Disputatio:Stigma (religio)

Dubsig

Jondel, you made minor changes and removed a Latinitas marking. Usually when a text is marked –3 or worse, one or two changes aren't going to make it L1. Perhaps you'd benefit from seeing all the problematic points, which I've marked with a dubsig formula. Most are grammatical, but a few are merely typographical (too bad that dubsig doesn't distinguish!); a few problematic idioms may have gone unmarked. Many of these problems can't be resolved by someone else because what the text is trying to say is unclear (e.g., signum agnoscendi servi 'a sign of identifying a slave'?). Hope this helps! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:59, 8 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

I'm overwhelmed with joy that for once you got it right! (Instead of coming up with the silliest possible interpretation). I forgot to include however, that the stigma is still used to identify animals( branding for cattle but it is not in the English wiki,just animals ). I will work on those dubsigs with your helpful guidance.Jondel (disputatio) 22:41, 8 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Jondel, you missed the point of each of the first three dubsigs

1. The first was marking the absence of a space, and you've made it worse, as "Graece,[1]στίγμα," now has two typographical errors instead of one. In modern texts written in the Latin alphabet, spaces between words are obligatory.

2. There's no reason to capitalize the plural of a common noun (stigma).

3. Signus is not a Latin word.

Good luck on the remainder! Time for explanations is lacking. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:36, 11 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Iacobus thank you! That signus-Signum mistake is a shocker! I will do my best so that there is no need to feel obligated to give explanations.Jondel (disputatio) 12:30, 12 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Bad footnotes

There are too many footnotes in this article, and they are bad footnotes. Two points:

1. The proper way to make an external link is not this:

• http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=stigmata

but this:

• "[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=stigmata Stigmata]" at ''Online Etymology Dictionary''

We're writing for human beings. The URL is for machines to read, so we insert it, but cover it with words that a human being can read. In this case, I covered it with the entry term "stigmata", and followed this with the name of the website, both in proper human language. Other variant methods will work fine, but, at least, the square brackets need to be used to hide the full URL and put something readable there instead.

2. The word "ibid." is not to be used on Wikipedia, because if someone inserts another footnote later, the "ibid." will end up referring to the wrong entry. The thing to do on Wikipedia is this. At the first point where you refer to a particular source, make a full reference like this, giving the footnote a name:

• <ref name="etym">"[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=stigmata Stigmata]" at ''Online Etymology Dictionary''</ref>

At second and later points where you are referring to the same source, don't write "ibid." but make a brief footnote like this:

• <ref name="etym" />

It's a bit fiddly, I know, but it's the way that works! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:05, 6 Martii 2016 (UTC)

I will be working on this. The dubsigs are excessive.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:32, 8 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Let me remind you, the ibid.s need to go. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Done. I might need to work on referencing though.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:33, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)