Disputatio Usoris:Toddcs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Salve, Toddcs! Gratus aut grata 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" aut "Vicipaedianam" fieri velle! --Grufo (disputatio) 01:07, 6 Augusti 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De textu Latinizando[fontem recensere]

Salve, Toddcs. Res male scriptas indicare perutile est: ergo bene fecisti ad "Disputatio:Educatio superior". Potes etiam, si vis, formula {{Verba latinizanda}} uti in pagina ipsa: videbis id quod ego nuper feci ad "Educatio superior". Certe etiam melius erit verba rescribere ... sed, hoc casu, quid dicere voluit auctor? Nescio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:11, 2 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me encourage you to follow the old Wikipedia rule: "Be bold!" If you see how to improve a page, go ahead and do it! (I know you sometimes do this already.) Comments on the talk page are most helpful in cases where you see something wrong and don't know how to put it right.
If you want a better illustration for The Simpsons, you can choose any from commons:Category:The Simpsons and its subcategories. There may not be many direct images of the TV shows -- there may not be any at all -- for copyright reasons, but, better or worse, Commons is the source of images that we can use. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:00, 13 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby Thank you for those suggestions. By my nature I am not bold. I try always to tread lightly. But I will try to follow your advice about that from now on. Toddcs (disputatio) 18:24, 13 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying! And don't worry about it. Your comments seem to me very apposite. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:00, 13 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing tips![fontem recensere]

A link having the form of [[Zoologia|zoologia]] (to be lowercased, as in the middle of a sentence) can more efficiently be written as [[zoologia]], and [[zoologia|zoologiae]] can more efficiently be written as [[zoologia]]e. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:44, 8 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusAmor Thank you. I passively knew that, but when the time came to do it actively, it eluded me. I appreciate your pointing it out. Toddcs (disputatio) 15:32, 8 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But actually, that was there before, from a previous editor. Even so, I could have and probably should have adjusted it. But my m.o. for now is still to make only the least changes that address the immediate issue, while leaving the status quo as is to the greatest extent possible. As time goes on, I will become more "bold," as Andrew Dalby has suggested I do, per the official Wikipedia editing suggestions. In fact I already have done so to some degree. But my natural inclination is always to err on the side of caution. ;) Toddcs (disputatio) 15:47, 8 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the quest for typos to correct[fontem recensere]

In Petrinia, note the vicifications you might have felt free to make. See particularly what's happened to the items listed under the heading for internal links and the coding for the notes. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:02, 24 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddcs, here's an article begging for your spellchecking attention! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:53, 9 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IacobusAmor Thanks, I will have a look. Toddcs (disputatio) 13:08, 9 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
I have made all my adjustments for now -- mostly spelling, but also two of grammar. Please verify what I have done.
NOTE: In the title of the article, it seems that "inhibiendo" needs to be "inhibendo". I have made that change in the article as well. But changing the title of an article is apparently an involved process, which I would rather not undertake (for risk of doing harm). So, if you agree that that change in the article's title is needed, I hope you will not mind doing it. Thanks! Toddcs (disputatio) 14:20, 9 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title is catastrophically wrong and is begging for far more help than the correction of a misspelling. Aside from the curiosity in talking of an "international day" (rather than, say, "a day celebrated internationally," dies inter gentes celebrata), the title, Dies internationalis pro usurpatione circumiectorum inhibiendo in bello ('international day for use of the environment in restrooning[1] war'), is trying to translate "International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict." For more opportunities for your good work, see other international days and such titles, especially by the same author. ¶ By all means feel free to change lemmata and then to move articles (via the Movere button). If others disagree, the earlier version can be restored, or a different one can be devised. Many, many lemmata have been changed and their articles moved! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:34, 9 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that detailed elaboration, and especially for your positive impression of what I've been doing, overall. I prefer to leave the more subtle and complex issues to true Latin experts such as yourself. // At your urging, I will plan to proceed with the correction I proposed for the article's title, notwithstanding that, as you wrote, it needs much more love than just that. Toddcs (disputatio) 15:45, 9 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me confirm that you should feel free to move articles, especially if it's a question of substituting real, good Latin for bad Latin or no Latin. You may find, as I do, the "Movere" button under the word "Plus" at the top of the Vicipaedia page. On the page that you will then see, you can type in the new title and you must add a brief reason (e.g. "Latinitatis causa" or "Orthographia" or whatever).
One simple exception: if there has been discussion on the talk page, resulting in the current choice of title, you should restart the discussion before moving. Otherwise, do it. As Iacobus says, if others don't agree they can respond or make a better move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:58, 9 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby
Thank you for those clarifications as well. I will plan to proceed accordingly. And always with sound judg(e)ment. Toddcs (disputatio) 18:52, 9 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free![fontem recensere]

Todd, do feel free to make more of your good changes than you're doing so far! For example, you closed up a space here, but you could have closed up the space to the left of its lemma and a space in one of its categories, and deployed the "Lifetime" formula, and made a few other easy & welcome improvements. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:32, 12 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will feel free to do that.
I am slowly conditioning my brain to notice more and more issues that need or could benefit from adjustment.
But I also fear being overzealous, and incurring thereby the dreaded, unspeakable punishment of having a change reverted.
I am not familiar with the "Lifetime" formula, and need to read up on that.
And by the way, permit me to say that if the entire Latin Wikipedia help and templates info could be downloaded as a single, well-organized PDF, I would be far more inclined to read it in full, and more able to assimilate and renember all its details. As I am quite old-school, disjoint HTML pages are much harder for me to deal with mentally. Maybe that sounds strange to you, but it's the truth. ;) Toddcs (disputatio) 14:46, 12 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for closing up spaces: one of our most zealous early editors (now absent), who created thousands of pages for little European villages, often put gratuitous spaces here & there and often put an unnecessary blankline under the {{NexInt}} formula. Clicking the button for random (fortuitous) pages a few times will inevitably turn one up. Have fun! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:58, 12 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, the fun is what makes it all worthwhile. (And so indeed for all of life itself.) Toddcs (disputatio) 15:40, 12 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus linguarum[fontem recensere]

Todd, I notice that you've changed the link "[[Hebraice]]" to "[[lingua Hebraica|Hebraice]]." FYI: that's unnecessary, since redirects from the simple adverb for all the major languages (e.g. "[[Anglice]]" and "[[Arabice]]" and "[[Francogallice]]") will accomplish the same thing without the clutter. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:50, 12 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. Thanks for pointing it out. I will try to always bear that in mind. Presumably all these details are spelled out in the Latin Wikipedia help pages. Clearly, I need to make time to read all of those. Toddcs (disputatio) 14:34, 12 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They may or may not be spelled out somewhere! For example, from the early days it's been the custom that the first illustration of articles (unless it's a simple symbol, like a logotype) should have the default size of 250px. A few years later than that decision, the major editors decided to prefer the upright system, so feel free to change 250px to upright=1 (or omit it entirely). Are the discussions of sizes available somewhere? Further: I tend to make subsequent right-hand images upright=0.8 and left-hand images that or smaller (e.g., upright=0.6). Many extremely simple images (like a single letter of the alphabet) can profitably be upright=0.5 or smaller. Most editors probably don't care, and layouts will vary according to the medium being used to display the pages; indeed, layout may be one of the least important things to worry about; getting the text right is probably much more important. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:52, 12 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, too. Right, in a perfect world we would have far greater resources at our disposal to address both content and formatting issues, however large or small. But given our time and other constraints, we have to choose our battles, so to speak. When it comes to formatting, I tend to address those issues that are most egregious or, even if they are not, such issues that I happen to notice in passing, and that require relatively little effort to rectify. Toddcs (disputatio) 15:04, 12 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a system, |upright= works better because it is a relative measure and therefore adapts to different devices, screens and resolutions. |250px is an absolute measure and doesn't adapt. Iacobus is right too in that |upright=1 (the commonest choice) is the default and can simply be omitted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:27, 13 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Dalby
Thank you for clarifying that. Toddcs (disputatio) 20:32, 13 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial adjustments[fontem recensere]

@Toddcs, in the comment line while editing "Lauren Bacall," you wrote "trivial punctuation adjustment," but while you were looking for trivial flaws to fix, you missed the gratuitous space between the initial ''' and the first word of the lemma, again with '' and Betty inside the parenthesis, and again at the end of a sentence with "anno 1997 ." Many old articles, especially by a certain prolific editor no longer with us, sprinkle unnecessary blankspaces here & there in texts. Also: the title of the cited film wasn't italicized. Also: Communia wasn't CommuniaCat. (I'd prefer the former because it's more efficient, but the agreed-upon standard is the latter.) Also: there were two blanklines, not one, above the {{bio-stipula}} formula. Also, the Defaultsort formula could have been changed to the Lifetime formula, which gets rid of the categories for Nati & Mortui & Mulieres. Also: the categories weren't in alphabetical order; alphabetizing them doesn't do much, since the machinery doesn't care, but it might help the humans who'll be encountering the article. (The categories in the English wikipedia, except for those named for the lemma, are ruthlessly alphabetical, starting with numbers and then covering letters.)  ¶ This isn't meant to be criticism in any sense, since volunteers (like us) can't be faulted for failing to do extra work, but just a guide to the commonest typographic infelicities in the articles, mainly the old ones. Your efforts are welcome! As always, feel free to be bold & thorough! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:08, 19 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I.e., 'restraining'; it can be fun to carry misspellings over into their translations to show how they damage the thought. :D