Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio Usoris:Lesgles" differant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia
Content deleted Content added
Linea 94: Linea 94:
:::To Iacobus: oh, I know. But I think it could be useful for housekeeping, so that we can immediately find all articles that are about species (genera, families, etc. etc.) And the alphabetical order may possibly be handy occasionally.
:::To Iacobus: oh, I know. But I think it could be useful for housekeeping, so that we can immediately find all articles that are about species (genera, families, etc. etc.) And the alphabetical order may possibly be handy occasionally.
:::To Lesgles: I hadn't decided whether it's better to make this same template also cover animals (... fungi, viruses) or whether to make different templates for those. The overlap that you found suggests that one template for all might be the better way. It will be a simple matter to add further sources. As you see, each source only appears if Wikidata knows of a relevant entry in that source; e.g., in any particular case, if ''Tropicos'' doesn't have the taxon (or if the ''Tropicos'' entry hasn't yet been added to Wikidata) ''Tropicos'' will not appear on our page. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:18, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
:::To Lesgles: I hadn't decided whether it's better to make this same template also cover animals (... fungi, viruses) or whether to make different templates for those. The overlap that you found suggests that one template for all might be the better way. It will be a simple matter to add further sources. As you see, each source only appears if Wikidata knows of a relevant entry in that source; e.g., in any particular case, if ''Tropicos'' doesn't have the taxon (or if the ''Tropicos'' entry hasn't yet been added to Wikidata) ''Tropicos'' will not appear on our page. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:18, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
::::Suggestion: add a link to Wikispecies if it exists. [[Usor:StevenJ81|StevenJ81]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:StevenJ81|disputatio]]) 17:08, 10 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Emendatio ex 17:08, 10 Ianuarii 2017

Archiva

Vide etiam tabularia huius paginae disputationis: Tabularium I (2013–2015).

de Krull Felice

Salve. Bene fecisti eum fraudatorem denominans. Ad initium anni quaecumque sunt in votis tibi optans te salutat: --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:41, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lesgles te quoque salutat. :) Ab omnibus fraudatoribus liberi simus! Lesgles (disputatio) 15:47, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De iubilaeo Vicipaedianorum

Annum 2016 prosperum et felicem omnibus amicis Vicipaedianis opto! Apud Tabernam consentivimus annum 2016 (quem iubilaeum nostrum Helveticus nuncupavit) praecipue dedicare ad textum paginarum Vicipaedicarum augendum et meliorandum. Huic proposito consentiens (si tu consentis!) sic pro communi inceptu nostro agere potes:

  • Quando paginas novas legibiles, fontibus munitas, et non brevissimas creare vis, crea! Ne timeas!
  • Quandocumque paginam aut breviorem aut mendosam aut male confectam reperis, cura! corrige! auge!
  • Si paginam novam brevissimam creare in mentem habes, recogita ... An potius textum longiorem scribere oportet? An prius aliam paginam, iam exstantem, augere potes?

Quo dicto, Vicipaediani liberi sumus. Paginae etiam breves, quae inter veras "stipulas" admitti possunt (vide formulam "Non stipula"), accepturae sunt sicut iam antea accipi solent. Scribe igitur sine metu, sicut iam scripsisti! [en] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:36, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Einigkeit und ...

Cur, mi Lesgles, litteras dicti lemmatis obliquas scribendas putavisti?--Bavarese (disputatio) 14:56, 23 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duabus de causis: quia verba sunt linguá aliená scripta, et quia titulus operis scripti est. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:10, 24 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Itidem ergo et God Save the Queen mutandum est. --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:49, 24 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mutavi, gratias tibi ago. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:59, 24 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortasse erravi; vide recensionem recentem "God Save the Queen" a Iacobo factam. Nunc video, haec etiam est norma The Chicago Manual of Style, quod famam bonam apud editoribus Americanis habet: “La vendetta, oh, la vendetta” from The Marriage of Figaro. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:28, 25 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bonam quidem famam habet: opera breviora "quotanda," opera longiora italicizanda sunt. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:13, 25 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mantodea

Salve! Mihi non liquet, utrius numeri vocabulum Mantodea sit: singularis an pluralis. Nam si dicimus "Mantodea sunt ...", nonne nomen huius bestiolae (et lemmatis) opportet esse mantodeum? Sin numerus singularis mantodea est, nonne rectius "mantodeae (numerus singularis: mantodea) sunt ..." dicendum est? - Si etiam in aliis linguis ad speciem mantodeae(/i?) similiter alluditur (e. g. Gottesanbeterin), fortasse talia nomina addere deceat? --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:18, 22 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mantodea sunt ordo insectorum. In taxinomia Linnaeana, omnia nomina supra gradum generis sunt pluralia, ne uno quidem excepto. Solum nomina generum (et graduum inferiorum, sicut specierum et varietatum) sunt singularia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:58, 22 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Recte dicis, amice. Qua ratione nos nomina pluralia Latina his casibus ad nomen paginae nostrae statuendum accipimus. Nominibus Latinis biologicis per omnem terrarum orbem apud eruditos receptis, rarissime necesse est nobis nomina Theodisca, Anglica etc. etc. addere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 22 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]

restoration

Hi Lesgles, how are you? I would appreciate it if you restore the Flexor digiti minimi brevis and the page Signum manipuli and allow me to complete them. Thanks in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:15, 23 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Just remember that they will need to be long enough and have sources to prevent getting deleted in the future. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:19, 23 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lesgles. I will also try to work on the others.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:01, 23 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroids

I added lists of asteroids to the pages Thamar Smirnova and Iohannes Palisa but I can't remember how to make the lists format in multiple columns. Can you? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:20, 3 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is just a request for how to make columns, Vicipaedia has several methods. The one I find most convenient these days is
{{div col|2}}
Text
Text
{{div col end}}
where the number of columns is specified after a pipe ("|") in the first command. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:00, 3 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Iacobe, that's just what I needed,. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:45, 3 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bellovarium

Salve Lesgles! My Latin is not very good, thus I simply copied the content from the source. Since the source is free from copyright I thought it was OK.

The source is written in Latin in 1829 by Ludovico Nagy, a Hungarian, so I really do not know what he meant to say. He wrote those lines, I simply used from the source, word by word.-- Knixnik (disputatio) 17:53, dies Veneris, 6. Maii 2016. (MMXVI) (CET)

Thanks, Knixnik. The copyright is not a problem, but if you copy from a public-domain source, it's still a good practice to identify it as a direct quotation. I looked again and after a lot of searching, I think I can understand most of what it means:
"Belovarinum, Bellovár, headquarters of two border infantry regiments, of St. George, or Szentvar?, and Crisium. It shines bright [is noted] for its parish basilica of St. Theresa, and another church of the Greek, not the Uniate rite. It excludes from the dwelling [apart from the houses there is?] a miliary prefecture, a field war commissariat, and an office of military exchange post, noted for an minor literary institute and marketplace."
Perhaps someone else has a better idea of what "excipit domicilio praefecturam militarem..." means.
Also, what are the sources for the other sentences you added: "Hubertus Diviss Piarum..." and "Historia parochialis Domus Bellovariensis"? Lesgles (disputatio) 19:05, 6 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De elementis chemicis

No need to go on marking them "non stipula". I am bringing them into line as a series of short articles. It seems an obvious case because they have Latin(-ish) names, are on the list of 10,000, and a fun external source is easily found. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:24, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I've been marking a lot of NS's recently anyway, so maybe I ought to take a break... :) Lesgles (disputatio) 15:47, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done them all now. Not that I'd want to discourage anyone from making them into long articles :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Lesgles (disputatio) 17:04, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurationis

Salve Lesgle, ut vales? Velim te rogare ut restaures Nirvāṇa, Zona dearmata. Gratias tibi ago in antecessu.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:48, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factum est! Lesgles (disputatio) 02:16, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago!--Jondel (disputatio) 01:29, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De rebus a fratribus Albrecht gestis

I never noticed this before. The fact that you (giving a good reason) deleted ALDI and that I (giving a good reason) restored it don't appear in the page history at all. Nor in the "acta huius paginae". Only perhaps in the general "acta deletionum", which is a very long list. Or is there some other way to rediscover this historical detail? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 23 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I know is, as you say, to look at the "index deletionum," which can be searched. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:45, 23 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The deletions can be seen not in the "acta huius paginae" of Aldi, but in the "acta huius paginae" of ALDI ([1]), which was the (capitalization of the) lemma at the time of the deletion and undeletion. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 11:48, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I never thought of that. Thanks, UV! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:06, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:37, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After your latest adjustments this formula wants a category "Annus" to be created (i.e. PAGENAME). We could just create the category and not worry any more, or we could try to stop it demanding this. Whatever you think best! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 25 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just did a very inelegant solution that removed the category: I substituted the template in 1984, replaced PAGENAME with 1984, removed the category bit, and copied over all of the code. Does it look OK now? The template still has the problem that it is asking for a decade when no decade is displayed. I'm not sure how to solve that. 16:38, 25 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Well, that was something I'd never have thought of! And, no, I admit, I don't know how to solve the decade problem. Ah well ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 25 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that I have blocked Usor:Driante70 for edit-warring on that page. We could possibly take this opportunity to improve Scylaceum, currently very brief, as a model of how small Italian cities should be described: is that a good idea, do you think? Or maybe you have no time? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:07, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness' sake, tell them to label their Italian-hamlet images more specifically than "Imago Scyllacei"—a pattern we see in many of those pages. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:26, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the biggest problem is reverting without participating in the discussion page, but there's also our usual problem of a page that mostly lacks useful content. I might be able to add some things over the next couple days, but if anyone else wants to, go ahead! Lesgles (disputatio) 17:48, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lesgles, could you rest this page? I will be adding fonts and material.Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:17, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I restored it. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:16, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lesgles. --Jondel (disputatio) 22:44, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dubsigs

Salve Lesgles, ut vales? May encourage you to continue placing dubsigs, they are very useful both for learning and fixing the latin. I may be working to fix the nympha marina, for example to replace ascitur with collegitur or additus.Thanks and best regards.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:13, 7 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lesgles, could you restore this pages? I will work to place the sources and expand them. Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 18:58, 10 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Lesgles (disputatio) 01:33, 11 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lesgles. I will start working on them.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:46, 11 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lesgles, how are you? Could I ask that you restore this page? I will put effort that the Latin is correct and supply sources. Thank you in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 05:21, 23 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restitutum est; good luck! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:29, 23 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arigato gozaimasu! (err... wrong language)--Jondel (disputatio) 03:33, 24 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I butted in because I am in the course of spreading my {{Fontes de plantis}} to all taxonomic plant pages, and at the same time including them all in [[Categoria:Species plantarum]], or whatever rank is appropriate. The formula adds a range of external sources automatically via Wikidata (which is incidentally helping quite a lot of pages that had no external source till now). The formatting is maybe not ideal, but it would be easy to change. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:15, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think it's a good addition. I wonder if something similar could be used on pages about animals and fungi as well. I notice that your template would already produce four good links on Marmota olympus, for example. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:25, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I naturally like the tidiness of this, but having an undifferentiated category for all species of plants is eventually going to populate an almost impossibly large page, there being about 200,000 described dicots alone. Something like 1.5 million insects have been described, and expert estimates of the number of beetles that remain to be discovered are said to be in the range of four to eight million. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:43, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To Iacobus: oh, I know. But I think it could be useful for housekeeping, so that we can immediately find all articles that are about species (genera, families, etc. etc.) And the alphabetical order may possibly be handy occasionally.
To Lesgles: I hadn't decided whether it's better to make this same template also cover animals (... fungi, viruses) or whether to make different templates for those. The overlap that you found suggests that one template for all might be the better way. It will be a simple matter to add further sources. As you see, each source only appears if Wikidata knows of a relevant entry in that source; e.g., in any particular case, if Tropicos doesn't have the taxon (or if the Tropicos entry hasn't yet been added to Wikidata) Tropicos will not appear on our page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: add a link to Wikispecies if it exists. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:08, 10 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]