Vicipaedia:Taberna

(Redirectum de VP:T)
Latest comment: abhinc 5 dies by 174.92.25.207 in topic Macronizer

Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera.

Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.

Hic colloqui possumus.

Hic sunt tabularia!

Disputationes veteres ad specialia tabularia motae sunt (auxilium). Si vis, hic infra scribendo in talibus tabulariis quaerere potes.

De {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}}

recensere

Vicidatis semper semperque auctis, haec capsa sub rubricis inferioribus "Officium" et "Laurae" res plurimas praebere solet linguis barbaris scriptas, aegre utilibus. Ergo ad interim has rubricas celavi. (Talem rem et in aliis capsis informationis facere possumus.) Si haec mutatio tibi displiceat, s.t.p. placita tua hic inscribe! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 10 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Defaultsort vs. Lifetime

recensere

Why do contributors keep using the Defaultsort formula? The Lifetime formula is more efficient, saving bytes by compressing the dating and automatically specifying Mulieres or Viri as appropriate (without the need for coded categorization of the distinction)? Efficiency in coding is generally held to be a virtue. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 14 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Mulieres" and "Viri" are added because of the interwiki link at Wikidata, not because of these magic words. But I quite agree with you that LIFETIME is briefer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 16 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
In fact, {{Lifetime}} (like {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}} and a few more templates) automatically adds the page to Categoria:Viri or Categoria:Mulieres according to the person's gender specified at the Wikidata item. Where neither of these templates is used (and where just perhaps the magic word DEFAULTSORT is used), neither Categoria:Viri or Categoria:Mulieres will be added automatically. So, {{Lifetime}} may be preferable to DEFAULTSORT. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:42, 16 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Gratias ago: id non intellegi, quia semper, novam paginam biographicam creans, {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}} ad caput et {{Fontes biographici}} sub nexibus externis insero. {{Lifetime}} uti incipio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

De nova categoria instituenda

recensere

Mea quidem sententia oportet novam categoriam instituere quae omnes paginas ad jus pertinentes colligat et hac de causa nominetur "ius". Placentinus (disputatio) 08:30, 16 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Usque adhuc, si recte observavi, nostra Categoria:Iurisprudentia idem opus perficit quam aliorum en:Category:Law et fr:Catégorie:Droit [etc.]. Ergo quid facere oportet --
  1. Movere Categoria:Iurisprudentia ad Categoria:Ius?
  2. novam categoriam Categoria:Ius creare, quae loco categoriae hodiernae "Iurisprudentiae" ad categorias barbaras "Law" et "Droit" [etc.] adnectanda erit?
  3. alia res?? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:44, 16 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Probum consilium movere Categoria:Iurisprudentia ad Categoria:Ius mihi videtur. Placetne? Placentinus (disputatio) 14:43, 16 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
In wikipaedia Anglica, "Jurisprudence" est subcategoria categoriae "Law," quae revera nos monet: "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable." Ergo ut videtur, subcategoria "Iurisprudentia" non delenda est, et categoria "Ius" creanda est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:24, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Recte quidem mones! Quomodo creantur categoriae? Quaeso ut mihi ignoscatis, nam numeror adhuc inter homines quos Angli vulgo vocitant "noobs" (Heri tantum inveni instrumentum "HotCat"...). Placentinus (disputatio) 06:54, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Сategoriae eodem modo creantur, quo omnes paginae; categoriae superiores in pagina categoriae scribendae sunt. — Sed Categoria:Iurisprudentia nostra per Vicidata cum en:Category:Law Anglica coniuncta est, non cum “Jurisprudence”. (Ipse nescio, an movenda sit.) Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 09:17, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Si consentimus categoriam "Iurisprudentia" novo nomine "Ius" baptizare, deinde novam subcategoriam "Iurisprudentia" creare, deinde aliquas paginas in novam subcategoriam singultim movere, facile erit, hoc modo:
  1. categoriam nostram "Iurisprudentia" e Vicidatis pro tempore delere;
  2. postulare apud amicum @UV: (Vicipaedia:Automata/Petitiones de categoriis movendis hic) categoriam renominare omnesque paginas subcategoriasque, quae insunt, novo categoriae nomine munire;
  3. categoriam renominatam iterum in Vicidata eodem loco inserere;
  4. novam categoriam "Iurisprudentia" creare et cum linguis barbaris (Jurisprudence etc.) apud Vicidata coniungere;
  5. paginas (et fortasse subcategorias) nostras idoneas in hanc novam categoriam singultim matriculare.
An consentimus omnes? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Non sum sic peritus de his disciplinis ut sententiam meam habeam (tantummodo scio vocabulum “iuris” esse antiquius vocabulo “iurisprudentiae”), sed si categoriam creamus credo motiones esse gerendas quamque paginam ponderando, quia aliquae commentationes ambas categorias requirere possint. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:06, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Recte dicis, Grufo: vide iam meam rubricam #5 supra. Categoria mota, nova categoria creata, certe licet paginas aut una categoria, aut binis categoriis, munire.
Nemine contradicente, categoriam "Iurisprudentia" ad "Ius" ope UV et UVbot movendam suadebo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:49, 18 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Categoriam movi. --UV (disputatio) 22:59, 18 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Categoriam novam "Categoria:Iurisprudentia" creavi tamquam subcategoria categoriae Categoria:Ius". Denuo aliis licet ad pedem paginarum idonearum "Categoria:Iurisprudentia" inscribere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 19 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

De "nexu linguarum"

recensere

Addere "nexum linguarum" nequeo paginae cui index est Danaë imbrem aureum accipit (Titianus), quia – pro dolor! – mihi non licet inceptum exsequi: «You do not have the permissions needed to carry out this action.»

Placentinus (disputatio) 19:49, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Grufo: nonne tu eandem obstructionem passus es? An solutionem repperisti?
@Placentinus: ad interim potes nexum ad pedem singulae paginae barbarae subscribere (e.g. Anglicae aut Francogallicae aut Italianae), sic:
[[la:Danaë imbrem aureum accipit (Titianus)]]
Una pagina ita adnectata, automata (bots) nexum Vicidata inserere solent. Tempta! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:17, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Gratias ago Demetrio Talpae qui quaestionem solvit. Placentinus (disputatio) 21:07, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Gaudeo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:53, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Andrew Oportet 50 recensiones apud Vicidata habere ad nulli obstructioni occurrendum, at usores sine 50 recensionibus concessionem specialem petere possunt. Ego concessionem specialem petivi quae recusata est, quia ipsa petitio fuit mea quinquagensima recensio. --Grufo (disputatio) 23:05, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Catch-22! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:30, 19 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
:) --Grufo (disputatio) 22:47, 19 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Novae formulae de lemmate principi

recensere

Novas formulas {{Res}}, {{Res typis italicis}} (compendio: {{ires}}), {{Subres}} et {{Res tacita}} (compendio: {{tres}}) habemus ad lemma princeps commentationum scribendum. E.g.

  • {{res|Ars coquinaria}} est... (in loco scriptionis '''Ars coquinaria''' est...)
  • {{ires|In vino veritas}} est... (in loco scriptionis '''''In vino veritas''''' est...)
  • {{subres|Apparatus computatralis}} est... (in loco scriptionis ''Apparatus computatralis'' est...)
  • vel {{tres|(instrumentum) '''computatorium'''}}... (in loco scriptionis vel (instrumentum) '''computatorium'''...)

Duae sunt commoditates his formulis utendi:

  1. Cum paginam recenseamus lemma princeps e vicitextu melius eminet
  2. Hae formulae notam HTML <dfn>...</dfn> adhibent (de hac vide hic), quam robota interretialia et “screen readers” melius intellegere possunt

  Nota bene: Hae formulae non sunt in locum '''...''', '''''...''''' et ''...'' in aliis casibus substituendae, sed sunt adhibendae in casu lemmatis principis tantum.

Hoc dicto, usus harum formularum est voluntarius et semper formam veterem scribere possumus. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:11, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gratias ago propter explicationem, @Grufo:. Ratio creationis {{Subres}} nescio. Nonne lemmata semper litteris fortibus scribimus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:45, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Andrew: Vide hanc recensionem meam, ubi pluribus harum formularum utor. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:27, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Formulam {{Res tacita}} quoque nunc creavi. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:28, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, hoc in exemplo neque qua lege Apparatus computatorius litteris italicis scribatur scio, neque ad quem usum "(instrumentum) computatorium" in formulam includatur! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:47, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fortasse exemplum non est clarum. {{Subres}} est cum lemmate principi cuiusdam partis vel capituli paginae adhibenda (nonne est nostra norma typis italicis haec lemmata scribere?). E.g.
{{res|Lemma}} est bla bla bla ...

== De sublemmate 1 ==
{{subres|Sublemma 1}} est bla bla bla bla...

== De sublemmate 2 ==
{{subres|Sublemma 2}} est bla bla bla bla...
Ergo rare adhibebitur…
De {{Res tacita}}: Formulam “screen readers” et robota tantum credo adiuvare (at rare quoque adhibebamus). --Grufo (disputatio) 19:59, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Gratias: intellego. Dicis: "nonne est nostra norma typis italicis haec lemmata scribere?" Nescio an regulam habuimus. Incertus sum, an tales locutiones re vera "lemmata" sunt eadem lege qua tituli paginae Vicipaedicae ... sed de occasione rara loquimur et de re minoris momenti :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:58, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Neque ego scio. At quadam formula pro his casibus uti ({{Subres}}) nos sinit typos ubiqui mutare cum regulam Vicipaedianam de “sublemmatibus” inveniamus. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:06, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Recte dicis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:37, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Andrew: Nunc formula {{Subres}} in nova pagina “Sagittarius A” usus sum. Quomodo tibi videtur? --Grufo (disputatio) 22:44, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Optime. Exemplum perutile. Experimentum temptavi, quod tibi aut mutare aut revertere licet, formulis {{qc}} et {{ec}} utens. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 21 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rem similem feci in pagina iam a me incepta Sazerac. An melius est, sicut hoc casu feci, non vocabula in textu sed rubricas respectivas internectare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:15, 21 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
At nonne est hic usus enormis formularum {{qc}} et {{ec}}, quae ad membra bibliographiae nectenda sunt adhibendae? Typis ignoratis (si typos graves praeferimus formulam mutare possumus), haec recensio ostendit quemadmodum formula {{Subres}} adhiberi possit ad nexus per argumentum |ancora= creandos (talis recensio corrigenda est, quia et “Sagittarius A orientalis” et “Sagittarius A occidentalis” iam sunt nomina capitum et ergo iam nomina quoque ancorarum). “An melius est, sicut hoc casu feci, non vocabula in textu sed rubricas respectivas internectare?”: Ita, melius est capita et non lemmata nectere! (disputatio) 11:09, 21 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

De sublemmatibus. Vicipaedia Anglica sublemmatibus typos graves adsignat:

Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section (for example, subtopics treated in their own sections or alternative names for the main topic – see § Article title terms, above).

Idcirco apud paginam “Sagittarius A” formulam {{Res}} in locum formulae {{Subres}} substitui, quia et Sagittarius A orientalis et Sagittarius A occidentalis sua capitula habent. Sed in pagina “Computatrum” credo Apparatum computatralem typis italicis scribendum esse (per formulam {{Subres}}), quia capitulo suo caret. Sed revera hoc ad rem minoris momenti attinet. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:29, 22 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Reference Tooltips" vs. "Reference Previews"

recensere

Here on la.wikipedia, we are currently using a gadget that is called "Reference Tooltips". This gadget is useful in that it adds visual tooltips and highlights to footnotes and references. For details please see Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 33#De nexibus intra paginam ad bibliographiam iunctis.

The kind programmers that constantly work on improving the MediaWiki software and the Wikimedia wikis are thinking about generally replacing "Reference Tooltips" with a similar product, "Reference Previews", see Vicipaedia:Nuntii Technici#A new feature for previewing references on your wiki. The advantage in doing this is that "Reference Previews" would be managed centrally for all Wikimedia wikis, while our "Reference Tooltips" currently needs to be maintained by ourselves. There is, however a disadvantage, because "Reference Previews" currently does not yet feature all the capabilities of "Reference Previews". I have voiced my concern at meta:Talk:WMDE Technical Wishes/ReferencePreviews#Reference Previews to become the default for previewing references on more wikis. Let us see how the kind programmers will react … Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:09, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi UV. I do not know all the details, all I can say is that I appreciate the current change of background color during mouse hover. I even imitated the effect in the {{Ancora tacita}} template, but only after click.
On that note I have a question. Here are four different ways of creating anchors,
# <span id="foobar1">Lorem ipsum</span> {{an|foobar1}}
# <span id="CITEREFfoobar1">Lorem ipsum</span> {{an|CITEREFfoobar1}}
# {{Ancora|foobar2|Lorem ipsum}} {{an|foobar2}}
# {{Ancora|CITEREFfoobar2|Lorem ipsum}} {{an|CITEREFfoobar2}}
which produce:
  1. Lorem ipsum foobar1
  2. Lorem ipsum CITEREFfoobar1
  3. Lorem ipsum foobar2
  4. Lorem ipsum CITEREFfoobar2
As you can see, when you hover above “foobar1” and “foobar2” nothing happens. Instead, when you hover above “CITEREFfoobar1” and “CITEREFfoobar2” the background color changes. Furthermore, if you click on “foobar1” and “CITEREFfoobar1” nothing else happens (besides the page reaching the anchor), but when you click on “foobar2” and “CITEREFfoobar2” instead the background color of the nearby “Lorem ipsum” changes for some seconds. So my question is: How can I make the behavior of “CITEREFfoobar2” the standard behavior of {{Ancora tacita}} and other similar templates? Can it be done? --Grufo (disputatio) 00:43, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
The background color change on click for some seconds, as you know, is the result of Formula:Ancora tacita/style.css. The background color change on hover is the result of "Reference Tooltips", which might be about to be replaced with "Reference Previews". I do not think that there is an easy way to add this behaviour to {{Ancora tacita}}. --UV (disputatio) 23:44, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
I thought so… Well, nothing too tragic after all! --Grufo (disputatio) 03:11, 25 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is interesting news, @UV:. It was very kind of you to create the templates we currently have for linking references displaying tooltips, and in theory it will be still better if the display capability can be centrally maintained for the future. We'll have to see how the programmers respond to your concerns. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:16, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see that the response was not promising, @UV: it's nice that one of them is a Latin lover, but they are interested in their new tasks, not in our problem. Do you have an opinion about what we should do?
My own quick reaction is, let's not change to Reference previews just yet, but only change later if needed to ensure central maintenance. (a) Is this choice possible, (b) is it advisable, (c) would we already be losing some advantages from Reference Previews? You probably understand the constraints better than I do, UV.
I think Spanish and English wikis are currently on Reference tooltips, as we are, and it seems to work well. I think German and French wikis are on Reference previews. On fr:Winston Churchill (for an example) Reference previews does not adapt fully to the complex and inconsistent footnoting): worse, if I go to "preferences - gadgets" and choose Reference tooltips instead, I then get no tooltips at all. On de:Winston Churchill the footnotes are well suited to Reference previews: it works OK, although the footnotes have to be long and repetitive because they do not refer on to the bibliography. On de:wiki I see no way to choose Reference tooltips instead. I think some other wikis may decide not to move immediately to Reference previews, or, if they move, will find it less helpful. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 30 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Given the unfavorable response at meta, I support your proposal not to change to "Reference Previews" just yet. We can stick with "Reference Tooltips" as long as the "Reference Tooltips" gadget works. Since "Reference Tooltips" is a "default gadget" on enwiki, it will probably continue to work for quite a long time. So my answer to your questions is (a) yes, (b) in my view yes, and (c) anyone who prefers "Reference Previews" over "Reference Tooltips" can easily go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and disable the "Reference Tooltips" gadget, which will automatically enable "Reference Previews" for this user. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:52, 3 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Debemus lingua nostra consensum indicare. Date veniam, o amici Latinistae, quia usque adhuc UV egoque Anglice de hac re disputavimus (nam Reference tooltips i.e. fenestrellae notarum subiunctarum adiutoriae, apud nos me postulante, UV agente, instauratae sunt). An nobis permittitis in hoc consilio pergere? Si dissonantiam videre vultis, videte en:Winston Churchill et fr:Winston Churchill et supra indices notarum subiunctarum (e.g.10, 16etc.) cursorem tuum movete. Systema nostrum, quod cum systemate Anglico correspondet, hoc tempore retinere suademus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:03, 4 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Negligence in fighting against cross wiki vandals

recensere

There was NO edit warring but tagging for deletion only. These w:pl:WP:CHICAGO = w:en:WP:LTA/GRP nonsense vandalisms are permitted to stay here indefinitely for days, and are even wrongfully protected here instead of being deleted locally on sight, so stewards are constantly forced to intervene here. 83.30.174.241 10:39, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are, I think, talking about one discussion page on which a message, not obviously vandalistic, not obscene, remained peacefully for a few days. Evidently you are not fully informed of the scale of the recent attacks here: if you knew more, you would possibly reconsider the term "negligence".
This is a small wiki, and it has been difficult, but we do our best. Several stewards have been very helpful and, as one of the admins concerned, I'd be happy to discuss this further with them. They can easily get in touch with me on my talk page, or continue the discussion here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your talk page is protected from IPs, so we talk here. I repeatedly reverted this above LTA in other wikis especially. Links which once were at NOW deleted "Disputatio:Pugilatio (moderna)" talk page are nothing but GARBLED spam links from already ISP-deleted hate site by GRP named:
ƃɹo˙ǝɯǝɹdnsɐıpǝdoꞁɔʎɔuǝ˙ʍʍʍ
If you see something with it, delete it immediately, please.
83.30.184.119 15:25, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand, of course. I know who added the information, I know that it is useless. I (like you, no doubt, and many others) was getting multiple obscene threats from the same person. I am also hearing once again from "Wikinger", a pen-friend of "Chicago boys". How nice! The WMF has "banned and blocked" both persons, but the WMF legal department has refused any help to me.
So, left alone by the WMF legal department, I tried an experiment. If I allowed this anonymous, useless, but not vandalistic, message to remain on a talk page (talk pages, after all, contain many other relatively useless and irrelevant messages) would I be named in fewer obscene semi-literate summaries? Would Vicipaedia get less vandalism for a few days? Yes, in fact, for those few days, it worked.
I have no sympathy for the WMF, its bans and its lawyers, since they have no sympathy for me. But I have lots of sympathy for the stewards and cross-wiki patrollers, who deal with far more of this stuff than I do. So, since you ask me not to run such an experiment again, I won't. Just keep on watching us, please! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:25, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
So now all is good! Failed experiment is HOPEFULLY dead, it only would permit to trash latin wiki pages with spam. I use dynamic IP, and for example, I reverted "w:sl:WP:PZAP/GRP" once here: Specialis:Conlationes/83.30.168.216. If I will notice something then I will tag it for deletion, in other case revert. That's all. 83.30.187.141 16:50, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, fairly good :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:01, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about verbs derived from dare on Wiktionary

recensere

For those interested, there is a discussion I am participating to on Wiktionary concerning the derived verbs of dare. It started after I added a few verbs to the list of the “derived terms” of that verb (like abdere, addere, indere, perdere, etc.). Whatever your opinion is, if you are interested in the topic you are invited to participate. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:23, 27 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Grufo: I'm sorry, this will seem very unhelpful, but my inclination, when a wiki argument has become so heated that you can't stir it with a spoon (metaphor based on en:Porridge), is to walk away from it for about two years. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 27 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Andrew, probably I will. But whether for two years or one day will depend on the fact that I am the only one discussing or not. If I remain the only one, it will probably be two years. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:48, 27 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Quomodo invenire paginas autotranslatas?

recensere

Succurrite mihi! Non scio quomodo paginas formula "paginae autotranslatae" ornatas inveniam ut videam num interim rescriptae/emendatae sint. Itaque apud Kamo no Chōmei addidi formulam de latinitate. Cui bono bella formula nova de autotranslatione si paginas ita signatas rursus detegere non possumus? - Giorno2 (disputatio) 16:45, 1 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Giorno2: Eae sunt in Categoria:Latinitas -7 (non latine). Vide documentationem formulae {{Pagina autotranslata}}:
Paginae quae hac formula utuntur in Categoria:Latinitas -7 (non latine) numerabuntur. Postremo, ab octavo die post tempus Vicipaedianum quod argumentum |tempus={{subst:REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} statuit, aut ab octavo die post ultimam recensionem si argumentum |tempus={{subst:REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} omittitur, in Categoria:Correctiones neglectae quoque numerabuntur.
P.S. Credasne fortasse paginas cum formula {{Pagina autotranslata}} in sua propria categoria esse numerandas (e.g. Categoria:Translationes machinariae)? --Grufo (disputatio) 17:40, 1 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Optime vir! Scio paginas autotranslatas apud "Categoria:Latinitas -7 (non latine)" inveniri. Tamquam FORMULA. Sed nullo loco est elenchus singularum paginarum istarum! Ita examen de paginarum emendatione fieri non potest quia eas non iam in promptu habemus. Nam tunc tantummodo Formula:Pagina autotranslata aut Formula:Pars autotranslata apparet, FORMULA sed non CATEGORIA. Propositum tuum de CATEGORIA creanda laudo. Etiam est necesse omnes paginas vetustiores FORMULA signatas in CATEGORIA (nova) esse. Gratias! Giorno2 (disputatio) 03:18, 2 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Optime. Postremo categoriam novam creavi et formulas redintegravi. P.S. Multae paginae autotranslatae iam deletae sunt; nunc duae paginae tantum formulam ostendunt, quarum una est in spatio nominali usoris. --Grufo (disputatio) 04:13, 2 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Gratias ago ego tibi. Giorno2 (disputatio) 11:55, 2 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Myrias

recensere

Formulam {{Myrias}} sex commentationibus addidi (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6). Estne hic index nunc redintegrandus cum novis nexibus ad Vicipaediam Latinam? --Grufo (disputatio) 11:32, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Si, sus nombres deben fijarse en el índice, Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio. Yo he hecho el primero, de Sagitario A*. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:29, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Gratias tibi ago, Iacobe. Sed cur locutus sis mecum Hispanice? --Grufo (disputatio) 12:31, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Quia coffeum matutinum nondum biberam, et adhuc dormiebam, nihil mente comprehendens. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:52, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply
:) --Grufo (disputatio) 12:57, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Global ban proposal for Slowking4

recensere

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Slowking4 who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2). Seawolf35 (disputatio) 13:07, 15 Martii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Album Angelorum

recensere

Quid sentitis de hac pagina Album Angelorum quae multa nomina hominum in rebus philosophicis, politicis, in artibus etc. versantium continet? Estne fons validus quem uti possumus? Alex1011 (disputatio) 22:27, 28 Martii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mea opinione ludus est curiosus, sed non fons validus. — Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 08:04, 29 Martii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cum Demetrio consentio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 29 Martii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Consentio quoque. Situs fontibus carere videtur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 29 Martii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Item. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:05, 29 Martii 2024 (UTC)Reply

de administratione vicilibris

recensere

Salvete omnes, possitisne me et alios in viclibris adjuvare? Peto aut petimus ius administratoris in Vicilibri, ad editionem paginae primae et cetera. Non multi si iam contribunt, ergo spero invenire hic alios quos latine curant et consilium nostrum confirment. Si velis adjuvare aut confirmare, quaeso hic in Porta communis vicilibrorum commenteris. JimKillock (disputatio) 11:00, 14 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)Reply

Respondi, o @JimKillock:. Fortasse non "UW" sed "UV" pingere debuisti? :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:45, 14 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)Reply
ah, certe erravi, gratias! JimKillock (disputatio) 17:50, 14 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)Reply

Suadeo aliis Vicipaedianis ut ibi in Portam communem vicilibrorum placita sua inscribant. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:39, 17 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)Reply

Chang'an (nomen Anglicum); vide "Siganum"

recensere

Scripsit Andreas: "optime, sed fontem nominis Latini Changanum frustra (usque adhuc) quaesivi." Here too, and apparently, the tempting Latin term Sianganum designates a city, "Siangyang," said to be on the Ham River in Huquan Province at longitude 129.16, that may be Xiangyang, on the Han River in Hubei Province, at longitude 112°07′19″E. Chang'an is on the Wei River. Confusing evidence, but let's register it here, in case it helps. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:44, 14 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Was this comment intended for Disputatio:Siganum? It seems more relevant there: anyway, I have copied it there and have added a comment there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 14 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. We never know where interest may be piqued. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:02, 14 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)Reply

Correzione

recensere

Ciao Wikipedia Latino,

sono un correttore di Wikipedia Italia e sto testando la versione "beta" della piattaforma. Essa include un traduttore per l'agevolazione della traslazione di una voce da una Wikipedia ad un'altra. Ho provato a portare qua, una voce scritta da me (Filippo Biagioli). Mi è stato fatto notare che la traduzione era tutta sbagliata. Quindi, visto che ormai l'avevo "tradotta" ho rifatto fare la correzione ad un traduttore professionista. Qualcuno può per favore vedere se adesso la voce va bene? Grazie Autunno2022 (disputatio) 16:59, 16 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)Reply

Translatio paginae Specialis:Census

recensere

Pagina Specialis:Census (et idcirco, eamdem paginam imitando, etiam formula {{Annales/omnia mensis}}) plures locutiones Anglicas ostendit. Ego velim ad linguam Latinam eas vertere. Hic subter sunt meae translationes propositae. Quid dicatis? Consensu invento, a nostro UV petere possumus paginam Specialis:Census redintegrare.

Nomen labens Translatio proposita Notio collecta
Paginae in spatio nominali principali Commentationes {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
Paginae Paginae {{NUMBEROFPAGES}}
Fasciculi Fasciculi {{NUMBEROFFILES}}
Recensiones paginarum factae ab initio Vicipaediae Recensiones paginarum factae ab initio Vicipaediae {{NUMBEROFEDITS}}
Usores relati Usores relati {{NUMBEROFUSERS}}
Usores activi Usores activi {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}
Automata Automata {{NUMBERINGROUP:bot}}
Magistratus Magistratus {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}
Interface administrators Architecti {{NUMBERINGROUP:interface-admin}}
Grapheocrates Grapheocrates {{NUMBERINGROUP:bureaucrat}}
Censurae Censores {{NUMBERINGROUP:suppress}}
Stewards Custodes {{NUMBERINGROUP:steward}}
Account creators Nominatores {{NUMBERINGROUP:accountcreator}}
Importers Importatores {{NUMBERINGROUP:import}}
Transwiki Transviciales {{NUMBERINGROUP:transwiki}}
IP block exemptions Usores remissi {{NUMBERINGROUP:ipblock-exempt}}
Check users Speculatores vel Exploratores {{NUMBERINGROUP:checkuser}}
Push subscription managers Purgatores {{NUMBERINGROUP:push-subscription-manager}}
Users blocked from the IP Information tool Usores expulsi {{NUMBERINGROUP:no-ipinfo}}
Confirmed users Usores confirmatiTranslatio retracta – vide infra. --Grufo vel + Usores probati {{NUMBERINGROUP:confirmed}}

--Grufo (disputatio) 15:20, 23 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)Reply

Salve, @Grufo,
Mihi placent.
-- Apollo (loquere) 14:11, 24 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)Reply

Usores probati? --Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 17:12, 9 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Marce: Num “probatos” ad vicem “confirmatorum”, tamquam ultimo versui addidi, significes? --Grufo (disputatio) 20:17, 9 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sic equidem malim ut 'qui de se probationem dederint. Sed sermo Latinus mihi non patrius est, atque etiam si esset lingua per tot saecula ita mutata est ut nihil interesset. Errare possumː fac ut mavis. Certe usores confirmati' plane cum Francogallico "utilisateurs confirmés" congruit. An ita Cicero dixisset, alia quaestio. --Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 16:13, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Credo “probati” esse melius quam “confirmati”. Postremo meam translationem retracturus sum. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:34, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nova formula de paginis non idoneis

recensere

Novam formulam {{Movenda ad spatium nominale}} creavi ad paginas non idoneas signandas quae tamen multum studium auctoris praebent (hocmodo eius labor servabitur). In talibus casibus nova formula adhibenda est in loco formulae {{Delenda}}. Spero hanc excogitationem fore utilem.

Exempla:

{{Movenda ad spatium nominale|TitiusCaius}}

aut (melius)

{{subst:petitio|movenda ad spatium nominale|TitiusCaius}}

Effectus:

 

Suadetur ut haec pagina ad spatium nominale auctoris moveatur

Haec pagina putatur non idonea ad Vicipaediam, sed ob longum laborem factum suadetur ut in loco deletionis ad spatium nominale auctoris auctricisve (TitiusCaius) moveatur. Novum nomen propositum est: Usor:TitiusCaius/Harenarium/Vicipaedia:Taberna. Sententiam tuam, quaesumus, profer in pagina disputationis.


Codex manuscriptus:

{{Movenda ad spatium nominale|TitiusCaius|Harenarium 2/Lorem ipsum}}

aut (melius)

{{subst:petitio|movenda ad spatium nominale|TitiusCaius|Harenarium 2/Lorem ipsum}}

Effectus:

 

Suadetur ut haec pagina ad spatium nominale auctoris moveatur

Haec pagina putatur non idonea ad Vicipaediam, sed ob longum laborem factum suadetur ut in loco deletionis ad spatium nominale auctoris auctricisve (TitiusCaius) moveatur. Novum nomen propositum est: Usor:TitiusCaius/Harenarium 2/Lorem ipsum. Sententiam tuam, quaesumus, profer in pagina disputationis.

P.S. De forma {{subst:petitio|movenda ad ...}} vide hic. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:49, 26 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)Reply

De motione veterum disputationum apud nostram legationem ad tabularium

recensere

Disputatio Vicipaediae:Legatio nostra disputationes sedecim annos scriptas ostendit. Nemine obstante, disputationes ad Disputatio Vicipaediae:Legatio nostra/Tabularium 1 moturus sum. --Grufo (disputatio) 10:33, 7 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply

De nominibus

recensere

Does Vicipaedia need articles on the hundreds of thousands of surnames that have served as forenames? Innumerable people have been named for figures familial and otherwise, especially political (see "Jefferson Davis" and "Washington Irving"). An early nineteenth-century ancestor of mine bore the first name Wilkins—a puzzlement until genealogical research showed that it was the (maiden) surname of his great-grandmother. Should Vicipaedia therefore have an article on the name Wilkins? Why not? Where do we draw the line? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:26, 9 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of course not. But how else should we deal with that if not on a case-by-case basis (e.g. by adding {{Gravitas dubia}} when needed)? --Grufo (disputatio) 20:34, 9 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Encyclopaedias are not about names, they are about things. If it's names you want, you go to a dictionary of proper names, or various other kinds of dictionary, but not to an encyclopaedia. If Iacobus's ancestor is notable, the information can go in his biography; if not, it's not for us!
The anonymous user who makes articles about forenames has been told that they are out of scope. They do serve as discretiva pages if they link to at least two existing pages. On that basis, I have not so far deleted pages about forenames that are also discretiva pages. Their big fault is that they give dubious information on origins from dubious sources or none.
Articles about surnames should surely be deleted. Anyone who fancies making templates (!) could make one saying encyclopedia articles should be about things, not names; or such articles could be marked "delenda" with an explanation in the summarium. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:03, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
I could make a template along the lines of what Wikipedia is not (not a dictionary, not a telephone directory, etc.). Something like “Haec pagina putatur non esse enciyclopaedica. Vicipaedia non est ... et cetera”. The problem is that I don't know how to say “telephone directory” in Latin :) Morgan suggests only index, album (but then I guess telephonicus/-um? – see under “.phon directory”) --Grufo (disputatio) 19:30, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe "repertorium telephonicum" would work?
You were quick to respond to that anonymized hint! It could be useful I think.
If we wonder whether cognomina belong to the future of Vicipaedia, it would be a good idea to look at Categoria:Cognomina (which are in fact Latin ones) and subcategories (all other languages) to see how they are used. If the pages have nothing much in common except that they are discretivae, then a basic question is, do we want eventual big discretiva pages like e.g. en:Bailey or do we consider them useless/out of scope? Could we realistically maintain them, or would they forever be incomplete? Would anyone come to Vicipaedia to look for that (unless, possibly, for Latin cognomina)? Would they ever be useful? In my view, if a user was looking for a certain "Bailey" having forgotten the forenames, a clever Google search would work better than trawling though a long list like the one on en:wiki.
For myself, I am in favour of ruling this subject area out of scope. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:56, 13 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Before creating it I will just write here a draft of the template. Feel free to edit the text below as you prefer.
 

Haec commentatio putatur non esse encyclopaedica

Vicipaedia non est:

  • Dictionarium
  • Tabularium telephonicum
  • Domus editoria notionum originalium
  • Diarium
  • [QUID?]
The name of the template could be {{Non Vicipaedia}}. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:19, 14 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Addition. Furthermore we would need to clarify when to use this template and when to use instead {{Gravitas dubia}}. I think that a criterion could be this: if the topic falls among the points listed in {{Non Vicipaedia}}, use {{Non Vicipaedia}}, otherwise use {{Gravitas dubia}} (e.g. a poet – poets are certainly an encyclopedic topic! – whom only I know, because they happen to be my neighbour).
Last but not least. What category should we use? Still Categoria:Gravitas dubia or should we create a new category instead (e.g. Categoria:Non Vicipaedia)?: --Grufo (disputatio) 22:25, 14 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Greetings, fellow Wikipaedians.
Since the English language is full of proper names derived from surnames (for exemple, Wayne is a surname in Ioannes Wayne and a forename in Wayne Gretzky and Wayne Rooney), I began creating some of these pages, like Grant or Scott. However, these pages are all about surnames and names, not surnames-only, without names. So, answering to IacobusAmor's question, Vicipaedia does not need articles on all the hundreds of thousands of surnames in the English language, only those that are used also as forenames and (possibly) middle names. 2.39.112.203 13:44, 18 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
As mentioned, Wilkins has served as a forename, so you evidently think Vicipaedia needs an article on it, but the example in your next sentence seems to say it doesn't, on the grounds that Vicipaedia has no article on somebody whose forename is Wilkins, right? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:41, 18 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are right. As for now, Vicipaedia only has two articles on personalities who bore Wilkins as their surname, not as a forename. 2.39.112.203 07:46, 19 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
For example, Kennedy is the surname of eleven personalities with their own pages on the Latin Vicipaedia, but since there is not a single page in which it is used as a proper name, its page cannot be created. On the other hand, Ryan is used six times as a forename and at least four times as a surname, so it could have its page.
As a disambiguation with only one page is useless, several name pages simply cannot be created on Vicipaedia (at least for now), like Scarlett (only 1 page) or Athenodorus (0 pages). At the same time, a name page cannot be too short, or it would be a stub, so I think more than two existing pages is better. Regarding the sources for the etymology, I use Behind the name, sometimes the Online Etymology Dictionary and old books on Google Books. I think adding a source is always better than having none. If there are better sources you can suggest to all the Vicipaedian community, then we are happily waiting for your feedback.
Thank you all and have a nice day. 2.39.112.203 13:44, 18 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for joining in the discussion. I fully agree that adding a source is better than having no source. I have no magic guide to reliable sources for the origin of forenames or surnames: it is a subject area in which truly reliable sources are hard to find.
It is questionable whether the "meaning" of a forename or a surname can be stated at all, and whether that meaning is relevant to its use in the names of individuals. In my case (I may as well use my case as example) Google tells me without hesitation that my forename means “strong” or “manly.” But that's not relevant to me, and it wasn't relevant to my mother or father. In general, the etymology of individual names is not necessarily relevant to the individuals who have those names. Even if the etymology and "meaning" of personal names can be cited to a reliable source, how is it relevant to an encyclopedia? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 18 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Post unionem paginarum

recensere

Ut historia servetur, post unionem paginarum, si nobis placet, in paginam disputationis paginae cui contribuitur (e.g.: Disputatio:Collyra) scribere possumus:

{{Huic contributa est|Pasta vermiculata|2023-06-07}}

Hoc gignit:

 

Die pagina “Pasta vermiculata” in paginam huic coniunctam contributa est. Auctoribus auctricibusque illius paginae hic enumeratis gratias agimus.

 
English language
English

On 6/7/2023 the page “Pasta vermiculata” was merged with the attached page. We are grateful to the authors of that page as listed here.

 
Idioma Español
Español

El 6/7/2023 la página “Pasta vermiculata” se fusionó con la página adjunta. Agradecemos a los autores de esa página que se enumeran aquí.

 
Lingua italiana
Italiano

In data 6/7/2023 la pagina “Pasta vermiculata” è stata accorpata alla pagina allegata. Siamo grati agli autori e alle autrici di quella pagina elencati qui.

Haec formula est aliqua similis formulae {{Attributio}}. Apud Vicipaediam Anglicam appellatur {{en:Merged-from}}.

Si pagina contributa disputationes habebat et haec servatae sunt (e.g.: Disputatio:Pasta vermiculata), ibi scribere possumus:

{{Alibi contributa est|Collyra|2023-06-07}}

Hoc gignit:

 

Die pagina huic coniuncta in paginam “Collyra” contributa est. Auctoribus auctricibusque hic enumeratis gratias agimus.

 
English language
English

On 6/7/2023 the attached page was merged with the page “Collyra”. We are grateful to the authors as listed here.

 
Idioma Español
Español

El 6/7/2023, la página adjunta se fusionó con la página “Collyra”. Agradecemos a los autores que se enumeran aquí.

 
Lingua italiana
Italiano

In data 6/7/2023, la pagina allegata è stata accorpata alla pagina “Collyra”. Siamo grati agli autori e alle autrici elencati qui.

Hic secundus casus rarius evenit. Apud Vicipaediam Anglicam appellatur {{en:Merged-to}}.

Apud formulas {{Huic contributa est}} et {{Alibi contributa est}} plura de usu legere potestis.

P.S. Sunt multe paginae adhuc relictae in Categoria:Uniones paginarum propositae! --Grufo (disputatio) 09:29, 18 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply

acudame

recensere

Macharaviaya creationem Verae Fabricae De Naipes familiae Galvez debet. Ex illo tempore, pagus magnus mercaturae butyrum expertus est, ob monopolium suum in navi tabulatorum chartarum in America. Ob suam gravem oeconomicam progressionem, hic pagus "Parvulus Matriti" notus est. Officinas operationes anno 1815 cessaverunt et aedificium in habitationem conversa est. The De Los Galvez Museum dedicatum est familiae quae ad progressionem Macharaviaya et ad historiam huius oppidi in Axarquía deducta est. Tributum huic familiae, In Introitu Macharaviaya El Templete de Los Galvez, saeculo duodevicesimo erecta, necnon fons cum imagine Bernardo De Galvez, ob munus in bello Americano Libertatis egit. Vetustissimum monumentum in Macharaviaya est Ecclesia S. Ioannis. Condita est saeculo XVI, antequam oppidum institueretur, quamvis anno 1783 reaedificatum esset. Renovatio operis per patronatum familiae Galvez possibilis facta est. Quaedam membra in pantheo in conclavi templi jacent cum sculpturis repraesentantibus. Tres chiliometrorum ex Macharaviaya, pago Benacense, ecclesiam Nuestra Señora De la Encarnación visitare potes. TEMPLUM MUDEJARIS IN XVI CENTURIA aedificatum est in mosque antiquo, quod in belfridum converti minabatur. Natalis Salvatoris Rueda prope est, cum supellectili, libris et personalibus poetae, qui praecursor modernismi Hispanici censetur. Error in citando: tags existere pro caterva nomine "website", sed nulla coetus matching "website"/> inventus est 2600:6C56:7F00:210:1952:A7C4:E8CC:6411 09:57, 22 Maii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Paginarum novarum editio

recensere

Quomodo paginae novae edi possunt? 31.195.8.208 06:29, 6 Iunii 2024 (UTC)Reply

Macronizer

recensere

Can Latin Wikipedia integrate an automatic Latin macronizer feature please? Beginners like me's pronunciation would benefit. It would be as convenient as how on Chinese Wikipedia you have the option to convert between traditional and simplified. 174.92.25.207 23:40, 7 Iulii 2024 (UTC)Reply

The short answer is no. It can be done easily code-wise, in theory, but would require editors always to write the “macronized” version in the wikitext, and that will never happen. E.g., imagine a template named {{Bifrons}} that displays “Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres” by default, but can display “Găllĭă ĕst ŏmnĭs dīvīsă ĭn părtēs trēs” if you click on some option; to implement that, editors will have to write in the wikitext {{Bifrons|Găllĭă ĕst ŏmnĭs dīvīsă ĭn părtēs trēs}} (with the default result of “Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres”). The other way around – i.e. automatically reconstructing the vowel length starting from simple vowels – is simply not possible. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:41, 8 Iulii 2024 (UTC)Reply
zhwiki doesn't always write traditional, but the simplified (like lawiki unmacronized) to traditional (like lawiki macronzied) still works. This inverse is not a function, but I think they use a word/phrase list to fix the wrong reconstructions.
Though now I see the challenge. Whereas the converter for zhwiki could near 99% accuracy, the one for lawiki might only reach an unacceptable 70% accuracy. This is based on seeing around 3 out of 7 words of Littera marked with warnings after pasting the lede and the first heading into https://alatius.com/macronizer/ .
I suppose the Latin macronization would be more computationally expensive to get right because of the difficulties in recovering context from the free word order. Perhaps I need to ask elsewhere for a browser extension that uses AI for this. 174.92.25.207 06:19, 8 Iulii 2024 (UTC)Reply