E Vicipaedia
Salire ad: navigationem, quaerere
Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera.
Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.
Quaestio nova
Hic colloqui possumus.


Japanese athletes: capital letters and non stipula[fontem recensere]

Perhaps some kind programmer would like to devise a program that would change [[Pediludium|Pedilusor]] [[Iaponia|Iaponiae]] to [[pediludium|pedilusor]] [[Iaponia|Iaponiensis]] (or something like that), saving the author some wasted time. ¶ Also, in view of today's Japanese athletes (but pertinent generally), could a program be devised to insert {{Non stipula}} at the top of articles whose texts (excluding nexus interni & externi, bibliographies, and so forth) have fewer than 200 letters each? That would save other vicipaedians some wasted time. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:53, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

As to the number of letters, 200 isn't a magical concept, and maybe some other number in that vicinity (250? 216? 193? 176?) should be the criterion. Even better: perhaps a kind programmer would want to devise a program that would make a list of all the pages whose texts fall in certain ranges (say, from zero to 187, or from 175 to 225), with the limits being experimentally movable, so that the effects of setting the criterion at a given number can profitably be contemplated. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:53, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that information would be very useful! Agreed, 200 means nothing, though some such target may help to identify pages whose creators aren't even able to say one notable thing about the subject.
A propos of that, I feel sure a bot could make some improvements to the new pages you mention, but it couldn't add useful and interesting text, which is what they really need ... :( Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:00, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
For comparison's sake: *this text* has about 141 letters (right now), so I've marked it NS. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:49, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
For the record: it gained several hundred more letters overnight and has therefore become a stipula. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Impressionalistically, I'd say it's approaching the cusp of stipulability, but (like many of the commentaries on French hamlets) it may not be quite there. So 200 is probably an appropriate benchmark, but if a bot were to be able to do the NS marking as discussed above, we might want first to compare an array of examples to determine whether some other number, slightly higher or slightly lower, might not be better. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:49, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
*This one* has about 127 letters. It's a fine definition, perhaps more than adequate for a geographical dictionary, but the text lacks that certain "aliquid maius" that would make it an ideal vicipaedian text. So 127 letters is probably too few to make a stipula. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:03, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
UVbot could change [[Pediludium|Pedilusor]] [[Iaponia|Iaponiae]] to [[pediludium|pedilusor]] [[Iaponia|Iaponiensis]], if that is what we agree to do with this pages. As Andrew supposed, UVbot cannot, however, add content to these pages that is not already present there.
Using the dump of December 26, I have compiled a list of all pages not longer than 250 bytes: Project:Dump/Paginae breves. However, I feel that the decision (not) to mark a page {{non stipula}} should be made by a human examining the page rather than a bot looking at the page size. --UV (disputatio) 23:26, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
That's probably a good idea. Is there a way of making certain that unknown user Japan Football knows of this invitation to impose the formula {{Non stipula}} on most of the—hundred or more?!—articles that he or she added yesterday? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:57, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, you know the answer to that -- one can only write on JapanFootball's talk page, as we all three have done :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes, but can we force the user to read it? ("You can lead a horse to water, but can you drench him?") The immediate worry, which one hopes will be proved premature, was that the user, having barged in to impose (in the order of magnitude of) a hundred formulaic nonstubs without having tested the waters by trying the formula out beforehand, here in the taberna, was in effect (though, one hopes, not intent) being quasivandalistic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:07, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Usor:Japan Football created 239 new pages in the article namespace within a total time span of less than 6 hours. --UV (disputatio) 22:28, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
There was no response on the talk page. If JapanFootball doesn't come back within a generous week and assuming no one else wants to improve them, I propose deleting those pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, certainly those that aren't stubs! A single page on Japanese football might be more useful to most potential readers. A curious discovery about the wikifying process is the popularity of contributing many little things instead of one big thing. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I will not object to deletion of these pages (magistratus can do that very easily via Specialis:Nuke, inserting "Japan Football" as username of the user whose page creations should be deleted). --UV (disputatio) 13:59, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I wonder whether "Japan Football" is going to come back here soon, since he has a history of being blocked on several wikipedias, including for not responding to comments on his talk page (sv.wikipedia): Special:CentralAuth/Japan Football. We might also want to block him (but leave his own talk page open so that he can, if he wishes, explain). --UV (disputatio) 19:33, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think to check cross-wiki activity. Good idea, I'll block him (allowing use of talk page). If he says "I want to improve those same pages", that might be fine and he could be unblocked, but that, sadly, seems the least likely result. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:04, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
In fact that is what happened ... He is now working on those pages. I will leave to others to judge whether he is making them into acceptable stubs. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 4 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, we currently have a backlog of more than a thousand pages at Categoria:Non stipula. What do we intend to do with that mass of pages - are we going to delete them automatically after 6 months (which is not what I would be ready to do), or is someone going to propose them individually for deletion after 6 months? Before that is sorted out, I am not sure whether it is a good idea to tag much more pages as non stipula. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:26, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
A highly useful list! Thanks! We note right away that (at least) two kinds of articles might want to be exempted from the wordcount rule: articles about years, and articles about forenames. More thinking is advised. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:46, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
We discussed above whether certain groups of very short articles (essentially dictionary definitions, but important to the encyclopedia) should be guaranteed safe. A suggestion was that some of these groups could be linked with a navbox that indicates their special status. See now Decimetrum. Actually the year pages are linked by navboxes already, and we can surely agree that it is pointless to mark these year pages "Non stipula". We need them.
The forename pages (for non-classical-Latin forenames) are different in that no one defines them and their spelling and meaning and etymology are often uncertain or variable. An encyclopedia that has such articles should treat them as full scale articles, to be properly documented, I think. But it isn't easy to do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, on second thought, the forenames probably should be full-fledged articles. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:07, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

And then at the other end of the scale, we have big articles that someone has marked as stubs. I just encountered one that was 17,219 octeti in size, and have removed the non-stipula formula. A lot of articles on Italian hamlets fall into this class, especially in the range of 3000 to 6000 octeti. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:15, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

And now another one, at 12,185 octeti. These things abound! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:20, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I have now created a new list of short pages where year pages are excluded: Vicipaedia:Dump/Paginae breves. --UV (disputatio) 22:28, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
That's a very useful list. It would be easy to go through it, looking for pages that can be grouped in series. Useful series can be linked with a navbox (cf. Decimetrum and Aulus) or else converted into redirects to a page that deals with the whole series. Of pages that don't belong to any evident series, the very shortest (minimal text, no sign of notability, no external link or source) could be deleted or tagged "Delenda". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all that, and thank UV for the list. Progress is being made! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
If anyone wants to comment at Disputatio:Index praenominum, please do! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:03, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

The formula for Japanese athletes[fontem recensere]

For example, a text added today:

Alessandro Santos (三都主 アレサンドロ Santos Alessandro?, natus in Maringa die 20 Iulii 1977) est pedilusor Iaponiensis, sed etiam Turmae Pediludicae Nationalis Iaponiae (2002 - 2006) lusor est. Alessandro Santos inter alia cum turma Shimizu S-Pulse et Urawa Reds lusit.

Things to consider: (1) The name is wrong (Italian, not Latin). (2) Why the question mark? (3) Why not the locative? (4) The sequence of tenses is faulty. (5) Use of the pagename formula results in clumsy prose (for the second one, qui might read better). (6) Why isn't it turmis? As I've suggested earlier, continuing to impose articles that are entirely formulaic without first checking with the community is inadvisable. For a lesson in how to do it right, see the history of the formula by which several thousand articles on asteroids were created (it's archived somewhere). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:22, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember where it is, but you're right, some very careful discussion took place.
Recently many of the Wikipedias have grown enormously in exactly the way that Japan Football is doing it, Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the articles on asteroids are several times as long as the recent articles on football players—and informative enough to qualify on all counts as genuine stubs. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
but whether this is any use to their readers I don't know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
These sorts of articles have never seemed to have much use to me (and I've created precious few of them, e.g. Neiafu), but the counterargument is that everything deserves an article; certainly our founder has been quoted as having said that every human deserves an article ("notability" be damned). Every new article that has less than 200 (or maybe even 500 or 1000) letters lowers the mean length of Vicipaedia's texts, and by that measure of "Vicipaedian quality" lowers the value of the entire enterprise. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
It's ironic that he set silently to work on the very day we had agreed to cut down on the production of new stub pages! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Irony abounds! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I think the proper way for us to go is gradually to increase our standards. On en:wiki, for example, the minimum requirement for a page is far higher than it was ten years ago. That, I guess, is what we're engaged in this year, and at some stage -- perhaps quite soon -- pages like these will fall off the edge. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, strict enforcement of the 200-letter cutoff would do the trick! But do six months still have to elapse? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not a law or even a policy -- it was just me, replacing 7 days with 6 months because we were adding a large number of "Non stipula" tags all at once! I believe, at some stage, I chose the number 200 as well. Anyone else could alter the template again. You're our censor: if anyone has the gravitas to do it, you have. I wonder if anyone else will comment ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:09, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Another option that just occurs to me is to have an alternative "Non stipula" formula specifically for pages created after 1 January 2016. We have, after all, agreed and broadcast a new policy -- avoid creating very short pages -- to be applied from that date. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:15, 8 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
That would seem a good way to me. On the one hand, we need to be careful not do discourage via sudden deletions of good-faith page creations newbies/tirones that are able, at least after a number of weeks/months, to contribute useful content to Vicipaedia. But on the other hand, very short pages with contents that do not add much to what Vicidata already knows, are not too useful. A new "non stipula" formula that allows newcomers who are eager to learn and to find their way around Vicipaedia six months to improve their page creations, while very short pages created on or after January 1, 2016 without remarkable content that are not improved after six months may be deleted, seems to strike the balance well. --UV (disputatio) 19:37, 8 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I'll draft something, then. As you are maybe hinting, Japan Football is working harder than other wikis' experience led us to expect; there is meaningful communication; he is prepared to see the least promising pages deleted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:39, 9 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
And all that tinkering, mirabile dictu, improves Vicipaedia's reputation—because a higher number of edits per article is alleged to be a sign of higher quality. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:16, 9 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Please consider Formula:Augenda. Any changes needed? Should a minimum length be added or not? Is 3 months enough or not? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:03, 9 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Gratias ago tibi, Andrea, maximas, qui hanc formulam instituisti. Quam libenter Theodisce vertam. Praeterea minora aliquot iuxta rem ipsam disputabo. Tres menses quod adtinet, is terminus mihi quidem satis largus videtur. An mentem tuam recte concepi, qui hanc formulam non nisi in paginis abhinc creatis puto applicandam? Laurentianus (disputatio) 17:02, 9 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Collaboratione tua gaudeo, Laurentiane. Ita, versionem Theodiscam adde! Possumus (ut mihi videtur) hanc formulam in paginis brevioribus post diem 1 Ianuarii 2016 creatas imponere; fortasse et in veterioribus. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:25, 9 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Nemine usque adhuc abnuente, possumus formulam {{Augenda}} in novis paginis brevissimis ("non-stipulis") imponere. Audacter recensete et corrigite, o amici, tam formulam ipsam quam paginam annexam Vicipaedia:De paginis brevioribus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 10 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

categoria:historici Italiae[fontem recensere]

Illi qui de Italia scripserunt aut illi qui Italiani sunt? --Alex1011 (disputatio) 21:30, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Qui Italici/Italiani sint profecto erunt historici Italici (vel historici Italiani). Eximia locutio classica est civis Romanus sum, non civis Romae sum. Ergo, ut videtur, qui historias Italiae scribant historicos Italiae appellare debemus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:00, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Bonum est scire. --Alex1011 (disputatio) 17:25, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Neque omnes Italici neque omnes de Italia scribentes. Casu genetivo in titulis categoriarum de incolis civitatum utimur: ita "Incolae Italiae" sunt qui in Italia habitaverint; tali modo "Artifices Italiae" sunt artifices qui in Italia habitaverint; tali modo "Historici Italiae" sunt historici qui in Italia habitaverint. Si, sicut hoc casu, sensus ambiguus sit, explicationem addere possumus, quam nunc ibi addo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:33, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, usu vicipaediano, categories are a special case. I was thinking of running text. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:45, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Happy Public Domain Day 2016![fontem recensere]

Logo Public Domain Day

Feel free to translate this message in your language!

On January 1 we celebrate Public Domain Day as many works of authors who died 70+ years ago now enter the public domain and can be used freely.

Let us be aware: copyright is temporary. It only lasts during the authors lifetime and 70 years afterwards (in most countries). During those years it is limiting Wikipedia and her sister projects in showing works of art, literature, public art and buildings in countries without freedom of panorama, and more in the articles. But now a new batch is freed from copyrights!

An overview of images and texts that are restored or added to the Wikimedia Commons, are collected on: this page.

Many of these files still need a place in articles. You can help!

You can also help by uploading new files of subjects that are freed of copyrights.
You can also help by tagging all requests for deletion pages with the category when the file can be restored, which will be/was deleted.

As I follow the log of restored files this week, more images and texts will follow. If still files or texts are missing in the list, let me know or add them yourselves.

A very happy Public Domain Day! Romaine (disputatio) 13:18, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

  • Some of the freed files:

Mobile view[fontem recensere]

Memini oportet editoribus qui paginas recensent (dico ego) iam plus quam 30% lectorum non computatris magnis sed tabulis telephonisque mobilibus ad Vicipaedias accedere (qui numerus certe crescit et crescet). Quando igitur faciem et structuram paginae constituimus, necesse est de aspectu "mobili" consulere. Si duas imagines, aut capsam et imaginem, aut capsam permagnam, aut imaginem latam iuxta praefationem ponimus, ipso facto omnem textum ad pedem paginae demittimus. (Textus autem, re graphicá omnino carente, oculos lectorum hodiernorum fatigat.) Ergo quando satis verborum habemus, melius erit rem graphicam primam neque valde magnam ad caput paginae, rem graphicam secundam (tertium etc.) non iuxta praefationem sed post rubricas imponere. De hac re quid dicunt alii?

When revising pages it is, I think, important to keep in mind that already over 30% of Wikipedia readers are reading it on a hand-held device, and this proportion will surely grow rapidly. (This was new information to me: discount the enthusiasm of a convert.) So, when considering the layout, number and placement of images, etc., we should look at the mobile view (use link at foot of any page) before deciding.

It appears to me that having more than one image, or an infobox plus an image, or just one wide image, or a very big infobox, in the initial section is likely to push the whole text a long way down. (But having no graphic at all makes the introduction boring.) So, as soon there is enough text to matter, it is better to put second and additional graphics below the first and later section headings. I wonder if others (especially any who read Vicipaedia on hand-held devices) agree or disagree? Maybe other guidelines spring to mind? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:11, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Gratiae tibi sint, mi Andrea, qui meos, fortasse etiam aliorum oculos ad hanc facultatem mobilem vertisti, cuius plane immemor fui. Profecto duriorem praebet et exsanguem fere aspectum. Omnino optimum factu est modum quendam servare in paginis exornandis. Ad quod assequendem sine dubio valde utile erit aspectum mobilem conferre. Laurentianus (disputatio) 13:56, 4 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

De categoriis aspectu mobili invisibilibus[fontem recensere]

Computatro meo "aspectus mobilis" Vicipaediae monstrat imagines, capsas informationis, capsas navigationis, sed non categorias. (Aliis linguis nonnullis, inter quas Anglicá, capsas etiam navigationis invisibiles sunt.) Nisi mutatio quis proponatur, mihi videtur categorias editoribus assiduis utiles sed lectoribus plurimis mox ignotas fore. Alii quid de hac re censent?

On my screen the mobile view shows our images, infoboxes and navigation boxes but it does not show categories. (In many other languages even the navigation boxes do not appear.) Unless some change is intended, this suggests to me that categories will in the future only be useful to active editors; soon the majority of users won't even be aware of them. Any other comments on this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 4 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016 Scholarships - Deadline soon![fontem recensere]

Please help translate to your language

A reminder - applications for scholarships for Wikimania 2016 in Esino Lario, Italy, are closing soon! Please get your applications in by January 9th. To apply, visit the page below:

Patrick Earley (WMF) via MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 01:49, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

De nexibus ad Communia[fontem recensere]

A year and a half ago, we talked about links that point to Commons – more specifically, links that point to categories on Commons (via {{CommuniaCat}}) and links that point to galleries on Commons (via {{Communia}}).

Over the years, among the more than 75.000 links to Commons, we had accumulated about 6.000 broken links to Commons as well (= links pointing to a redlink on commons).

  • Of these, about 1.000 broken links pointed to Commons galleries. I have by now dealt with these (most were easy to deal with, because in most cases I found a commons category that was able to replace the broken link to the gallery).
  • Then, there were several thousand broken links to Commons categories where Wikidata knew a good replacement (a statement with d:Property:P373 on the corresponding Wikidata item). I have corrected these by replacing our broken link with the link from Wikidata.
  • So by now, only ~688 articles and ~143 category pages remain where the link to the commons category is broken and Wikidata knows no replacement. These articles and category pages can be seen at Categoria:Paginae cum nexu ad Communia rupto. What shall we do with these? If we agree, UVbot could remove the {{CommuniaCat}} template altogether from these articles and category pages.

Using Wikidata also allows us to compare the link we use to the link Wikidata knows of. The two categories Categoria:Error formulae CommuniaCat (~324 cat, ~1.865 pp.) and Categoria:Error formulae Communia (~256 pp.) list articles and category pages that point to a valid ("bluelink") category, gallery or redirect on Commons where nevertheless Wikidata (via a statement with d:Property:P373 or d:Property:P935 on the corresponding Wikidata item) proposes a different link target. I have changed {{CommuniaCat}} and {{Communia}} so that in these cases they show both link targets. If you come across such an article or category page, it might be a good idea to check whether the link target should be changed (either here on Vicipaedia or on Vicidata).

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:07, 10 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-02[fontem recensere]

16:59, 11 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Newfangled box[fontem recensere]

Is there a way of keeping the newfangled box from deranging the layout? Vide, e.g. Antiquitas. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:46, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

You have an oldster's definition of "newfangled": it was added to the page by Golradir six years ago (less two weeks), and it seems to have been Ssolbergj who designed the current version of the portal boxes in 2013. OK, OK, that's pretty new :) I don't know whether their effect on the layout could be tweaked, but they aren't compulsory and I find it is better simply not to put them on short pages that also have images.
So, you could delete it; or you could do what I've done right now, which is to put it first on the page, before the text and any images. The simple question is, is it important enough to take that privileged position? If not, delete it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I think I fixed the problem, by adding a "clear:right" property to the mother template (Formula:Capsa seriei), though we should check if it messes up any other pages. That should allow us to choose the ideal order of the images and boxes, whatever that may be. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:32, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
That's a much better solution than mine! They are useful, certainly, even if not compulsory. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:20, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

de quadam caeruleitate[fontem recensere]

Cum quasdam nostrae vicipaediae paginas observo, verba vere trivialia litteris caeruleatis saepius scribi mihi videntur. Cum nostra, ut spero, a studiosis linguae latinae attente legantur, tamen ego quidem ea non adaeque etiam a pueris vix prima rudimenta discentibus perquiri puto. Quae cum ita sint, cur homines iam diu ultra primas litteras latinas aliquantum progressos litteris caeruleis ad vocabula maxime cotidiana, quae a primis annis iam noverunt, dirigendos esse putemus? Secundum meam opinionem, ut talibus adiumentis lectores opis indigos opportet adiuvare, ita tamen dictam nimiam paginarum - sit venia verbo - caeruleitatem exaggerare non iuvat, eo modo, ut ad omnia fere verba, de quibus paginas habemus, commendationes faciamus. An aliud censetis? Habemusne, o sodales, omnino aliquid of feedback (voces resilientes?) lectorum nostrorum non scribentium? --Bavarese (disputatio) 20:58, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

The comment printed above invokes a long-standing but only temporarily unresolvable discussion, one that will almost certainly be resolved by technology within another couple of decades. If you don't like the color blue, by all means use the long-ago-requested gadget (in "meae praeferentiae") to enable you to turn colors off. (Hovering the cursor should still reveal the linking.) As technology marches on, all words will surely have links, made automatically, perhaps not involving coding in what we think of as the text : after a thoroughly analytic electronic dictionary has been built up outside the visible part of Vicipaedia, the machinery will know to link, for example, mentibus to mens—except when some alternate link is desired, and then a human may have to add some coding to make a technically unexpected connection (until that, too, is made automatic!), as, for example, in the first paragraph of en:England, where the word part—perhaps one of those trivial, schoolboy words you don't want to see blue!—is linked to the article Countries of the United Kingdom. Additionally, the color of links is editorially useful: I myself, by now, after eight or nine years, may well have added 1000 articles so as to turn red links blue; indeed, a proportion perhaps approaching half the articles I contributed in 2015 served that purpose. Additionally, a not entirely negligible point is that links apparently gain Vicipaedia points according to the lists of the 1000 and 10,000 most important pages—and they thereby improve the "wikipedian quality" of the enterprise, as defined in Meta and therefore as perceived by readers. But as noted, this has all been discussed before. ¶ Out to lunch; no Latin. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:57, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
De hac re iam in Taberna disputavimus. Qui nexus ad res communes et triviales addiderunt, contra utilitatem lectorum egerunt. Remove igitur audacter nexus minime utiles, mi Bavarese. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:15, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-03[fontem recensere]

17:55, 18 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

2016 WMF Strategy consultation[fontem recensere]

Please help translate to your language

Hello, all.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has launched a consultation to help create and prioritize WMF strategy beginning July 2016 and for the 12 to 24 months thereafter. This consultation will be open, on Meta, from 18 January to 26 February, after which the Foundation will also use these ideas to help inform its Annual Plan. (More on our timeline can be found on that Meta page.)

Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) at the Meta discussion, 2016 Strategy/Community consultation.

Apologies for English, where this is posted on a non-English project. We thought it was more important to get the consultation translated as much as possible, and good headway has been made there in some languages. There is still much to do, however! We created m:2016 Strategy/Translations to try to help coordinate what needs translation and what progress is being made. :)

If you have questions, please reach out to me on my talk page or on the strategy consultation's talk page or by email to

I hope you'll join us! Maggie Dennis via MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 19:06, 18 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Latin is missing[fontem recensere]

Latin is missing from this page:
More than 100 languages are now listed.
Thank you, Varlaam (disputatio) 17:12, 22 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Varlaam -- I've added Latin. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:05, 22 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-04[fontem recensere]

16:38, 25 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Article Placeholder: do we want to try that, or do we have too many placeholders already? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:48, 29 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering that.
I feel doubtful. From a user's point of view, a service we should hope to perform is to supply an acceptable Latin name for something, if we do little else. The problem with such placeholders is that they won't even have a verified Latin pagename.
However, biological taxa would have a pretty reliable Latin pagename. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 29 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources[fontem recensere]

Novus fons apud Logeion qui nobis utilis esse posset: "Update January 2016: We are delighted to announce the advent of the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources in Logeion." Vide e.g. sub "DMLBS" carrus, Lundonia, vicus...

Eugepae! Magnificum lexicon. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:47, 29 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Macte!Est verbum Arrestare!--Jondel (disputatio) 21:51, 31 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Quid potest verbum temporale posse?[fontem recensere]

Facite quaeso ne nimis kritikón me putetis! Sed in paginis discretivis legens e. g. Gallicanum seu Gallicanus potest ..., me ipsum rogo, quid hoc verbum 'posse' possit. Utique sententia A potest B sensu carere mi videtur, nequaquam idem est ac A potest esse/significare B. (Num vocabulum latinum cum italiano valere confunditur?) --Bavarese (disputatio) 18:07, 31 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Consentio. Credo auctorem fortasse constructionem ellipticam erroneam facere voluisse. Ego cum haec video, ad "potest esse" muto, quod quaestionem casus nominativi aut accusativi vitat. Vide etiam hanc disputationem priorem. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:59, 31 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
"X potest" (sine pluribus) sunt verba Nuadae, qui multas paginas discretivas suo modo facit. Nobis oportet formulam fixam paginarum discretivarum statuere, si consensum invenire possumus! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:58, 31 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Tecum consentimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio)
Placet, optime. --Bavarese (disputatio) 19:17, 2 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Toth[fontem recensere]

Si tibi lectori placeat qua videtur dubium sit et emenda si possis. Gratias tibi ago.Jondel (disputatio) 13:13, 1 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

North Coast Inland Trail‎[fontem recensere]

Si tibi lectori et magistro placeat qua videtur dubium sit et emenda si possis. Gratias tibi ago.Jondel (disputatio) 13:13, 1 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-05[fontem recensere]

21:02, 1 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Bold text in search page[fontem recensere]

A small matter, but perhaps easily fixable: on the search page, e.g. [38], the whole page appears in bold, including the top and side bars. Is there an extra ''' somewhere in the code? Lesgles (disputatio) 03:32, 2 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I have now fixed this at translatewiki:MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new/la, should take effect within a few hours. Thank you for pointing this out! --UV (disputatio) 21:28, 2 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
As of right now, the "Eventum investigationis" page remains all in boldface. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:13, 3 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Corrections made using translatewiki can take 2-3 days to get here. I wouuldn't worry yet. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:13, 3 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Formula falsa[fontem recensere]

In ima pagina hanc sententiam lexi. "Novissima mutatio die 10:16 hora 8 Februarii 2016 facta". Formula ergo corrigenda est. Quomodo fiat, nescio. Quis adiuvabit? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 09:23, 8 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Corregi apud TranslateWiki; post paucas dies novam formulam videbimus. Gaudeo te errorem invenisse! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:30, 8 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Peccaveram ego. Vos vigilantiores huic mendo remedium invenistis. Optime fecistis! Laurentianus (disputatio) 10:31, 9 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-06[fontem recensere]

18:58, 8 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Nomen usoris mutare[fontem recensere]

Salvete omnes! Quomodo potuerim nomen meum usoris mutare ad alterum scire volo. Potestisne me adiuvare? Gratias multas iam ago!--LeKalitusFace-glasses.svgnuntia? 12:34, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Salve! Vide Special:GlobalRenameRequest. --UV (disputatio) 19:29, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-07[fontem recensere]

16:16, 15 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Observanda?[fontem recensere]

Mirabiles res hodie factae: "(Index nominum impositorum)‎ . . [Zww makriaa‎; Sibi libi nini‎; Première louche‎; Moufte pas‎; Le loup sans confession‎]" IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:44, 20 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-08[fontem recensere]

18:22, 22 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #1—2016[fontem recensere]

Elitre (WMF), 19:21, 26 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016: call for posters, discussions and trainings[fontem recensere]

Hi people,
the calls for posters, discussions and trainings for Wikimania 2016 are officially opened, you can find all the relevant links on the conference wiki:

The calls will be closed on March 20.

Posters will be reviewed just to make sure that there aren't things which are too much out of scope. Since we have a whole village we will surely find places to attach them, even if we they will be a lot!

Discussions will be managed by a guiding committee who will work on the wiki to meld all the proposals and suggestions.

Trainings will be reviewed by the programme committee. Please note that we request that each training has at least 3-5 interested attendees in order to be put in the programme.

By the beginning of April we will have a first list of all the accepted proposals.

If you have questions we suggest you to ask them on the discussion pages on wiki, so that everyone will be able to see them (and their answers, of course).

We are looking forward to read your ideas! --Yiyi (disputatio) 15:39, 29 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-09[fontem recensere]

20:12, 29 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Iterum de quadam voce mutanda[fontem recensere]

Salvete huius tabernae hospites! Aliquot menses est, cum disputavimus de abolenda illa usoris voce minus Latina, pro qua decetero collator vel potius conlator diceretur. Quodsi vox illa maxime ad paginas speciales pertinet, velut “disputationes usorum” vel eorum ipsorum paginas, necesse est talem et tantam mutationem a superioribus, qui Vicipaedias scribunt, rogare, priusquam “minores” dictiones denuo et melius verti possint. Quae sunt apud metawiki 350 fere phrases.

Ad eam mutationem quam felicissime rogandam utile erit, ut quam plurimi sententiam de ea re ferant. Itaque hic et nunc duo proposita velim, quorum unum iam constitutum esse videtur, id est, ut pro “usore” in posterum “conlator” dicatur. (Quia formae non assimilatae apud nos plurimum vigent, velut “conlationes”, “adscripta quaedam”, ita ut morem nostrum sequi videamur.)

Alterum, de quo sententias vestras rogo, pertinet ad eorundem conlatorum genus vel potius sexum. Forma enim feminina („conlatrix“) facillime dicitur. Quamquam aliquando (vel alio loco) suffragia contra sexus distinguendos lata sunt, in quo constituendo, ni fallor, imprimis Andreae Dalby gravitas atque auctoritas plurimum valuit. Facillimum est eam ipsam sententiam tenere. Quodsi ita fieri volemus, in praeferentiis eligendis illa optio “sexus profitendi” deleri oportebit, quoniam in tota Vicipaedia Latina sexus ipse nullatenus respicitur. An ita fieri placet? Laurentianus (disputatio) 23:33, 1 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Gravitas! Auctoritas! Procul sint! ... Vide et disputationem ab Anna inceptam de discipulo suo, cui disputationi mera oppositio conlator/conlatrix responsum sufficientem non dat. Pro me, amice Laurentiane, certe consentio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 2 Martii 2016 (UTC)
Gaudeo consensu tuo, mi Andrea. Disputatio illa nescio qua ratione me effugerat. Verum maximam partem harum distinctionum non ad sermonem nostrum spectare existimo. Mihi quidem usus maiorum satis esset, qui, dum res ad personas pertinent, cuique genus suum tribuere solebant, nisi idem minoris momenti esset velut in agendo cum populo aliave turba mixta. Itaque vellem, et conlatores et conlatrices haberemus. Magis autem faveo simplicitati et abolitioni vocum, quae nequaquam Latinae sunt. Ergo et ipse censeo unam conlatoris vocem inducendam. Laurentianus (disputatio) 15:28, 3 Martii 2016 (UTC)
Secundum UV, hanc quaestionem e pagina introductiva delere, etiamsi inutilem, impossibile est.
Eodem tempore observo UV ipsum de verbo "Usor" in pagina disputationis sua tibi iam respondisse. An responsum utile fuit? De mutatione, quam suades, minime dissentio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:03, 6 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Help[fontem recensere]

Hello. Can somebody help me with Petrus III (rex Aragoniae)?--Artificial123 (disputatio) 17:35, 7 Martii 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you used Google Translate from English to Latin, which at the present stage produces gibberish. If you let us know what you wanted to say, we may be able to help, but the entire article will need to be rewritten. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:55, 14 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-10[fontem recensere]

20:24, 7 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Completion suggestor[fontem recensere]

- User:CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 7 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Machine translation support enabled today for Content Translation[fontem recensere]

Hello, machine translation support for Content Translation (beta feature) has now been extended and enabled for users of Latin Wikipedia using Yandex. It can be used when translating Wikipedia articles into Latin with Content Translation. To start using this service, please choose ‘’Yandex.Translate’’ from the ‘’Automatic Translation’’ dropdown menu that you see on the sidebar after you start translating an article. Please note, machine translation is available from all the languages that are supported by Yandex.Translate, but Content Translation can still be used in the usual manner for translating from all languages, with or without machine translation support.

Wikimedia Foundation’s Legal team and Yandex had collaborated earlier to work out an agreement that allows the use of Yandex.Translate without compromising Wikipedia’s policy of attribution of rights, privacy of our users and brand representation. Since November 2015, Yandex machine translation has been used for articles translated for Wikipedias in 7 languages. Details about Yandex translation services, including a summary of the contract are available on this page. More information about the machine translation services in Content Translation is available on this page. We request you to kindly take a look at these pages.

We have tested the service for use on the Latin Wikipedia, but there could be unknown problems that we are not aware of yet. Please do let us know on our Project Talk page or phabricator if you face any problems using Content Translation. Our message is written in English only and we will be very grateful if the message could be translated into Latin for other users of this wiki. Thank you. On behalf of WMF Language team: --Runa Bhattacharjee (WMF) (disputatio) 12:17, 11 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. "Nuntius noster est scriptum in latine tantum, et nos valde gratum, si nuntius posset transtulit in latinum pro aliis users in hoc habuit." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:54, 11 Martii 2016 (UTC)
"Unknown problems that we are not aware of yet" are, I think, "unknown unknowns" in the famously concise formulation of a certain US politician. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 11 Martii 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Well, I assumed that some editors may prefer reading the message in Latin, hence the request. I hope I did not end up making a faux pas there. :) But on a serious note and also to address Andrew Dalby's comment, we would really like to hear if there is any feedback about content quality, ease of use, technical complications or any other matter so that we can keep track of it in our development planning and schedules. As of now, we don't see many articles that have been created in the past week and we will keep monitoring the statistics page to check. But please feel free to let us know your feedback at any time. Thank you.--Runa Bhattacharjee (WMF) (disputatio) 07:22, 17 Martii 2016 (UTC)
No problem: some of us here do not speak English, and the only reason no one translated, I guess, is that writing encyclopedia pages is an even more urgent task!
So, thanks for your message. I have noted some content translations here. The quality is as yet poor, one unnecessary problem being that the machine thinks we use Roman numerals. But I'm sure its intelligence will improve rapidly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 17 Martii 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. That is indeed a good point to note. I will take it back to team and also we will let the machine translation system developers know about this, in case they can train their system to better handle the numerals. Thank you.--Runa Bhattacharjee (WMF) (disputatio) 10:55, 17 Martii 2016 (UTC)
Machines translating moast of times somewhatly this like on Latin read. Machines translating must to being delete. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:02, 17 Martii 2016 (UTC)
... or to being improve. I feel optimistic today :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 18 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Greek incubator project / Ἡ Βικιπαιδεία ἑλληνιστί[fontem recensere]


Dear Vicipaedia members, there is currently an ongoing proposal to have an ancient greek wikipedia created, so if interested you are welcomed to participate and share your thoughts, as well as participate in the actual incubator wiki. Best regards. Gts-tg (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Why is it being called BIKIΠAIΔEIA instead of OUIKIΠAIΔEIA? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:54, 14 Martii 2016 (UTC)
The current (third) name was finally agreed on in 2009: here's the discussion. From this discussion it seems the first name was the one you suggest, Οὐκιπαιδεία :)
I followed the link and added my support for the proposal. For about ten years now the language committee has been very sticky (not to say stuck) against languages that are neither native nor artificial. So they may be difficult to persuade, but I wish the Ancient Greek Wikipedians the best of luck. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:33, 14 Martii 2016 (UTC)
Well, BIKIΠAIΔEIA is going to confuse Cicero redivivus. Hawaiian wiki = English [wiki] = Classical Latin [wiki] = Ancient Greek [wiki], and the way Cicero's dear friend Atticus is going to write that is as OUIKI. An Attic word written BIKI is going seem to Cicero like [biki], or, if he dresses up in a modern toga, [viki] (if he can manage to enunciate that at all). To further confuse the matter: precontact Hawaiian /w/ did approach a bilabial /v/ = [β]; however, the wiki in Wikipedia is mediated through the English pronunciation, where /w/ = [w]. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:01, 14 Martii 2016 (UTC)
There were several discussions with candidates being Οὑικι-, Fικι-, Βικι- or Ἰκι. However given that which holds a lot of ancient greek texts is Βικι, the Βικι version is followed. The incubator project does offer a variety to choose from in it's landing page however. Gts-tg (disputatio) 15:17, 14 Martii 2016 (UTC)
Don't understand. A test project exists. Is this discussion about moving it out of Incubator? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:17, 16 Martii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. The name was fixed years ago, so that issue is probably academic! As I said above, I think they'll have difficulty, but do follow the link and support them if you want to. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:38, 17 Martii 2016 (UTC)
Ne obliviscamur: Sunt, qui linguam Graecam anticam modo Graeci moderni pronuntient: Ioannes Reuchlin, christifideles orthodoxi, egometipse et multi alii. Illis omnibus scribendi modus ΒΙΚΙΠΑΙΔΕΙΑ valde placet. Giorno2

Tech News: 2016-11[fontem recensere]

18:37, 14 Martii 2016 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (March 2016)[fontem recensere]

Apologies for writing in English. Please help translate to your language

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for access to research materials from:

  • Cambridge University Press - a major publisher of academic journals and e-books in a variety of subject areas. Access includes both Cambridge Journals Online and Cambridge Books. 25 accounts.
  • Alexander Street Academic Video Online - a large academic video collection good for a wide range of subjects, including news programs (such as PBS and BBC), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. 25 accounts.
  • Baylor University Press - a publisher of academic e-books primarily in religious studies and the humanities. 50 accounts.
  • Future Science Group - a publisher of medical, biotechnological and scientific research. 30 accounts.
  • Annual Reviews - a publisher of review articles in the biomedical sciences. 100 accounts.
  • Miramar Ship Index - an index to ships and their histories since the early 19th century. 30 accounts.


  • Noormags - Farsi-language aggregator of academic and professional journals and magazines. 30 accounts.
  • Kotobna - Arabic-language ebook publishing platform. 20 accounts.


  • Gale - aggregator of newspapers, magazines and journals. 50 accounts.
  • Elsevier ScienceDirect - an academic publishing company that publishes medical and scientific literature. 100 accounts.

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Project MUSE, De Gruyter, EBSCO, and British Newspaper Archive. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 20:30, 17 Martii 2016 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Tech News: 2016-12[fontem recensere]

16:04, 21 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Hi, a minor correction: The MediaWiki deployment dates are March 22–24, not 21–23. My apologies. /Johan (WMF) (disputatio) 08:15, 22 Martii 2016 (UTC)

De macronibus vel apicibus[fontem recensere]

Licetne eis uti? --Excelsius (disputatio) 16:56, 21 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Hic utimur causá discretivá tantum -- quando difficile erit, apicibus omissis, sensum adprehendere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:42, 21 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-13[fontem recensere]

19:43, 28 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants[fontem recensere]

IEG barnstar 2.png

Please help translate to your language:

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 15:47, 31 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-14[fontem recensere]

22:13, 4 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-15[fontem recensere]

20:43, 11 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Pagina Psychopharmacologiae[fontem recensere]

In capitulo de substantiis adhuc duae substantiae nominantur. Sed vero alia genera existunt.

Quod Latine dicitur? 1) Medicamentum depressionum

  = medicamentum antidepressivum? 
  = medicamentum antidepressorium? 
  = antidepressivum? 
  = antidepressorium? 

2) Medicamentum schizophreniarum

  = medicamentum antipsychoticum? 
  = antipsychoticum? 

Gratias ago. Andreas Raether (Disputatio) 13:15, 13 Aprilis 2016‎.

Nomina cum et sine medicamento haud multum differunt: medicamentum antipsychoticum est forma plena, antipsychoticum forma brevis. De vocabulo antidepressant/antidépresseur/Antidepressivum, fontem nondum habemus. Equidem vocabulo quod est (medicamentum) antidepressivum faveo, quia hoc iam in forma (pseudo-)Latina in sermone Theodisco reperitur. Sed fortasse aliquis fontem externum invenire potest. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:46, 13 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
Secundum Parvum Verborum Novatorum lexicum (Civitas Vaticana) verbum depressione (Italice) = animi imminutio. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:13, 14 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Misspelling?[fontem recensere]

Another example of typographic leveling through rejection of proper-noun capitalization. Vicipaedia formerly had this distinction:

grex Protestantium 'a group of Protestants'
grex protestantium 'a group of protesters'

But the first spelling is apparently to be avoided, in preference to the second, which will serve for all senses: the triumph of lumping over splitting? Hooray for polysemy, ambiguity, and confusion? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:32, 16 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. In print, I'm a stickler for exactly this kind of detail. This environment is different, I think. On the one hand, we have contributors who have written with many different styles, and we are using a language that has been printed in many different styles. To include all of us we have to accept some variation of style. On the other hand we have what isn't available in print: the possibility to eliminate such ambiguity by judicious linking.
we should admit, too, that the classic form of our language was written without capitalization and practically without punctuation. Good Latin somehow made itself clear without any of that .... And without the hotlinks too, I don't see any hotlinks on Pompeiian graffiti ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:28, 19 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Server switch 2016[fontem recensere]

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its newest data center in Dallas. This will make sure Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to conduct a planned test. This test will show whether they can reliably switch from one data center to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the new data center on Tuesday, 19 April.
On Thursday, 21 April, they will switch back to the primary data center.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop during those two switches. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for approximately 15 to 30 minutes on Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT).

If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped.

Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.

  • There will be a code freeze for the week of 18 April.

No non-essential code deployments will take place.

This test was originally planned to take place on March 22. April 19th and 21st are the new dates. You can read the schedule at They will post any changes on that schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. /User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 17 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Utrum Terrassa an Egara?[fontem recensere]

Novus sum in Vicipaedia. Volebam incipere a pagina oppidi ubi nunc habito, sed ante rogare volo quam aliquid mutem. Primum: Nomen Romanum Terrrassae Egara est, nonne melius esset nomen paginae mutare? Alterum: Ego dixerim municipium pro communi.--Usor:Xaverius Germanicus

Salve Xavierio, grati te accipimus hic. Melius ponas formulam {{Movenda|novam lemma tuam}}. Verificanda est nempe ex fontibus. Etiam pone si tibi placeat haec signa---~~~~ vel quaternam bullam/botonem preme supra quadrum ex medio post nuntium tuum. ---Jondel (disputatio) 18:40, 18 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-16[fontem recensere]

20:40, 18 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia to the Moon[fontem recensere]

Hello! Sorry that this is in English only, but we are using village pump messaging in order to reach as many language communities as possible. Wrong page? Please fix it here.

This is an invitation to all Wikipedians: Wikimedia Deutschland has been given data space to include Wikipedia content in an upcoming mission to the Moon. (No joke!) We have launched a community discussion about how to do that, because we feel that this is for the global community of editors. Please, join the discussion on Meta-Wiki (and translate this invitation to your language community)! Best, Moon team at Wikimedia Deutschland 15:35, 21 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-17[fontem recensere]

21:02, 25 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)