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

Capsae urbium etc.Recensere

Happy 2020, UV. I missed the discussion on the Taberna till now: I have just commented. I think your proposal is very good indeed, just what we need.

This is a side-issue: We have previously discussed the problem of the "Locus" element, which occurs on the capsa urbis and also in the {{Fontes geographici}} formula. The bug that causes it to lead to an almost-blank page hasn't been cured. I don't know whether UVbot could help to alleviate this irritation on our pages. Here's an executive summary:

  • Many pages about settlements contain the Capsa urbis, and many more will soon contain it. I believe the only way a Wikidata capsa can be made to include a link to maps is to use this unhelpful "Locus" element.
  • Many pages about settlements contain {{Fontes geographici}}, which also uses the "Locus" element: many pages therefore provide this element twice, and the number doing so will increase.
  • Some pages about settlements contain a {{Coord}} formula, not linked to Wikidata. This shows at the top of the page and sends people straight to the GeoHack page, which is far more helpful.

Two things we might do in an ideal world, either of which would improve our pages:

  • Add {{Fontes geographici}} under "Nexus externi" to all pages containing the Capsa urbis. (On pages without a "Nexus externi", it might still be added at the foot of the page above any navboxes and stipula templates.)
  • Add a Coord template to all pages containing the Capsa urbis. It can be added anywhere on the page, but it would have to be filled in initially from information at Wikidata or GeoHack. I have a feeling we discussed something like this long ago, and you weren't in favour at that time because of the question of reliability of Wikidata.

If either of these things could be done, I would then remove the "Locus" element from the Capsa urbis. Do you have any comments or suggestions? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:06, 10 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
The bug that affects the maplink on {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}} and {{Fontes geographici}} is indeed nasty. We discussed about it here and you filed a very good bug report at phabricator:T225350, however the bug has not been resolved yet. I have now contacted the author of the Kartographer extension and asked him to look into this issue.
Once this bug will be fixed, here are some proposals on what we might do:
  • We might adapt both {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}} and {{Fontes geographici}} so that these templates will display the maplink not (or not only) within the infobox or within the Fontes geographici box, but will (instead or additionally) display the maplink in the place (at the top of the page) where currently {{Coord}} displays its maplink. Then, at the same time, we could/should remove {{Coord}} from all articles containing {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}} or {{Fontes geographici}}. Advantage: We would not have to maintain coordinates for cities ourselves any more (within the {{Coord}} template), but those coordinates would come from Vicidata.
  • While it would not be too difficult to follow your proposal to add {{Fontes geographici}} under "Nexus externi" to all pages containing {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}}, we might alternatively follow a different road: We might consider to add all the links currently present in {{Fontes geographici}} to a section of {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}}, and afterwards remove {{Fontes geographici}} from all articles where {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}} is present.
Perhaps we should for now wait for the bug to be resolved, and afterwards discuss on the best way to follow? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:23, 11 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
I agree, those are good possibilities. I might have thought of combining {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}} with {{Fontes geographici}} myself ... but I never did! I agree, the best time to make these changes will be after the bug is fixed, and I am glad you have tried another way of making that happen.
There are many pages (e.g. for archaeological sites) on which "Fontes geographici" correctly appears and "Capsa urbis Vicidata" does not. When the bug is fixed, we can consider how best to improve those pages too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:54, 11 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Finally, maplinks work again! --UV (disputatio) 20:20, 20 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Amazing! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:41, 20 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Mutationes textusRecensere

Latinista sum et rogo te, ne mutes textum meum. Si autem conspexeris aliquem errorem, scribe mihi et problema solvemus. Noli etiam mutare numeros, nam Romani numeri meliores esse mihi videtur. Saluto. Anyte Anna AnyteAnna (disputatio) 13:10, 2 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Gaudeo, ut tu Latinista, AnyteAnna, ad Vicipaediam admeliorandam hic contribuis! Vicipaedia est opus commune quo encyclopaedia libera interretialis creatur. Quisque ad commentationes admeliorandas contribuere potest. De more vicipaediano quaeso ut legas Vicipaedia:De orthographia (habemus plus quam 130 000 commentationes, et uniformitas orthographiae commentationum lectoribus Vicipaediae prodest). Spero te nobiscum ad Vicipaediam admeliorandam laboraturam! Ut valeas optime! --UV (disputatio) 20:46, 2 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

DiocesesRecensere

Thank you for pointing out the remaining categories with similar titles: you're right, of course. I have been thinking we might prune the tree-structure of the Italian dioceses, and also of the titular dioceses, so, for the present, let's leave those the way they are. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:27, 10 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Fine, no problem! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:58, 10 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata amusementRecensere

I thought this would amuse you: I doubt there's any way to prevent it giving us an occasional surprise. If someone at Wikidata adds to a certain statement, from which we draw information, a category name where a pagename is expected, our own Latin page is immediately placed in that category. You can see the effect at Bezirk Mitte (regio Berolinensis), which currently is unremovably in the category "Pera", because, to the list of "twin towns" on Wikidata, Categoria:Pera has been added. I left it there intentionally (having deleted two similar instances) for you to see ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 13 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is strange indeed. In this case, there was a second problem: Our Categoria:Pera was connected to the wrong wikidata item. Our Categoria:Pera was connected to the wikidata item d:Q217411 comprising en:Beyoğlu, tr:Beyoğlu, etc., and not to the wikidata item d:Q9852835 comprising en:Category:Beyoğlu, tr:Kategori:Beyoğlu etc. I have now connected our Categoria:Pera to the latter instead of the former, which solved the problem for now. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:27, 13 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Seiten verschmelzen und umbenennenRecensere

Salve UV, wie du schon bemerkt hast, habe ich wieder begonnen, da und dort in der Wikipedia zu arbeiten. Leider habe ich während meiner langen Pause einiges vergessen, was das Handwerkszeug betrifft. Ich habe eine pagina discretiva "Legenda" erstellt, dann aber gesehen, dass der Eintrag für "Legende" durch die pagina nondum stipula "legendum" besetzt ist. Legendum ist ohne Zweifel nicht gut, aber den Artikel sollte es geben. Es schiene mir sinnvoll, aus der pagina discretiva einen ganz "normalen" Artikel "legenda" zu machen (auch) mit den Infos, die dort sind. Das ist wohl kein Problem, indem ich "discretiva" lösche. Wie bekomme ich aber die links zu den Sprachen, die mit "legendum" verbunden sind, auf diese Seite? Was passiert genau, wenn ich auf der Seite "legendum" einfach "redirect" auf "legenda" mache? Eine Variante wäre es außerdem, die pagina discretiva umzubenennen und einen neuen Artikel "legenda" anzulegen. Ich bin mir aber auch da nicht klar, wie das geht. Danke für deine Hilfe im voraus.Utilo (disputatio) 16:50, 20 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)

Salve Utilo, schön, dass Du wieder da bist! Die Links zu den anderen Sprachen habe ich jetzt so geändert, dass sie nicht mehr mit Legendum, sondern mit Legenda verbunden sind. Das habe ich auf "Wikidata" gemacht - fast alle Seiten haben in der linken Spalte einen Link zu "Res Wikidata") – konkret hier: d:Q44342#sitelinks-wikipedia. Jetzt kannst Du problemlos bei Legenda das {{discretiva}} wegnehmen und aus Legendum eine Weiterleitung (Redirect) auf Legenda machen.
Seiten umzubenennen, würde über "Movere" funktionieren. Das findest Du oben auf der Seite, meist hinter dem Knopf "Plura" versteckt.
Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 23:59, 20 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für deine Hilfe. Noch zwei Fragen: Um bei "Res Wikidata" etwas zu ändern, muss ich mich offenbar einloggen - geht das mit den Zugangsdaten der lateinischen Wikipedia? Und: Muss ich vor der Weiterleitung die Inhalte von "Legendum" löschen?Utilo (disputatio) 14:23, 21 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
Nichts zu danken! Ja, das Einloggen bei Wikidata funktioniert (wenn es nicht überhaupt gleich automatisch erfolgt) mit den gleichen Zugangsdaten wie auf la.wikipedia. Und um eine Weiterleitung von Legendum auf Legenda zu erstellen, ersetzt Du einfach alle Inhalte der Seite Legendum durch "#REDIRECT [[Legenda]]" (ohne die Anführungszeichen). Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 20:34, 21 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)

usuarius, usorRecensere

Salvē, UV, videō tē hodiē ēmendātiōnēs meās abrogāsse, ubi usor in usuarium corrēxeram, hāc annotātiōne: ""usor" is currently consistently used throughout the translations". Illud cum vērum sit, hocc etiam vērum: linguam Latīnam vōce qe. ūsor prōrsus carēre, eamque vōcem esse barbarolexim dē linguā Anglicā temere ductum, aegrēque ad consuētūdinem Latīnī sermōnis immūtātam (poterant enim "user, usris" conficere), ā nescio·quō (suspicor nōn ā singulō in historiā) scrībā quī tam male sermōnem Latīnum scīret ut nē vōcem ūsuāriī quidem nōsset. Nisi modo lāpsus est. Explānā quaesō tuam mentem et ratiōnem. Sī ego istam vōcem in nūllō lexicō invēnī, neque crēdō rēs apud tē aliter habērī. Potestne fierī ut rēvērā crēdās probandum istud verbum barbarum ac ēmentītum prae eō plānē Latīnō ac diuturnō ūsū consecrātō quod est ūsuārius? Brutal Russian (disputatio) 17:26, 16 Maii 2020 (UTC)

Usor has always looked strange to me, but it has wikipedian tradition behind it. Usuarius may be unsuitable because it's already a technical term in the law, denoting a person who has the use of a thing belonging to someone else (hence English usuary). I'd have thought the most idiomatic Latin might have been utens, modeled on docens 'teacher', from docere (hence English docent). Also, the English nouns penitent (from Latin paenitens) and regent (from Latin regens) suggest a pattern, though English *usent seems to be lacking. That uti is deponent may be the underlying problem. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:34, 16 Maii 2020 (UTC)
Italian at least has utente, along with docente, penitente and - not regente, but: - regnante.Utilo (disputatio) 21:47, 16 Maii 2020 (UTC)
Macte! English also has agent from Latin agens, reagent from later Latin reagens, and stimulant perhaps from stimulans. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:18, 17 Maii 2020 (UTC)
Iacobus recte "Utens" bonis rationibus suis proponit. Rationes alias addere possum:
  • Non de munere loquimur, sicut scriptoris vel braxatoris, sed de labore quem omnes horis idoneis suscipere possunt, sicut horis idoneis comedunt, ambulant, scribunt, legunt. Huic sensu participium praesens bene convenit.
  • "Utens" genus tam femininum quam masculinum -- atque etiam neutrum -- possidet: ergo collaborantibus masculinis, femininis, automatis, illisque pluribus qui naturam suam non patefaciunt aequaliter convenit. Exempli gratia, "UVbot" neque usor neque usuaria est, sed certe systemate Vicipaedico utitur.
Sed quomodo verbum mutabimus? An difficile erit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 17 Maii 2020 (UTC)
De his, nisi fallor, iam antea alicubi disputavimus. Usor, quamquam a forma et figura linguae Latinae minime abhorret, lacunam inopinatam facit systematis linguae. Qua omissa lacuna Vicipaediani usore utuntur (aut usi sunt), non aliter quam antiquorum omisso more et usu verbo q.e. specimen etiam in plurali utuntur. Siquidem morem antiquorum imitari volumus, rectius est usore non uti. Usuarium improbamus, et quidem ea ratione quam Iacobus noster supra reddidit. Utens cogitari potest sed timeo, ut absolute dici possit (i.e. qua utens re?). Quibus de causis iam dudum propositum est, ut conlatore / collatore utamur. Neander (disputatio) 09:45, 17 Maii 2020 (UTC)
... systemate Vicipaedico utens: id iam dixi. Sed melius fortasse Particeps. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:07, 17 Maii 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for your arguments. I gather from these arguments and this discussion that (while usor is not the best choice) there is currently no consensus that usuarius is to be preferred over other possible alternative proposals such as utens, conlator/collator or particeps.
It would mean lots of work to change usor to a different term in each and every place where it is used in the localization of the MediaWiki software. And changing the namespace name (= the "Usor:" or "Disputatio Usoris:" part of page titles) is not at all a trivial task and is definitely not something to be changed lightly. The easiest thing to do is therefore to stick with usor for now, until we may find the ideal term. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:50, 18 Maii 2020 (UTC)

Template:Tree chartRecensere

Salve UV! Gibt es in der Vicipaedia Latina eine Entsprechung zum template "tree chart", um einen Stammbaum machen zu können?--Utilo (disputatio) 15:33, 21 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Lieber Utilo, ich fürchte nein (und en:Template:Tree chart ist leider auch eine ziemlich komplizierte Vorlage, die nämlich technisch ein Lua-Modul der englischen Wikipedia verwendet, mit dem sich hier auf la.wikipedia leider niemand wirklich auskennt …) Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 20:16, 21 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Schade, trotzdem danke!--Utilo (disputatio) 20:35, 21 Iunii 2020 (UTC)