", "good", "top"
  • "checked" is for repeated proof-reading: +1, +2, +3
  • I thought we might avoid discussions, when each main level will be split up into 3 sublevels. Then it is not worth to discuss 1 or 2 points more or less. (I hope so ...)
  • "terrible" articles will be deleted after some time
  • For the "bad" level I had in mind three stages. -6: declensions, -5: conjugations, -4: grammar
  • It shall be a game ... so many levels ... the levels shall often change.
  • ... and some other ideas ;-)

What about having 5 negative levels and 5 positive levels? If your restaurant has 1 star, it is surely better than "ok". Below "ok" there should be another scale. Does this make sense? --Rolandus 23:17, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or 3 negative and 3 positive levels? Level "0" = "ok". Or 5 levels and "3" should be "ok"? Then one level more or less will make a big difference. It is similar to la-1, la-2, la-3: I'd rather have more levels. With more levels it is easier to indicate tendencies. If an ok-article would be "3", then all better (what is better?) articles would be "4" and someone who writes an article which is slightly better (?) than a "4"-article might want to rate this article as "5". But we should not have many articles in the highest class. Or maybe 1-2-3-4---5(=ok)---6-7-8-9? 1-3-5-7-9 would be 5 levels. 10 would be "perfect", which we will not need. I do not stick to my first suggestion, I just wanted to induce a discussion ... --Rolandus 00:00, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or 1-, 1, 1+, 2-, 2, 2+, 3-, 3, 3+, 4-, 4, 4+, 5-, 5, 5+ ? --Rolandus 00:20, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another try recensere

What about the following system:

  • An article is "ok" if a reader of "la-2"-level does not find obvious mistakes when reading through.
  • Whenever a la-2-reader has read an article and thinks this article is ok, he can add an extra "ok" ( )
  • If an article has got some "ok"s we can think about rating it "good" or "top" (details are to be discussed)
  • Articles below "ok" are rated with negative levels from "-9" to "-1"
  • -9 ... -7 = three levels of "terrible" (will be deleted after some time)
  • -6 ... -4 = three levels of "bad"
  • -3 ... -1 = three levels of "needs cleanup"

My suggestion is, to start with negative levels for now and discuss the "good" articles later.

  • The template for negative levels shall be added on top of the article (like we do it now with {{maxcorrigenda}})
  • The "ok"s and the template for levels better than "ok" are added at the end of the article (looks better)
  • The first "ok" might be added on top as well, this makes the process more comfortable for the first proof-reader.
  • As a first step {{maxcorrigenda}} and {{reddenda}} should be seen as {{latinitas|-4}} and {{dubium}} should be seen as {{latinitas|-1}} (thinking of 9 levels).

Please say your opinion, even if you do not care about this topic and would accept any solution. This concept can be improved, however, we should start soon ... --Rolandus 14:22, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the basic idea is excellent, though I'm not sure we need as many as nine levels of awfulness. If it's worse than about -5, I suggest, it gets the "not Latin" template and doesn't need this one also.
I have just changed one of your examples by editing Lingua Sarda and promoting it to -2. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:34, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In opposition what I said above, it seems that we have now (thinking of 5 levels):
No? --Rolandus 00:00, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes! I would certainly go with it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rating recensere

I like the idea of basing ratings on whether or not editors with a certain level of Latin can detect errors. But I would also suggest that people not be able to rate their own work. --Iustinus 16:27, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's how Google has set up its newsgroups, but workarounds exist. ;) IacobusAmor 20:34, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a very good point, but how would it apply to the gradual improvement of a page? In reality wouldn't you edit a page almost in the same action as reading it, as I just did with Lingua Sarda? So should you then change the rating yourself, or flag it for someone else to read? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:40, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why contributors shouldn't rate their own work, as others will quickly come out of the woodwork to rerate it !  Besides, don't we invite contributors to mark their own work with {{tiro}} and such ?  IacobusAmor 20:34, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is no problem for the negative levels. However, maybe it would be a good idea not to rate the own work, if we are speaking of "good" or "top" articles. --Rolandus 20:44, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice that positive ratings are being signed and the signatures are being moved to Disputatio pages. Both steps are logical, but I wonder whether it would be more logical still (and make less work) for the whole formula to be moved to the disputatio page when it goes into the positive register: i.e., if Latin needs improving, put formula on res page; if Latin is OK or better, put formula on talk page (and sign it). My underlying thought is that we are aiming at good Latin. Once we have it, let's treat it as normal -- no need to draw attention to it on the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point! Then, maybe, it would be better to use 3 green lights instead of the wolf? --Rolandus 14:25, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another option: We leave the template in the page, but for positive ratings we do not display symbols on the page? Just put the page in categories "L +1" to "L +5". So the reader has the information on the page (in the footer), the level can be easily changed and the layout is not cluttered with green lights. --Rolandus 14:32, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the latter option. That way, we do not unnecessarily create talk pages just for the purpose of the rating, and the rating information is still present on the page itself. --UV 15:06, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that seems a good solution to me too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:24, 6 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A revised proposal for Latinitas grading recensere

This is my proposal based on the recent discussion at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Latinitas, thus incorporating ideas by Rolandus (the originator of the Latinitas grades), Rafael, Harrissimo and others.

The ratings {{Latinitas|-1}} to {{Latinitas|-5}} remain unchanged. There are new formulae {{L?}} (meaning "Latinity unverified") and {{L1}} (meaning "Latinity seems OK"). These are intended to replace the old {{Latinitas}} and {{Latinitas|1}} to {{Latinitas|5}} grades. The aims are (1) to make sure that more pages get graded (and therefore improved!); (2) to build up a corpus of acceptable pages for the "Pagina fortuita" feature.

The question to other Vicipaedia editors is, would you be prepared to adopt these formulae and this simple grading system as regular practice? Please comment below! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:12, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proposal recensere

New pages, and other pages whenever possible, should get either a stipula (if very short) or a Latinitas rating.
  1. The first author can add {{L?}} (or one of the existing {{Latinitas}} minus ratings if sure that the Latin is bad ...!)
  2. Any of us who comes along to a new page without {{L?}} should add it; or, after any necessary editing, can make it {{L1}}; or can give a {{Latinitas}} minus rating; or, if it's only stub-length, can add a {{Stipula}}. Any reader/editor, after the first author, should try to make sure a new page has either L? or L1 or a minus rating or a stipula. Anyone who feels happy about doing so should replace L? with one of the other ratings.

Comments ... recensere

  • These are all very good, nearly ideal proposals and thank you for compiling them all. The only problem I have is this; What is the definition of a stipula? For example would I be able to have an orange button on Carelia Meridionalis, eventhough it is a stub? Or do you mean only the stubs without interwiki links? --Harrissimo 13:10, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well, a stipula is a stub. I don't know how better we want to define that, myself.--Ioscius (disp) 13:46, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My thing is this: the only use I see for the grading system is that we might keep our good articles together so that we can display them, and we might keep our bad articles together so we can hide them more effectively. this proposal seems not to make allowances for categorizing our articles written with the best Latinitas. Or have I misread?--Ioscius (disp) 13:46, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • To answer Harrissimo: my idea was not to grade stubs. As with lists, there isn't much to grade; if there is enough to grade, it's no longer a stub! That was my thought.
    • To answer Ioscius: as regards Latinity the discussion suggested (and I personally think) that it is useless for us to grade pure Latinity above the level of "good". Just as in any other language, we want our articles to be clear. I don't know that we even want to aim above that for really fancy Latin, and I don't know which of us has the inclination to grade it. So this idea aims to meet your requirement by categorising all "good" Latin in Categoria:L +1 using {{L1}}. Beyond that, as to the overall excellence of an article, this proposal doesn't affect that issue at all. I guess we have the {{FA stella}} for general excellence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I admit to some vagueness between "seems OK" and "good". But I think vagueness is necessary. This being a wiki, we can't ever guarantee goodness, and we shouldn't try! The next edit may compromise our guarantee. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:58, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So could one of you tell me on which of the following pages I could put a {{stipula}} and where I could put a button: Carelia Meridionalis, Anjalankoski, Forssa, Portus Mariae and Finnia Occidentalis (just so I know how much content is needed for the article to be a stipula) --Harrissimo 14:30, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About Carelia Meridionalis I just commented on your user page. I'll look at the others. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the proposal, but I think we should do something with the names of the templates. Some ideas:
  • We could also have the shortcuts {{L-5}}, {{L-4}}, {{L-3}}, {{L-2}}, {{L-1}}.
  • Maybe {{-5}}, {{-4}}, {{-3}}, {{-2}}, {{-1}} would be also ok.
  • For {{L?}} maybe {{L}} would suffice (analogous to {{latinitas}} without a parameter).
  • Maybe we could also use {{S}} for {{stipula}}.
  • Maybe {{L+}} for {{L1}} or simply {{+}}?
  • Then, if we only rate bad latinitas, we could omit the minus: {{5}}, {{4}}, {{3}}, {{2}}, {{1}}.
  • I think it is not bad if stubs are rated, it's only pointless. So we should not care much, if that happens sometimes.
  • Then something radical: The German Wikipedia completely removed the stub-templates. I imply they had bad reasons, but it should be considered. Or it should be considered not to display the stub-template. But, on the other hand, it is a nice idea, that each article would have one out of these: {{s}}, {{L}}, {{5}}, {{4}}, {{3}}, {{2}}, {{1}}, {{+}}.
  • ... and then maybe {{*}} for {{FA stella}} ;-)
--Rolandus 21:24, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rolande dilecte, ut alicubi scripsi, formulam stipulas indicentem Vicipaediae Latinae percommodam non esse censeo. Consentio: Quin celemus? De Latinitate autem -ignosce si vetera repeto: nam non omnia legi- timere, ne 5 gradus nimis sint. Quis tantos gradus det? Me posse non spero. --Iovis Fulmen 21:49, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brevitatem laudo; sed meo consilio retineamus symbolos - (minus). Eis symbolis utentes, meminisse possumus -5 pessimum et non optimum esse! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 23 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we going to have a redirect from {{Latinitas}} to {{L?}} and redirects from all of the positive Latinitas formulae to {{L}}? --Harrissimo 16:48, 5 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cave Danaos? recensere

P Vergilius Maro scripsit:

timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

si "cave" voluisset, nonne illo haud dubio usus esset verbo?

Categories recensere

Does anyone think that this tag, especially with a lower rating, should add the page to a category to alert people to come and clean up the Latin? Croutonkid94 15:27, 29 Martii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does already. See the list on our pagina prima under Categoriae in Latinitate iudicanda et recensenda adhibitae..--Rafaelgarcia 15:34, 29 Martii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Little Dots recensere

Hey, is there a way to make the little dots in the corner into links, preferably to formula:latinitas? Then, any curious newbie could click on it and discover our ranking system that doesn't seem to be fully utilized (in my humble opinion). Hey, if we're lucky, maybe we'll even find someone who's interested in being a Latin copy-editor! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 15:51, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I expect there is, but I don't know how to do it!
Any revision that increased the system's user-friendliness would probably be welcomed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:59, 11 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I did it. And in the process, I moved them up higher, because they were burried in the text. But then I realized that it only appears right on my Beta, not on "normal" vicipaedia. It looks too high there. So, I can move it back if I need to. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 01:45, 12 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google translation of this page recensere

Just for your information... this is how Google's machine translation renders the explanations for levels -4 and -5 (italics added by me):

-4 {{latinitas|to reform}}   -4 (Correct), the Latin for this page is correct. If you can, correct or write back. See {{}} in Latin.
and we should correct
-5 {{latinitas|maxcorrigenda}}   -5 (Maxcorrigenda) Latin for this page is greatly improved. If you can, correct or write back. See {{}} in Latin.
and we should correct

It seems that Google's machine-translation feature allows you to submit a better translation. I have done so. 21:27, 4 Martii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latinitas paginae Latinitatis? recensere


  • "Documentationem pristinam transclusam est ex Formula:Latinitas/doc. (recense | historiam inspice)"


  • "Auctores experturos sint in harenarium (crea | effinge) ac testificanda (crea) paginas formulae huius",

sed haudquaquam intellego. Quis me adiuvabit? - Bavarese (disputatio) 12:17, 3 Septembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correxi malam Latinitatem Achilli. Burzuchius (disputatio) 11:48, 11 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inscriptiones ostentae recensere

Aliquas inscriptiones ostentas mutavi (Andrew et ego de inscriptionibus hac formula ostentis apud Disputatio:Civitates Foederatae Americae § {{maxdubium}} loquebamur). --Grufo (disputatio) 20:29, 4 Novembris 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gratias tibi ago, mi Grufo: emendationes tuas commendo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 5 Novembris 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Revertere ad "Latinitas".