Disputatio Usoris:Franciesse

    E Vicipaedia

    Salve, Franciesse!

    Gratus 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" fieri velle!

    Gratias agimus propter additiones tuas. Si nomina alternativa addis, nota bene s.t.p.:

    1. oportet semper fontem novorum nominum subiungere.
    2. melius est nomina rariora in notis subiunctis inserere, non ad caput articuli in litteris crassis. Nomina duo vel tria sufficiunt in prima paginae sententia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 28 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Rursus gratias tibi ago ob fontem nunc citatum. Bene apud nos venisti! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:50, 29 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you very much for your message. It's good that you are with us on Vicipaedia. That will be a useful list of states in the year 1000. I'm also happy that your father quoted my Siren Feasts in his work! Wishing you a successful New Year -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Moving pages[fontem recensere]

    Hi, Franciesse! If you want to change the name of a page it is good practice not to copy-and-paste, but to use the command "Movere". It is quicker and easier, too. After you have been a Vicipaedian for 4 days, you will find this command "Movere", maybe hidden under a grey triangle, just to the left of the "quaerere" box.

    This doesn't matter in the case of Lingua Monoecica (because you wrote the page anyway). In general it is important because the result is that the history (with list of editors) remains with the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:17, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Monoecanus & Monoecicus?[fontem recensere]

    You've used the words Monoecanus and Monoecicus in Principatus Monoeci, and I like to know why. Any sources or was it your sixth sense? Please join the discussion on Disputatio:Principatus_Monoeci, thank you.--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 11:46, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I'm glad you made me look at the names for Monaco. I have added a comment in the disputatio and I have also found confirmation that the old French name was Mourgues -- see the image that I am about to insert at Monoecus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:35, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Umm ... why delete Lingua Monoecensis? There are still links pointing to it. Could it be that you want to move Lingua Monoecica back to Monoecensis? If so, then I agree -- it's probably the best name we can find -- and I will go ahead and delete so that you can complete the move! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:20, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, I did the deletion and have completed the move for you. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:48, 6 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Nomina[fontem recensere]

    Glad I could help with the images, Franciesse>

    We don't convert surnames to Latin unless there's evidence that the user of the surname did so himself. If you have some evidence for Petrus Crassus and Ludovicus Gasparoptus, better cite it quickly: otherwise, those pages will be moving, I think :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:54, 18 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Ok, I'll correct my mistake, it was only a failed experiment. ;) Franciesse 17:41, 19 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No problem. Thanks for moving back! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:51, 20 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    ... et praenomina[fontem recensere]

    An quaestionem meam hic iam vidisti? Oportet caute agere de praenominibus, Franciesse, propter has rationes:

    Difficile est fontes fideles reperire de hac re
    Vicipaedia non est dictionarium: igitur, si pagina nihil aliud sit nisi glossarium verborum non-Latinorum, deleri potest

    Haud credo omnia illa praenomina, quas sub "Abundantia" enumeras, re vera exstare! Quo fonte uteris? Necesse erit fontem citare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:38, 8 Maii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    ... et nomina Transtyriae[fontem recensere]

    The article is very interesting and useful -- please continue! -- but I took out nearly all those names from the first sentence. I explained in the Disputatio. We have in the past had discussions about these things, and we have agreed that too many names is a bad idea -- and that interwiki links in the text are normally not wanted. We would of course want to mention relevant local names somewhere, and a good place is the section "Nomina" that you have already created (I guess "relevant" will be Romanian/Moldavian and Ukrainian, perhaps also Russian).

    I really enjoy reading your work, but I do want to persuade you that Vicipaedia doesn't aim to be a list of names, especially not names in other languages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:12, 10 Iunii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Ok, thank you so much, I understood and I noticed that the first sentence was too long. Certainly I'll continue with working on it, valete! Franciesse 10:37, 11 Iunii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Locus patrimonium ...[fontem recensere]

    Hi, Franciesse. It's good to have these UNESCO categories, but I think there's a problem with the category names: 1. we always make category names plural if the plural makes sense (see Vicipaedia:De categoriis), so it should probably be "Loci"; 2. there doesn't seem to be a grammatical relation between the first word and the rest. The most obvious solution there would be to put the second word in the genitive, so that would give "Loci patrimonii ..." Don't make any hasty changes, but let's see if you agree and if anyone else comments. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:30, 13 Augusti 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Hi, Franciesse. I understand now why you went ahead so quickly! I don't think I ever saw Nuada's categories ... and there was no response to UV's query ... so they just stayed that way: that's very bad luck. I think maybe, as you suggest on my talk page, we could make the names shorter: and also I would like to agree on a category to place them in, instead of directly under the country name, because just at present I am working on categories for geographical places, and this fits in with that. So let's work this out and not change in a hurry. It may be that a bot could make all the changes automatically, Nuada's and yours -- I'm not sure if that's possible -- it'll be worth asking. OK?
    One question. Have you done the whole world, or are there still some others to do? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:14, 14 Augusti 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi, Franciesse. You will see that the categories about World Heritage have now been moved to a new name. I hope you are happy with that? I noticed that you still need to do one more thing with each of those categories you created -- they have to be linked on Wikidata. Not sure if you'd forgotten that, or whether you were simply waiting for the names to be agreed (which would make good sense). I'm out of date -- UV has kindly done that little job already! Happy editing ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:59, 24 Augusti 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    It's a good thing you are working on the categories for seas, straits, etc. I have been working on land categories and I haven't touched salt water much. Think about the question I raised at Disputatio Categoriae:Freta Calpis. We wouldn't want a lot of categories that can only ever have one member each. That was why, for example, I created Categoria:Loci hereditatis mundialis in insulis Caribicis, resisting the temptation to create Categoria:Loci hereditatis mundialis in Sancta Lucia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 24 Augusti 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    On the other hand, I created the series Categoria:Linguae secundum civitates digestae: it has several subcategories with only one possible member each, e.g. Categoria:Linguae Islandiae. I've sometimes wondered whether that series of categories was a good idea or a bad idea ...! It's hard to be sure, sometimes ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 24 Augusti 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nice to see you again! I just deleted the very short page Maria marginalia because it had been marked "Non stipula" for a while. If you want it back again, so that you can add a reference or an image or a list or a bit more text (any of these things would solve the problem), tell me and I'll restore it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:33, 6 Octobris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Tell me why?[fontem recensere]

    Hi Franciesse. Again, nice to see you back. Since I created (I think) all the subcategories of Categoria:Categoriae ex hominibus appellatae, maybe you would tell me why you want to hide them?

    At present our rule is that the category Categoria:Homines and its subcategories should contain only biographies: see the explanation at Vicipaedia:De categoriis#De variis categoriarum generibus. There are housekeeping reasons for this, and this is why the subcategories of Categoria:Categoriae ex hominibus appellatae have not been placed in subcategories of Categoria:Homines. It's possible to link the two category trees using "Vide etiam", and I'd prefer to do it that way. Would you see any problem with that? UV (who does the relevant housekeeping) may also have a comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:33, 16 Martii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Thanks for your reply on my page. I guessed it was that, but I didn't know :) We don't differ completely from all the other wikis, but they all individually have different features, and so do we! On this detail, we are (I think) more like the German wiki, less like the English.
    As for the hiding, I could see no reason myself why this grouping of categories should be hidden, and I thought it might be useful to some readers, so I didn't hide it: as simple as that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:16, 16 Martii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]