Quantum redactiones paginae "Usor:IacobusAmor/Disputata anni 2009" differant

 

== Stipulae ==

:Woohoo! I'll make a note of them and start changing them when I get the chance. They old ones aren't technically wrong, since they're all correctly described as being zoological, so they can stand for the time being, but the new ones, being more precise, will be an improvement. The only declension-related problems that come to mind so far is that it's not ''insecta, -ium,'' but ''insectum, -i'' (the name of the class, ''Insecta,'' like the names of all classificatory levels above that of genus, is plural), and similarly not ''amphibia, -arum,'' but ''amphibium, -i.'' Thanks for your good work! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:43, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

::Hmm. On second thought, you've made those for birds & fishes singular and those for the other groups plural. As a rule, should the signs for stipulas be singular or plural? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:54, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

::::Toward birds or toward a bird: that's the question! This notice could refer to the set (e.g., [[Aves]] in general) or to the individual being discussed (e.g., a particular [[avis]]). Checking how other stipulas work might decide the issue; however, be sure to ignore those that ''have'' to be singular, like the one for "zoologia." The English ones that I've checked use the plural; e.g. "[Logo of a perciform fish] This Perciformes article is a stub"; but that construction makes the most important word a noun pretending to be an adjective (i.e., an objective noun), whose plurality sounds awkward, since objective nouns in English tend to be singular (''bedtimes,'' not ''bedstimes, pear trees,'' not ''pears trees, train whistles,'' not ''trains whistles''). Meanwhile, though, I don't see what's wrong with

::::{{piscis-stipula}}

::::(and thanks for that pretty little fish!), which I take to mean something like 'This stub considers a fish'. ¶ I do wonder, however (and this goes for all our stubs) whether better wording wouldn't be ''Haec stipula piscem tractat.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 18:31, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 18:07, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

::::::Yes, categories are plural, except in cases like Categoria:Cibus (and I have no idea why that one isn't plural too). Having the stipula box singular is OK with each genus & species, but maybe not for higher-level ranks, all of which have plural names (e.g., [[Coleoptera]] = 'the beetles'). A puzzlement! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 18:32, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

 

== formula:taxobox begin ==

:I was told that the old set of formulae (... begin, etc.) ought to be entirely superseded by the newer taxobox ... but it has never been replaced on the pages on which it is used. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:19, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

::When I began tinkering with botanical & zoological topics, I noticed that those formulas usually occurred in articles written early in Vicipaedia's history and not (or hardly) updated since. (Some early articles had no taxobox at all.) I've been importing the new taxoboxes (usually from en:) at every chance I could get, largely because they contain more & better information than the old taxoboxes. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 18:26, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

::::I don't think we'd want to, because the new taxoboxes (at least in en:) contain ''more & better information.'' Anyway, all those old stipulae are begging to be rewritten & enlarged! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 18:40, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)