Disputatio Usoris:Klein Muçi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Salve, Klein!

Gratus aut grata in Vicipaediam Latinam acciperis! Ob contributa tua gratias agimus speramusque te delectari posse et manere velle.

Cum Vicipaedia nostra parva humilisque sit, paucae et exiguae sunt paginae auxilii, a quibus hortamur te ut incipias:

Si plura de moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis scire vis, tibi suademus, roges in nostra Taberna, vel roges unum ex magistratibus directe.

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" aut "Vicipaedianam" fieri velle! --Xaverius 13:50, 28 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formulae[fontem recensere]

You added a whole set of formulae today that do not seem to be working. I am also not sure if I know what theya re for. Are you going to fix them? Or shall I delete them?--Xaverius 13:50, 28 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaverius, salve!
Yes, that's correct. I am an interface admin at the Albanian Wikipedia and Wikiquote where I deal with the technical aspect of the said projects. Lately I've started to learn Latin and wanted to help around here. The templates and modules I've added are imported from EnWiki and are actually up to date. They serve different purposes, some for infoboxes renderings, some for unit conversions, some for citations renderings and more. (Please, do check the discussion I've opened at the Taberna about parts of this process. I'm currently being helped by @Andreas Raether for that.) That will make the overall interwiki experience better, especially when using the CTT (Content Translation Tool) but will also enhance the technical aspect of the Vicipaedia. I saw you removed one of the said infoboxes from the Hectometer article with this edit. That infobox does render badly now but that's because some other templates/modules are still missing which I intend to work on soon. If you have any specific questions about any of my specific changes please let me know. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 17:10, 28 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, but could you please add those templates to the relevant pages once they are all in working order? The one in Hectometrum was not.--Xaverius 19:18, 28 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaverius, I can do that if you so require. I usually use CTT for article creation and that gets templates from the original pages of which I'm translating but of course, I can remove those manually before publishing the articles. I publish them so I can see what else is missing so I can add it + hoping I can get other users to help me on technical matters but, as I said, I'll start not doing that anymore. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 19:24, 28 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned from travelling and I answered your message on my talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:10, 2 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes and other templates[fontem recensere]

I agree with Xaverius, above, that you should not add templates to existing pages until they are working properly. It's best to use the sandbox or create pages in your userspace for experiments.

In general, it's better to avoid creating templates that cause more work for other editors. Templates that draw information from Wikidata are useful because, in general, they don't require work from local editors. Lua can help these templates work better, and so Lua is good too!

Thanks for providing the link to Ismail Qemali. I edited this page in a few ways, as I explained on the talk page. I'd suggest that if you wish to improve our existing person infobox, and others, that could be a good idea, but I think we would not agree to replace them with infoboxes that require local input.

I should say also, noting the discussion on my page: yes, as I promised, I will support the creation of a single up-to-date citation template (if it can accommodate the information that is currently in our bibliographies) but I will oppose the creation of different templates for different citation styles. The only useful innovation would be a template that helps to unify our bibliographical styles. Get people to accept that, and I'll be with you! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:55, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, I'm really sorry I have to say this but this is a rather "harsh" approach. I've already explained more than 3 times now what I'm doing, explanations which started with a post at the Taberna. I am a normal and an interface admin myself for many years in SqWiki and SqQuote and I've even been a candidate for a Steward this year. I am aware of the technical and ethical aspects in interacting with the global community. I wouldn't dare try introducing new things, whatever those were, to another wiki community, especially in another language, if I hadn't gotten their consent first. When I asked at the Taberna, I got said that my proposed technical changes may be helpful and welcomed and that's why I started working on the said changes, always having transparency. After that, as you've seen, I communicated with any admins I could find, asked for help and cooperation and was involved in detailed discussions as much as I could. And yet it's been a lot of messages of this sort that basically tell me that my work is not needed here or that I should have optimal results or nothing (at least that's how it feels). I don't wanna force anyone, especially a whole community. As I said before, the reason I came here was to get involved in a Latin speaking community and given that I was already "taking something from it" (by perfecting my language skills through interaction), I wanted to give something back and tried helping in the technical aspect, what I already do in my home wiki. This was after notifying the community and not getting any refusals from it. Now, not only this doesn't feel as a "giving back thing" but it's starting to feel like I'm asking for special favors or accommodations. The general environment feels rather suffocating if I'm dragged back at every edit I make, and I'm not talking about vocabulary edits because I know I'm not good at that aspect.

The idea was to implement some new changes (unlike the existing templates that currently are here, in their current state), starting from citations, which I mostly deal with in my wikiwork, and continuing with different aspects of article content, like infoboxes, etc., which would allow for better global interaction with the project. I asked beforehand and I got the idea that that was a welcomed thing by what I was told. If that's not the case, which doesn't look like it is by all the comments that I'm getting now, I can stop being involved altogether. Please do read my Steward candidature I've linked above. In there you'll see that my general motives in global wikiwork have been the same for many months now with what I've been expressing here and will continue to be the same even in the future. If the community here disagrees with those motives, I, of course, will step back immediately. But this slow dragging that is being done is creating a rather un-welcoming general atmosphere in which is hard to work. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 00:09, 4 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The community" is an amorphous concept, but if you browse in Vicipaedia, you won't find that it has tolerated many large boxes set in the wrong language and not revealing useful data. You may find a general sense that the articles, brief & incomplete as they may be, should have the look of accomplishment: (typo)graphically, they should be, in a word, pretty. That means as little false advertising as possible. But of course we differ as to how much unpretty material is acceptable. For example, I think redlinks (to articles that must be added but haven't been) are OK, since they may spur people to help out by showing what needs to be done, but some editors seem to disagree, at least mildly, and we've even had anonymous visitors pop in and remove redlinks altogether. I don't have a problem with commenting out (with <!-- -->) material someone is working on, and doing that might have been a tactic to use with your faulty templates, but others disagree, and I've been persuaded to remove such material when it's clearly been abandoned and is not being used to guide further work. Any help you can offer to improve the unseen (background) structure of the project through templates and whatnot is fine with me; however, I'm not, and never have been, an administrator, so take these musings with a grain of salt! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:41, 4 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iacobe, contrary to my throwaway remark elsewhere yesterday, I concur with almost all of your comment!
Klein Muçi, I'm sorry that you find my approach harsh. I really try to be helpful, and in work and life and Vicipaedia I have always tried to help others to use their time in the best way. We only have so much time on this earth, and none anywhere else as far as I know. You will understand, I think, that many of my comments to you are attempts towards this aim. Bear in mind too that I am only one Vicipaedian, and others often think differently from me. You are free to start discussions with all others on these and all other relevant topics.
First, look at Ismail Qemali. If anyone relatively unfamiliar with Vicipaedia created a page of 40,000 characters of Latin that contains many faults, I would give them the same advice that I gave you on that talk page -- to save their time! If anyone unfamiliar with Vicipaedia created a page with templates copied from elsewhere, and showed no knowledge that better templates exist here already, I would quietly replace the templates with our better ones: that's not harsh, that's helpful, in my view. I even offered to extend a navbox just to make it meet up with your new page: I was being kind. And I advised you to think about how long it would take you to correct that Latin, and suggested maybe shortening the text. That was good advice, in my view ... but it was only advice. You are free to revert any changes I make: I have never edit-warred in 16 years.
Second, look at the template question. I know nothing about Lua or modules, so, I'm sorry to say, I did not see anything of interest in your link to a module in your first message (which was posted while I was inactive). The first specific plan you mentioned to me was your wish to use an Internet Archive bot, and I said -- and still say -- yes, do it! Your suggestion of converting all our bibliographical references to template format came later yesterday. To this, I have responded positively but with caveats. It's a big question for all of us (I think others would agree thus far) because several of us, coming from different scholarly traditions, all make serious bibliographies in our own way. Unifying the formats could be a good thing (in my opinion) but adding many templates to an edit screen could be a bad thing, and a risk of losing information that we have carefully added would certainly be a bad thing. Others have to discuss all this, and you would naturally want to begin that discussion on the Taberna. It would surely be partly in Latin, and I offered to translate for you if you need it. That was OK, wasn't it? It may be a complicated discussion, and I don't know which way it would go. My offer to you could use up quite a bit of time, which in a perfect world I would spend writing articles :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 4 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, @IacobusAmor, thanks for your answers. It's just that it feels bad when you're trying to help but your actions start looking like you're trying to use the others or benefit from them in a certain way and then every action you make gets scrutinized by the untrusting crowd which grows and grows from every action that you make.
Anyway, nothing is possible without discussions so I believe these situations are healthy per se. So far, what I've understood is:
  • Don't do graphical changes to articles which may appear broken.
  • Don't use other infoboxes instead of those at Wikidata, especially without finishing up the said infoboxes.
  • Don't do changes to the citations interface without having one more discussion about them and their detalis to the Taberna.
  • Do bring here Internet Archive Bot.
  • Do bring here Smallem to help with the transclusion module but ask again when it starts dealing with citations, if it ever starts.
  • Do create short articles (?)
Am I correct in general? I don't want to go on doing anything that doesn't go with the flow here. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:08, 4 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick replies. I'm busy today after this, so I probably won't be commenting further till tomorrow.

  • Don't do graphical changes to articles which may appear broken.

Yes, that is wise. If it's difficult, you can put {{In progressu}} at the top of a temporarily messy page.

  • Don't use other infoboxes instead of those at Wikidata, especially without finishing up the said infoboxes.

Also wise. But, more important, if you want to replace a template we already have, first explain why.

  • Don't do changes to the citations interface without having one more discussion about them and their detalis to the Taberna.

Very important.

  • Do bring here Internet Archive Bot.

Very good idea I think.

  • Do bring here Smallem to help with the transclusion module but ask again when it starts dealing with citations, if it ever starts.

I have never heard of Smallem so I can't comment. But maybe your message on my talk page will help me!

  • Do create short articles (?)

Yes, if they meet our minimum requirements. Most important: at least 200 words of Latin text and a reliable external source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:07, 4 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, okay. In regard to Smallem, please do re-read our conversation in the section "Technical Matters" in your talk page. I can answer any further questions you may have here or there. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 12:18, 4 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see now, you did mention Smallem on my page. Anyway, I understand what it does now. Thanks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:43, 5 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Klein Muçi. The unanimous consensus in the Taberna is to grant Smallem the bot flag. Now, I think I have done this correctly -- I have never done it before -- so please give it a try. Tell me if there is a problem: if Smallem is not yet able to work as a bot, the fault is mine, and I will try to put it right.
As you have already seen -- it's obvious really, forgive me for repeating it -- as the bot operator you undertake to clear up if something goes wrong. Good wishes -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:43, 22 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, yes, thank you. I answered you on email. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 21:06, 22 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back. Tell me if you have any problems. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 2 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, hey there! Yes. I was waiting for a change to be done which was done by Andreas yesterday so I came back now. I'll send you an email soon explaining Smallem's job like we talked. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:33, 2 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taberna[fontem recensere]

See what I did. If you don't like it, you can take out the format that I put there and go back to Discussion and Voting. My advice is that it has worked for us for about 20 years without voting, so to introduce voting now would be a much bigger issue than introducing the sandbox extension! Maybe see how it goes? But it's your choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:00, 10 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the Latin: I said, as my considered opinion (placitum), that this proposal will probably be useful and I see no disadvantage at all, so I am in favour (adnuo, I nod in agreement). If more views are given and need to be translated, I'll do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 10 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, thanks a lot! The reason I started a literal voting is because we'd need to send the results at the Phabricator in the end and the developers there don't really know Latin but they surely know how to count the support votes if they're distinguishable visually so... But I believe it will be understandable even like this. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 23:43, 10 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. But in principle the people at Phabricator, nice as they are, shouldn't determine how non-English Wikipedia communities operate. If there's something that isn't clear to them, they can ask and we can explain. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 11 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, yes, I (and them) fully agree on that because they also accept discussions as final results. But I would like to clarify a bit that voting per se wouldn't change that aspect much as the support or refusal votes would still be in Latin. It's just that template votes usually have an international visual aspect like the support votes having a green small plus sign before them or refusal votes having a red small minus sign. This step was what we were talking about more or less. But no big deal. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:30, 11 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

templatestyles[fontem recensere]

Salve, Klein Muçi, and first of all thank you for your efforts to improve Vicipaedia!

Usor:Andreas Raether contacted me concerning MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css. In my view, it is best to keep these two interface pages as lean as possible, since these interface pages need to be loaded and executed on every page load (even if the page in question in fact does not need them at all). When there are problems with the presentation of a particular template, instead of adding code to MediaWiki:Common.css, it is better to add the required styles via the templatestyles feature (see mw:Extension:TemplateStyles), as I have now done on Formula:High-use. That way, every user (and not just interface admins) will be able to improve the styles later.

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 17:19, 14 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UV, salve!
Thank you for taking the time to deal with this! Yes, it is true I contacted him. I know what you mean because I'm an interface admin at my homewiki for quite some years now. While it is true that the best solution for single templates and modules would be the TemplateStyles solution, I'd still suggest you to "update" the said pages to follow along the EnWiki current version. In SqWiki we were worried that copying ad verbatum the EnWiki version would break anything for us so we tried with small pieces at first but eventually evolved to just copy-paste it like it is and so far we've yet to find anything strange even though years have passed since we started this practice. Why EnWiki? "The English way" in itself doesn't have anything special. It just so happens that the biggest Wikipedia is in English and because of different factors has grown the have the most updated parts when it comes to technical matters. Imported templates, modules and gadgets in most of the wiki projects 90% of the time will be from EnWiki and another reason for that is that they're tested in a way more dynamic environment than most of the wikis so they're less prone to errors. Keeping that in mind, it's usually easier if we can have the same technical environment in both projects so technical maintenance becomes just copy-pasting most of the time, without having to reinvent the wheel and recreate code with every small change that's needed. Of course, I'm a new member around so decisions like these rest with veteran users like you and the majority of the community. But I thought I'd state my opinion on the matter because considering you have interface admin privileges, you can understand better what I'm saying when compared with other users who aren't interested much in technical matters per se. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 23:28, 14 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voicing your opinion! I still think it would be a better solution if one day we had a central repository for gadgets, templates and Lua modules, and I think it will be easier to make a future transition to such a central repository if we do not now clutter our MediaWiki, Gadget, Module and Template namespaces now with (soon outdated) copies of modules etc. from enwiki or some other wiki, unless we really need certain features to improve our encyclopedia. Until we have such a central repository, in my view, the better way instead of copying modules etc. across wikis (which are soon prone to be outdated), would be to create MediaWiki extensions that are centrally maintained and updated and can be activated on all Wikimedia wikis without any need for local maintenance work. For these reasons and for the reasons stated above, I am still not convinced that adding content to MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css would be a good idea. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 09:23, 15 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@UV, the central repository is the Holy Grail but it's been on development status for more than 5 years and by the looks of it and what usually happens on the annual technical wishlist (where it is one of the most wished upon features and always gets a reply of the sort "sorry, Mario but your Princess is in another castle") it will continue to be so for at least the same amount of time before it can come in vast implementable status. (Even after it comes out of development, it will take time to make the transition happen globally.) In general, I'm all for standardization myself so that's a feature I really look forward for more than 2 years now. Besides, as you put it, it would greatly help small wikis with the periodical needed updates. But waiting with hands crossed for years doesn't feel like the healthier approach for the community who just wants means to do the job and see the results, even if those means aren't exactly elegant in the bigger scheme of things. Again, if we take EnWiki's example, they've taken this method a step further by not only relying on their own modules but also by creating a VAST number of gadgets and an even larger number of personal user scripts. This kind of plasticity and liberty has allowed the community to thrive and not be halted by technical difficulties and whenever major "updates" happen, they clean up with bots and things continue normally.
If you want, you can take a look at our Common.js and Common.css pages and also at our project in general, to see in practice what to aspect. SqWiki and LaWiki are very similar in terms of communities and number of articles but SqWiki follows more closely EnWiki standards. In the end, don't feel obligated by my words to do the changes here. The conversation shifted a bit from those 2 pages specifically to ideology matters in general and I'm mostly talking in a general sense now. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:36, 15 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

/sandbox[fontem recensere]

I've added a further note on my talk page and you will see Demetrius Talpa's comment on the Taberna. We have to change to "/Harenarium", I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:38, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, as I said in the beginning, you decide. I'm supposing you want to also change the /doc & /testcase cases AND the sandbox term for modules and templates? Keep in mind a change like this will be accompanied by a continuous need for manual changing of the code of imported modules/templates in the future that make use of the documentation/sanbox/testcase subpages. Especially those imported from EnWiki, needless to say. The reason I say this it's because at least an admin needs to know what's going on underground in the case of problems arising in the future. Adding on that, if you ever wish to stop the sandbox button functionality altogether, switch the Mediawiki page responsible for the link from "Harenarium" to "-". This will make the button disappear for everyone. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 00:13, 24 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's what's called localization. Pagenames of formulae are less important: it's still very desirable to change them, but the everyday user doesn't normally see them anyway. Pagenames of potential user pages are more important and they have to be in the local language (if I can call Latin local when of course it's international). Even when English appears in a Wikidata infobox, it's an undesirable thing and we have to try to change it.
I believe other wikis would make the same choice. A borderline case would be Welsh or Scots or Scottish Gaelic or Irish or Navajo. Every user of Wikipedia in those languages is likely to be functionally bilingual in English. Would they expect or accept a pagename including "/sandbox"? Would a user of Breton or Occitan Wikipedia accept "/Brouillon"? I don't know the answer! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 24 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm not sure about the /doc & /testcase cases and the sandbox term for modules and templates. As far as I can judge, these are likely to be created and seen only by serious editors who may work with other Wikipedias as well. We could leave those just as they are and see if any comments are made. What's your view? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:00, 24 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On this detail, UV has commented on my talk page, giving a similar opinion -- that the change of the personal "/sandbox" to "/Harenarium" was good but there is no need to Latinize the name of the test, module and template sandboxes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:54, 24 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, what follows is a general rant for my personal experience with programming, localization, importation, internationalization and updates. If you want to get straight to the practical aspect of the topic we're discussing, feel free to skip the first paragraph.
I understand what you mean from a linguistic point of view and, if you'd have known me IRL you'd know that I'm usually the guy that gets called "pedantic" for the words he insists on using only so they're correct in the language. My linguistic views are rather prescriptivic so I'm all for what you explain. The only problem here is that when talking about topics such as templates, modules, etc. we're not really part of the usual language domain anymore. Code needs a way to be written, be that in English, Latin, Albanian, Arabic or complete gibberish. It just needs a way to be somehow noted. As I said, that can be anything, for example, instead of a formula, we can agree on calling a template "foobar", a totally made-up word and that would work perfectly well as well. Whenever we write down "foobar", the code interpreter will know we're referring to templates and act accordingly. The only important detail in this case is consistency. Now, given that EnWiki happens to be the biggest wiki around, most technical elements get imported from there and of course, they're built to work in English. Keeping that in mind, everyone benefits from programs written in the same infrastructure, even on a global scale. It just so happens that this infrastructure is English as humans understand it. From a technical point of view, the "words" are just characters used as tools to get the work done, it just so happens that they also have meaning in English. Would it be better if they had meaning in Albanian for me instead of English? Of course but programs at Wikipedia are in a state of ever evolving so after we tried in SqWiki for some years to localize them we saw that it just wasn't sustainable for us. Every 3-6 months most templates/modules/scripts need to be updated. After every update, the localization had to be rebuilt. We couldn't do that and started falling behind, being forced to use outdated infrastructures which grew to be so outdated that going back and forth from different wikis (importing other stuff from them) became almost impossible. Extensions like Content Translation Tool started malfunctioning and support from outside SqWiki started being cut off because many users refused to help if the code they were working with was outdated AND written in a language that wasn't clear for them (not many people outside Albania know Albanian). LaWiki benefits from the fact that it relies on Wikidata templates which are updated and maintained by other users and currently has a very small number of "technical stuff" to selfmaintain but once it gets into that territory you'll see that the continuous updates are almost impossible to be maintained in a localized form without having a LARGE number of users.
Now, returning to the point, I believe the best way to solve that is for me to guide you line by line (those that can be localized) in Module:Documentation, its submodules and templates, like I did with Module:High-use. There you'll see more information about template/module doc/sandbox pages and maybe you'll be more clear on what to choose for them. What do you think? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 18:55, 24 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do it, but maybe next week. This weekend I have to finish the layout of our commune's annual newsletter. One technical thing at a time ...
On the major issue, you will have understood from your conversation with UV that we have consciously decided to keep the interface as simple as possible. So I planned the Wikidata templates so that they would be very simple, not need any local input, and hardly need any maintenance. There is a logic to this: all users of Latin are multilingual, so if people choose to come to Vicipaedia, it's probably to read, and maybe write, Latin. I think this is quite different for Albanian, a national language crying out for a full modern encyclopedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:30, 24 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, whenever you are free, let me know so we can deal with what we talked above. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 23:50, 4 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was slow to reply. I've been thinking, you see ... since we have already changed the personal sandbox link to create "/Harenarium", and since no one has suggested changing the names of the test, module and template sandboxes (UV and I both think there is no need to change them), maybe I don't need to learn this skill after all ... and maybe I would be a slow learner ... However, I'm fairly free this week from now on. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:48, 6 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, hey, no problem at all. It's not about learning a skill or changing the name per se. The thing is that, like Module:High-use, Module:Documentation/config has some strings in English that should be translated (even if we leave the names you mention in English), things like "This page has a sandbox page: [Link]". I'll start a new thread here soon and I'll ping you with the list of strings needed. :)) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:32, 8 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand better now. That's fine: go ahead whenever you like. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:55, 8 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Documentation/config[fontem recensere]

@Andrew Dalby, hello! Let's start with some easy strings to translate (I was afraid I would mess up the declension if I did it myself):

  • Template's page sandbox;
  • Module's page sandbox;
  • Sandbox's page;

- Klein Muçi (disputatio) 09:02, 10 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled by the English declension here :) In what sense does a page belong to a sandbox, or to a template, or to a module? Would it have the same meaning if the word "page" was simply deleted from each string? Then you get
  • harenarium formulae (instead of "harenarium paginae formulariae")
  • harenarium moduli (instead of "harenarium paginae modulariae")
  • harenarium (instead of "pagina harenarii")
To explain what I did in those longer versions: the Latin genitive serves a much wider range of meanings than the English "-'s" possessive. Because of these many potential meanings, a double genitive in a string can be a bit hard for the reader to interpret. It may be possible to avoid a double genitive by replacing one genitive with an adjective, as I have done. (In the shorter versions no double genitive is called for.)
By contrast, in English the only case where you're likely to get a double possessive is in a string like John's friend's book, which is easy for an English speaker to interpret. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 11 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, yes, it would have. Thanks a lot for the explanation! :)
So now:
In the sentence "This is the sandbox page for this page", the "for" part is "per" in Latin, no? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:01, 12 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. The genitive may be more idiomatic: Haec est pagina harenaria huius paginae ('This is the sandpage of this page'). But the repeated page sounds odd. Why not Haec est capsa harenaria huius paginae ('This is the sandbox of this page'), or more pithily, Hoc est harenarium huius paginae (same thing)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 12 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in English we have "diff", the technical term used to compare two page versions, how do they differ from each other. What would a good Latin term be similar to that? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:01, 12 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just retain diff (quomodo hae paginae inter se differunt)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 12 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right, Iacobe! We won't find it in a Latin dictionary, but it's what we have always done.
I wouldn't use "per" there, Klein Muçi. This could be among the many uses of the genitive: "Ecce harenarium huius paginae"; or let's use the dative for a change, not much difference: "Ecce harenarium huic paginae". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 12 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, @IacobusAmor, thank you! I'll keep diff. As for the other part, I was hoping for a single word.
The actual line is: $1 for $2 ($3)
Where $1 will be the sandbox link, $2 will be the page link and ($3) will be the diff link (which will showcase what differences are between the sandbox version and the live version by comparing them)
So the meaning is [Sandboxlink] for [ThisPageLink] (ComparisonLink)
Can we do that in Latin with a single word? By just translating "for"? Or do we need to rewrite it a bit? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 14:04, 12 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. In your English, also, you are using "this" twice pointing in two directions. On what page will the reader see the message? Not the sandbox, not the page itself, some other place? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:15, 12 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still puzzling over it. Here I am on this page. If I click "ThisPageLink", where will I go? I should stay right here, so no need for a link. Maybe you could show me a place on some other Wikipedia where this happens: then I might get it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 12 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, you're right to ask for an example. I'll try to go on with other lines and deal with that in the end.
@IacobusAmor, I'll mention you as well in the following lines.
  • See also the companion subpage for $1.
  • test cases
  • run
The first string notifies the user that there is a companion subpage of testcases for that sandbox ($1), the second one is the name of the testcases that users will see (not their link) - this needs to be translated, and the third one is a link that serves as a button to run the testcase.
Now, if you don't understand how testcases work, you wouldn't be alone in that. So, you have a module/template and in its sandbox you make some changes. You want to know how those changes will look when used on the mainspace or how specific parts of those look. For this you utilize testcases, which, if done correctly, when you press the button "run", will let "the experiment run" and render the results. If you are content with those results, you can go on with putting them live. I hope I've been able to provide some context in this case. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 12:15, 13 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vide etiam subpaginam sociam paginae "$1"
  • experientiae (or, if we are telling people to see them or go to them, experientias)
  • efficere (better, though, if it's something like a testcase, experiri). Efficere means "do it"; experiri means "try it".
Just to answer a point that came up yesterday: with Latin it will nearly always be ungrammatical if we say something like "of [pagename]" or "with, by, to, for, in [pagename]" and just insert the pagename. In a sentence like that the name should always, logically, be in an oblique case, but the pagename will always be in the nominative. In general, the best way round this that I can suggest is to put the pagename in quotes "[pagename]" or maybe in italics [pagename]: the reader can then accept that it doesn't conform to the grammar of the sentence. Any comments, Iacobe? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:40, 13 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Workarounds using subordinate clauses to keep nouns in the nominative are possible, but they're clumsy: pagina cui nomen/titulus X est and (worse) pagina quae X est. We face a similar problem with taxonomic terms, but we do in fact decline them: inter Chrysomelidas digeruntur, not the horror of inter Chrysomelidae digeruntur. This will surprise many native speakers of English (and possibly other languages), who think taxonomic names are singular and indeclinable. (Klein Muçi: all taxonomic names above the level of genus are plural.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:04, 14 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, I know what you mean because the same is true for Albanian. But we've learned to accept the fact that when there is a link ($n usually means a link), that part is to be read as in Word: $n or Word "$n", the same thing that you say above.
Whenever you and @IacobusAmor, can, these are the next tasks:
First I need an image to symbolize the harenarium. I'm assuming we'll use the image that is already being used for the common sandbox?
Yes, let's begin with that.
Secondly we need these strings translated:
  • Template documentation
Documentatio formulae
  • Module documentation
Documentatio moduli
  • Summary
Summarium
  • Documentation
Documentatio
  • view
inspicere
  • edit
recensere
  • history
historia (or, to match the other terms which are verbs, historiam perlegere)
  • purge
purgare (or, to make it clearer, memoriam purgare)
  • create
creare
Context: Template/Module documentation - those are the headers that will be read on doc subpages, check for example this. The black bold part at top of the doc page in the greenish/bluish area after the {{i}} part. The same is true more or less for Summary, which is what will be read on doc pages on the File namespace (images and stuff - I wouldn't worry too much about this if LaWiki doesn't allow images uploaded by normal users) and "Documentation" is what will be used as the header on all doc subpages in any other namespace is they're needed. It's a general fallback term to have just in case, again not something that will be used a lot.
Then the four strings serve for the four commands near the top of a doc page. Check the example I've provided above with that link on EnWiki. View allows you to view the doc subpage itself, edit allows you to skip the viewing part and immediately jump into editing the doc subpage, history shows the history of the doc subpage if you ever so needed, purge, purges your web cache for that page so that you can be sure you're seeing the latest version with all the new edits of the transcluded doc subpage and create allows you to create one doc subpage in case it is missing. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 12:05, 14 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added suggested terms above. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 15 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of them look acceptable. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:45, 15 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, @IacobusAmor, thank you! New strings:
  • The above documentation is transcluded from $1. ($1 = link of doc subpage)
Illa documentatio e pagina "$1" repetitur: better, Illa explicatio e [subpagina documentationis] repetitur
  • You might want to $1 a documentation page for this Scribunto module. ($1 = the verb we set above for "create", hence "creare". - This is a suggestion when the doc subpage doesn't exist yet for a module.)
Tibi oportet paginam documentationis huius moduli [creare]
  • Editors can experiment in this template's $1 and $2 pages. ($1 = link for sandbox, $2 = link for testcases)
Huic formulae [harenarium] et [pagina experimentorum] editoribus praebentur
Huic modulo [harenarium] et [pagina experimentorum] editoribus praebentur
Sorry about the delay, I've added suggestions just above. I turned round the last two sentences, using a passive verb, so that [harenarium] and [pagina experimentorum] can be in the nominative: "A sandbox and a testcases page for this template are provided to editors". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:59, 18 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, no problem at all. Let's continue:
  • mirror - This is a button that allows you to automatically create a sandbox version for a given template/module. It just copy-pastes the existing code into the sandbox subpage so you can edit it and do your changes. This is generally used when a template/module is protected and so you create a sandbox version of it to be able to work if you're not an admin and then you can show that version to an admin who can make the edit on the protected page. I'd go with a verb personally.
Duplicare
  • Create sandbox version of $1 - This is the default summary that will get written automatically for the edit when one presses the aforementioned button. Can be further changed by that user however it wants. In Albanian we have something like: I created the sandbox version of $1.
Exemplar duplex creavi
  • Add your experimental template code here.
Scriptum experimentale formulae hic adde
  • Add your experimental module code here.
Scriptum experimentale moduli hic adde
  • Save this page to create a mirror
Divulgare: ita exemplar duplex creabis
  • Testcase (as in testcase1, testcase2, etc.)
Experientia
These are all comments that help editors do their actions correctly. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 01:54, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested terms added above. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:20, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, thank you! These are the last strings:
  • Add categories to the $1 subpage. ($1 = /doc ) - Notice for users
Nota bene: categorias in subpaginam documentationis insere.
  • Subpages of this template
Subpaginae huius formulae
  • Subpages of this module
Subpaginae huius moduli
  • Subpages of this page
Subpaginae huius paginae
(It's important to preserve the same structure in the three examples above, whatever we choose to write.)
  • Usage (main header on the /doc subpage below which we explain how a template/module is to be used)
Usus
  • Add categories below this line
Categorias sub hac linea adde
  • Wikipedia pages with strange documentation usage - Maintenance category name where pages will be put in automatically if people make mistakes with the /doc subpages. Take liberty with the translation, whatever feels better. We've said something like "Wikipedia pages with unusual documentation usage" in Albanian.
Paginae quibus documentatio imperfecta videtur
This imperfecta (for 'strange') is more like 'incomplete, imperfect'; for the sense of 'unusual', Cassell's suggests insolita, inusitata, nova, mira, mirabilis. Pick one of the first two? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:24, 21 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've inserted translations above. I'll have a look at that last link now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:15, 21 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, thank you! I checked your edit on the link above. It was correct. However, unfortunately, we haven't finished yet, apparently. I thought it would be over but when I did a full check I noticed there are still some parts left in English.
  • no value found for key ($) in message (cfg.) - technical error message
Responsum loco $ lineae cfg. necessitatur
  • Values: - some values the template can take like pre-alpha, alpha, beta, etc.
  • If a rating is not needed/relevant, delete this template call
Si aestimatio inutilis sit, quaestionem formulariam dele
  • The text below is a preloaded template for module documentation pages. It is not actual documentation.
Verba quae sequuntur non veram documentationem, sed formulam praeparatam constituunt
  • Translation table for the shared (Module:Uses_TemplateStyles)
Glossarium conversionis moduli hic adhibiti, scilicet "(Module:Uses_TemplateStyles)"
  • This template uses (TemplateStyles)
(TemplateStyles) in hac formula adhibentur
  • This module uses (TemplateStyles)
(TemplateStyles) in hoc modulo adhibentur
  • This template should use (TemplateStyles)
(TemplateStyles) in hac formula adhiberi debet
  • This module should use (TemplateStyles)
(TemplateStyles) in hoc modulo adhiberi debet
(TemplateStyles) invocari debent. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:43, 23 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, also, the line we discussed in the beginning, simplified:
This is the sandbox module page for:
Ecce harenarium modularium paginae ""
This is the sandbox template page for:
Ecce harenarium formularium paginae ""
This is the sandbox page for:
Ecce harenarium paginae "". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:45, 23 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Klein Muçi (disputatio) 17:53, 21 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, thanks a lot! Before we complete everything, please take a look at this template: Formula:Subpagina documentationis
Edit its code and see line 12 and especially line 21. Is the Latin good? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 12:40, 25 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure which lines you meant. I edited what I could: where the Latin made no sense I got some meaning from the English equivalent and rewrote on that basis! At the end of what you may see as line 12 there is a complicated formula: I didn't see what purpose this served or how it related to the English text I was translating, so I left it untouched. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:48, 25 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, time for you to check the fruits of our work.
Check the 5 pages above and be mindful to press the buttons around at the header. See what happens with them and if the language is correct. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:13, 28 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IacobusAmor, I chose "inusitata". Thank you! :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 18:14, 21 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@UV, hello! Please, take a look at this sandbox page here: Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox
Now take a look at the same page in different languages:
Because of the changes at Mediawiki:Common.css the template appears differently here. I'd still urge you to update the common pages so we wouldn't need to do this individually on each case but if you insist on not updating it, can you please deal with this specific case? I believe the correct place to deal with that would be this one. (if not here) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:24, 28 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Formula:Uses TemplateStyles may be suffering from the same thing. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:36, 28 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now adapted the formatting of these pages. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:45, 28 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@UV, thank you! :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 13:17, 29 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, maybe you've missed this notification. Please, whenever you can, take a look above. I've created some pages just for testing purposes that will need to be deleted once you check them so let me know whenever that happens. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 01:34, 30 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, they seem fine except that in Module:arguments I see the words "Huic modulo sandbox (creare | dublicare)" when I should see "Huic modulo harenarium (creare | duplicare)". And Happy New Year! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:09, 30 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, I fixed those. Please take a look around again because other things may have broken by fixing those.
Yeah, my intention was to precisely end it in this year, that's why I double asked. haha Happy new year, Andrew! :)) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 23:13, 30 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Module:Citation/CS1, when you click on "multis paginis", Toolforge assumes that we are on sq:wiki. Can this be changed, or is it a feature of the caching at Toolforge?
  • At Module:Arguments/sandbox, when you click on "diff", I think it would be better to see, on line 2, the captions "Redactio agens" and "Redactio tua" ("current/active edit" and "your edit"). The button below should read "Comparare".
  • If I create Formula:Test/doc and save, at the end of the message in the box the word "(formula)" appears. Similarly, if I follow the last link of your five links above and create and save Usor:Klein Muçi/Harenarium/doc, at the end of the message in the box the text "(pagina formulae usoris)" appears. In both cases, the bracketed text seems to serve no purpose and I think it should be deleted. Yes, I know I wrote "(formula)" in my draft translation, but this was because I didn't understand fully the message I was translating!
How's that for last-day-of-year corrections? Not too problematic I hope. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:04, 31 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, fixed the first problem and should now link to the correct LaWiki link. The second problem is not caused by my changes but it's because you haven't yet supplied the needed translation for those terms and buttons at Translatewiki. The third problem can be fixed locally at {{Subpagina documentationis}} but that template uses a rather complicated if-structure so I'll deal with that the next year and hopefully try to retain as much original functionality as possible while taking care of the local needs. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:21, 31 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, happy new year! :)
Can you please give me this sentence in Latin so I can finish fixing up the aforementioned template?
"The page contains information on the usage, categories and other information which is not part of the accompanying main page."
Context: Notice on doc subpages - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:33, 2 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Klein Muçi, no problem. Here goes:
Despite our mysterious geographer's use of respective to mean 'respectively', an adjective respectivus, -a, -um and an adverb respective are missing from Cassell's and Traupman, and both dictionaries suggest a form of proprius, giving us in principali pagina propria or in propria pagina principali. Cassell's adds that alternatively, a form of suus would be appropriate. Maybe also a form of pertinere would work; or maybe Neander has a better suggestion. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:25, 6 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I have been reading too much medieval Latin. "Respectivus" really does occur (vide hic) but doesn't belong to the classical norm :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:27, 6 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, take a look again at Formula:Test/doc and Usor:Klein Muçi/Harenarium/doc now. Are the notices alright? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:26, 3 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, sorry for the double ping. Maybe you've missed my notification here? :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 09:38, 6 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Klein Muçi, I get distracted sometimes ... Yes, those pages look fine to me now. Thanks for all your work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 6 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, no problem at all! Okay then, we're finally done then. This concludes the changes with the sandboxes, documentations, testcases and template transclusions counts (Half of Smallem's work). In the following days (let's have a short rest in-between) we'll start dealing with citation templates, the other half of Smallem's work and implementing Internet Archive Bot for dealing with dead links.
If you can, please delete the following pages that were created for test purposes:
Thank you and have a good day! :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:08, 6 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editbox niceties[fontem recensere]

FYI: By not putting anything (perhaps even a blankspace) in the editbox for the new formulas & whatnot that you've added today, you've cluttered up the reports in "Nuper mutata," where, instead of taking up one line each, they take up several. On my screen, many occupy four lines, and six occupy six. You can reduce any or all of them to one line each just by revising them during the present 24-hour period. Or maybe the program that tells "Nuper mutata" how many characters to print before stopping could be revised. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:37, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusAmor, yes I am aware. I do a lot of changes in a small period of time because 1 template depends on 3 other templates which depend on 2 other modules one of which requires translation and another template and... You understand what I'm saying. In order to not forget what I'm doing while I'm working simultaneously in 3 different pages I try to work as fast as I can and that's why I don't put edit summaries. I even created 2 pages accidentally and had to put them up for deletion because of the "aforementioned frenzy". In my homewiki users have never been disturbed by that. But there are many cases where users/communities get disturbed by these situations, so much that they've created a userright for that. (Take a look here and here.) However making that userright work is a bit of a hassle when you're not an admin yourself so if it really annoys you, I'll try to not leave the summary blank anymore on new template/module pages. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 02:53, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to write a novel in the editbox! All that's needed there is to write a dot (.) or a plus (+) or any other sign at all (possibly even a blankspace), and that's what'll print in "Nuper mutata" (instead of three, four, five, six lines of clutter). Alternatively, revising any of these pages in any way at all (such as adding or subtracting a space) within 24 hours will reduce the report in "Nuper mutata"; even inserting something and immediately reverting the insertion will have the same effect. ¶ For example, in "Formula:Documentation/preload-testcases/sandbox‎," I've just cut one unnecessary-looking space from hidden text and have thereby reduced the report in "Nuper mutata" from six lines to one. If that space was actually (in some mysterious way) necessary, please do revert the change. Either way, the report in "Nuper mutata" has now & forever been reduced to one line of text. (Now & forever except that if other editors were to tinker with the same page within the same 24 hours, their names would be recorded, possibly extending the report to two lines.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IacobusAmor, I can do that and I will (I've already started) but I will have to say that from a technical perspective that doesn't work that good. First, it pollutes the edit history of the template/module by adding uninformative summaries and secondly there is a reason why Nuper Mutata (or Recent Changes pages in all languages) works as it does: It shows 4-6 lines so administrators can actually understand what the new page serves for without actually opening it.
Most readers in the whole wide world will have absolutely no interest whatsoever in understanding such things. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:21, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same reason why that doesn't happen if you put a summary (it's supposed that the user is already telling you in the summary what the new page is for). If we are to be correct, (assuming I'm right) it doesn't act on lines but on bytes. There is always a specific number of bytes shown; It just so happens that with templates/modules text is written in a "poetry format" (code is written in lines) and that creates the visual effect that you're watching. Again, that is not a bug, that is an intended feature and it's used a lot in tech-admin communities. The same thing happens when pages get deleted (and you don't put a reason): You get shown 4-6 lines for transparency so other admins know what summary the deleted page had in general (if there is no reason given). My edits tend to stand aside because there aren't a lot of tech edits or page deletions here and maybe you've grown accustomed to using the Nuper Mutata to track article edits and in that case it feels obstructive. But, as I said, if you insist, I'll follow your advice. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 14:12, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re "grown accustomed": I just about always enter Vicipaedia via the "Nuper mutata" page. (I probably haven't looked at the "Pagina prima" page more than ten times in ten years.) ¶ Why not invent a gadget that readers can use to make changes involving formulas invisible in "Nuper mutata"? or to make all entries there no more than a certain number of characters? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:21, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iacobe, no need for a gadget, you can already eliminate formulas from your "Nuper mutata". At the head of the list of "nuper mutata", in the line that says "Filter changes ...", click on the abacus at the left. In the list that unrolls, go to the very bottom and click on "Spatia nominalia". Then check the boxes labelled "Formula" and "Module". Then click at the top right of the list on "Exclude selected". I think you'll be pleased with the result. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:28, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that does work! However, I'd be surprised if more than 1 percent of visitors would want to see new formulas & modules, so why not make that the default? In other words, people should have to opt in, rather than opt out. Btw, the (wastefully spaced) layout of the "Nuper mutata" page remains unchanged, despite my email (was it) several months back. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:22, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After I exited & reentered Vicipaedia, those changes apparently reverted to their prior state. (Reports of formulas & modules became visible again.) How to make them permanent? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:55, 20 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The list of options seems to be the same on every Wikipedia. If that's so, I'd be against reversing the options on ours (even if we could do it) because it would be unhelpful to editors who work across several Wikipedias. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:28, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IacobusAmor, I have yet to use it once myself but I believe you can save your preferences on the filters you apply on Nuper Mutata so they get remembered for the next time you use them. @Andrew Dalby may be able to help further on that. Look for a bookmark icon. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 23:37, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't just with formulas & modules: A new article, "Ioannes Franciscus I Picus," has just appeared, but nothing was put in its editbox at the time it was created, so its report in "Nuper mutata" is cluttering up my screen with eleven lines of text where one would do. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:12, 21 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: and now that more edits have come in (including this one!), the report of that article in "Nuper mutata" has been pushed below the "List of abbreviations" box and has therefore been reduced to five lines, which it'll enjoy forever unless it undergoes an edit in this 24-hour period. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:26, 21 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IacobusAmor, I thought articles would be excluded. Anyway, as I said, the preview function is seen as a feature not a bug in general, as far as I know at least. What you can do is ask for help here. Just describing your problem like you've done here should be enough. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 20:20, 21 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The preview function may well be a feature, but all of it that's needed is one line. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:26, 21 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IacobusAmor, I really urge you to go to the mentioned page above and file a request. There's a high chance you may leave pleased from there. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 01:45, 22 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[fontem recensere]

As I said above, "I get distracted sometimes". I'm sorry I didn't reply to your message on my talk page. It's nice to see you working in Vicipaedia from time to time.

If I'm distracted in the next few days, it's because I'm preparing for a trip to Greece. Train ticket, air ticket, boat ticket. I still have to book a hotel in Piraeus. Maybe today :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:43, 13 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, oh, haha, you're coming near my country. No problem, hope you enjoy your stay! :)) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 22:33, 13 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was an occasion at Bari when I was too late for my ferry to Igoumenitsa and took the ferry to Durrës instead. I'm very glad I did. I've always wanted to come to Albania again, but (so far) I never have. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:34, 14 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, surprised to read that. My prejudgment was that you wouldn't have visited Albania. But really glad to read that you've visited and enjoyed Durrës. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 09:00, 14 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not just Durrës. I drove on to Saranda (the new mountain road was completed almost that day and I got a cheer from the road-builders) and on again to the Greek border near Ioannina. I was wishing all the time that I could stay longer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 14 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby, oh! Haha! Nice! That road has a really panoramic view, even though it can get a bit tiresome for the driver given its many-many turns. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 16:07, 14 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Receptum de "https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputatio_Usoris:Klein_Muçi&oldid=3680199"