Disputatio Formulae:Pagina discretiva

Future image commons:Image:Disambig.png

Halló friends! Please take a look at de:Bild:Logo Begriffsklärung.png, en:Image:Disambig fork.png, nl:Image:Begripsverklaring.png and sv:Bild:Trisambig poseidon.jpg.
Which do you prefer?
Please answer at the oldest (?) discussion page de:Bild Diskussion:Logo Begriffsklärung.png. Thanks! Best regards Gangleri 11:48 mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

layout (taken from Disputatio Vicipaediae:Discretiva)

As said above, the discretiva-template could offer more information. I'll try to give an example:

Haec est pagina discretiva.
Scilicet, quae indicat alias paginas quae nomen idem habere possent.

Haec pagina categorias non habet.
Non semper potest ut haec pagina nexus intervicos habet.
Haec pagina solum nexus et breves descriptiones habet.
Adde formulam {{fn|disambig}} ad paginas relatas.

Quaeso, pone hanc formulam in initio paginae (quid est consilium novum).

The template shall clearly indicate that this is a special type of page. The green background shall indicate that everything is ok. The grey icon is good, in my opinion, because red colours might irritate the reader. What do you think? --Roland (disp.) 23:01, 1 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S.: After all cleanup is done, we might want to have a smaller template. --Roland (disp.) 09:54, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very good, and I like the colours, but I agree it could be smaller. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haec est pagina discretiva.
Scilicet, quae indicat alias paginas quae nomen idem habere possent.

Quaeso, pone hanc formulam in initio paginae (quid est consilium novum, vide Vicipaedia:Discretiva).

Ok, so smaller. ;-) I've moved the hints to Vicipaedia:Discretiva. Now I'll start to move the templates to the top of the pages. The layout of the template can be changed at any time, if someone wants: {{discretiva}} --Roland (disp.) 13:27, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that possent be possint? But why subjunctive? Would possunt be better? But then, for habere possunt, would habent be better? (We know that the pages do, in fact, have the same name.) And why are you saying alias paginas instead of just plain paginas? For alias, would varias be better? But can't paginas all by itself suffice? (Sorry I don't have answers today: just questions!) IacobusAmor 13:49, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there have some things to be corrected ... ;-) --14:33, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

edit

Quod not quid is relative pronoun.
To say "at the top" is formed with an adjective in latin, not with a noun and a genitive.
Cleaned up the first sentence.

--Ioshus ^(disp) 17:59, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way it appears now (e.g. in Salisburgum) is: "Haec est pagina discretiva, quae differentiam paginarum quibus sit nomen idem explicat." I wonder where the subjunctive sit comes from. My suggestion would be: "Haec est pagina discretiva qua quid intersit inter eiusdem tituli paginas explicatur." (In this case, the subjunctive intersit would be due to the indirect question after a verbum sciendi.)--Ceylon 23:34, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iacobus and I argued this point before. Surely it is a potential subjunctive, "for which there might be the same name", and, I think, rightly.--Ioscius ^(disp) 22:02, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The possent was a typo, I meant possint. --Ioscius ^(disp) 22:03, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point is that the potential subjunctive only really exists in main clauses, whereas the use of the subjunctive in subordinate clauses follows different rules. In relative clauses, the subjunctive is used (i) after dignus, idoneus, aptus, (ii) if there is a consecutive connotation (usually tam precedes), (iii) after phrases like (non) sunt qui, (iv) if there is a causal, concessive or adversative connotation (usually quippe etc. precede). To my mind, none of these apply here. What about Haec est pagina discretiva qua eiusdem tituli/nominis paginae distinguuntur? --Ceylon 22:19, 19 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]