E Vicipaedia
Salire ad: navigationem, quaerere
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.
Quaestio nova
Hic colloqui possumus.

Formula:Religiosi[recensere | fontem recensere]

Formula:Religiosi in pluribus paginis de monachis addita est, e.g. in Claudio Hummes, sed ordines, non homines tractat; itaque haec tantum in paginis de ordinibus religiosis mihi apta esse videtur, et delenda ex paginis de hominibus. Quid dicunt alii? Lesgles (disputatio) 02:15, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Probe. Ergo placet. Laurentianus (disputatio) 06:27, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Mihi etiam placet. Andrew Dalby 08:31, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Assentior; nomen formulae autem aptum esse non videtur; melius esset "Ordines" (sicut in categoria "Ordines Ecclesiae Catholicae")--Utilo (disputatio) 12:47, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Factumst (UVbot adiuvante). --UV (disputatio) 20:15, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Macte! Lesgles (disputatio) 20:45, 30 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-40[recensere | fontem recensere]

09:44, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Cur iam operatur hic Chobot?[recensere | fontem recensere]

Prohibetur a nonnullis vicis, envici non excluso. Vide hic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:26, 30 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Quas res malas hic fecit? Andrew Dalby 08:35, 1 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Novus mensis, nova pagina[recensere | fontem recensere]

Spero Franciscum Martinumque uná concorditer paginam primam habitaturos esse! :) Partem autem "Scin tu" renovandam esse animadverto. Lesgles (disputatio) 02:53, 1 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Si de rubrica "Scin tu?" curas daturus es, o amice, laetissime tibi confido ... :) Andrew Dalby 08:44, 1 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

catoeciis[recensere | fontem recensere]

Estne catoecia verbum latinae? Plurima passim video hic nam non in lexicis.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:44, 3 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Verbum est graecum (sc. κατοικία) quod "domus" vel "colonia" vel etiam "cives peregrines" significat. (Est aliud verbum, κατοίκια, minime usitatum, quod "res domesticae" vel "supellex" significat.) Verbum latinum "catoecia" non invenio in corpore illius Packard Humanities Institute, sed, ut mihi videtur, saepissime scriptores verbis graecis utuntur -- quare ergo non hoc verbo quoque? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:55, 3 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Inopinans eram graecam fuisse. Nomen scientificae commodum sit verbum Graeciae et cum egeat in sensu in latina(similes cellphone, tv, etc), in aliis uti dubius mihi est. Amplius hoc aliis discipuli latinae non inveni possint in lexiciis suorum. Sed ut dices, est mos uti verbis graecis. Confestim respondisti gratias tibi ago O Amahoney. --Jondel (disputatio) 13:31, 3 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Nomen categoriae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Quid erit optimum nomen categoriae Anglice "African-American dramatists and playwrights" appellatae? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:23, 3 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

"Categoria:Scriptores scaenici Afroamericani"? Lexico interno meo dramatist idem est atque playwright. Andrew Dalby 13:34, 3 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-41[recensere | fontem recensere]

06:10, 6 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

De "usore" illo[recensere | fontem recensere]

Disputationem Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 12#Usor, usuarius aut utens? modo perlegi. Fortasse fatuum est tam sero normam nostram mutare, sed quoniam "usor" satis visibilis in Vicipaedia est dubitatoribus purae nostrae Latinitatis, disputationem renovare commodum censui. Etsi usor bene formatum est, ne apud Du Cangium quidem reperitur. Utens et usuarius etiam dubii sunt, sed ut Iacobus in hac disputatione dixit, non necesse est ad conversionem "user" adhaerere. Is scriptor proposuit, ego addam particeps (cf. Russice участник), vel collator/conlator (cf. conlationes), vel etiam Vicipaedianus. Alii quid dicunt? Lesgles (disputatio) 17:18, 7 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

De mutatione quamvis sera assentior; num verbis "scriptor", "particeps", "collator" an "Vicipaedianus" utamur in dubio sum.--Utilo (disputatio) 19:24, 7 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Verbum q.e. "particeps" mihi placet. Quidam enim nullis verbis scriptis, vel verba vandalistica removentes, collaborant. Andrew Dalby 08:30, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Iamdudum "usorem" illum haud facile fero. Equidem faveo nomini "collatoris", quia medium tenet inter et "socium" et "participem", praesertim cum significet eum active participere. Praeterea etiam "collatrices", ut dignae sunt, salutare poterimus. Laurentianus (disputatio) 11:32, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Verbum "collator" amo et ego, sed non "Collator aut collatrix". Sunt multae hominum species: si dividere volumus, cur duas, neque plures, definiemus? Oportet verbum singulum ponere quod ad omnes aequaliter applicari potest. Andrew Dalby 11:54, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Probe dixisti. Per me licet. Laurentianus (disputatio) 15:03, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Mihi quoque placet illud "collator." A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:30, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Category Video games[recensere | fontem recensere]

Sorry for not writing in latin and for posting something I already reported, but since there were no answers... :) I just want to report that Categoria:Ludi televisifici and Categoria:Ludi computatrales, both with link at commons:Category:Video games, are redundant and should be merged. Thanks, bye. --Superchilum (disputatio) 13:42, 9 Octobris 2014 (UTC) Amahoney, Laurentianus, Andrew Dalby

Imago mensis: retractactio descriptionis[recensere | fontem recensere]

Ubi et quomodo descriptio imaginis mensis fieri potest?--Utilo (disputatio) 20:51, 9 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

In pagina Vicipaedia:Imago mensis/Octobris 2014. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:45, 9 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago!--Utilo (disputatio) 16:56, 10 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

"Per thematae" etc.[recensere | fontem recensere]

In hac pagina, quid significant locutiones "Per Thematae," "Per Forma," et aliae? Nonne petit praepositio per casum accusativum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:50, 10 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Certe tota pagina corrigenda est! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:15, 10 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-42[recensere | fontem recensere]

08:53, 13 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #8—2014[recensere | fontem recensere]

09:49, 13 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

What's a stub?[recensere | fontem recensere]

How many characters does a short text need before it becomes unmarked as a stipula, and thus is promoted from the status of a stub to the status of an article? That is: what's the upper limit of a stipula? I'd suggest 2000 characters on average, or even 1750, but consensus may be lacking. A practical reason for concern over this question is that stubs reduce a wiki's so-called depth—a concept that Meta uses as a measure of quality: the greater the ratio of stubs to articles, the lower the quality of the enterprise. Compared with other wikis of about the same size, Vicipaedia scores unexpectedly low. This state of affairs must partly be due to thousands of stipula-marked articles produced by our European hamlet-loving contributors. For example: Cusinum, from which I've recently removed the stipula mark because the text fills up a whole screen-page and therefore doesn't (subjectively) look like a stub on my screen. The way the quality-assessing game is played forces participants to be cautious about calling texts stubs. Every new article marked as a stub may reduce the supposed quality of the enterprise as a whole. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:57, 15 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Instead of an absolute number, perhaps some number on a sliding scale relating to the "ideal" size of a given topic would be more appropriate, but although we may have a (subjective) sense of these proportions, finding objective criteria might be impossible. For example, a 2000-character article on WWII would be woefully inadequate (we'd all surely agree), and such a text should indeed be marked as a stub, as might a 3000-character or even a 4000-character article on that topic, whereas the mere 751.3 characters of Caychax—a settlement consisting of twelve people!—might be more than anyone, except perhaps the residents of the locality, and their friends and relatives, would ever want to know, and so maybe that text (and numerous others not unlike it) should be considered an article, rather than a stub. Is there any obective way to make such distinctions? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:57, 15 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Meta does not look at the "stub" formula. The depth calculation doesn't even look at the actual sizes of articles, but at the number of edits and the number of support pages (talk pages, pages in the Vicipaedia namespace, and so on). Marking something as a stipula tells us, and our readers, that we don't think the article is finished. You are quite right that the length of the article depends on the topic -- our page Unus negativus is pretty short, but at least one competent observer thinks it says everything it needs to (probably correctly: the pages in other languages about -1 seem over-long). If you want to improve the depth number, the most useful thing to do is to add pages outside the main namespace (that is, talk pages and so on). If we add 5900 of those, we will increase our depth by 1. The next most useful thing to do is to edit existing pages (in any namespace); 278,321 more edits will increase our depth by 1. The shortness of the articles about towns in France does not affect any of the obvious measures in use at Meta. The number of such articles has helped move us to the "more than 100,000 pages" category, which is A Good Thing. It is not true that marking something as a stub hurts us in any way. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:25, 15 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
This page sez:
  • The "Depth" column (Edits/Articles × Non-Articles/Articles × [1−Stub-ratio]) is a rough indicator of a Wikipedia’s quality, showing how frequently its articles are updated. It does not refer to academic quality.
If the stub-ratio isn't the ratio of the number of stubs to the number of articles, what is it? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:47, 15 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Oh, wait! This page sez "The stub ratio is (1-(Articles/Total))." But how can that be? How can a stub ratio be anything but a numerical comparison of stubs and something other than stubs? Moreover, that the proportion of stubs might assist in the estimation of quality is a reasonable proposition. A wiki consisting only of incomplete articles (stubs) will probably exhibit lower quality than a wiki consisting only of complete articles, and the proportions in between those extremes could offer a quality-defining continuum. ¶ But the game has to be played according to the rules, and given the rules stated above, perhaps the creation of every new article should be followed immediately by the creation of a disputation page for it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:01, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
The "stub ratio" in the description on the List of Wikipedias page is a red herring: it's not a very good name for what's actually being counted. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:54, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Well, it certainly led me astray! But in the light of the discussion above, it's not just a red herring: it's a false statement. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:42, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
No one claims that "depth" is a measure of the quality of the articles; it is a measure of "Wikipedian quality," which means the amount of collaboration going on. The measure has been rather contentious over the years (as you'll see if you look around at the talk pages in Meta). There is also some argument (in the talk page for the List of Wikipedias, most recently) about "articles created by bots." These are generally short and similar one to another -- like our own asteroid articles. Some smaller languages have more of those than of human-created articles -- as we did, too, long ago. This is the only place where I'm aware of concern about really small articles, and it doesn't apply to us because we are marking them as "stubs" or "not finished," and fleshing them out as appropriate over time. We don't have a problem here.
Now, the question "what's a stub?" certainly is worth discussion -- but for our own purposes, not for competition with the rest of the Wikipedias. And I entirely agree that it's going to depend on the article: sometimes 2,000 characters is a lot, sometimes it's pathetic. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:54, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
In some cases — can't give examples right now — it seems to me that stub formulas are being used for decorative purposes. Or what's the reason for some articles having double stub formulas? One answer may be: because our world of stubs is subcategorised into subject specific classes. Though they do have nice little pictures prefixed to them, I don't find the stubs particularly informative. But perhaps the fault is in me, not in the idea of stubs. :-) Neander (disputatio) 15:08, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
[Edit-conflict: duo textus eodem tempore scripti.]
Let's assume that Cassius was wrong, and the fault is indeed in our stars! ¶ Since one purpose of the stub-marking formula is to generate lists of stubs sorted by topic so that contributors interested in a given topic can find stubs to enlarge, multiple stubs should be welcome, no? For example, stubs marked as biographies cry out to have at least a second stub-marking formula, so as to put the article in a list concerning the topic for which the person is famous. See the stub Mitt Romney: at the moment, it's marked merely with a bio-stipula, but contributors looking for articles about politics won't find it, as it's not in the list generated by {{polit-stipula}}. For biographies of scientists, someone created {{scien-bio-stipula}}, but maybe keeping the implied formulas separate would have been a better idea, as some potential contributors might be interested in science but not in biography. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:38, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
I suppose one reason for these stub categories is to allow an editor interested in, say, religion, to focus on improving the list at Specialis:Nexus_ad_paginam/Formula:Reli-stipula. But I don't think anyone is really working that way right now. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:17, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Someone you know has done so. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:48, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
I take it back then! :) Lesgles (disputatio) 17:22, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

I have wondered before about the stub categories. My view is that they are not much use honestly, and I would not myself spend time on elaborating them, because, since 95 per cent of our articles are crying out for expansion and improvement, anyone wanting to do this might as well use the ordinary categories directly. These are more effective at bringing related articles into a handy list than the stub categories can ever be. But, for those who find them useful, there they are!

As for What is a stub? I generally remove the stipula tag or tags when an article that I encounter has a good paragraph of real Latin text, defining the topic and placing it in context , plus really useful references and links, plus a picture if the topic can be illustrated. I think at that point the article is launched, but of course, like all others, it is still longing for improvement. Andrew Dalby 11:06, 17 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a latinist[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hello, dear latinists!

As you can guess by the language I am using, my level in latin is not sufficient to write and communicate with it. This is the reason I need someone who already has a good level in latin (and the odds are, if you are a regular here, your latin level must be pretty good). Being a scholar specialized in eighteenth century philosophy, I am working on an electronic edition of a text, actually a french translation of an english book that has been published in 1713. The book contains numerous quotations, many of them in latin. I checked various editions of the book while establishing the text to make sure the quotations on the electronic edition are accurate, but my latin is not sufficient to make me sure each quotation is fine, especially in the cases where I couldn't find any recent edition of the quoted textes. There is also a problem with the early eighteenth century writing of the "s" that look like "f" and are mistaken for "f"'s by optical character recognition (OCR) programs.

If someone here is curious enough to check this, he will stumble on many interesting (and sometimes unorthodox) quotations about Christianity and contribute to the progress of knowledge. The book is Anthony Collins' Discourse on Freethinking. It made quite a buzz when it went public.

Of course, being a french speaker might help but it is not mandatory. What matters here is a bunch of latin quotations.

Yours, --Katanga (disputatio) 03:46, 18 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Hi Katanga, on Google Books, where they do have a digital copy of an English edition, it looks quite interesting. There are also some seven Greek passages. I would like to assist your efforts at least with the Latin parts. Polytonic Greek is sometimes hard to convert into Unicode, but I guess, since you are into digitizing, you might find a way. I don't know how to do, but it is possible to send me an email through Wikispace. Or just leave a note, how to get in touch. (I know, privacy is a big deal here, which I also appreciate). Regards, Laurentianus (disputatio) 18:18, 18 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Formula:Cite book[recensere | fontem recensere]

I just noticed at Cairus (see the bibliography) that this citation formula is messing up the page layout. It seems to be only this one formula, and not the others in the same family. Can anyone see what is wrong? Andrew Dalby 13:30, 20 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have something to do with the presence of an ISBN in the book entry: if you take that out, the extra grey box disappears. More if I get a chance to poke at it before my next meeting (or if this inspires anyone else, go right ahead!). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:48, 20 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43[recensere | fontem recensere]

13:47, 20 Octobris 2014 (UTC)