Vide etiam disputationes annorum 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 et 2020.

De siglis DOI etc.Recensere

Salve, UV! Responsum tuum de opinione, quam hodie apud Iacobum scripsi, volenter legem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 19 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Responsum dedi. Ut valeas optime! --UV (disputatio) 23:10, 19 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Bild hochladenRecensere

Salve! Ich schreibe zwar schon länger in "Vicipaedia la", bin in technicis aber ganz unerfahren. Deshalb meine Bitte um Hilfe: Ich möchte auf die Seite "Septem dormientes" das Bild von der Kirche in Rotthof hochladen, das sich auf der deutschen Seite "Sieben Schläfer von Ephesus" befindet. Ich habe schon in der "disputatio" gebeten, ob das nicht jemand übernehmen könnte; das tat aber niemand. Mit meinen eigenen Versuchen kam ich nicht weiter. Wenn Du mir also verraten könntest, wie man das macht, wäre mir sehr geholfen. Multis te impertiens salutationibus.--Bavarese (disputatio)Bavarese

OK? :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:45, 8 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)
Salve, Bavarese, et gratias Iacobo, qui celeriter adiuvit! Das mit dem Hochladen von Bildern ist tatsächlich nicht trivial - im vorliegenden Fall war aber das Bild bereits auf commons: vorhanden - und alle Bilder, die sich dort befinden, können von jeder Wikipedia unmittelbar verwendet werden. Ut valeas optime! --UV (disputatio) 21:35, 8 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)
Negotiis - et iucundis et iniucundis - diu impeditus hodie tandem gratias vobis ago plurimas, qui subito succurreritis. Ut bene valeatis! --Bavarese (disputatio)
Feci irregulariter ... Da veniam, UV. Et ego interdum aberam. Maximo gaudio te denuo revenisse certior fio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:02, 14 Novembris 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation toolRecensere

Hello Friend,

Apologies as this message is not in your native language.

The WMF language team is reaching out to you based on your position as an admin in the Latin Wikipedia. In particular, we want to learn about your experience, the issues you encounter with articles created with Content translation.

We appreciate the great work you are doing in Latin Wikipedia to ensure standard and quality articles are not compromised. However, it is a big task to encounter content that is not standard daily, and a difficult decision to delete them because they fall below standard.

Our observations

We noticed that articles created with the Content Translation tool in your wiki are deleted more frequently than in other Wikipedias. We say this because, from our statistics, 5360 articles were added to Latin Wikipedia in 2020. Out of the above figure, only 68 of them were translated using the Content Translation tool. 17 of the articles added with Content translation were deleted. Therefore, the tool's low usage and the deletion rate signals a problem or deficiencies peculiar to your Wikipedia. The Content Translation tool can increase content creation in your Wikipedia and is an excellent way to efficiently introduce newcomers to adding content and expand on existing ones.

Our request

So, we want you to participate in a survey. The survey will give us insight into how we can improve the tool to get quality articles and reduce the number of deletion, hence making your work easier.

Please follow this link to the Survey:

Take the Survey
To know how the information collected from the survey will be used, please read the Privacy Statement.

If you are not comfortable with taking the survey, that is fine. You can still provide us with feedback in this thread or via email on the following questions:

  • What makes the articles created with content translation fall below standard in your Wikipedia?
  • What are the common mistakes that editors that use content translation make?
  • How do you think we can improve the  Content Translation tool that will help you with your work or make your task easier and reduce deletion of articles in Latin Wikipedia?

So please, feel free to give us feedback in any way that is most convenient for you.

Thank you so much, as we look forward to your response

UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 21 Iunii 2021 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF language team.

Reminder: Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation toolRecensere

Hello Friend!

The WMF Language team earlier reached out to you to participate in a survey to give us insight into improving the Content Translation tool to make your work as an admin easier. Towards improving the quality of content in your Wikipedia and avoiding the case of content deletion.

Again, we are reaching out to you as a reminder to Take the Survey as the survey will close on 9th July 2021 (23:59 UTC). The survey will only take you between 10 to 15 minutes. Please read the Privacy Statement to know how the information collected from the survey will be used.

If you already took the survey- thank you! You don't need to retake it.

Thank you, as we look forward to your response.

UOzurumba (WMF) 19:17, 6 Iulii 2021 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF Language team.

De harenariis utentiumRecensere

Hi, UV, and welcome back. In case you wished to give an opinion for or against Klein Muçi's proposal for a Personal sandbox extension, feel free to do so! As you will see there, I think this could be useful to some and I cannot see any disadvantage.

If you have time, you will maybe glance at other recent discussions with Klein Muçi. Of the ideas that he has put forward, I have encouraged him to use Internet Archive bot here -- I think it could help a lot to restore external links to life. I have said frankly that I'm quite uncertain whether converting bibliography entries into templates is a good idea: I'm still uncertain. Your wider knowledge of the technical context and of other projects would help, I'm sure. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 17 Novembris 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the "personal sandbox link", I do not see any disadvantages other than those listed on the page mw:Extension:SandboxLink in paragraph 3. I do not know whether these disadvantages should be considered severe/significant, but I suspect that they are usually not.
Bibliography entries, now: My observation is that there is not a single uniform standard on wikipedia (not even on the English wikipedia, let alone on wikipedias in general) on how bibliography entries should be presented to the reader, let alone how they should be formatted by the editor (using wikitext or using templates). I suspect that wikitext makes is easier for "readers to become editors" than a complex system of templates. That said, I would not want to invest huge amounts of time in any system of bibliography templates myself at present.
Bibliography entries, possibly someday in the future: Wikidata already today contains an abundant number of Wikidata items on books, magazine articles, etc. If there is one good strategy on how to deal with bibliography entries on Wikipedia, in my view this strategy would need to make use of the material already present on Wikidata, in a manner similar to en:Template:Cite Q (without its " |expand=yes" functionality). However, en:Template:Cite Q seems to be not yet really accepted on en.wikipedia, therefore I am still hoping that one day, in say five or ten years, such a functionality will be centrally provided for all wikipedias (via a MediaWiki extension or via a possible future central repository for gadgets, templates and Lua modules), i.e. without the need to copy gadgets/templates/modules here and to regularly update them manually.
Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:07, 17 Novembris 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for commenting. I hadn't noticed the warning (your link above) about late loading of the extension leading to mis-clicks. I understand: it is a potential disadvantage, but it's hard to judge in advance how serious the effect would be. I mentioned it to Klein Muci on my talk page. If the extension is installed and this is really a problem, others will certainly point it out.
On bibliography entries, now I agree with you -- complex templates repel occasional editors and clutter the edit screen. In addition, they encourage the addition of unnecessary and false details to fill an empty space: it happens a great deal on en:wiki. A substantive proposal about this needs to be discussed by all active editors ... I suspect few if any would be in favour. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:31, 18 Novembris 2021 (UTC)
en:Template:Cite Q works well on the two [en:wiki] pages given as examples, especially with Harvard-type citations giving specific page references in footnotes. That's impressive: a vision of the future. How long it would take to get each reference, via Wikidata, into its place on each page, I can hardly judge. Not to mention getting it into Wikidata if it isn't there already. And a casual editor, making a useful correction and wanting to add a reference, surely couldn't do it that way. Well, it's something we can watch as it develops. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:56, 18 Novembris 2021 (UTC)
... and now I have looked at what goes on with "|expand=yes". If I'm correct, this has be done if (for example) the editor wants to reverse surnames and first names. Laborious, easy to make mistakes, easy to produce an inconsistent bibliography. How simple the pagenames of Wikipedia are (except the Russian ones) because, unlike all other reference sources at the time, we just wrote names the way they really are. What a pity that the English-language style manuals didn't learn this lesson from us :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 19 Novembris 2021 (UTC)