Disputatio Usoris:UV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Vide etiam disputationes annorum 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 et 2022.

Welcome to 2023[fontem recensere]

Hi, UV, and welcome back! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:24, 9 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Glad to be here again! --UV (disputatio) 22:11, 9 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You will see that I have listed some categories at Vicipaedia:Automata/Petitiones de categoriis movendis. I don't know whether you have time to do this currently, but the requests I have made are not urgent -- just hoping to tidy up the category names when possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:14, 11 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem! I have now renamed those categories. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:38, 12 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modest request[fontem recensere]

Hi, UV. I have a request for you and UVbot if you are willing. It would be good to replace the remaining instances of Formula:Capsa universitatis (total 64?) and Formula:Capsa universitatis 2 (total 182?) with Formula:Capsa scholae Vicidata. I have already proposed merging these formulae, and no one has commented. Their continued existence tempts unfamiliar users to create pages with no significant text and to waste time filling in the boxes, when most of the information will be available in more up-to-date form at Wikidata. What's your opinion? If you're in favour, UVbot could perhaps replace these formulae with the new one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 7 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, done! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:13, 7 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's great! Thank you, UV. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 8 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something different[fontem recensere]

I don't know if this is possible or impossible. When one hovers over a footnote number, the text of the relevant footnote is outlined with a border. This is very good. Could the same or a similar thing be made to happen when one hovers over a "span id" link? The requirement would always be, when the cursor hovers over a link in the text or in a footnote [[#Example]], to highlight the entry in the bibliography or external links that contains <span id="Example"></span>. At present, what happens if one clicks the link is that the page scrolls down: where possible, the relevant entry will be seen at the top of the window. This is not so helpful in reality, because it is only possible when there is sufficient text below the relevant entry to fill the window: often, there isn't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:40, 9 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I read your message, at first I wondered because I did not see the border just when hovering over a footnote number – I needed to click on the footnote number to see the border. Then I realised that the functionality you describe comes from a gadget you have enabled in your user preferences, the "Reference Tooltips" gadget.
I have now updated our "Reference Tooltips" gadget here on la.wikipedia to its current version that is available and in use on en.wikipedia. (I did, however, not enable this gadget by default for everyone, as they do on en.wikipedia. On la.wikipedia, only those users that have explicitly enabled "Reference Toolkits" in their preferences will be using this gadget.)
I am not proficient enough in JavaScript to adapt the "Reference Toolkits" gadget so that it will also work on [[#internal_links]], but for "User:Jack who built the house" = "User:JWBTH" who rewrote this gadget in 2019, it would probably be quite easy. You might want to contact Jack and ask him if he would be willing to add this feature to our "Reference Tooltips" gadget here on la.wikipedia.
Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:15, 9 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had forgotten that I had enabled reference tooltips. Thanks for updating the gadget. I'll ask JWBTH if he could do this for us. I think it would also be worth mentioning reference tooltips on the Taberna: there could well be users who hadn't thought of it and would find it helpful. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 10 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have asked JWBTH about this. See m:User talk:Jack who built the house and add any comment you wish! If he'll help us, I suggest that we might then enable reference tooltips by default: what do you thinbk about that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 13 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! No objection against enabling Reference Tooltips by default once it works as desired on [[#internal_links]] as well. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:28, 13 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a sort of feeling that Jack is no longer active. You may be able to think of someone else; or we (I) may have to look for another route. On en:wiki a tooltip appears (and a tooltip would be a good solution for us too) when the cursor hovers over an internal link in the citation template system: it seems that CITEREF is used to alert reference tooltips to these links. It can be done manually, as we might do it, according to en:Template:Sfn/doc#Using CITEREF directly, but I haven't yet been able to do that in a test case here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:09, 15 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, Jack replied this afternoon. In order to test what he proposed, please take a look at Special:PermanentLink/3748664. What do you think? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:33, 15 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have resolved to be an optimist in future! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:39, 15 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It works fine! Perhaps the tooltip is more useful than the highlighting, in fact, because it gives the reader the information without the need to scan the whole page -- but, as with footnotes, both methods can be helpful in different ways. Jack suggests that we might try to remove CITEREF from the coding, but I feel that would be unwise, because others use it the way it is: we want to be able to copy new versions across without having to adjust this detail each time.
So, if I am right there, and if I understand correctly, we have to do two things:
  1. To adapt the internal link so that it includes "#CITEREF" rather than "#". My guess is that we could do this by piping, and that a bot, if asked nicely, could deal with the existing examples all at once. Thus [[#Example]] would become [[#CITEREFExample|Example]]. (Since we are piping anyway, we can hide the hash as well: the font colour alone shows that it's a hotlink.)
  2. To adapt the anchor in two ways: so that the id includes CITEREF and so that the span includes the text of the bibliographical reference. Theoretically this is simple, it means moving </span> to the end of the line, i.e. just before the linebreak. Could a bot do that too?
... and what's your opinion? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:05, 15 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have the impression that "Reference Tooltips" distinguishes whether the link target is currently shown on the viewport/screen or is currently not shown on the viewport/screen (because it is far up or far down the page and would only be seen when scrolling the page). In the former case, "Reference Tooltips" does (only) the highlighting (without showing a tooltip); in the latter case, "Reference Tooltips" shows a tooltip (because highlighting would not be noticable at all unless scrolling).
I support your plan! I am quite sure UVbot can do the tasks required. A search tells me that there are currently about 865 pages in mainspace where <span id occurs within the page source. Within the next days, I will try to instruct UVbot to perform these tasks. In case I forget, please do remind me in a week or two! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 17:41, 17 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since I wrote the above, I am wondering whether simple templates would be better. This is (a) because asking editors to write something like "CITEREFExample", with no punctuation or spacing, is unusual in wiki formatting: (b) {{qc|Example}} is much easier than [[#CITEREFExample|Example]]: (c) {{ec|Example|Text of reference}} is easier than <span id="CITEREFExample">Text of reference</span>. I could type these things easily enough, and until now no one else has used this system, but with simple templates like this it could be recommended to others. (I imagined "qc" for "Quaere citationem" and "ec" for "ecce citatio".) Do you think this could work? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:05, 17 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sure. UVbot could just as easily convert the existing occurrences to the template system you propose. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:37, 17 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. I'll make the templates, test that it all works, and report back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:01, 17 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made the two templates as projected, {{qc}} and {{ec}}. They can be seen at work on the page Martius panis: please check that they do what we need. It looks fine to me. It is nice to see that the toolips stack -- i.e. you can move the cursor into the footnote tooltip to hover on the internal link, and the internal link then expands as well. Beautiful piece of work.
Whenever you have the time, I think we could now replace existing "span id" internal references with these. I have considered possible errors that may be encountered:
  1. Within an article it is possible for anchors to be duplicated (e.g. if an author produced two relevant articles in the same year and I didn't notice the problem). This will be very rare: if cases are listed I will correct them.
  2. Because of human (i.e. my) error, there could be internal links that point to a non-existent anchor. Most likely this will be because the internal link contains a typo; rarely, it could be because I intended to list the item in the bibliography and didn't do it. Again, if cases are listed I will correct them.
  3. If an anchor exists but has no links to it, that's not a problem, in my opinion.
  4. There are many anchors, some of them probably duplicated, in my working page Usor:Andrew Dalby/Fontes. These could be converted, but there is no point in listing apparent errors: or the page could be excluded from the bot's work.
Can you think of other possible sources of error? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:06, 18 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have adapted the two templates {{qc}} and {{ec}} a bit and added documentation, please check and change/improve as you deem appropriate!
UVbot has now made a test edit on each of the following six pages:
Are these test edits fine in your view? If yes, UVbot could go ahead and have a go at all the other pages in mainspace.
Concerning the possible errors you mentioned above:
  • Regarding point 3, I agree that this is not a problem at all.
  • Regarding points 1 and 2, I fear that (although it would in principle be possible for a bot to detect these problems) I cannot be of help with UVbot here. UVbot will not detect these problems and will just convert these pages with the errors contained therein. Note that, by chance, I found occurrences of problem 2 both in the pages Grimod de la Reynière, Cervesia and Capsicum (fructus) (and I tried to correct these problems within these three pages after UVbot had converted the pages, please check my edits), and in the page Almanach des gourmands (I did not attempt to fix the problem here): At Almanach des gourmands#Notae, the first footnote starts with an internal link "Almanach des gourmands" that points to a non-existing section within the page. These problems existed already before UVbot touched the page.
  • Regarding point 4, I made your page Usor:Andrew Dalby/Fontes one of the six testcases, but was unable to check whether it contains duplicate ids.
Please feel free to revert any or all of the test edits if you think we should go a different way!
Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:51, 18 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for the work you have done so far. I think UVbot's work is exactly what's wanted. Let's continue if you're willing.
These were long and complex pages. It's disturbing that there were one or two errors on each, but (to be positive) it's much better that these errors are coming to light now! So, thank you for fixing them in these cases. But how did you find them? By hovering over each link in turn? If so, that's what I'll have to do. Or did they show up in some other way?
Thanks also for creating and writing the /doc pages. When more pages have been done I will suggest this referencing method to others for use on longer pages: I think the potential benefits will be evident. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:35, 18 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! I deliberately chose long and complex pages as test cases, in the hope to catch technical problems, if possible, already during the test run.
I am sorry that (although it would in principle be possible for a bot to detect these problems) UVbot cannot detect these problems or create a list of the problems and the affected pages. I found these problems when I examined the Notae section after UVbot had done its work, hovering over most of the links with my mouse and observing whether a popup came up (good), an external link showed up in my browser's status bar (good) or no popup came up and a section link starting with #CITEREF showed up in my browser's status bar (bad). I do not think that it is necessary for you to do any such check on 800+ pages! As you said, these were long and complex pages, and probably only a small percentage of references are affected, leaving a bit of intellectual exercise to our readers  :-)
I will then start running UVbot tomorrow, and will report back once done. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:00, 18 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm glad you think I don't need to check them all! In fact I am currently working on a large group of pages including most of these, returning to them often, so I will often notice such problems myself: with the popups (or rather, the unexpected absence of a popup) it is much easier to spot them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 19 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UVbot is done! If you encounter any problems that can be fixed by tweaking the templates or running a bot, please tell me! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:27, 19 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's much quicker than I expected. I'm back at my desk now, after some travelling. I'll sample the results and mention this method on the Taberna.
[In sampling, nearly all examples are correct but I have found an error that I didn't predict: at Theodorus Mayernius a bibliography entry ended with <!-- because the next line was commented out. I guess this might possibly have happened elsewhere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 20 Februarii 2023 (UTC) ]Reply[reply]
Do you feel now that it is a good idea to make reference tooltips the default? [If this is done, then instead of saying in the documentation that broken internal links can't be found, we can say that the links can be tested by hovering over them.] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 20 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for spotting the error with the <!-- at the end of the line. I had already found a similar error in Stanley Kubrick the day before. I guess that there is an easy way for me to find out whether more than these two pages were affected – I will check and report back in a day or two.
In my view, it is a good idea to enable reference tooltips by default for everyone, because it improves the usability of la.wikipedia for all readers, and experience on en.wikipedia shows that there have been no major issues. Perhaps we should do this roughly at the same time when you will announce our new features at the Taberna? --UV (disputatio) 22:02, 21 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now checked, and there should be no more pages affected by the problem with the <!-- at the end of the line. (If there had been any more such pages, they would by now have shown up at Check Wikipedia at high priority, Template without correct end.) Check Wikipedia reported no other errors related to the {{qc}} and {{ec}} templates either, so the mission seems accomplished successfully! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:54, 25 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for doing that. I have meanwhile found some cases of 'human' error (no {{ec}} to correspond with a {{qc}}) but not many. In the next couple of days I will finish a Latin translation of the documentation of {{ec}}, and then write an explanation on the Taberna.
Meanwhile, in the real world, I'm writing an article on William Turner (but not in Latin!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 27 Februarii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have completed the translation of {{ec}}: please check that I have got it right! I preferred simply to discourage the use of = because more than one editor might eventually complete the internal links, so it is best if all editors avoid using this character inside the parameters. OK?
I intend to explain this use of footnotes and internal links on the Taberna tomorrow. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:31, 2 Martii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! --UV (disputatio) 22:17, 2 Martii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done that now: see Vicipaedia:Taberna#De nexibus intra paginam ad bibliographiam iunctis. If you could now introduce "Reference Tooltips" as default, the full effect of the example I've given (largely copied from the {{ec}} documentation) will be seen by all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:28, 3 Martii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:16, 3 Martii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding points 1 and 2 you mentioned above, I finally wrote a small computer program that analyzes a Vicipaedia:Dump to find possible sources of error. If you have time (no need to hurry!), you may wish to look at Vicipaedia:Dump/qc and ec. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:00, 4 Martii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm glad you were able to do that. I will gradually work through it. After checking, I predict that a residue may remain of cases where {{qc}} has more than one parameter, and only the first parameter is needed. Let's wait and see, but in such cases maybe UVbot could eventually remove the second parameter. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 5 Martii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, just tell me when help is needed. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 10:37, 5 Martii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A repeated error: could UVbot correct it?[fontem recensere]

... I don't know the answer to that question, but you will!

When Helveticus Montanus was semi-automatically creating his pages about French communes, I often noticed mistakes and pointed them out to him. Here's one I never noticed till now. Nearly all the communes that belong to Ardesca (praefectura Franciae) have wrongly been placed in the category (a) Categoria:Communia praefecturae Araurae. Moreover, because I didn't notice this till now, we added these same communes to (b) Categoria:Loci habitati praefecturae Araurae when we created the "Loci habitati" categories.

Can UVbot somehow extract them and place them instead in (c) Categoria:Communia praefecturae Ardescae and (d) Categoria:Loci habitati praefecturae Ardescae?

There are various possible ways to identify them. One is that they are all correctly listed in Index communium praefecturae Ardescae. Any commune listed in that index, which is in the two categories named at (a) and (b), should be deleted from them and placed in the two categories named at (c) and (d). Alternatively, I guess they could also be identified via Wikidata.

Chauzon is the example I have just noticed. I corrected it manually. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:59, 29 Martii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:10, 29 Martii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Already! That's great. Thank you, UV. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:16, 29 Martii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have worked through the latest version of this dump. I think I have corrected all errors that did not consist of an unwanted extra parameter in {{qc}}. These errors were quite miscellaneous: often it would not have been easy for anyone else to sort them out, so it was very handy to have a list of them to correct.

As to the remaining errors, unwanted extra parameters in {{qc}}: I have checked through them and I think I have corrected all those in which the visible parameter was a not-easily-readable abbreviation. The remaining ones consist of a surname, without a date. Since these work correctly in their respective articles, it seems to me OK to leave them as they are: anyone in future who expands those articles can alter the references if it seems necessary.

So, when possible, please could UVbot remove the extra parameters from all cases of {{qc}}? Any future dumps should then show only new errors that arise, which can be corrected each time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:00, 2 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UVbot went thorough the pages but may have missed some occurrences. When the next dump will be available, in about ten days, I will re-run the program to see what, if any, of the "errors" are still open. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:50, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two questions ...[fontem recensere]

Possibly you will see the answers to these questions: currently, I don't!

  1. Whenever I start a new page, I get a popup offering me content translation. This is annoying (a) because I never want it, (b) because we discussed and decided, at Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 32#Enabling Content and Section translation tool in Latin Wikipedia, not to enable content translation. I don't know whether I am the only one to get this popup, or whether everybody gets it! But I have no idea how to stop it: have you? [I should add that I've asked the question at mw:Talk:Content translation, currently with no reply, but in this, as in the case below, it struck me that you might possibly know an answer! 08:35, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)]
  2. I often use HotCat. I have tried to alter my Usor:Andrew Dalby/common.js so that single category changes count as minor edits (as they always used to until the latest version). My change at /common.js appears not to work: I followed the instruction at commons:Help:Gadget-HotCat, but probably I made a mistake in formatting. Can you see any error? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for replying late.
  1. I find the popup annoying as well. When I log in and visit a redlink for the first time, I always receive the popup. When I click on "No, thanks", I do not receive any further popups during the same session, but when I log out and in again, the popup will be there again. I did not find a way to disable this recurring popup for an individual user. However, there seems to be the possibility that if we reach consensus on the Taberna to disable this popup for all users, we can request in Phabricator that the popup be disabled for all users of la.wikipedia, as it was requested and done for by fi.wikipedia at phab:T280446 (server administrators need to add only a few lines of text to InitialiseSettings.php, setting 'newarticle' => false for lawiki to achieve this effect).
  2. It appears that (contrary to the information given at commons:Help:Gadget-HotCat), JSconfig.keys['HotCatMinorSingleChanges'] = true; does not work, but window.hotcat_single_changes_are_minor = true; seems to work fine. Please try replacing the former line with the latter line in your Usor:Andrew Dalby/common.js and test whether this works!
Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 16:14, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's very kind of you to consider these questions! Somehow I guessed you might have useful suggestions to make. I will look again tomorrow, having been celebrating Easter with neighbours tonight. Yes, I could have tried the alternative instruction about HotCat, but I didn't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:17, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That popup popped up this morning when I typed a name into the searchbox to initiate the process of adding a new article, and I agree that it's useless & annoying. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:20, 10 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, @IacobusAmor: unless someone does it before me, I'll start a discussion on the Taberna tomorrow as UV proposes above.
On my other question, I find that the alternative line on my /common.js works fine. Thanks for the suggestion, UV. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:47, 10 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula:Dubium[fontem recensere]

Hi UV, thank you for your patient cleanup! I was thinking that we could erase {{Dubium}} (it is currently a redirect to {{L-1}} with very few relict links) and afterwards move {{Dubsig}} to {{Dubium}} (leaving {{Dubsig}} as a redirect – since a lot of pages use it). What do you think? --Grufo (disputatio) 19:39, 10 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, we should deal with the relict links, but apart from that: no objection from my side. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:42, 10 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just imported {{Nexus ad paginam}} from English Wikipedia and I still have to figure out how to make it work with templates. However, this is the correct link for the pages that link against {{Dubium}} (I have removed a link already). All the others are basically only talk pages, and the only place that is not a talk page (i.e. Vicipaedia:Index) can be left intact. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:51, 10 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@IacobusAmor: I saw that you often use {{Dubsig}}. What do you think about renaming it to {{Dubium}}? --Grufo (disputatio) 22:42, 10 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have marked the {{Dubium}} formula as {{Delenda}}, since no page uses it. Afterwards we can rename {{Dubsig}} to {{Dubium}}. --Grufo (disputatio) 12:50, 17 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, let us wait for a week, and if no one has objected within a week, I (or some other admin) will delete {{Dubium}}. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:09, 17 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done now. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:51, 25 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, UV, I have moved {{Dubsig}} to {{Dubium}} now. One other thing, could you please also remove the hyphen from the name of the {{Vide-etiam}} template (i.e. {{Vide-etiam}} → {{Vide etiam}}) – leaving a redirect? At the moment {{Vide etiam}} is a redirect to {{Vide-etiam}}, but it should be the other way around. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:13, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:17, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula:Cite web and the website parameter[fontem recensere]

Hi UV,

I just edited the {{Cite web}} template in order to support the |website= parameter. The problem is that it worked only partially; the website is shown, but two dots preceed it, as the following example shows:


* {{cite web
	| url = http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/archi2010/rubric2.php?categ=arsvivendi
	| title = Ars Vivendi
	| last = Ariminensis
	| first = Lydia
	| year = 2010
	| website = Ephemeris 
	| access-date = 6 [[Aprilis]] 2023


Any idea why this might be happening? --Grufo (disputatio) 05:40, 25 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, please take a look at the source code of Formula:Citation/core/sandbox. Find the string "DOT_IS_HERE" within the source code and you will see where the two dots come from. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:39, 25 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, UV, tomorrow I will play a bit with the sandbox. I will ping here also @Andrew Dalby, because I saw that in the past he worked on that template. On a different but related note, previously I renamed the {{sandbox other}} template to {{In harenario aut alibi}} and I updated the code accordingly (so now a sandbox needs to be under /harenarium to be recognized as such). However I saw that the link for creating a sandbox in the footer of the documentation still points to /sandbox – where it says “Quaesumus auctores experturos esse in harenarii (crea | effinge)”; would it be possible to make that link create the new page under /harenarium instead? --Grufo (disputatio) 14:28, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't recall that the two dots relate to my work long ago on that template -- if they do, I'm happy to see them go! Thanks anyway for the ping. I no longer use the citation templates: my opinion is (a) wiki source text is difficult enough to navigate even without these; (b) editors who use the templates without a full knowledge of bibliography are induced by them (on en:wiki and fr:wiki for example) to include misleading and unnecessary information. But others are of course quite free to use them! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:12, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andrew, the two dots are definitely my fault, but I was wondering if you had a quick solution – otherwise I will have to study the code and it is far from trivial. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:43, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. I don't think I can help you with that. Honestly I know scarcely enough of the language to produce the simple formulae I need: the more complex ones are beyond me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:43, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now modified Formula:Documentatio/end box 2 to change /sandbox to /harenarium. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:17, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nested emphasis[fontem recensere]

Hi UV,

When using LaTeX, and when dealing with typography in general, it is normal that emphasis alternates between italic and normal with each nesting. And so while

Well, \emph{you} said that, not \emph{me}.


Well, you said that, not me.

on the other hand

\emph{Well, \emph{you} said that, not \emph{me}.}


Well, you said that, not me.

In Wikitext this is done automatically, because if you have

Well, ''you'' said that, not ''me''.

and you surround it with ''...'', you get

''Well, ''you'' said that, not ''me''.''

which yields the same result.

However that is not always the case. In templates, for instance, we often write <em> and <i> manually; and in that case, to get the same result, we would need to use CSS.

So I was wondering if we could add the following code to MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Mobile.css, which covers up to four levels of nesting:

em, i, em em em, em em i, em i em, em i i, i em em, i em i, i i em, i i i {
	font-style: italic;

em em, em i, i em, i i, em em em em, em em em i, em em i em, em em i i, em i em em, em i em i, em i i em, em i i i, i em em em, i em em i, i em i em, i em i i, i i em em, i i em i, i i i em, i i i i {
	font-style: normal;

The most typical case in which this comes in handy is when an editor surrounds a template in italic, as in ''blablabla {{some template}} blablabla''. What do you think? --Grufo (disputatio) 18:02, 18 Maii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your proposal! I took a look at https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Elements/em and https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Elements/i . From these two pages I gather the following:
  • em should not be used just to produce italic formatting. Instead, em should be used only to mark text that has a stressed emphasis compared to surrounding text.
  • The first webpage explicitly states that the em element can be nested, with each level of nesting not cancelling emphasis, but instead indicating a greater degree of emphasis.
  • While the first webpage explicitly states that the em element can be nested, the second webpage is silent on the question whether the i element can be nested.
I am therefore not convinced that adding this CSS is a good idea in general (i. e. adding this CSS to MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Mobile.css), as this
  • may encourage editors to use em and i tags indistinctly in ways not conforming to the HTML specification
  • and may reduce portability of MediaWiki code across different Wikimedia wikis.
However, there may be specific cases concerning particular templates where adding such a capability (usually only for the i tag, not for the em tag) may indeed be conformant to the HTML specification and may come in useful. In these cases, I would suggest to add suitable CSS to the templatestyles of this particular template. Are there any specific cases in which you have observed that such CSS rules for alternating italicisation may be useful? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:06, 23 Maii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the insight, UV. Yes, the specific case that brought me here is the {{pns}} template, and specifically its usage in the Ligures page. The {{pns}} template expands into a suffix and a grammatical gender, and the latter is in italic (e.g.: "Ligus, -uris, m."). However, in that page (but I also encountered other similar cases), the nominative is in Italic, therefore the rest should be treated as a nested italic. So, basically, I would like that by writing
'''Ligures''' (sing. ''Ligus, {{pns|uris|m|Ligus}}'', vel ''Ligur, {{pns|uris|m|Ligur}}'') fuerunt populus ...
the template's expansion were the following:
Ligures (sing. Ligus, -uris, m., vel Ligur, -uris, m.) fuerunt populus ...
Instead, currently, I get the following expansion:
Ligures (sing. Ligus, -uris, m., vel Ligur, -uris, m.) fuerunt populus ...
Wikipedia translates ''...'' as <i>...</i>, so it should not be a problem to limit the algorithm above to the <i> tag. That would also enormously simplify the CSS to:
i, i i i {
	font-style: italic;

i i, i i i i {
	font-style: normal;
However I am afraid that using TemplateStyles might not work (but I have not tried yet), because the first italic tag would be outside the stylesheet. Or am I wrong? --Grufo (disputatio) 23:28, 23 Maii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TemplateStyles do the trick, see Ligures, Formula:Pns and Formula:Pns/styles.css. I introduced a class on the i tag within Formula:Pns in order to limit the effect of this CSS rule to this particular i element / to prevent changes of appearance on other parts of article content. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:08, 24 Maii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it works! Thank you. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:41, 25 Maii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to this topic, I just discovered that English Wiktionary in its MediaWiki:Common.css file does something similar to what I was talking about:

/* Default style for mentions outside of "form of" definitions.
	See [[Wiktionary:Votes/2007-10/style for mentioned terms]] */
.mention {
	font-style: italic;

.mention i, i .mention {
	font-style: normal;

I found out by chance after adding a quotation from Cicero to the “ut” lemma (i.e. “Possum falli ut homo”): if you look at the text “(Cic. Ep. XIII, 21)” the italic results inverted. --Grufo (disputatio) 20:43, 18 Iunii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. This is obviously confined to cases involving class "mention". Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:46, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. I believe that adding a generic rule without mentioning any specific class (CSS: i i ... { ... }) would not create problems (or, at least, I cannot think of any), but we have a lot of time to think about that! --Grufo (disputatio) 20:36, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with puzzling new line before subtemplate[fontem recensere]

Hi UV,

Recently I wrote a template ({{Urna Latinitatis}}) that uses subtemplates, and one particular subtempalte puzzles me, because it adds an empty new line before the text and I cannot understand why.

The subtemplate in point is {{Urna Latinitatis/responsum}}. It does not do anything too complicated and it is not supposed to be called directly, however, after writing

{{Urna Latinitatis/responsum|−2|5}}

I should get

{{Capsa annuntiationis|imago=Mining Yellow.svg|[[Vicipaedia:Latinitas|Latinitas]] paginae "[[{{PAGENAME}}]]" dubia est (-2). Corrige si potes – aut, si non iam est, adde {{fnp|latinitas|dubium}} paginae.}}

Now, the problem is that the first code adds <p><br /></p> before {{Capsa annuntiationis}}, while the second doesn't. And so, if I add a “Dummy text” before, in the first case (i.e. if I call {{Urna Latinitatis/responsum}}) I get

Dummy text

Latinitas paginae "Usor:UV" dubia est (-2). Corrige si potes – aut, si non iam est, adde {{latinitas|dubium}} paginae. Si tali iudicio dissentis, opinionem tuam in hanc formulam inserere potes (auxilium).

while in the second case (i.e. if I call directly {{Capsa annuntiationis}} with the same content) I get

Dummy text

Latinitas paginae "UV" dubia est (-2). Corrige si potes – aut, si non iam est, adde {{latinitas|dubium}} paginae.

As you can see the second example is vertically more compressed; do you have any idea why this might be happening? The two mandatory arguments of {{Urna Latinitatis/responsum}} are the language ranking of a page and the number of editors who have voted. I have tried several solutions, even removing all tabs and new lines from the subtemplate, but nothing has worked so far. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:10, 20 Iunii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I have found a workaround for this problem. The problem apparently only occurs when the subtemplate contains a table (as {{Capsa annuntiationis}} does), not when the subtemplate contains a div. I have now wrapped the table within a div, and the problem seems to have disappeared. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:47, 20 Iunii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your help, UV! --Grufo (disputatio) 22:56, 20 Iunii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need your input on a policy impacting gadgets and UserJS[fontem recensere]

Dear interface administrator,

This is Samuel from the Security team and I hope my message finds you well.

There is an ongoing discussion on a proposed policy governing the use of external resources in gadgets and UserJS. The proposed Third-party resources policy aims at making the UserJS and Gadgets landscape a bit safer by encouraging best practices around external resources. After an initial non-public conversation with a small number of interface admins and staff, we've launched a much larger, public consultation to get a wider pool of feedback for improving the policy proposal. Based on the ideas received so far, the proposed policy now includes some of the risks related to user scripts and gadgets loading third-party resources, best practices for gadgets and UserJS developers, and exemptions requirements such as code transparency and inspectability.

As an interface administrator, your feedback and suggestions are warmly welcome until July 17, 2023 on the policy talk page.

Have a great day!

Samuel (WMF), on behalf of the Foundation's Security team 12:08, 10 Iulii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula:Petitio[fontem recensere]

Hi UV! I would like to know what you think of this idea. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:31, 28 Iulii 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi UV. I needed some keywords to access the new data now that {{Annales}} has been expanded, and I came out with these ones (see “§ Argumentum |3=” in the doc page):

|3= Notio collecta
Argumento omisso {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
fasciculi {{NUMBEROFFILES}}
recensiones {{NUMBEROFEDITS}}
automata {{NUMBERINGROUP:bot}}
magistratus {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}
architecti {{NUMBERINGROUP:interface-admin}}
grapheocrates {{NUMBERINGROUP:bureaucrat}}
censores {{NUMBERINGROUP:suppress}}
custodes {{NUMBERINGROUP:steward}}
nominatores {{NUMBERINGROUP:accountcreator}}
importatores {{NUMBERINGROUP:import}}
transviciales {{NUMBERINGROUP:transwiki}}
remissi {{NUMBERINGROUP:ipblock-exempt}}
speculatores {{NUMBERINGROUP:checkuser}}
purgatores {{NUMBERINGROUP:push-subscription-manager}}
expulsi {{NUMBERINGROUP:no-ipinfo}}
confirmati {{NUMBERINGROUP:confirmed}}

But now I was thinking that these keywords could become the actual terms shown in Specialis:Census, given that the table is still mostly in English. What do you think? Afterwards I could then update {{Annales/tabulae/tabella rerum censarum}} accordingly. --Grufo (disputatio) 06:57, 14 Novembris 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]