Disputatio Usoris:UV/2012

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Vide etiam disputationes annorum 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 et 2011.

Agatha Barbara[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? FELIX NOVUM ANNUM tibi!

Huius novae paginae tibi peto parva relectura. Parvam corretione feci etiam in Praesides Rei Publicae Melittae feci. Videre se bene feci potes? Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo 08:55, 4 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Paginas legi. Ut valeas optime! --UV 00:55, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Gratias ago! Forgive me for the answer: why you answer me in your page? Rex Momo 07:45, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
I usually answer where the discussion started. This way, the discussion is in one place and can be conveniently read later as well. Greetings, --UV 20:52, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Merallum[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes?

Haec nova pagina a parvo vico francico feci. Tibi parvam relecturam peto, ... please! Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo 07:31, 27 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Legi et minora mutavi. Vale! --UV 22:51, 27 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
I put the page about the name of the village. Tibi gratias ago causa adiuti tui! Rex Momo 00:46, 28 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Perfect, thank you! --UV 20:47, 28 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

De arca successionis et armis gentilitiis[fontem recensere]

Bonjour UV, Je profite de tes aptitudes en français pour aller plus vite. Suite à ton intervention je viens d'apporter des altérations à la page Carolus Blesensis, j'aimerais savoir si elles conviennent, sinon y a-t-il autre chose en usage. J'aurais d'autres pages qu'il me faudra alors altérer pareillement. J'ai soustrait la partie "thumb" afin qu'il n'y ait pas de cadre qui altère la diagrammation des blasons pour qu'elle n'augmente pas exagérément les cellules. Comme dans plusieurs cadres il s'agit de la même personne représentée par des armes familiales (la majorité) ou personnelles (Ioannes III, Ioannes IV et Ioanna Pentevriae) je n'ai pas cru être utile de répéter la description (en italique entre parenthèses). Merci pour l'aide que tes corrections apportent. --Leonellus Pons 03:07, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Finalement j'ai découvert une autre solution qui m'est parue plus pratique, la description apparaît maintenant en passant la main sur l'écu, selon ce que j'ai vu ailleurs ce doit être l'usage. --Leonellus Pons 18:49, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Concernant les images: C'est parfait! Il est important de donner une description (qui apparaît aussi en passant la main sur l'image) à chaque image (comme tu as fait maintenant), afin que aussi des gens qui ne peuvent pas apercevoir des images (par exemple des gens malvoyants ou des gens qui utilisent une édition « text-only » de Wikipédia) puissent comprendre ce qui apparaît sur l'image.
Concernant des arca successionis: Je ne comprends pas ce que veut décrire le tableau en bas de l'article Carolus Blesensis – qu'est ce que signifient des lignes et qu'est ce que signifient des colonnes de ce tableau ? Il y a des modèles pour des arca successionis ici : Vicipaedia:Index formularum Vicipaediae Latinae#Infoboxes. Salut, --UV 21:44, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Vu l'imbrication de titres de Carolus Blesensis j'ai monté une combinaison de arca successionis qui me semble satisfaisante, j'aimerais avoir ton avis avant de modifier quatre autres tableaux du même ordre. Merci, --Leonellus Pons 02:39, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Très bien, maintenant il me paraît beaucoup plus clair que avant! --UV 22:49, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Victoria Brielle[fontem recensere]

Salve, carissime UV, quomodo te habes. Haec parva pagina feci, sed... non recordavi introire sicut Rex Momo, sed Anonimus. Tibi peto parvam relecturam.

Gratias ago

Rex Momo 08:30, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Legi. Ut valeas optime! --UV 21:57, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Tibi, ut cotidie, gratias ago! Rex Momo 23:24, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

De categoriis Portugalliae[fontem recensere]

Hi, UV. In view of recent discussion on the Taberna, can UVbot help in any way to convert the Lusitania categories to Portugallia categories? This would I guess apply to most of the subcategories of Categoria:Lusitania. If it would help, I could list the relevant categories with proposed new names. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:42, 5 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Please do list the categories and their proposed new names, UVbot can then move them accordingly. Greetings, --UV 22:46, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:10, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Unneeded categories[fontem recensere]

If you have a moment, glance at Laurentius Booth and Iosephus Kopapa. Felix Folio Secundus has put "lifetime" templates on these, resulting in unnecessary (and duplicate) redlink catagories. Is it best (a) to adjust the Lifetime template in some way, or (b) not to place it on pages that have uncertain birth and death dates? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:10, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

{{Lifetime}} can be used with most uncertain birth or death dates: [1] [2]. Greetings, --UV 21:21, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I get it. Thanks, UV. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:55, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Sorry[fontem recensere]

Categoria:Insecta ex imperatoribus Romanis appellata. Believe me, I didn't intend to edit-war! I just find it very easy to forget that rule, but I know it makes excellent sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:19, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all! Nor did I intend to edit-war! But as I know that you agree to this rule in general … Greetings, --UV 19:47, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Philippina Leroy-Beaulieu[fontem recensere]

Salve, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto relecturam istae pagine. Gratias ago, sicut semper!!

Rex Momo 19:01, 14 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV 01:26, 15 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo 08:15, 15 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Lorem[fontem recensere]

Lorem ego potest auxilium emendare hoc, gratias: Maria de León Bello y Delgado.--81.33.121.97 12:33, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Vicipaedia:Invitatio. --UV 19:59, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Antonius Nguyên Van Thien[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime amice, 5 minuti tui tempori pet ad relegendam paginam novam. Tibi gratias ago, sicut semper. Rex Momo 11:07, 28 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Legi. Ut valeas optime! --UV 13:06, 28 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Rex Momo 14:32, 28 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

Iulia Michelini[fontem recensere]

Vale carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae paginae quae nunc scripsi.

Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo (talk) 10:47, 1 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV (talk) 20:58, 1 Martii 2012 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago, vale! Rex Momo (disputatio) 22:37, 1 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Lucilla Teasdale Corti[fontem recensere]

Vale carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae paginae quae nunc scripsi. I promise that in the next 3-4 weeks I'll not made new pages in Wiki LA, :-))))

Thanks for your help

Rex Momo (disputatio) 12:41, 6 Martii 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:22, 7 Martii 2012 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago!!! Rex Momo (disputatio) 14:20, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)

De translatione hebdomadis[fontem recensere]

Salve, UV! Translationem huic hebdomadi assignatam feci (quamquam initium tantum), sed oblitus sum, quomodo nexum ad paginam primam constituere possim. Neander (disputatio) 11:14, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Salve, Neander! Nexum hic addidi: {{Translatio hebdomadis}}. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 00:04, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)
Gratias ago! Neander (disputatio) 22:48, 11 Martii 2012 (UTC)

De collapsu[fontem recensere]

If you have time to look, UV, can you see why my sidebar {{Opus Monemutense}} does not have collapsible sections, although it's based on the English en:Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists, which does have them? Thanks for any help you can give ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:47, 20 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Should work now! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:03, 21 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Georgius Matulevicius[fontem recensere]

Vale, care amice, quomodo te habes? Dixi 3-4 weeks, sed solum 2 adfui! Corrigere potes haec nova pagina quae feci?

Please.... tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 08:46, 23 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Minora corrigi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 22:55, 23 Martii 2012 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago! Tibi veniam peto: cur UVbot formluam non annexam scripsit? Rex Momo (disputatio) 23:18, 24 Martii 2012 (UTC)
Quia non erat nexus a commentatione alia ad paginam Georgius Matulevicius. Hodie autem Usor:ThbdGrrd addidit nexum a pagina Couna ad paginam Georgius Matulevicius et formulam {{Pagina non annexa}} removit. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 22:55, 25 Martii 2012 (UTC)

Catona[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae novae paginae, quae nunc feci. Optima nox Morphei habes!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 19:39, 3 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

Berlin hackathon invitation[fontem recensere]

I am sorry, but I only speak English.

Hi! I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (disputatio) 22:26, 5 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

Geminae Netae[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae paginae sororum italicarum Netae (eius cognomen est). Penso solum 5 minutos necesse est! Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo (disputatio) 11:15, 26 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

Legi. Ut valeas optime! --UV (disputatio) 23:17, 26 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 14:26, 30 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
Cale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? I saw that UVbot put in this page the banner Nulla Vicipaediae Latinae pagina huc annectitur. Why? Is it the page made wrong? I would like to take off this banner, if possible. How we can? Tibi gratias ago. Rex Momo (disputatio) 06:41, 2 Maii 2012 (UTC)
Hello Rex Momo, there is currently no link from any other page to Geminae Netae, and therefore the page Geminae Netae is difficult to find. You could e. g. add a link from Trinitas (Italia) to Geminae Netae, and then you can take off the banner. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:45, 3 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[fontem recensere]

Hi dear UV,

Thank you for making my Bot (Usor:JYBot) user page in this wiki.I want to request for bot flag,But I can not find the request page.Can you help me , or make a request for me ? I'm waiting for your answer .please answer me here.Best Regards Javadyou (disputatio) 00:00, 4 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Hello Javadyou, JYBot does not need a bot flag. Maybe the community will later decide to grant JYBot the bot flag. Happy editing! --UV (disputatio) 21:24, 4 Maii 2012 (UTC)
Why JYBot does not need a bot flag ? It has Bad performance ?
I can not make more edits without flag , it is unlike the rules of wikipedia.You want me to I performed unlike the rules ? It does not have any problem ?
Best Regards Javadyou (disputatio) 08:07, 5 Maii 2012 (UTC)
Hello, your bot can continue to make interwiki edits on la.wikipedia without flag. If your bot makes many good interwiki edits, it will probably be granted the bot flag some time in the future. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 13:19, 5 Maii 2012 (UTC)
Ok ,Thanks dear UV Javadyou (disputatio) 05:26, 6 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Sole nudo[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV! Novam pagina de pellicula italica feci. 5 minutos relegere ista pagina potes? Tibi gratias ago!

Sorry, tell me, from now, how I can do, or whth link I can put to take off ... nulla Vicipaedia Latina....

Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo (disputatio) 11:23, 4 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Dionysia Gonçalves Pinto[fontem recensere]

.... et de ista celeberrima muliere brasiliana? Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 21:51, 8 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 21:58, 9 Maii 2012 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago!!! Rex Momo (disputatio) 07:15, 10 Maii 2012 (UTC)

MahdiBot[fontem recensere]

hello my friend. you blocked mybot because im run the robot without the flag. plz unblocked to im request to get the flag in yourwiki. thanks/--Mahdi.hajiha (disputatio) 07:34, 12 Maii 2012 (UTC)

I did not block your bot because it ran without flag, but I blocked your bot because it had no userpage. You have now created the userpage for your bot, and I have now unblocked your bot. You do not need a bot flag. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 07:41, 12 Maii 2012 (UTC)
so the robot not need to flag? i run it? thanks/--Mahdi.hajiha (disputatio) 09:11, 12 Maii 2012 (UTC)
Ok! --UV (disputatio) 12:52, 12 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Cora Coralina[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Feci ista parva pagina de caetera magna mulier brasiliensis. Tibi peto parvam releceturam, si potes.

Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo (disputatio) 07:59, 16 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 06:50, 17 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Radiophonia Studium 54 Network[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes?

Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae pagine. Tini graztias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 08:50, 22 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 23:17, 22 Maii 2012 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 08:24, 23 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs (again)[fontem recensere]

Any idea why the glyphs aren't working at Pisces Nilotici & Usor:Iustinus/pisces Nilotici? They seem to be fine elsewhere, so maybe it's just the K range of glyphs? --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:58, 22 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Pisces Nilotici looks fine to me. What problem exactly are you observing? --UV (disputatio) 23:13, 22 Maii 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be restored now, for whatever reason. Thanks anyway! --Iustinus (disputatio) 03:28, 25 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Rebelles Rhae[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae pagine. Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 07:37, 29 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Sascha Zacharias[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae novae pagine de ista pulcherrima actirx suecica, cum 5 minutos haberis.

Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 09:06, 12 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 08:23, 15 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

Nicodemus Sippo[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam releturam istæ paginæ quæ creavi. Tibi gratias ago.

Rex Momo (disputatio) 08:55, 5 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 21:30, 5 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago!!! Rex Momo (disputatio) 16:47, 11 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

Kistauri[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae novae paginae!

Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 16:47, 11 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

Rūta Meilutytė[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relectura istae pagine que feci. Tibi gratias ago, optimum finis hebdomadis

Rex Momo (disputatio) 07:49, 3 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Legi. Ut valeas optime! --UV (disputatio) 11:44, 4 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 23:29, 4 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Stephanus Kiprotich[fontem recensere]

Vale carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Sempre de Olimpia Londini feci. Tibi peto parvam reòlecturam, cum potes!

Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo (disputatio) 10:09, 14 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 22:02, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[fontem recensere]

Thanks for your help over Stanley Kubrick :) I asked a supplementary question at the Taberna -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 31 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome! --UV (disputatio) 13:31, 31 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Gentes[fontem recensere]

It strikes me, noting recent bot edits, that it would be useful to make it clear at VP:CAT that Categories for families, tribes and peoples(most often "Gentes" in terms of our categories) will not be subcategories of "Categoria:Homines". It'll mean that they can contain articles on other matters as well as the individual members of these Gentes. All such members will already (via birth and death categories) come under "Categoria:Homines" anyway.

Does this make sense? I think it would give a useful guideline for the future. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 4 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

Sure, great idea! One might add that music bands should not be categorized under "Musici" but under "Greges musici". --UV (disputatio) 19:49, 4 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
I didn't add that detail immediately, but I like the work you are doing on Greges hominum, and I agree that we should reword the relevant section of VP:CAT accordingly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:26, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

La Madrague[fontem recensere]

Vale carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parva relectura istae novae pagine cantiunculae francicae. Iam notam scripsi etiam in pagina Brigitte Bardot.

Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo (disputatio) 11:45, 6 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

Categoriae[fontem recensere]

Re: "Categoria:Musici should only contain articles about individual persons, not about families, music bands, etc., see Vicipaedia:De categoriis#De variis categoriarum generibus, "Categorias de familiis et gentibus")." On this point, that passage must be faulty. The only other wiki that agrees with it is the German one. All other wikis that have the category "Musical families"—Boarisch, Byelorussian, English, Esperanto, French, Japanese, Korean, Romanian, Russian, Turkish—make it a subset of "Musicians." The categorical structure originally imposed here came from the English wiki, as did that of Supranus and Tenor, which you've also changed. In contrast, your changes in "Categoria:Greges humani enumerati‎" and "Categoria:Compositores Aetatis Classicae" may universally be seen as improvements! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:02, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

Before I reply directly to the point (I will do so below), let me try to describe the situation at hand more generally:
We have to deal with a situation
  • where the MediaWiki software provides a feature known as "categories",
  • where this feature is one of the very few features in the MediaWiki software that allow us to delimit groups of articles, and
  • where this feature does not come with prescribed semantics.
So, what would be good criteria according to which we should build groups of articles? (Or, to ask a very similar question, what are the semantics that we should impose on our use of the categories feature?) Two different semantics come to mind, and both are widely used on la.wikipedia:
[Article] has-something-to-do-with [category].
Othello, Otello, The Taming of the Shrew (1967 pellicula), Stratfordia super Avonam and many other persons, places, things, intangible works etc. have-something-to-do-with a person named W. S., therefore they all are placed in the Categoria:Gulielmus Shakesperius. This type of category is useful for assembling articles that are somehow associated with a particular theme, person, place, etc. The category name is usually in the singular form (it would not make sense at all to put Categoria:Gulielmus Shakesperius, Categoria:Francia, or Categoria:Renascentia in the plural form).
[Article] is-a [category].
Here, the category name is usually in the plural form. Unlike has-something-to-do-with-categories, is-a-categories should not indiscriminately contain everything that is somehow associated with the category theme, but should contain only instances of the concept described by the category. For example, Categoria:Lacus civitate digesti should contain only articles about individual lakes, and neither an article about the limnology research station near lake X, nor an article about the Loch Ness monster. When this rule is obeyed, it will make automated checks so much easier: When Categoria:Lacus civitate digesti contains articles about individual lakes only, it is easy to
  • count the number of articles we have about individual lakes
  • check whether one or more article about an individual lake is missing the "Lake" infobox
  • check whether one or more article about an individual lake is missing a category indicating whether the lake is totally navigable, partly navigable or not navigable (just for the sake of the argument, I am not proposing such categories)
If, however, this rule is not obeyed and the article about the limnology research station near lake X and the article about the Loch Ness monster are intermingled with the articles about individual lakes,
  • it is not possible to count the number of articles we have about individual lakes (without checking each of these articles manually),
  • it is not possible to retrieve a list of the articles about individual lakes that are missing the "Lake" infobox (without getting the limnology station article and the Loch Ness monster article as false positives), and
  • it is not possible to check for missing categories either (without getting the very same articles, that do not belong in there, as false positives again).
What I am (gradually) trying is to ensure that Categoria:Homines is such a is-a-category. We are nearly there: Of the ~19 900 articles contained therein, more than 19 500 are really articles about an individual person (I know that because more than 19 500 articles currently have categories for year of birth and either year of death or "Homines vivi"). This will allow us e. g. to check whether all articles about individual persons not only have a category for year-of-birth and year-of-death, but we might also check (and get a list of the "offending" articles) whether all these articles have a category indicating the profession of the person, or the nationality of the person. (Once the Wikidata project is ready, we might also decide to add an infobox to all articles about individual persons, but that is another story.)
So, here is my direct answer: In my view, for the reasons just stated, it is a good idea to ensure that Categoria:Homines is understood as an is-a-category and contains articles about individual persons only. That most other wikis do not enforce this rule for their "People" category is, in my view, the problem of these wikis, probably also due to their size (huge changes to the category system involve the need to modify many article pages), and should not prevent us from handling the situation in a better way than they do.
We have also had a similar discussion a while ago here: Disputatio Usoris:UV/2010#Categoriae ex hominibus appellatae.
Looking forward to your thoughts on this! --UV (disputatio) 23:39, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest, looking also at the article Cantor, that we need a category -- or more than one -- for "kinds of musicians" or "kinds of singers", which would come under the supercategories Categoria:Munera and Categoria:Musica. Between that proposed category and Categoria:Musici we could then have "vide etiam" cross-references. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:42, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
Sure, see en:Category:Occupations in music, de:Kategorie:Musikberuf etc. What would be a good name for such a category, Categoria:Munera musica (adj.), Categoria:Munera musicae (subst.)?
This new category would have a supercategory like en:Category:Occupations by type/fr:Catégorie:Métier par secteur (what would be a good Latin name for this?), and several sister categories "occupations in [field]", including Categoria:Munera in Ecclesia and Categoria:Munera magistratuum Romanorum. --UV (disputatio) 23:39, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

Coemeterium brasilianum Pistoriae[fontem recensere]

Vale, carìissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam, si potes, istae novae pagine que feci. Tibi gratias ago

Rex Momo (disputatio) 08:48, 3 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 18:48, 3 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago!!! Rex Momo (disputatio) 06:36, 4 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

Ecclesia sancti Francisci de Paula in Catona[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Ista nova pagina creavi, et tibi parvam relecturam peto. Pagina non longa est!!!

Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 11:35, 10 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

Tibi gratias ago!!! Rex Momo (disputatio) 06:24, 18 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

Franciscus Buzzurro[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae novae pagine. Notus citharista Italicus est, habilissimus!

Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 06:24, 18 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

Category rename[fontem recensere]

Hi. Thanks for your help in renaming categories. Another candidate would be Categoria:Commissarii Unionis Europaeae to Categoria:Commissarii Europaei(?), per en:Category:European Commissioners. Greetings. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 00:39, 22 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. Their responsibility is to the EU and its members (including its relations with other European countries, but not including internal matters in those other countries). So it may be that our name is more accurate. But I don't mind really :) and I must admit that a term like "European commissioners" is used in several other languages, so it must be OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:44, 22 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
I believe "European Commissioner" is the common name, reflecting "European Commission" as opposed to "Commission of the European Union". What the term "European" per se indicates is perhaps a different matter ;) - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 11:23, 22 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am not sure about the best name for this category. While "commissioner" is a widely used term, it is not the official one: the Treaty on European Union does not use the term "commissioner", but
  • Mitglied der [Europäischen] Kommission (Theodisce)
  • member of the [European] Commission (Anglice)
  • membre de la Commission [européenne] (Francogallice)
  • etc.
I would suggest that you start a discussion on the talk page, so that we can see what others suggest. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:00, 22 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

Parva Italia Didacopolitana[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Istam paginam, tibi peto parvam relecturam. Gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 08:26, 30 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

Citationes Hebraicae[fontem recensere]

I've been working (offline) on a page that contains many Hebrew quotes with Latin translations. I've noted some of my issues with {{citatio2}} at Disputatio Formulae:Citatio2#Optional parameters... but these are minor. A much larger problem has now come up: the template malfunctions if the quoted text includes <div> markers. At first even this wasn't such a big deal: I just couldn't do <div style="text-align: right;">, which looked ugly, but I figured I could ask you or another coding expert for help once I'd posted the article. Then I decided to quote a Hebrew text with a single Polish word in it, given in Latin letters in the midst of the Hebrew, and all gehenna broke loose. Getting the words to appear in the right order seems to be utterly impossible without using a <div> tag. Here's the text I want to use... can you help?

הדם הזה... מצטרפים בה שחיקת ברזל... וסם לבן כשלג הנקרא ‪Potasz‬ ואחרי‏ השהי׳ בתוך הבערת אש גדולה וחזקה בשעות ארבעה או חמישה, עד כי התבערה בוערת חוצה ופנימה כאשה של גיהנם... ויעשו לבתר אחד.&rtl;

--Iustinus (disputatio) 04:02, 6 Novembris 2012 (UTC) [oh wow, in UTC it's already my birthday.]

Solution: Instead of {{Citatio|<div attributename="attributevalue" …, use {{Citatio|1=<div attributename="attributevalue" …
Explanation: MediaWiki cannot cope with equals signs that are contained in parameter values of unnamed parameters. MediaWiki tries to interpret the text that comes before the (first) equals sign as a parameter name, but {{Citatio}} does not have a named parameter "<div whatever".
By the way: The text above does not appear to be correct. I would suggest to surround the word Potasz by spans with a direction: <span dir="ltr">Potasz</span> and to remove all the other markup (&#x202a;, &#x202c;, &rlm; and &rtl;, the last one does not exist at all).
Does this solve the problems?
Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:26, 6 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
It does, thank you! It seems to work fine with the & codes... I guess I could change it to a span if you think it's important. Thanks for solving this for me, it was driving me crazy! --Iustinus (disputatio) 03:42, 7 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
I'm working on the article right now, and this is a huge an improvement. Thanks. It is so on! --Iustinus (disputatio) 04:09, 7 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Great to hear that! Never mind about the & codes, if someone sees a problem there, this can be changed or fixed easily. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 01:02, 9 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
I'm now finding I have a similar problem in the bibliography section: if a work has a title listed both in Hebrew and in English (and was manually entered—i.e. where I could not use {{cite book}}), then the Hebrew title is mysteriously moved to the end of the entry. In one case I managed to fix this (although it caused the Hebrew title to come to the left of the English, not my preference), but in others it's proving extremely difficult. However, since this is a minor detail, I think I'll leave it be for now. Perhaps when I finally post this monster of an article, you can help me fix that? (And of course if you like you're welcome to improve the coding in general, including replacing my ampersand-codes with spans ;) ) --Iustinus (disputatio) 20:54, 9 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Sure I can try to fix that then. But if you like and if you give me an example of a bibliography entry where the Hebrew title is mysteriously moved, I can try to look into it right now - as you prefer! --UV (disputatio) 21:58, 10 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Looking at this again, now that the article is posted, it seems that the issue is dependent on where the line breaks fall: if the ISBN is alone on a line, everything is fine, but if there's Hebrew text on the same line, it goes to the right of the ISBN, rather than to the left of it (as I believe it should) --Iustinus (disputatio) 17:09, 8 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
And if you entirely remove the <span dir="rtl"></span> tags? --UV (disputatio) 19:25, 8 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
So far as I can tell that doesn't help, and if anything makes it look worse. --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:38, 8 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
I think I have now found a solution at en:Help:Hebrew. Does that work? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:35, 8 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
I think so. Thanks! --Iustinus (disputatio) 21:40, 8 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
Only just noticed that you marked {{citatio2}} deprecated, and I probably already knew but forgot that plain old {{citatio}} could be used for translations. I should probably convert all my quotes... which really only entails moving the translated text from 1= to 4=. --Iustinus (disputatio) 00:23, 10 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
I just now added that possibility to {{citatio}}, so a separate {{citatio2}} is no longer necessary. Never mind to convert your quotes (unless you prefer the new design), citatio2 and the old style will continue to work … Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:58, 10 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
I think I generally like the new style better, but for my article I'm probably not going to change it: the problem is that parameters number 2 and 3 are on the right side, and that looks dumb when there's a Hebrew text right above. If I use {{citatio2}} the translation intervenes between the Hebrew and the attribution, and it looks much better. Again, once I get around to posting, you can feel free to fiddle with it. --Iustinus (disputatio) 03:47, 17 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Fine! --UV (disputatio) 12:08, 17 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Now that you can see what I'm talking about, any clever ideas for formatting? I can't think of any way to put the attribution directly below the Hebrew and have it not look dumb. Putting the translation in between seems to be a questionable solution at best, but it seems better than the alternative. --Iustinus (disputatio) 17:09, 8 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, no idea … --UV (disputatio) 19:25, 8 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

PS. http://xkcd.com/1137/ ;) --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:37, 22 Novembris 2012 (UTC)

;-) --UV (disputatio) 23:32, 22 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
We seem to be on a roll: http://xkcd.com/1144/
Ouch, that hurts! ;-) --UV (disputatio) 18:24, 7 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

Sisith. Have at it! --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:06, 5 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

*astonished* --UV (disputatio) 21:38, 5 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

Clementina de Iesus[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes?

Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae novae pagine quae feci. Iam scripsi etiam in pagina sambae nomen eius.

Tibi gratias ago!

Rex Momo (disputatio) 16:31, 13 Novembris 2012 (UTC)

Legi. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 21:49, 13 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 00:14, 14 Novembris 2012 (UTC)

Edson Damian et Edson Taschetto Damian[fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes? Cause I didn't remeber, I've opened the same page. Is it possible to remove the second? Tibi gratias agos causa adiuti tui.

Rex Momo (disputatio) 11:37, 22 Novembris 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I have created a redirect. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:30, 22 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
Very well, then you took off the second page, right? Vale! Rex Momo (disputatio) 06:37, 23 Novembris 2012 (UTC)

Homines, real and fictional[fontem recensere]

If you're around, UV, perhaps you'll comment on Jondel's question at the Taberna. Thanks, and greetings -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 5 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response there. I realise now that I was unwise to have merged Categoria:Gemini and Categoria:Homines gemelli and I have unmerged them!
Even before Jondel raised this issue I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to include, in the existing formula {{Homines hac in categoria secundum annum ultimum vitae}}, a headnote saying "This category should include only biographies" (I mean, Latin words to that general effect!) What do you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 7 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for finding a good solution to the Gemini problem! A headnote to {{Homines hac in categoria secundum annum ultimum vitae}} would be a good idea, I think. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:27, 7 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

Translation Request[fontem recensere]

Hello. Please translate this article in your language if you could or please --S.M.Samee (disputatio) 18:14, 17 Decembris 2012 (UTC)refer it to someone who does so. Thanks in advance.

Hello, I am sorry but the topic of this article does not fall within my scope of interest. --UV (disputatio) 22:31, 17 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

Possible?[fontem recensere]

Greetings, UV. Would you have a glance at Vicipaedia:Taberna#Nexus "scientiae"? Is UVbot capable of changing the many links to "Scientia" so that they lead to "Scientia (ratio)"?

And, while we're talking, I wish you a happy Christmas, New Year and Saturnalia! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

Yes, UVbot could do the change, if there is consensus that this should be done.
Thank you, best wishes to you as well! Greeetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:51, 21 Decembris 2012 (UTC)