Disputatio Usoris:UV/2013

Active discussions

Vide etiam disputationes annorum 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 et 2012.

Ludovicus Carolus Prates et Sanctiacobi BrasiliaeRecensere

Wow, the first message if the year!!! How are you, my dear UV?

Please, can you watch a little these two page I made? I made also the city, so the page of the journalist will not be orphan, ok? Thaks for your help!!!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 11:33, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year! --UV (disputatio) 21:41, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!!! Rex Momo (disputatio) 11:44, 22 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Bassem YoussefRecensere

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae pagine quae feci. Tibi gratias ago.

Rex Momo (disputatio) 12:25, 22 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 21:44, 22 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
... et tibi gratias ago!!! Rex Momo (disputatio) 22:57, 22 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Unblock requestRecensere

I've created Bot page with links to active accounts. --S.M.Samee (disputatio) 19:47, 3 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now unblocked your bot. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:48, 3 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Congregatio Filiorum Amoris MisericordisRecensere

vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvum tempu tuum causae relecturae istae novae pagine, iam scripsi etiam civitate Tudere.

Tibi, sicut semper, gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 20:09, 5 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Bildunterschrift sichbar machen?Recensere

Salve UV! Auf der Seite Portugallia habe ich unter "praecipuae urbes" ein Bild von Porto ins Zentrum gesetzt, allerdings weiß ich nicht, wie ich die Bildunterschrift sichtbar machen kann. Könntest du das Problem vielleicht lösen? Dasselbe Problem besteht beim Bild unter Politia. Mit Dank im voraus.--Utilo (disputatio) 16:53, 9 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Utilo, mit |thumb| wird die Bildunterschrift angezeigt, ich habe das mal im Artikel Portugallia so geändert. Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 23:03, 9 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
Danke! Ich habe bisher geglaubt, durch "thumb" wird das Bild klein; darum habe ich es auch als Gegensatz zu einer bestimmten Größenangabe aufgefasst.--Utilo (disputatio) 08:27, 10 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
Gerne! Mit thumb wird das Bild in der Regel verkleinert, thumb kann aber auch mit einer bestimmten Größenangabe kombiniert werden. An sich stehe ich absoluten Größenangaben (= Größenangaben in Pixeln) eher skeptisch gegenüber, da das, was auf dem eigenen Bildschirm gut ausschaut, nicht immer für andere Bildschirmgrößen mobile Endgeräte, TV-Set-Top-Boxen etc. passt. Wenn die absolute Größenangabe weggelassen wird und ggf. nur upright (ggf. mit Angabe des Skalierungsfaktors, also z. B. upright=0.5 oder upright=2) verwendet wird, dann wird die Bildgröße relativ zu der in den persönlichen Einstellungen gewählten Standardgröße gewählt und sollte daher besser passen als absolute Größenangaben in Pixeln. Nähere Infos: mw:Help:Images oder de:Hilfe:Bilder. Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 08:39, 10 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
Nochmals danke, die Artikel sind sehr hilfreich!--Utilo (disputatio) 12:59, 10 Februarii 2013 (UTC)

Wikimaniae huius anni promovendae qui serviant tituliRecensere

Laurentianus (disputatio) 23:39, 1 Martii 2013 (UTC) UV salutem plurimam!

Vicipaediam ut consuevi pererrans casu incidi in hanc paginam:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013/CentralNotice

Ubi adhortantur, ut tituli quidam Wikimaniam huius anni promoturi quam multipliciter possint convertantur.

Quod quidem libenter feci, verum id inserendi nondum satis peritus precor, tu velis ita facere.

Quem ad finem titulos supradictos tibi hic annexos volui:

  • Wikimaniam anni MMXIII adituri petitote viatica!
  • Ultima petitioni dies fuit a.d. XI. Kalendas Martias.
  • Wikimaniae anni MMXIII adfuturis iam inscribere licet!
  • Adfuturi usque ad pridie Kalendas Maias praenuntianto se venturos!
  • Reddite orationes, disputationes, cooperationes Wikimaniae anni MMXIII proponendos!
  • Reddite orationes, disputationes, cooperationes, quos proponatis!
  • Ultima acceptioni dies erit pridie Kalendas Maias.
  • Iam ad anni MMXIII Wikimaniam inscribere licet!
  • Maturrimis usque ad a.d. IX. Kalendas Maias inscribere licebit. Quisque venturus nunc se inscribito!
  • Wikimania huius anni de a.d. VII usque ad III. Idus Augustas Hongcongi celebrabitur.
  • Wikimania anni MMXIII de a.d. VII usque ad III. Idus Augustas Hongcongi celebrabitur.

Si qua offenderis emendanda, benigne velim corrigas!

Vale!

Salve, Laurentiane! Tu ipse verba tua hic addere potes. In capsam "Subject/headline:", inscribe "la" (lingua Latina), et in capsam magnam subter inscribe ";Program: {{wikimania translation status|la|ready}}" et verba tua. Ut valeas optime! --UV (disputatio) 23:28, 2 Martii 2013 (UTC)
Quod iam inveni atque perfeci. Gratias ago maximas! --Laurentianus (disputatio) 23:47, 2 Martii 2013 (UTC)

Fatoumata DiawaraRecensere

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Haec nova pagina feci, et tibi parvam relecturam peto, please! Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 10:26, 7 Martii 2013 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 23:22, 7 Martii 2013 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 06:43, 8 Martii 2013 (UTC)

SalveRecensere

Guten Tag UV,

ich bin neu bei der lateinischen Wikipedia und habe frei Schnauze den Artikel zum Sassanidenreich aus dem Deutschen übersetzt. Dürfte aber wegen der Kürze der Zeit noch nicht optimal sein, daher wäre es nett, wenn du ihn gegebenenfalls korrigieren könntest.

Gratias ago,

--Autokrator (disputatio) 12:14, 17 Martii 2013 (UTC)

Herzlich willkommen und danke für deine tollen Beiträge! Leider ist das Sassanidenreich nicht mein Spezialgebiet, aber wenn du in der Vicipaedia:Taberna nachfragst, wird sich sicherlich jemand finden, der den Artikel gegenliest. Habe ihn nur kurz stichprobenartig überflogen - alle Achtung! Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 22:49, 17 Martii 2013 (UTC)

Beth CarvalhoRecensere

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae novae paginae quae feci, cum habeas 5 minutos.

Gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 20:19, 2 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 21:49, 2 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

Hilarius AntoniazziRecensere

... et etiam 5 minutos ad legendam hanc paginam peto. Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 21:16, 3 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 22:28, 4 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 13:01, 6 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

Kenethus LapatinRecensere

Ignore me if you have spotted this already. There's something odd about the summarium relating to your last edit at that page: the dataset referred to does not exist. Maybe just a typo? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 7 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

OK, anyway, I found him now by searching at Wikidata: the dataset is d:Q10564915. Lucky he has a rare surname. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 7 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
My impression is that there's usually no way to know, when looking at one of our pages, whether it is recorded at Wikidata or not. The link called "edit links" often fails to appear, and if there happen to be no interwikis yet (as in this case), the link certainly never appears. Is that your impression too, or have I missed something? If so it's a definite inconvenience! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 7 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, my fault for copying the wrong piece of information to the edit summary.
Yes, those two problems (bugzilla:45839 and bugzilla:46229) are inconvenient indeed. Hopefully, at least the last problem will be resolved soon.
  • A workaround for the first problem is to perform a "null edit" on the page (click "Recensere", then click "Servare hanc rem" without having changed anything), this will bring up the "edit links" link.
  • What works reliably in all cases is d:Special:ItemByTitle/lawiki/[you can append the page name here or paste/type it in the text field].
  • You might also find this tool useful: d:Wikidata:Tools#Display Wikidata Info on Wikipedia
Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:49, 7 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, UV, very useful pointers. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:02, 7 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
I installed that tool. Spectacular! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:10, 7 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
... but to get full value from it, I need it to be active on any wikipedia I might visit. I have queued a request at Meta for Synchbot to do this for me (I mean, create a common.js for me everywhere), but I may have to wait some time, I suspect. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:07, 18 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. Depending on your browser, you might get similar results by tweaking your browser configuration (Opera would work, and probably Firefox as well), but a global .js is probably easier.
Hint: I would suggest not directly calling WikidataInfo.js from every single of your common.js files, but to use a central place instead (e. g. meta:User:Andrew Dalby/global.js), like in the two requests just above your request. That way, when it is no longer necessary to use WikidataInfo.js, you can just remove it from your global.js file at meta instead of having to edit every single of your common.js files again. --UV (disputatio) 22:01, 18 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Well, well. I never knew you could do that. So if I set it up in my global.js at meta, synchbot then links it all in for me. Much handier, as you say. I'll do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:20, 19 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
UV, could you very kindly follow my steps to [1] and [2] and see whether what I have done looks right? I am a novice with this stuff :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:34, 19 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Looks perfect! --UV (disputatio) 21:49, 19 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
... and has finally been done today. You might want to re-add Krinkle's Global SUL to your Usor:Andrew Dalby/common.js or to add it to your meta:User:Andrew Dalby/global.js. --UV (disputatio) 22:59, 3 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
d:Special:ItemByTitle/lawiki/ is certainly pretty good, but it didn't work for me yesterday when I tried to find el:Ιωάννης Απόκαυκος. Admittedly one can always make mistakes :) but the page was there all the time, and I couldn't get to it. [This is all just "for the record", of course. The tool to which you directed me is really perfect for what I need.] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 18 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday, there was indeed no Wikidata entry for Apocaucus. d:Special:ItemByTitle/elwiki/Ιωάννης Απόκαυκος = d:Q11321600 was just created a few hours ago by a bot as a reaction to the "classical-style" interwiki links that you added yesterday. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:01, 18 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Ah! No wonder I couldn't find it ... Well, I said that one can always make mistakes! Thanks again, UV. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 19 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

ShaolinRecensere

Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 06:42, 11 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

No problem! --UV (disputatio) 20:31, 11 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

TiriricaRecensere

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae novae pagine quae nunc feci. Comicus ateque politicorum peritus brasilianus est, amicus Shaolin.

Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 09:14, 12 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

Minora mutavi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 21:57, 12 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 22:54, 12 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

Signore delle cimeRecensere

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae novae pagine quae nunc feci. Iam scripsi novam paginam in pagina Arzignani.

Tibi gratias ago adiuti tui.

Rex Momo (disputatio) 10:33, 1 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Historia InfinitaRecensere

Ave UV. De commentationem "Historia Infinita" delebas; nisi memoriarum oblivionibus sit, curiositatis demiro quid commentationem agebat. -- Donatello (disputatio) 02:22, 19 Maii 2013 (UTC).

Salve, Donatello! Commentatio Historia Infinita erat perbrevis et mendorum plenus. Scripsit Usor:85.85.102.220 de libro (vide commentationem apud de.wikipedia: de:Die unendliche Geschichte) solum haec verba: "Historia Infinita est librum qui Michael Ende scripsit, et narra historia pueri qui Bastian appellatus est, qui leget librum". Vale! --UV (disputatio) 07:45, 19 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Video. :) Gratias ago. -- Donatello (disputatio) 11:55, 19 Maii 2013 (UTC).

AaronRecensere

UV, hi! I admire your zealousness for vicipedia. However I am concerned about the removal of the sacerdotes category of Aaron. Your reason is that Aaron is not attested as real. However there is also no attestation that he is not real. I think the removal is inappropriate. Perhaps we should discuss this in the taberna?Jondel (disputatio) 09:38, 28 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jondel, I agree that it is quite possible that Aaron actually lived. We simply do not know, and with most biblical figures (Categoria:Personae Biblicae) very few facts are historically attested. Take for example a look at Categoria:Homines secundum annum natalem – into which millennium would you put Aaron? Therefore, I would prefer to keep those biblical figures that are not historically attested in their own category (Categoria:Personae Biblicae), separate from historically attested people (Categoria:Homines). However, if you would like to stress that Aaron was a sacerdos, I would not object if you would like to create a category Categoria:Sacerdotes Biblicae as a subcategory to Categoria:Personae Biblicae. Feel free to discuss this in the taberna if you like! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:55, 28 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Hello UV! About Aaron's millienium. That of 1597 a. E.C.;(1597 BC; ) from the Interlingua wiki. This is the time Jewish scholars believe he was born. that But I'm not sure if this is acceptible with the rest of the world, specialy the scientific and academic community. About his existence, many many people belive he really existed. In fact, I'm sure it would seem strange to many that he is handled here otherwise( 'fictional'?). Maybe a note can of this can be mentioned(? e.g. nota bene) at the Latin article. It may be possible that Jupiter and other gods existed but were --mortal human-- legendary kings, engineers, etc. of skill and knowledge. The category you propose is great. I will be implementing them. Jondel (disputatio) 06:57, 2 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Great that we have found a solution with the category you created!
Concerning his birth date, you are probably right that mid-2nd millennium BC is not generally accepted, see en:Chronology of the Bible: “[A]ttempts to date Moses […] as real event[] have been unsuccessful. These events and the dates assigned to such events should not be relied upon as historical fact.” Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:02, 2 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Great! Issue resolved! So we can move on. Greetings.Jondel (disputatio) 11:51, 4 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I only just noticed this discussion. Sorry. Being unaware of it, I reworded the category proposed above (Sacerdotes Biblicae) because I thought there might well be more priests whose historicity was uncertain, but not many Biblical ones. As I said in my summarium, I'm far from sure that my category name Categoria:Sacerdotes ideales is the best we can find -- I was just testing, as it were. If it's felt that Sacerdotes Biblicae is better, I'll restore it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:28, 16 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
No objection! --UV (disputatio) 20:36, 16 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

Iosephus de MarziRecensere

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes?

Haec pagina, scriptor Signore delle cime creavi, et tibi parvam relecturam tibi peto. Tibi gratias ago!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 07:49, 6 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Tibi gratias ago! Rei Momo (disputatio) 05:34, 7 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Ioachimus BarreirosRecensere

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes?

Haec pagina a cantore humoristico Portugalliae feci, et tibi peto, please, parvam relecturam, cum 5 minutos habet.

Tibi gratias ago

Rei Momo (disputatio) 06:13, 28 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Societas Parisiensis missionum ad exteras gentesRecensere

Carissime UV, vale!

Haec nova pagina societatis religiosae creavi, et tibi parvam relecturam peto. Necesse tibi est solum 5 minutos. Tibi gratias ago!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 21:20, 6 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO Mundi HereditasRecensere

Hi, UV. There's a discussion at present -- you may have seen -- about category names for UNESCO World Heritage sites (see Categoria:Locus patrimonium UNESCO continente digesta and subcategories). It's likely that a new form of the name will be agreed. This would a bit different, maybe, from the usual category renaming task, because there are many, all of them are small and the names would all have to be changed in the same way. Question: would it be sensible to ask your bot (or any bot) to do that, or is it better to do it manually? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 16 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

UVbot would need to be given a list of all the old category names (I suppose: all category names listed on Special:Prefixindex/Categoria:Locus p), each with the corresponding new category name. If someone cares to prepare this list, moving the categories by bot is easy. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:36, 16 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for dealing with that. You'll see that a fairly long list of changes would result from the proposal I have just made at the Taberna. I'm prepared to make the list :) but how do you feel about these changes: do you have any objections? Are you willing to set UVbot to work on them? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 26 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
If you would be prepared to make the list just as you did for the World Heritage categories, no problem, UVbot can deal with that! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:50, 26 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

Amita SuricaRecensere

Carissime UV, quomodo te habes?

Haec pagina nunca feci et tibi peto parvam relecturam. Tibi magna gratias ago!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 16:10, 17 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

Tibi gratias ago! Rei Momo (disputatio) 15:25, 23 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

PerlentaucherRecensere

Hallo UV, danke, dass du Formula:Perlentaucher in Wikidata eingetragen hast und schön, dass es die Vorlage jetzt auch auf Latein gibt. Nur ein Frage: Warum ersetzt du die numerische ID durch die sperrigen Namen? Beide Angaben sind korrekt und die Nrn. haben den Vorteil, dass man auf einen Blick sieht, wann ein Autor bei Perlentaucher erfasst wurde und wer uns fehlt. (Ist es möglich, bei WD durch einen Qualifikator beide Angaben zu verwenden? Das wäre die sauberste Lösung.) --Kolja21 (disputatio) 22:46, 24 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

PS: Da das Thema vielleicht auch andere interessiert, habe ich einen Thread auf WD gestartet. --Kolja21 (disputatio) 23:24, 24 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Kolja21, ich habe mich (ohne dies zu hinterfragen) an de:Vorlage:Perlentaucher#Links auf Autorenseiten orientiert, wo steht, dass die numerischen Perlentaucher-IDs „teilweise noch funktionieren, aber nicht mehr neu verwendet werden sollten“. Wenn auf Wikidata nur eine Perlentaucher-ID eingetragen ist, dann hat das außerdem den Vorteil, dass die Perlentaucher-ID im Artikel einfach mit {{#property:P866}} abgefragt werden kann, während diese Abfragesyntax bei mehreren hinterlegten Perlentaucher-IDs nicht nur eine ID zurückgibt und man in diesem Fall vermutlich nicht ohne ein eigens programmiertes Lua-Modul auskommen wird, um eine einzelne statt aller Perlentaucher-IDs herauszuschälen. Aber was auch immer bei der Diskussion auf Wikidata herauskommt, soll mir recht sein! Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 09:17, 25 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
Hallo UV, du hast völlig recht, lesen hilft ;) Ich hatte den Hinweistext (vor Ewigkeiten) mal zur Kenntnis genommen, mittlerweile aber festgestellt, dass die Nummern weiterhin vergeben, aber intern umgeleitet werden. Beispiel: de:Carola Saavedra (ID 27411), Rez. vom 2.9.2013. Eine einheitliche Verwendung wäre natürlich schön, aber die Nrn. zu löschen behagt mir nicht, da dann ein Stück Information verloren geht. Ich stelle die Frage mal auf deWP. Vielleicht hat dort jemand eine zündende Idee. Auf jeden Fall schon mal tausend Dank für deine Hilfe! --Kolja21 (disputatio) 14:00, 25 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

Formula:CILRecensere

I wonder if you can help, UV. In copying de:Vorlage:CIL and its two dependent Vorlage at MTBibliophilus's request, I have done something just slightly wrong, as can be seen by comparing our page with theirs. In the second example given on the page, the volume number should appear in Roman numerals: currently it doesn't appear at all. Can you see what's wrong, by any chance? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:06, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

No, it's OK! I take it back! For some reason the example doesn't work correctly, but when you try the same thing on a real page, it works perfectly :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:09, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
When an (example) usage of a template occurs on the template page itself (as opposed to a /doc subpage), saving the template may result in the previous version of the template still in use on the template page itself. Performing a null edit (= clicking "edit", then "save" without making any changes) resolves the problem and causes the current version of the template to be used on the template page as well. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:08, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Societas Cantantium VindobonensisRecensere

Nunc illud est questus melius? Mutato nomine placet!

Societas canentium Vindobonae >> Societas Cantantium Vindobonensis

--Sine diligentiam (disputatio) 00:22, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Salve, amice! Nescio an nomen vertendum sit, vide Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 14:45, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Salve, amice! Bevor es untergeht, versuche ich es auf deutsch: der Artikel sollte in einen sogenannten neuen Artikel-Namensraum verschoben werden.
Allerdings sollte das unter Berücksichtigung der Entstehungsgeschichte erfolgen. Das kann offenbar nur ein Fachmann erledigen, einem gewöhnlichen Sterblichen scheint das verwehrt zu sein. Bitte also verschieben nach Societas Cantantium Vindobonensis, und die Versionsgeschichte importieren. Oder soll man den Artikel unter dem verbesserten Namen neu anlegen und wird dann der alte gelöscht? Ich ersuche um freundliche Belehrung! Gratias agere! --Sine diligentiam (disputatio) 12:19, 28 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Hallo! Verschieben kann jeder Sterbliche, der schon zumindest vier Tage lang angemeldet ist. (Ausführliche deutschsprachige Infos dazu gibt es in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia: de:Hilfe:Seite verschieben). Da das bei dir erst in einigen Stunden der Fall sein wird, habe einstweilen ich den Artikel (ordnungsgemäß) verschoben. Ich bin aber nicht sicher, ob der von dir vorgeschlagene neue Titel optimal ist: Die lateinischsprachige Wikipedia verfolgt die Leitlinie, keine Namen zu erfinden. Da ich nicht glaube, dass es bereits (außerhalb der lateinischsprachigen Wikipedia) einen Beleg für einen lateinischen Namen für den Wr. Singverein gibt, müsste man eventuell als unstrittigen Titel statt einer frei übersetzten lateinischen Bezeichnung die deutschsprachige Bezeichnung Wiener Singverein wählen. Sei also nicht überrascht, wenn vielleicht ein anderer Benutzer den Artikel nochmals verschiebt. Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 21:18, 28 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Zeca PagodinusRecensere

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto pèarvam relecturam istae novae paginae quae creavi. Solum 5-6 minutos...

Tibi gratias ago

Rei Momo (disputatio) 09:38, 5 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 20:51, 5 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
... et tibi gratias ago! Rei Momo (disputatio) 22:41, 5 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

PeripterosRecensere

Salve UV! Ich habe eben technisch gesehen Mist gebaut: Ohne es zu bemerken habe ich eine Dublette eines Artikels produziert, den ich früher schon begonnen hatte (Aedes peripteros und Peripteros). Als ich es endlich bemerkte, habe ich die die fehlenden Inhalte auf Peripteros übertragen und eine Weiterleitung gemacht. Das Problem: Die interwiki-links bleiben beim früheren Artikel. Kannst du das reparieren? Danke!--Utilo (disputatio) 20:16, 9 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Habe ich gerne gemacht! Die Interwikilinks sind neuerdings größtenteils nicht mehr in jeder einzelnen Wikipedia, sondern zentral auf Wikidata gespeichert. Wikipedia-Artikel, die mit einem Wikidata-Eintrag verbunden sind, haben in der Toolbox (linke Spalte, "Instrumenta") einen Link "Res Wikidata". Wenn Du da draufklickst, kommst Du zum entsprechenden Eintrag auf Wikidata (in diesem Fall war das d:Q60138), wo du das Linkziel korrigieren, löschen oder ergänzen kannst. Dann braucht man nur noch den Wikipedia-Artikel neu zu laden und die Änderung ist vollzogen. Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 21:45, 9 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Vielen Dank! Ich werde es mir merken.--Utilo (disputatio) 08:50, 10 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

ToquinusRecensere

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Haec pagina feci et tibi parvam relecturam peto, atque opinionem tuam de titulo: sicut Zeca Pagodinus Latine cognomen eius scripsi. Iustum est puto.

Tibi gratias ago.

Rei Momo (disputatio) 13:07, 11 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Remaining decennium pagesRecensere

Hi, UV. I noticed that about 120 decennium pages still exist (visible via Specialis:Categoriae desideratae). Were you planning to delete them when you have time? Or shall I do them? Or is there other work to do before they can be deleted? No hurry, just wondering ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 30 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me! I have now deleted all decennium pages except those 67 that have incoming links and/or some content. A list can be found at Special:Prefixindex/Decennium. If you would like to help (change incoming links, move contents to saeculum page, then delete decennium page), please go ahead! Otherwise, I will deal with these pages when I have time. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:29, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a go at revising incoming links on some of the earlier decennia. We may yet decide (see below and the point made by Lesgles) to retain hand-made pages for the most recent decennia under whatever name seems best. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Sure, we should probably keep the contents of Decennium 199 (possibly minus the events of the year 1990) under a suitable name. --UV (disputatio) 20:51, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
All but seven are now done. Given the number of links, it makes sense (I think) to retain the seven pages for Decennium 184 to Decennium 190 inclusive, renaming them "Anni 1830" to "Anni 1890" as Neander did for the 20th century, and then substing them as I did (with major adjustments by UVbot) for the 20th century. The only question is, shall I start the job, or can UV + UVbot more expeditiously do it all? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:08, 30 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Fine! I have now adapted these seven pages accordingly. This leaves us only with seven more pages to deal with (Decennium 164, Decennium 174, Decennium 175, Decennium 177, Decennium 178, Decennium 179 and Decennium 183). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:55, 30 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
How did I miss those? I could have sworn I'd done them all! Perhaps you will do Decennium 183 as you have just done its neighbour. In the other six cases I'll adjust the links and eliminate them, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 31 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Perfect! --UV (disputatio) 10:03, 31 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

DecenniaRecensere

What's going on with the wholesale destruction of the decennia? When you get to the last few centuries (if you get that far), you'll be turning hundreds of blue links red. The pattern involving decennium is obvious, logical, and especially in view of the attested words biennium, triennium, and decennium, reasonably Latinate. The alternative with annus makes no sense, except perhaps to those wanting to impose on Latin (a calque of) the syntax of certain modern-day languages. (Neither way seems to be Ciceronian.) The pattern with decennium couldn't be clearer:

annus 12 = 12
decennium 12 = 111120
saeculum 12 = 11011200
millennium 12 = 11,001–12,000.

It's a pattern just as regular and self-explanatory as mensura metrica; e.g., 0.3 meter = 3 decimeters = 30 centimeters = 300 millimeters. In contast, annis 30—which is annis 30 p.C.n., remember—would appear to mean 'in the thirty years after the birth of Christ', whereas it's being proposed to define a range outside that span: 'from 30 to 39'. ¶ If you want an alternative to, say, decennio 197, perhaps decennio septimo saeculi vicensimi would convey the desired sense unambiguously: 'in the seventh decade of the twentieth century'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:06, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Si "decennium 197" (etc.) dictio aliis virtute superior esset, demiror, cur non sit ubique usu recepta. Non nego istam dictionem exactam et logicam esse. Attamen inter linguas quas cognovimus insolita atque idiosyncratica esse videtur. Hoc, mi Iacobe, velim respicias: Vicipaediae non esse alios Latinistas consiliis antecedere — nam quis audeat dicere Latinitatem apud nos omnino exemplarem esse? — sed potius usui Latine peritorum obsequi. Quod ad dictionem a te in quaestionem vocatam attinet, nonne praestat uti constructionibus, quas in philologorum Latine peritorum scriptis invenimus? Ex Nuntiis Latinis huius anni haec duo excerpsi exempla (quibus nixus equidem illam "destructionem massalem" passus sum):
  1. "Constat illum honorem [q.e. heros laboris] annis nonagesimis, postquam Unio Sovietica collapsa est, oblitteratum et memoria privatum esse" (Nuntii Latini, 12 Apr. 2013);
  2. "Higgs iam annis sexagesimis particulam elementarem in rerum natura esse praedixit, cuius ope explicaretur, cur omnis materia massam haberet" (Nuntii Latini, 11 Oct. 2013)
Affirmo nullam rationem mihi esse cum Nuntiis Latinis! Neander (disputatio) 06:08, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Utile erit, fortasse, lectio disputationis Formulae:Decennium. Locutionem "decennium 12 = 111120" "self-explanatory" esse nego! Possumus pro certo, sicut monet Lesgles, paginas de decenniis recentibus et notabilibus (si re vera sint) retinere sub appellatione idonea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:38, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
As Neander pointed out, the notion "decennium 198 == the years 1971 to 1980", although perfectly logical, is very uncommon (cf. d:Q35014). Thus, it appears to violate our "noli fingere" rule. A few arguments for and against can be found at Disputatio Formulae:Decennium#Is it true? and at Disputatio Usoris:Neander#de paginis decenniorum. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:00, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

ThanksRecensere

Thanks very much for the work on "X per Y digesti" etc. etc. They kept on turning up! I see no reason to move those exceptional ones where Y is an essentially singular concept: I think the ablative is correct, and perhaps better, in those cases. So I think the job is just about finished ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:19, 30 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

No problem! If more turn up, just tell me and I will deal with them as well. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:26, 30 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "UV/2013".