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)