Disputatio Vicipaediae:Stipulae

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Format[fontem recensere]

These need to be corrected, but exactly how is not entirely clear: the problem is that a lot of them follow the format "Haec X stipula est", and I can conceive of two things that you are trying to say:

  1. "This X is a stipula", in which case you want to have the demonstrative agree in gender with the X, e.g. "Haec urbs" "hoc flumen."
  2. "This is an X-stipula", in which case X needs to be changed to an adjective, or at least a genitive, e.g. "stipula urbana" "stipula fluvialis" "stipula biographica" (Your "Stipula physica" and "stipula musica" already fit into this interpretation.) For some of the categories you might want to say something like "stipula de urbe"... not sure.

Another issue is "Adiuvis placeo si libet"... I'm guessing you wanted to say "please help." If so, you should say "Adiuva quaeso" (adiuva can be replaced with "da auxilium" and quaeso with "si vis," "sis," "si libet," and so on). As the sentence stands it would have to mean "I please helps if I feel like it." ;) --Iustinus

Oh dear, that is rather bad :) I fixed 'please help' as you suggest. The 'placeo si libet' came from a google search for a translation of "(if you) please", which was evidently not correct, preceded by my attempt to decline adiuvo into the second person. I'm not even sure if that's grammatically what I should have been doing. (I wanted to ask the reader to help, that's the second person, right?)
As for the two differing constructs, I was attempting to translate:
  1. "This (noun) is a stub" and
  2. "This article is an (adjective) stub"
As for these demonstratives, I have yet to come across an explanation of the difference in my text book between haec, hanc, hic, hoc and hunc is, all of which are translated as 'this', is there a web site I should read which explains all this? And hae is the only form of 'this' I have seen. Are there others?
Nicolus 15:54 ian 1, 2005 (UTC)
Hic, haec, and hoc are the nominative masculine, feminine, and neuter words for "this." They decline like any other word, although they do it pretty strangely; try this page, which has other pronouns too. Adam Episcopus 17:11 ian 1, 2005 (UTC)
OK, so are you saying that you inteded to phrase some in pattern #1 and some in pattern #2? --Iustinus 17:28 ian 2, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. On another note, do you think the word order should be reversed so {{physica-stipula}} becomes {{stipula-physica}} etc. - i'll do all the grunt-work of editing each stub that exists using the original tag. Nicolus 10:28 ian 30, 2005 (UTC)
Nah, don't worry about that. It's not really important which way you phrase that. Do, however, take note of my comments at Template talk:Flumen-stipula --Iustinus 18:48 ian 30, 2005 (UTC)
Even if the word order were important in the title, you wouldn't have to do any grunt-work. You could set the content of stipula-physica to be a redirect to physica-stipula, then either would be valid. —Myces Tiberinus 01:59 ian 31, 2005 (UTC)

Quid est stipula?[fontem recensere]

After yesterday's discussion, we need to define what a stub is in vicipaedia terms. If a non-stub meets the following criteria, it becomes a stipula. So here is my proposition:

  • First proposition
  1. Must contain a bold lemma and a definition of it
  2. Must contain at least 5 lines of text
  3. Must contain at least 1 source to back up what is written in those lines
  4. Should include a source for the lemma if necessary
  5. Must be placed in a category
  6. Must be linked to from other pages
Revised proposition
  1. Must contain a bold lemma and a definition of it
  2. Must contain at least 1 line of text, OR must form part of a linked hierarchical structure, OR must provide a valid interwiki link.
  3. Must contain at least 1 source (can be from inside Wikimedia) 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.
  6. Must contain at least one internal blue link.

Feel free to contradict or propose further, we need this to be sorted out sooner or later. I think this also begs for the page Vicipaedia:Non-stipulae with definitions there too. Harrissimo 14:01, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

I presuppose that these criteria should serve for the purpose of distinguishing valid stubs (these shall be retained) from non-stipulae (these shall be deleted unless they are improved and become valid stubs). ¶
Support 1. Support 4, propose rewording to "Must include a source for the lemma if necessary".
Support 3 unless the content is undisputed (content contained in a major language wikipedia can be presumed to be undisputed unless there is evidence to the contrary)
Doubt that we should be as stringent as to require 2.
5 and 6 are definitely desirable, but failure should not result in "non-stipulae", but in the {{dubcat}} template viz. will automatically result in the listing in the appropriate special page.
What do others think? --UV 23:05, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Like UV, I think the requirement of 5 lines of text is too much. Other language wikis are not as demanding as English on this issue. Anyway, in our particular case, Latin is ideally a very concise language.
I am thinking of 2 particular types of article, both typical of our current work as it happens. One is articles about administrative divisions. As UV said elsewhere, these have usefulness, even if very brief (but they should include a map and some links), because they can serve to interlink other geographical articles. Then, also, articles about taxonomic groups -- genera, familiae, etc.
To put it more generally, even very brief articles that are part of a hierarchical structure may help to make the whole encyclopaedia function better.
We might reword requirement 2: "must contain at least 3 (?) lines of text, OR must form part of a linked hierarchical structure." Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:27, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Req. 1: Support.
Req. 2: See below.
Req. 3: Support.
Req. 4: Support, maybe rewording it like "Must be placed in a category OR {{Dubcat}} has to be used."
Req. 5: "Must be linked to from other pages" is highly appreciated but problematic. It will sometimes enforce making an extra index page (e. g. for our many pages about popes, musicians etc.). Do we want this? Can a new author understand what is meant? Can we explain what we mean? This is the only requirement which does not deal with the article, but with the rest of the collection. Maybe someone can explain it better ... but this requirement is - by its nature - different from the others. I think we should have a template which marks this defect and explains how to repair it, but we can live without this requirement for a minimal (!) level of quality, which we are discussing here. Moreover, the system has a special function to detect those pages: Specialis:Paginae_non_annexae.
Now about requirement #2. Maybe this is the only thing we have to talk about. I think we should intentionally not make any requirements on the content (beyond the definition) as long as there is provided a valid interwiki link. If an other Wikipedia writes about a topic we should be happy to have a Latin definition. We should be happy to have links in other Wikipedias which point towards the Vicipaedia. I can just argue with the long-run-theory: On the long run it will help the project. For the next years it might be the best strategy to provide a good framework for adding Latin content. A place where people feel comfortable and where they enjoy to contribute. We should take care that the contributions do not decrease the level of quality, but we should be happy if we get (just) a valid definition. Later we might get the content from another user. Maybe it sounds provocative, but I think we should not delete information now, which we want to have 5 or 10 years later. If we ever want to have a page about XY, we should be satisfied if we get a definition for XY now and should be patient until we will get the missing content, too. I guess we want to have pages about all the things which are described in other Wikipedias, so it seems natural to me that we keep those short pages which provide a valid interwiki link. So I propose this for #2: "Must contain at least 3 lines of text OR must form part of a linked hierarchical structure OR must provide a valid interwiki link." --Rolandus 01:26, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
I am going to open discussions at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina and Disputatio Vicipaediae:Non-stipula as well. I'm sure that will help things slot together, giving us eventually four types of vicipaedia page. Harrissimo 01:47, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
So far as I can see, we haven't said anywhere:
  • Must contain at least one internal blue link.
I think that's crucial, expecially since Rolandus and I have "watered down" requirement 2. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:40, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

My comment concerning #2 has got lost. I mean this "... OR must provide a valid interwiki link." I mean that a stipula (not pagina) which does not have content, but has a valid interwiki link should be seen as valid. I think the existance of a page in another Wikipedia proofs that the topic is not complete nonsense and I believe there is a chance then that someone will add content later. Every interwiki link which points from other Wikipedias to the Vicipaedia increases the chance that users from other Wikipedias will visit us and some of them might stay. And even if nobody visits us, it might be more comfortable to expand a stub which provides interwiki links, because you can borrow some ideas from the other Wikipedias what content to add. We should have a very low level for stubs and an interwiki link should be able to compensate the missing content. I do not say that we shall have a low level for what we want to call a "pagina" but if we can accept stubs without content (but an interwiki link instead), we might achieve some recompense ... in the long run. If we will have more users at some time in the future, we might consider to increase the level for stubs, however, at the moment we should not do it, I think. We should accept that this site will be under construction for the next years and we should not be embarrassed that we will have many poor pages for the next years. Each poor page has the chance to become a good page. The more poor pages we accept, the more good pages we will have some years later. Or does someone think this project will be finished this year and we should start cleaning up? Maybe we should talk about what we expect for this project in 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 50 years? How many pages? How many users? What level of coverage? What level of quality? It took more than 120 years to write the Deutsches Wörterbuch and Rome was not built in one day, I heard ;-) --Rolandus 21:41, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

As long as it follows the (updated) six rules above fully. Harrissimo 21:49, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
I am fine with the updated revised proposition. Just to avoid confusion, I would like to emphasize that even if there is an interwiki link, the page may not be entirely devoid of content, as requirement #1 demands a definition of the lemma. This requirement #1 should in my view be upheld as it currently stands: I do not think we should tolerate pages that just contain an interwiki link and no definition of the lemma at all. --UV 23:08, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Shall I upload the 6 points onto the page? Harrissimo 23:21, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

Summarium meum[fontem recensere]

In summario meo erravi. Re vera textum nuper a Neandro scriptum ad Vicipaedia:Qualitas paginarum removi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)