Disputatio Vicipaediae:Hierarchia paginarum

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noli creare stipulas ???[fontem recensere]

Duriorem esse censeo qui stipulas scribi vetat. Nam: 1.)Paene nemo vetitum istud observat.

2.)Stipulae nonnullae me impepulerunt, ut scriberim. Nonnumquam ignoravissem, qua de re scripturus essem, nisi quaedam stipula fuisset.

3.)Virtus eximia, ut scitis, linguae Latinae est brevitas, vitium aliarum linguarum Vicipaediarum autem nimia abundantia verborum vel redundantia. Itaque paginae Vicipaediae Latinae semper breviores erunt aliarumque linguarum Vicipaediis.

4.)Causa altera breviorum paginarum: Numero usorum minore et numerus singulorum, de quibus paginae docent, minor est.

Equidem censeo stipulas esse appellandas tantum paginas unicae sententiae, neque stipulas vetandas.--Iovis Fulmen 09:43, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Credo has "commendationes" (quas non scripsi, sed aliunde pastavi) id ipsum esse, "commendationes" et minime "regulas". Et ego frequenter stipulas creo ... semper rediturus, semper longiora scripturus ... ! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:49, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Gratias, et pro commentationibus sequentibus.--Iovis Fulmen 21:53, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Comments copied across from Disputatio Vicipaediae:Latinitas[fontem recensere]

... I think we should appreciate stubs as long as they have an interwiki link. Such stubs map the Latin language to other languages. They could be seen as an invitation to join. We should not be distressed by them. We cannot be an encyclopaedia at the moment. This is a work in progress. Stubs with interwiki links (!) are a tool, not a pain. They link us to other languages and possible contributors. Do not misunderstand me: Stubs without an interwiki link are a pain. They do not attract anybody, they should be avoided. Page Vicipaedia:Pagina says "Noli creare stipulas!". This might be ok for Wikipedias with a lot of native speakers. We should have another strategy. Stubs with interwiki links (!) should be appreciated. We should rethink this "Noli creare stipulas!", at least be more specific ... -- Rolandus 12:17, 18 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

... I agree with this very strongly. They also build up the whole multilingual quality of Wikipedia. I have often added stubs to other-language Wikis for exactly this reason ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 18 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
The Interwiki stubs are great and I, myself, was brought here by an interwiki to something small and obscure. But I think that what Ioscius said about one-line stubs being a nuisance is also true. Stubs are fine and most articles I create and most here are. But "X est urbs in Y (circiter ... incolarum)" is just pointless. The articles should have at least 1 fact that the reader may not already know. --Harrissimo 16:24, 18 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
I am all for stubs too. But as I said ealier somewhere, it's pointless to rate stubs for Latinitas. Neander 17:58, 18 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for these opinions. I am fully satisfied if this is communis opinio, including Harrissimo's fine remark about not-even-stubs, which clearly belong somewhere else. (I believe there are even pages of this kind that manage to include language mistakes, to link this back to the Latinitas discussion...)--Iovis Fulmen 21:56, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Re: "I think we should appreciate stubs as long as they have an interwiki link."—But a requirement for an interwiki link would keep articles from originating in Vicipaedia! I'd offer the following as a possible stub that may have no interwiki links:
Feriae Captain Cook sunt duo dies festi anniversarii in quibus habitatores Kauaiorum cursibus cumbarum, certaminibus pedum, certationibusque cithararum Praefecti Cook adventum ad Insulas Havaianas Waimeae agunt. Delectationes festivae comprehendunt torques (lei) faciendos gerendosque, convivia (luau) coquenda gustandaque, et per vici vias decursum qui ferias Makahikianas celebrat. Feriae Captain Cook anno 1985 coeperunt.
Would you really want to ban such a stub merely because it has no interwiki link? IacobusAmor 03:05, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Discussion elsewhere (see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Stipulae) has suggested 3 alternative requirements: an interwiki link or part of a hierarchical structure or 3 (?) lines of text. On my screen this example has 4 lines of text, so it meets that proposed standard! I strongly agree that we have every reason to welcome articles on topics whose value other wikis have so far failed to see. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:48, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Andrew is right. I meant that a stipula (not pagina) which does not have content (requirement #2) but has a valid interwiki link, should be seen as valid. I will give my reasons on page Disputatio Vicipaediae:Stipulae. --Rolandus 20:46, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
See also VP:HP. That helps distinguish better. Harrissimo 21:23, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

Quid est pagina?[fontem recensere]

So that we know how to class a stub and a page, we need some definitions on what classes as a page in vicipaedia. When a stub surpasses the following, it becomes a page and the stub template is removed. I propose that all paginae:

  • First proposition
  1. Must contain a bold lemma and a definition of it.
  2. Must contain at least (3/4?) lines of text.
  3. Must contain at least 1 source to back up what is written in those lines
  4. Must include a source for the lemma if necessary.
  5. Must be placed in a category OR {{Dubcat}} has to be used.
Revised proposition
  1. Must contain a bold lemma and a definition of it.
  2. Must contain at least 4 lines of text.
  3. Must contain at least 1 source to back up what is written in those lines.
  4. Must include a source for the lemma if necessary.
  5. Must be placed in a category.
  6. Must be graded for latinity.
  • As Hendricus said in my talk page, we may need to add some specialised rules about the amount of information from tables, maps, infoboxes, images etc. into what makes up a page (which isn't a stub). Harrissimo 02:35, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
When it comes to distinguishing a stipula from a pagina, I think that requirement 5 shouldn't be evaded. A pagina must be in a category.
The "source" requirement is very important but has to be interpreted intelligently. It won't necessarily be a footnote or an external link; what kind of backup is needed depends on the topic.
Personally, I would add 6: must be graded for Latinity. This is not only so that we know how many bad Latin pages we have (!) but also so that we develop categories of pages (e.g. to be presented as Pagina fortuita) that are of acceptable quality. (This is a point that Ioscius has raised in the past.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:56, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
A good point too. Is it possible? (UV? Rolande?) Harrissimo 11:45, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
I guess there are people who can make it, see Vicipaedia:Instrumenta Vicipaediae → "Random pages" → http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dapete/Toolserver#Random_pages --Rolandus 22:17, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
That's very interesting. Do we have anyone who can adapt Dapete's work, or maybe we should ask him to do it for us? My suggestion (which I think is a version of Ioscius's original idea) is that our "Pagina fortuita" feature should be not totally random but restricted to pages that have {{FA stella}} or {{L1}} or {{L}} or {{Latinitas}} (or you could do it by categories, same result). At present there are about 1,000 such pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
But random pages also help to find such stubs, so the finder has a chance to improve them. --Alex1011 10:49, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Sorrie for beeing late, stipula or non-stipula? that's the question~~ i think it's very depending about the main subject of a lemma, in case of animal and plant specimens i think the page can be a non~~ when certain information is avaible - like name, binomial author, general or common names, a complete taxo navigation, eating habits and distribution - and ofcourse the source of the information - like wikispecies an external link to an institute, museum or university, info from the IUCN, etc. plus interwiki links when possible - i say when possible because there are about 3 miljion known species, there is not one wikiproject who has them all, not even wikispecies, so there is a change we're beeing first, ofcourse we (i do) add the new information at wikispecies (thus a link to wikispecies is a must!), for having an image, i think it's great to have one for every specimen but that's a dream, having an image is something discussible for calling it a stipula or not, we can create a new categorie about articles lacking images. Thus in case of plant and animal specimens i think we can make a list about what iformation should be in it, Hendricus 21:57, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

De structura huius paginae[fontem recensere]

Versio latina non ut consilium scripta est, putatisne? Cato censor 20:26, 20 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

De qualitate stipularum minima[fontem recensere]

Heri verba rubricata in paginam addidi. Volui (si aliis placet) quantitatem paginarum novarum in qualitatem convertere! Ego enim, sicut alii, interdum paginas "stipulas" creo textu paucissimo munitas et sine fontibus extravicipaedianis. Quando id facimus, Vicipaediam nostram augemus sed non melioramus. Igitur duas res omnibus propono:

  1. Fons extravicipaedianus
  2. Textus litterarum 200 ad minimum (sed, si propositio aliis placet, possumus de numero disputare!)

sine quibus rebus rite additis (a creatore aut ab aliis editoribus), pagina "non stipula" erit et post aliquot tempus delebitur. Quid dicitis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)

Propositio tua, O Andrew, mihi placet. 200 litterae autem 30 fere verba sunt, id quod mihi brevissimum videtur. Ecce paginae aliquae 200 octetorum: Steenbergen, Ioannes de Garlandia (pagina discretiva), Vicerex, Bicol Regio (quas inveni in pagina Specialis:Paginae breves). Sed quia plus quam 2,500 paginas habemus ubi minus quam 200 octeti sunt, fortasse satis est ad incipiendum -- mox, cum omnes paginae hoc limen transiverint, usque ad 1000 octetos vel 1000 litteras possumus pergere. De fontibus extravicipaedianis consentio. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:55, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
Articles of only 200 bytes (see those cited above) read as if they belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Vicipaedia's mean article length is 1350 bytes (down from a peak of 1450 in early 2012); perhaps the ideal minimum should be some proportion of that. (One-third of it would be 450, which at the moment approximates the median article size and would therefore probably be too high.) Some figures recorded here might be worth pondering. For example, 53 percent of articles are greater than 500, but only 18 percent are greater than 2000. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:28, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
Nota bene, o amici: scripsi (et scribere volui) "Textum 200 litterarum" vel plurium. Exempla (inter paginas recentes meas!!):
  • Hancheng: textus fere 150 litterarum; fons externus nullus. Hac lege BIS NON STIPULA
  • Mende (Chalcidice): textus fere 90 litterarum + fontes. Hac lege NON STIPULA
  • Georgia Pau-Langevin: textus fere 400 litterarum + fontes plures. STIPULA
Litteras non laboriose enumerare necesse est (dico ego) sed e numero linearum aestimare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 16 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)