Disputatio Formulae:Non Latine

Text[fontem recensere]

This is just a start. The template does not look nice and covers only the basic functionality. Please change it as you like. --Rolandus 10:21, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I made some very minor changes to the text -- OK I hope. I have one question: do we intend this to cover cases where the contributor thinks he has written Latin, but we know he hasn't? (If so, yes, we suggest use of the tiro template.) Or is it only for cases where the article is currently in a completely different language, not Latin at all? (If so, no need for the tiro suggestion.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further point: perhaps the text in the template should be bilingual (i.e. we should retain your English and add a Latin translation). If the article itself is already in a funny language, it will not seem strange that our official template, too, contains foreign language text. And the users we have in mind are more likely to understand it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the correction you made, Andrew, is probably better than the one I made. Nevertheless, we seem to have both corrected the same sentence. Yet only mine is visible. What's goign on here? --Iustinus 17:00, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You take the words out of my mouth ... Now I see. Each of us corrected a different namespace version. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You both corrected different sections of the template (inculdeonly/noinclude). I copied code from the includeonly-section as an example into the noinclude-section. I think I should do this more elegant ... --Rolandus 20:00, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the problem: To show examples on page Formula:Non latine, now the template accepts an optional parameter for the namespace. --Rolandus 21:55, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Yes the template should be bilingual, maybe using the {{monstrare}} template. For cases where the creator might have thought he has written Latin, but has not, we should use a {{latinitas}} template, maybe with level "-9". This {{latinitas}} template should also be more verbose and follow this problem-explanation-options-policy structure. For latinitas "-9" it might be very similar to {{non latine}}. See Formula:Latinitas#Another_try. --Rolandus 14:49, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit[fontem recensere]

For cases where the page is written entirely in another language, I don't think we should grant weeks for the problem to be solved. At most a day. --Iustinus 16:55, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that we shouldn't grant anything like a week. How's 48 hours?--Ioshus ^(disp) 19:06, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be reasonable. Allows a user (who forgot to put up "in progressu") to get back to work on a page a whole day plus five minutes later. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:01, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always me ...

I'd suggest to choose a period which is intentionally much longer than someone would need to solve the problem:

The "nice" argument again ... ;-)
The template clearly explains that we do not want this content in that form. We can make this even more explicit.
The longer the template is in the page the more people can read it and understand what content is appreciated.
The template could show that we are patient (the long period) but also strict: The page will be deleted, if the problem will not be solved.

If someone is editing only on weekends, a period less than a week might be too short. If he does not understand what's going on, he might ask in the taberna. Sometimes it takes some time to get an answer in the taberna ... I think we should also have in mind the education of newbys. This might take some time and should be worth keeping a page in a foreign language for some days. --Rolandus 20:22, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted "1 week", not intending to pre-empt decision, but just so that the formula says something useful meanwhile. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other namespaces...[fontem recensere]

...all seem to say Formula no?--Ioshus ^(disp) 22:11, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why ... on Vicipaedia:Pagina experimentalis it works and shows "Usor". --Rolandus 22:26, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my last edit of {{non latine}} ... now it works ... but I do not understand. --Rolandus 22:29, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reddenda[fontem recensere]

How is the use of this intended to differ from {{reddenda}} (= "[page] which needs translated")? —Mucius Tever 23:40, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pages which are now tagged with {{reddenda}} seem to be rather "Latin". For {{non latine}} I haid mainly those pages in mind which get a {{delenda}} now. For example pages in English or Spanish. If it looks like Latin it should get a template which rates its {{latinitas}}, like {{reddenda}} seems to do. --Rolandus 23:50, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how people have been misusing {{reddenda}} since I created it, but it was intended for pages that weren't in Latin (e.g. in English or Spanish...) and needed to be translated—hence the title. Looking at some of these pages marked with {{reddenda}}, I can't see why they bear it at all. —Mucius Tever 00:04, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I agree that "reddenda" and "non latine" basically have the same intention and we could merge them. I did not know. We should merge them. However, they have a different point of view: "non latine" describes the facts, "reddenda" is a command. This might be a bit esoteric, but I think we should just describe the facts and then list the options we have in that situation. "reddenda" is an option, not a fact. "reddenda" as a command is ok for me, but I really dislike "delenda", which is also a command, not a fact. I'd like to get rid of the {{delenda}} template, where possible. It should be substituted by templates which describe the situation. {{non latine}} should also give an example for this concept of "situation -> description -> options -> policy" for templates, instead of just providing a command. We should merge "non latine" and "reddenda". --Rolandus 06:50, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[fontem recensere]

Would Haec pagina non Latine scribitur be preferable to Haec pagina non est scripta Latine? Harrissimo 20:12, 18 Februarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

"Google Translate doesn't produce real Latin?"[fontem recensere]

It doesn't produce anything other than nonsense, at least when translating to or from a language using a CJK script. KATMAKROFAN (disputatio) 00:48, 22 Novembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly that's quite true. But I'm not sure that there's any need to reword the template. Were you suggesting this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 22 Novembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]