Disputatio Usoris:Lesgles

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archiva

Vide etiam tabularia huius paginae disputationis:

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[fontem recensere]

WMF Surveys, 18:41, 29 Martii 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[fontem recensere]

WMF Surveys, 01:39, 13 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[fontem recensere]

WMF Surveys, 00:48, 20 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)

De diagrammate vocalium[fontem recensere]

Salve, Lesgles! Impulsu grato tuo operam dedi, ut paululum de terminologia descriptiva vocalium cogitarem. Lucubrationes meas hic exposui. Num quis nuper de phonetica latine scripserit, nescio. Itaque de appellationibus quas proposui disceptare licet. Neander (disputatio) 15:32, 31 Maii 2018 (UTC)

Google Latin[fontem recensere]

If you happen to look at the deleted page Omnicron, you'll see that the well known Lorem ipsum word amet now means "film" in Google Translate Latin. Two occurrences. I don't think this is a gloss that I fed in -- I was never much interested in film -- so Google Translate must have worked this equivalence out for itself. That's machine intelligence for you Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:26, 15 Iulii 2018 (UTC)

Funny! It would probably be better if Google removed their Latin translate option, at least until they come up with something halfway decent. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:33, 16 Iulii 2018 (UTC)

Fix them all by hand?[fontem recensere]

Unless all those new formulas are actually useful, today would be a good time to have handy a reset button so the entire enterprise could be restored to its condition at 02:36, just before the English-language additions began. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:58, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)

Al-Fātiḥa[fontem recensere]

Hi, Lesgles. You're good at this stuff and I'm a bit busy today. Could you find time to check whether the change just made on this page is OK? I find it hard to compare our text with other Wikipedias (e.g. German, French) ... not quite sure why, just my incompetence I expect ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 10 Octobris 2018 (UTC)

That user did add a few letters. I don't actually really know Arabic, so I don't know if there is some variant spelling, but I replaced the text with that from Quran.com, which also includes the vowels. This seems to be identical to the spelling on other Quran sites as well. Lesgles (disputatio) 01:20, 11 Octobris 2018 (UTC)

Taxoboxes[fontem recensere]

I've been redesigning the taxobox so that it looks a bit more like our later infoboxes. Having done the general work I found I needed to visit all the taxoboxes that have a "Fossil range" section (about 200 of them). It took me quite some time to see how the formula {{Fossil range}} worked. Having begun to grasp it I was struck by how many different ways editors had discovered to avoid using it quite as intended (mostly editors on en:wiki, copied-and-pasted here). But it's not really surprising, because the usage is not self-evident and easy to get wrong.

Anyway, I decided I had to rework all instances of the "Fossil range" section. I think that all the formulae {{Fossil range}} are now consistently used: they all show a date range on the timeline diagram, though in some cases it's too brief to be visible; they all show both the date range and the first-and-last geological periods in text form, and the periods are all linked to relevant articles. I think. See for example Hominidae (it's the "palaeontologia" section of the taxobox). I decided that "Recent" is Recens (redirected to "Holocaenum"), not the many other Latin versions that we have all used. I decided that the correct case for the geological periods is the accusative of length-of-time, because the taxon concerned lived during the period concerned -- and since the period names are adjectives functioning as neuter nouns, the accusative always has the same form as our pagename, making the links so very nice and simple. I felt really happy after deciding this, and began to apply it to every page that came up in "Nexus ad paginam".

Last of all, I came to your taxonomic articles. If I had started with them, I might have made some different decisions, because I gradually realised that you had been more consistent than anyone else (which wasn't difficult). But I was in the swing of it by then, it was faster each time, and I just continued. Please forgive me, therefore, for some unnecessary changes, though I don't think anything is worse than it was before. If you are happy to continue on the new pattern, see the documentation at {{Fossil range}}. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:41, 7 Octobris 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for working on that! I'm not attached to any fossil range format, and I also remember seeing it used in a lot of different ways. One note: is it possible to to include links in the "conservationis status" section? For example, the VU in Leo should link to Species damno obiecta. Or perhaps thus: "VU (Species damno obiecta)." We're still missing several of the IUCN categories, of course. But having the Latin there would help the reader, I think. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:32, 8 Octobris 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, and I plan to work on that subsection next. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:51, 8 Octobris 2019 (UTC)
Great! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:52, 8 Octobris 2019 (UTC)
I am short of time right now. I have achieved display of conservation status in some cases ... not necessarily all. If there are problems I will try to solve them when I have more time again (about a week from now) -- or of course you or anyone could have a go meanwhile! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 11 Octobris 2019 (UTC)

Translation request[fontem recensere]

Hello.

Can you create and upload the articles en:Azerbaijan State Academic Opera and Ballet Theater and en:List of statues in Baku in Latin Wikipedia? They should not be long.

Yours sincerely, Karalainza (disputatio) 08:26, 27 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Theatrum operaticum ballationisque academicum publicum Atropatenicum done. I'm not planning to do the second. Sigur (disputatio) 12:12, 29 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Disputatio:Forum Iulii-Venetia Iulia[fontem recensere]

Salve! Paginam "Forum Iulii-Venetia Iulia" tu inter alios edidisti. De nomine huius paginae s.t.p. placita tua adde. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:59, 11 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Lesgles. I ask since you hesitated to decide: Iacobus's new suggestion seems to me good and stylish. Do you have any thoughts on it, for or against? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:52, 12 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Whatever is decided, I agree with Andrew that the hyphen is problematic. In the first place, hyphens join things, but "Iulii-Venetia" is a false junction, so what would be required is something that joins while separating, like the en-dash; but in the second place, how should that be pronounced? Victor Borge could probably manage it, but Cicero might not be amused. I believe some German geographic entities exhibit the same problem, in which taking the syntax directly from German makes for awkward Latin. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:24, 12 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Ardesia[fontem recensere]

Lesgles optime salve. Scripsisti de ardesia. Notumne est tibi, an haec res eadem materia sit atque ille lapis scissilis, de qua Celsus (6.6,30) dicit? Nonne scandulae (sive scindulae) ex ea fiunt? --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:07, 17 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Difficile est dictu. Smith et Hall dicunt "Kr. has *lapis fissilis, but [...] this is vague". Nam plures lapes sunt fissiles vel scissiles. In Oxford Latin Dictionary haec vocabula repperi:
"fissilis":
Easily split, fissile
sarcophagus lapis ~i uena scinditur 36.13.1
"scissilis":
(in quotations, applied to a form of alumen)
alumen ‥ ~e, quod σχιστὸν uocatur Cels. 5.2, 5.8
lapidis ~is ‥ Px 116.6.30
"schistos":
(of minerals) Easily split, fissile
a (as the name of a variety of alumen, written as Greek in Cels. 5.2)
(sal Hammoniacus) similis est alumini, quod ~on uocant, longis glaebis neque perlucidis Plin. Nat. 31.79, 33.88
b lapis ~os or ~os alone, a kind of iron ore, perhaps limonite
(adeps gallinae) admixtis ~o et haematite lapidibus Plin. Nat. 29.124, 33.84
~os et haematites cognationem habent 36.144
Sed ipsos fontes non legi, et lexicographi errare possunt! Lesgles (disputatio) 14:41, 17 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
Gratias tibi! --Bavarese (disputatio) 16:20, 17 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation tool[fontem recensere]

Hello Friend,

Apologies as this message is not in your native language.

The WMF language team is reaching out to you based on your valuable contributions to the Latin Wikipedia as an editor who frequently uses the Content Translation tool.  

We appreciate the great work you are doing in Latin Wikipedia to increase content to ensure that knowledge is available in your Wikipedia and understand that it is annoying to encounter difficulties while translating articles or deleted content afterwards. Therefore, the WMF Language team will like to understand from your experience, the issues you encounter when using the tool to translate content.

Our observations

We noticed that the Content Translation tool is not used frequently and sometimes the articles created are deleted. We say this because, from our statistics, 5360 articles were added to Latin Wikipedia in 2020. Out of the above figure, only 68 of them were translated using the Content Translation tool. 17 of the articles added with Content translation were deleted. While the tool has been frequently used with low deletion ratios on many wikis, the tool's low usage signals a problem or deficiencies peculiar to Latin Wikipedia. As the Content Translation tool can increase content creation in your Wikipedia and is a proven excellent way to efficiently Introduce newcomers to adding content and expand on existing ones.

Our request

So, we are reaching out to you because we want you to participate in a survey. The survey will help us understand your challenges with the tool, the aspect of the tool you think needs improvement that will enable your community to use it more and reduce the rate of content deletion.

Please follow this link to the Survey:
Take the Survey
To know how the information collected from the survey will be used, please read the Privacy Statement.

If you are not comfortable with taking the survey, that is fine. You can still provide us with feedback via email on the following questions:

  • What is the most challenging part of translating an article using the Content Translation tool? Example (adding the references, the infobox, templates, publishing, etc.
  • Why is the above the most challenging part of translating articles in your Wikipedia?
  • In your opinion, what changes can be made to the tool that can make more people in your community use the tool more frequently?
  • Why do you think some translated articles are being deleted?

So please, feel free to give us feedback in any way that is most convenient for you.

Thank you so much, as we look forward to your response.

UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 10:03, 21 Iunii 2021 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF language team.

Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation tool[fontem recensere]

Hello Friend,

Apologies as this message is not in your native language.

The WMF language team is reaching out to you based on your position as an admin in the Latin Wikipedia. In particular, we want to learn about your experience, the issues you encounter with articles created with Content translation.

We appreciate the great work you are doing in Latin Wikipedia to ensure standard and quality articles are not compromised. However, it is a big task to encounter content that is not standard daily, and a difficult decision to delete them because they fall below standard.

Our observations

We noticed that articles created with the Content Translation tool in your wiki are deleted more frequently than in other Wikipedias. We say this because, from our statistics, 5360 articles were added to Latin Wikipedia in 2020. Out of the above figure, only 68 of them were translated using the Content Translation tool. 17 of the articles added with Content translation were deleted. Therefore, the tool's low usage and the deletion rate signals a problem or deficiencies peculiar to your Wikipedia. The Content Translation tool can increase content creation in your Wikipedia and is an excellent way to efficiently introduce newcomers to adding content and expand on existing ones.

Our request

So, we want you to participate in a survey. The survey will give us insight into how we can improve the tool to get quality articles and reduce the number of deletion, hence making your work easier.

Please follow this link to the Survey:

Take the Survey
To know how the information collected from the survey will be used, please read the Privacy Statement.

If you are not comfortable with taking the survey, that is fine. You can still provide us with feedback in this thread or via email on the following questions:

  • What makes the articles created with content translation fall below standard in your Wikipedia?
  • What are the common mistakes that editors that use content translation make?
  • How do you think we can improve the  Content Translation tool that will help you with your work or make your task easier and reduce deletion of articles in Latin Wikipedia?

So please, feel free to give us feedback in any way that is most convenient for you.

Thank you so much, as we look forward to your response

UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 21 Iunii 2021 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF language team.

Aliquot mendula in articulō dē Aristippō Cyrēnaeō scrīptō inventa[fontem recensere]

Matthias Herrbergius Bambergensis (disputatio) 08:24, 6 Iulii 2021 (UTC) Stefanō Lesgles Americānō salūtem dīcit.

Incidī Horātiī prīmam epistulam legēns in Aristippī nōmen, adiīque ad Vicipaediam, ut, quis fuisset, discerem. Pauca in illīus articulī parte, cui titulus "Vita et doctrina", menda inventa iam corrēxī, nunc autem tuō egeō auxiliō nam quaedam, quid significent, perspicere nōn valuī.

Ecce locī:

"v o l u p t a s q u a m Socrates utique in philosophiam introduxerat, c u i u s(philosophiae?) unam tantum partem a u t e m spectare solebat Aristippus."

Quaesō hīc subiunge versiōnem Anglicam!

"...virtutem bonam esse solummodo voluptat e m r e c e p t u m..."

Quaesō hīc...

"Sensuum perceptio tantum de recta via s e l i g a t."

Quaesō...

"Christophorus Martinus Wieland Aristippum e x t u l i t in mythistoria sua,"

Item...

Hī sunt locī mihi obscūrī.

Cūrā, ut valeās

Salve, Matthia. Haec pagina non a me, sed a Giorno2 scripta est. Si vis, eum rogare potes, aut has sententias ex aliis fontibus reficere. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:12, 6 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
Schön, daß Sie Fehler gefunden haben und diese korrigieren. Das ist der Sinn von einer Enzyklopädie, die jeder bearbeiten kann. Die Quelle des Textes steht bei "disputatio". Was ich bei Ihren Ausführungen nicht verstehe, sind die komischen Strichlein, die Sie oberhalb von einigen lateinischen Vokalen zu setzen pflegen. - Giorno2 (disputatio) 14:40, 6 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
Matthias nuper ad nos advenit, sed recte dicis, hic non solemus macris vel accentibus utere, nisi ad ambiguitatem solvendam. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:05, 6 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

Reminder: Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation tool[fontem recensere]

Hello Friend!

The WMF language team earlier reached out to you to participate in a survey to give us insight into the challenges you are having using the Content Translation tool towards improving the tool for you and your community.

We are reaching out to you again as a reminder to Take the Survey as the survey will close on 9th July 2021 (23:59 UTC). The survey will only take you between 10 to 15 minutes. Please read the Privacy Statement to know how the information collected from the survey will be used.

If you already took the survey- thank you! You don't need to retake it.

Thank you, as we look forward to your response.

UOzurumba (WMF) 19:11, 6 Iulii 2021 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF Language team.

Reminder: Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation tool[fontem recensere]

Hello Friend!

The WMF Language team earlier reached out to you to participate in a survey to give us insight into improving the Content Translation tool to make your work as an admin easier. Towards improving the quality of content in your Wikipedia and avoiding the case of content deletion.

Again, we are reaching out to you as a reminder to Take the Survey as the survey will close on 9th July 2021 (23:59 UTC). The survey will only take you between 10 to 15 minutes. Please read the Privacy Statement to know how the information collected from the survey will be used.

If you already took the survey- thank you! You don't need to retake it.

Thank you, as we look forward to your response.

UOzurumba (WMF) 19:17, 6 Iulii 2021 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF Language team.