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)