Aperire sectionem principem

Should we have an english version of this as well as a latin one?--Ioshus Rocchio 23:33, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC)

As always: Yes. ;-) However, we should have two templates which
  • tell about the situation ("this article has a translation into xx") and
  • build a parent-child relation between source and translation ("this article is a translation of").
The reader should know that he updates a translation when he does.
Naming conventions? A postfix "(de)" would clash with a translation of a page "title (context)", maybe a subpage "/de" or all translations in the "Vicipaedia" namespace? Translations will increase the article count, if in the main namespace. I do not know if a subpage counts as an article. BTW ... we should move this discussion to maybe Vicipaedia:Translatio ;-) --Roland2 05:55, 31 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Vide etiam or Vide Etiam?Recensere

From Disputatio Usoris:Rolandus:

[...] what about lowercase/uppercase with Vide etiam? I've just found Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (anglice) but the question is not answered there. [...] --Roland2 02:42, 24 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
We don't have an official answer for that. I personally prefer upercase. [...] --Iustinus 00:08, 25 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Disputatio tabernaeRecensere

Vide disputationem hanc. --Achillus 09:00, 19 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== XX == an ==XX==?Recensere

Video titulos interpositos ad gustum Americanum nunc mutatos esse et eo facto vim normativam consecuturos. Per me licet si libet, dummodo ne quis hanc "formam exemplarem" invocans meum usum (posthac ex definitione non exemplarem) corrigat. Neander (disputatio) 15:19, 13 Martii 2013 (UTC)

Not every challenge to good taste comes out of North America!
1. It doesn't matter: the code works either way.
2. Codingwise, shorter is more elegant and therefore better.
3. Electrons are cheap, but then garbage is still garbage.
Both ways are probably fine for now (until that happy day when a bot removes all the spatial garbage, including the use of two, three, four, or more spaces where one suffices), but the more elegant way is probably a better ideal. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:56, 13 Martii 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't see this one as North American. So far as I know, Iacobus is the only Wikipedian who prefers ==XX==, but one has to admire the assiduity with which he argues for it.
I have a question about the dots, Iacobus. You often put a dot (full stop, period) at the end of a caption, footnote reference, bibliographical entry, etc., and you've put some in on this page. The style guides known to me forbid that: they say that captions, etc., not consisting of a full sentence do not call for terminal punctuation. Are those dots of yours not, therefore, inelegant garbage (to borrow your own trenchant words)? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 13 Martii 2013 (UTC)
Iam disputavimus hic: Disputatio Usoris:UV/2008#Page format, Usor:IacobusAmor/Disputata anni 2008#Sectiones paginarum, Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 15#Xqbot's typographical judgment. --UV (disputatio) 21:10, 13 Martii 2013 (UTC)
As for dots at the end of picture captions, I have also up to now tended to remove them when I encountered them, unless the picture caption forms a complete sentence. In my view, they are simply unnecessary and do not contribute to readability (rather on the contrary). What do others think? --UV (disputatio) 21:16, 13 Martii 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that there wasn't consensus for those two changes (the ==XX== thing and the final dots) so I have changed them back, while retaining Iacobus's other updates. Plenty of room for discussion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 15 Martii 2013 (UTC)

Placement of Nexus interniRecensere

What's the rationale for overturning Vicipaedia's received style and putting the Nexus interni below the Notae? The result is an increasing degree of inconsistency—which can't be corrected by a program the way the changeover from "Vide etiam" to "Nexus interni" can be. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:52, 27 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

All I did here was re-label Nexus Interni. To be honest, I didn't look at anything else. So if this page doesn't conform to the most recent discussions about style, go ahead and correct it -- ideally, with pointers on the talk page here, because those discussions seem to proliferate. In other words, if you have a better sense than I do of The Rules, you can do a service by clarifying the documentation! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:37, 27 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
The order "Notae ... Bibliographia ... Vide etiam [now Nexus interni] ... Nexus externi" was confirmed in December 2011 after quite a long discussion (linked here). It was duly applied to this consilium page by Neander on 18 December 2011, and Achillus (above) inserted a link to the discussion. At that time I changed my own practice (it wasn't my first choice, but I fully agree it's logical) and I've been applying it on other pages I have significantly edited ever since. I don't think I've seen any later discussion. We do still have a lot of inconsistency (as I said on the Taberna on 25 July) but I claim to have been working to reduce it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:53, 28 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I must have been distracted during most of that discussion, though a couple of my comments do appear there. Unless I missed it just now, nobody seems to have pointed out the original, dispositive reason that vide etiams (now nexus interni) should appear above bibliographies: first, articles give (1) a text, containing (2) intrawiki links, and (3) listed intrawiki leaks—and only then do articles send readers away, out of the system, to (4) notes, (5) bibliographies, (6) extrawiki links, and (7) so forth. The listed intrawiki links are of course the nexus interni, and the intra–extra distinction is why they should go above notes, bibliographies, and nexus externi—as they still do in the articles in the English wiki that have invited yours truly's translating ministrations. ¶ In small wikis, like this one, deleting nexus interni in one article will often make orphans of other articles. (Indeed, it has been observed to have done so.) Ideally, perhaps, most nexus interni should be unnecessary, but until the number of articles has grown drastically, by an order of magnitude or more, they'll continue to serve a useful function: the parenting of orphans. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:01, 28 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
As to the order, I follow your argument, but other arguments are possible (and, I guess, prevailed in 2011), and I don't honestly have the appetite for another change ... do you? [Added afterwards: I justify the current order in my own mind by saying that notes and bibliography make reference to information that should be relevant and reliable, whereas, when it comes to internal and external links, caveat lector. But that's just me.]
As to the justification for Nexus interni, I am with you 100%: we need them for a very long time yet. Yes, it's quite true that they are the quickest way to make a link to an orphaned article ... but not a permanent way. I think such links, just like others, will be incorporated in the text if really useful, and, if not useful, will be deleted by the editor who reaches that conclusion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:20, 28 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Re-reading that 2011 discussion, we perhaps need to pursue a point you raised -- many bibliography items are visible on line, so what distinction do we make in practice between bibliography and nexus externi? Your point is even more valid now than it was then. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:35, 28 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
In my mind, the nexus interni section is at best a memo or check list of links potentially pertinent to a full-grown article. This is the principle that I have followed in those articles I have augmented. Ideally, an exhaustive article does not need the internal links section at all. ¶ In practice, we (still) have a huge lot of articles whose nexus interni contain links already referred to in the main text. Such a duplication of information -- even triplication if the article contains tables -- scarcely serves any useful purpose. Often enough, the nexus interni consist of a haphazard heap of links that seem to have been collected by means of a stream-of-consciousness technique. Also, the quality of the nexus externi sections leaves a lot to be desired. I'm not too keen on internal or external links in those articles that I am working on. Neander (disputatio) 16:46, 28 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the Nexus Interni should go away -- and that we're not going to get rid of all 60,000 of them immediately! Nearly half of our articles have a Nexus Interni section and it is often just a crude list; it's a place-holder more than anything else. The point of creating a new category was to make it easy to find these and, eventually, move the links into the text. But that clean-up is certainly not one of our highest priorities: we're still working on non-stipulae, and for me the next frontier will be Latinity. This week's discussions and new formula make the Nexus Interni problem more visible, but not more important than it was before, mea sententia. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:21, 29 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Structura paginae".