Disputatio Formulae:Fontes desiderati

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Iustinus - I think originaly Fontes Carentes was for Articuli fontes carentes - fontes being the object of carens. (For the category Categoria:Fontes carentes). Still, the change makes sense, especially because the singular use of the tag now - it would have had to become [hoc] caret fontes, or something. --Tbook 16:49, 26 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

We could do it that way to, but careo takes an ablative of separation, so it would have to be fontibus carentes/caret. --Iustinus 17:08, 26 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Correct. My error. --Tbook 17:16, 26 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

less color[fontem recensere]

For the sake of the health of my eyes, thank you! ;-) --UV 22:41, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Two cases?[fontem recensere]

I think this formula has been intended to serve two cases, and that maybe we should distinguish them.

  1. The general Wikipedia case where a statement is made that ought to be justified with a citation.
  2. The special Vicipaedia case where, because of the shortage of modern sources in our language, we are uncertain of the Latin spelling of a name.

I also think that nearly all uses of this template at present belong to case 2. Therefore I am wondering whether to do the following:

  1. Change the wording of this formula (again) to "Fons nominis Latini desideratus." It will then be crystal clear that it applies to the name to which it is attached.
  2. Make a similar formula with the wording "Citatio desiderata" which we can attach to dubious-looking or unsourced statements.

Unlike most Wikipedias, we insert this present formula in a footnote. This makes it more time-consuming for editors: we have some extra typing to do each time we use it. So should the new formula, also, be designed for placing as a footnote, or should it appear in the line or as a superscript? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 13 Martii 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the observation that the template is currently used nearly exclusively in case 2. We also have {{dubsig}}, which asks rather for checking and confirming a word (and then removing {{dubsig}} again) than for providing sources.
I do not have a particular preference whether to use the new template in footnotes or inline/superscripted or as a box. --UV 23:52, 13 Martii 2007 (UTC)
I agree, we should have two types of templates.
The style: The actual styleof using footnotes has - in my opinon - the advantage that it demonstrates how to use footnotes, when a user wants to add a source. However, it is more complicated to add the desiderati-template than to add an inline-template. But - on the other hand - since we have some working examples for footnotes now, this argument might have become less important.

--Rolandus 05:44, 14 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Agree for the need for two templates. We definitely need the citatio desiderata one, badly. I see so many articles uncited. It's not going to work if we want to be taken seriously.--Ioshus (disp) 12:13, 14 Martii 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I have now made {{Citatio desiderata}} to be used in the general case (comparable to en:Template:Citation needed). I take Rolandus's point, that setting it up as a footnote in the first place makes it easier for the editor who afterwards adds a citation, so I have continued that style. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:13, 16 Martii 2007 (UTC)

Footnoting[fontem recensere]

The use of this template behind ref tags is really hideous. Especially considering that the usual impression that one gets when one sees a superscript bracketed number on Wikipedia is that something so marked is slightly more trustworthy—since there's a source for it—it's terribly counterintuitive to see it used to mark something specifically unsourced and in doubt. Certainly if it's used on a stub page, the text being in bold and all may stand out immediately, but this is also used on more lengthy pages where 1) we don't get that benefit and 2) people clicking the ref to (ostensibly) see the source/footnote get a message whose utility is on par with "this footnote is under construction".

I don't know what reasoning caused the practice of moving this and its similar templates to footnotes; the only thing I can think of is that it makes it marginally cleaner to look at, though I'm sure I've heard it as a principle over on en: that cleanup templates making the page look ugly is a feature: broken information is not supposed to be attractive.

Anyway, I'd like to see this fixed. I don't know what way people would prefer, but these are the options I can think of (in order of most like current practice to most different):

  • Keep using ref, but "grouping" them separately and using a special symbol to mark missing sources, e.g. neologism[✖ 1]
  • Use a superscript symbol like Template:dubsig does, possibly with mouseover text, e.g. neologism[✖]
  • Use the [citation needed] style, e.g. neologism[fons desideratus]

What do you all think? —Mucius Tever 02:35, 1 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)

I adopted the footnote style for these formulae rather reluctantly (see above): it remains more time-consuming for editors, and I take your point that it is counter-intuitive since one expects a footnote to support a statement, not to throw doubt on it!
I like the "superscript symbol with mouseover" idea because I think [fons desideratus] (typical of en:wiki) makes an unattractive interruption in the text. I'll just suggest a variant possibility: We can underline (or maybe background-colour) the dubious detail, and indicate by mouseover what the problem is.[?] An advantage of this is that it makes clear to the reader which precise bit of the text needs support. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:17, 3 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)


(example references)[fontem recensere]

  1. Warning icon.svg Fons nominis Latini desideratur (addito fonte, hanc formulam remove)