Disputatio Usoris:UV/2015

Vide etiam disputationes annorum 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 et 2014.

Vicipaedia:Automata/Petitiones de categoriis movendis

I moved this subpage and translated the instructions into Latin. I felt sure you would approve -- I did it now because I was advising Usor:Bis-Taurinus to use this page. I did not see any need to retain an English version of the instructions, but, if you think we should, I will re-insert the English text alongside the Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:40, 1 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Great, looks good, thanks a lot! --UV (disputatio) 21:32, 1 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

De formula {{Ill}}

I found this in use on en:wiki today (having already read about it) and I have copied it across. I might suggest at the Taberna that we use it, but I thought I'd ask you whether you have considered the issue yourself. As you may know, it provides a redlink, and also a link to another wikipedia where the article currently exists -- a helpful hint to someone who might want to translate it. Although translation is not always the ideal method for building up Vicipaedia, one has to admit that it can provide a good start. So, to put this -- {{ill|fr|Thomas Piketty}} -- in our Aurelia Filippetti article may be a handy way to help someone create the article about Piketty. Any thoughts?

It seems that if the names of other wikipedias, displayed when hovering, are to appear in Latin, a list of Latin names of languages would have to be placed somewhere ... but I don't know where. At present I can make the language names appear in English, or German, or others perhaps, but not Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 2 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Good idea to propose using this template at the Taberna!

Yes, {{#language:de|la}} should ideally produce something like lingua Theodisca, but currently does not work for Latin as the second parameter (it currently falls back to language names in English and therefore actually produces Germanica). As a workaround, I have removed the second parameter altogether: When #language is called with one parameter only, it produces the autonym - {{#language:de}} produces Deutsch. Adding the list of Latin names of languages alas looks quite complicated, see translatewiki:CLDR#Localised language names.

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:51, 3 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with that. I think the autonym is quite acceptable! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 3 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

I did not act immediately because I wanted to spend a little time experimenting, and I have been busy in January! Now that I have experimented I have moved to Formula:Creanda (because that name is Latin and is easier to read) and I wonder whether it would be a good idea to change the order in which the parameters are filled in. One wants to be brief but logical. The current order -- borrowed from the English, which I forgot to acknowledge :( -- is this:

• Creanda|language|local desired pagename|foreign pagename|local "piped" text if any

I think it is much more logical if the order is

• Creanda|language|foreign pagename|local desired pagename|local "piped" text if any

If this order is adopted it is also easier to convert existing redlinks to this formula (if one wishes to do that) because the existing redlinks = the last two parameters. I'd like you to glance at this and tell me if you think I am wrong! It's easy to make mistakes about this kind of thing. There are now a few more examples at Ibn Khaldunus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:50, 29 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the order you propose is more logical. If the order of parameters is changed, it is just necessary to change the pages where this template is currently in use accordingly.

It would even be possible to preserve the English wikipedia order of parameters on {{Ill}}, for the convenience of authors used to using en:Template:Ill, while adapting the order for {{Creanda}} as you propose: {{Ill}} could read

{{Creanda|1={{{1|}}}|2={{{3|{{{2|}}}}}}|3={{{2|}}}|4={{{lt|{{{4|}}}}}}|nobold={{{nobold|}}}}}

(= pass the parameter values on to {{Creanda}} and just swap parameters 2 and 3). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:40, 29 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I thank you for your welcome back. I will sure have less time than in the past but I hope I can again work with youHelveticus montanus (disputatio) 20:59, 4 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Great, it is good to have you around when you have time and feel like it. All the best! --UV (disputatio) 21:04, 4 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Citation formulas

I'm sure you have already noticed the problem on pages like Hinduismus with the formula "Citation", which, if an ISBN is included, inserts an unwanted line afterwards. We must clearly be the victims of a formatting decision taken elsewhere -- where, exactly, I don't know. Several solutions can be imagined, but I thought, before trying seriously to apply one, I'd ask you if you have any good ideas: you often have. I have not been in a hurry about this because the bibliographies concerned are often copied over from en:wiki "with all faults" (so to speak) and need severe correction and revision; but they look bad meanwhile!

PS -- your help with all those categories is really appreciated. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:20, 18 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

I think I have fixed the formatting problem, no problem! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:32, 18 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Perfect! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:01, 18 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Ask to help

Hello! Could you fix an article about boycott of Russian goods in Ukraine for the German Wikipedia [1]? You may fix text on this page. Thanks for the help.--Trydence (disputatio) 21:52, 22 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have much time now to improve this article. --UV (disputatio) 23:45, 22 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata and infoboxes

I'd like to know what you feel about this. It frustrates me that (a) there is now so much data available at Wikidata, while (b) alongside out texts we have infoboxes that (in some cases) need correction and continual revision, (c) but the stuff at Wikidata, often much fuller and more up-to-date than ours, has its own reliability problems. My very tentative answer (I have no idea if any other wikis are doing this) is to replace our own infoboxes, when it seems sensible, with infoboxes drawn entirely from Wikidata and marked as such. So we manage our text, with footnotes etc., and Wikidata manages our infoboxes, and any reader who looks can see the difference.

I have tried this with a new "capsa hominis", currently on two pages, Sara Bernhardt and Vascus Gama. If we like the idea, we even could put it on all our biography pages! NB: these two examples, chosen purely by chance, exemplify the reliability problems. In both cases, the date of birth is not known, and we could potentially do better by footnoting and discussion than Wikidata is likely to do.

There are a couple of little things that I would like to do with that box that I haven't learned how to do. I mention them in case you have a moment to spare. I would like to make the word "Vicidata" (second line) a link to the relevant Wikidata page (e.g. in the case of Vascus Gama, Q7328). That needs a change at Formula:Capsa Vicidata. I would also like to make the words "Nativitas, Obitus, Patria, Munus" only appear if there is some information to follow them. That needs a change at Formula:Capsa hominis Vicidata. I bet you know how to do those things ...

If you look at these formulae you may well have ideas for improving them. Feel free! Thanks for any comments that occur to you. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 6 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

I think infoboxes are necessary on certain pages (taxonomical pages, chemical elements, countries, etc.), and it would certainly simplify things to fill them out from Wikidata. I'm not the biggest fan of their use on biographies, where they tend to just repeat information in the introductory paragraph, sometimes in simplistic way. Just my opinion, though, and I think I'm in the minority, since there seems to be a pan-Wikipedia push to infobox everything. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:30, 6 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm against them too, as the record will show -- I especially hate the biographical ones. I started with this example because I am a very weak infobox creator, but our biographical infoboxes are so jejune that even I can produce a Wikidata-fed equivalent. Thus I have shown by example (I claim) how we could completely divest ourselves of any need to fill in and revise infoboxes, and focus instead on the need to have all really good information properly set out in Latin text with sources! Look at it from that point of view, mi amice! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:14, 6 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good to know! :) Lesgles (disputatio) 21:52, 6 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

It didn't occur to me at first, but the lists of authorities, now seen at the foot of biography pages on en:, fr: and elsewhere, could be incorporated very compactly in a collapsed section at the foot of this template, thus not troubling the majority of users who don't want them. Among these could be placed a Formula:DNB-Portal link, as long favoured by Helveticus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:05, 7 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

I like your idea of infoboxes that pull the entire data they display from wikidata. I fear, however, that while it is easy to create such infoboxes with basic functionality, creating such infoboxes with more advanced functionality such as proper linking of dates (25 Septembris 1844, 22 Octobris 1844) and professions (actor, autobiographus) requires substantially more work, including programming (in Lua). I fear that I currently cannot do much to help with such a project ;-( Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:04, 8 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for these first thoughts. Yes, I'm aware that linking the box back to our own pages again is complicated, and if you hesitate to embark on it just now (for very good reasons I am sure), you can imagine that I hesitate too! Sensible links to authority files also require a Lua module, I notice.

However, my basic idea doesn't depend on these links: one can do some good things without them. We have never had a policy of excluding notable information from the text if it appears in an infobox. So, the notable links ought already to be in the page text, and the infobox need not repeat them: adding such links would be a desirable step in due course. Meanwhile, if the box links directly to the Wikidata page (and you have just made it do that -- thank you for taking the time!) anyone who wishes can go there and pursue the information, with some links and sources.

Meanwhile I would be (if I pursue this experiment) replacing some of our more miscellaneous, untidy, outdated, never-fully-implemented and one-off infoboxes (I am thinking of odd biographical ones that we already have, the planets ...) If further thoughts occur to you, I will be eager to hear them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:59, 8 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Countries! While articles on some countries currently use {{Capsa nationis}} (an ugly infobox, in my view), others (such as Australia and Iracum) use self-made tables ;-( --UV (disputatio) 20:23, 8 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Now there's a thought ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:58, 8 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your improvements to "Capsa Vicidata". I intended to hide drop-down boxes that had no content, but failed on my first quick attempt and hadn't tried a second time. If you have any more time to spare, keep an eye on me: my aim with the images will be to make the dependent formula (e.g. "Capsa hominis Vicidata", "Capsa civitatis Vicidata") specify from which Wikidata property the images will come and what size they should display. I can do this, but I may not be doing it in the most efficient way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 10 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

You are most welcome! I gave the issue with the image properties a try - what do you think? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:36, 10 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Great! Just what was needed.

I am working on replacing formulae "Formula:Papa" and "Formula:Capsa imperatoris". For the moment I have invented the variant formula Formula:Capsa principis Vicidata because in these cases one would like to indicate the date at which they began and ended their rule, and ideally the names of their predecessor and successor. This information is often on Wikidata. To use it seems to me to require (1) marking "papa" and "imperator" as the "preferred rank" under "officium" -- I can do this, but the risk is that someone else could afterwards change it again -- (2) selecting the properties P155, P156, P580 and P582 that belong to that preferred rank -- I don't know how to do this. An example is d:Q2494: there are several instances of those properties, and I would need to select the ones that belong to "Officium: Papa". I know you're busy, but if you had a moment to think about this I'd be glad to know whether you think that we might make be able to make it work, or that it's too complicated for the present ... in which case I'll simply move on to something else :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:03, 12 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

(2) is not possible without programming in Lua (or JavaScript, but I would definitely advise against using JavaScript in this case). Sorry! --UV (disputatio) 22:50, 12 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks very much for looking into this. I will (try to) put my secret "plan B" into effect :) so that we don't waste the information in our current infoboxes but will be able to move completely to Wikidata when that becomes feasible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:58, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Plan B worked. I might use it for the cardinals too. You may have seen that I also devised Formula:Capsa civitatis Vicidata as you suggested. I have already applied it to those countries that did not have an infobox at all. I think it could replace the infoboxes on all the other pages too -- I doubt that people oftenlook on Vicipaedia for the few bits of data not yet shown in it -- but I am travelling for the next week so I will not immediately do this myself.

"Capsa hominis Vicidata" could now replace "Capsa hominis" (about 1600 instances?) but ideally one might first extract the images and display them on the page: sometimes they are different images from the one that is used on Wikidata; often they have a useful Latin caption. Possibly a bot could do this, what do you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 19 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Great work! UVbot could replace the old {{Capsa hominis}} box with the new {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}} box plus the image currently specified as a parameter to the old Capsa hominis box (with the caption currently specified as a parameter to the old Capsa hominis box). However, I do not yet see an elegant way to check whether the image is identical to the one currently used on Wikidata, so we might end up with the same image being shown twice. If that is not a problem, UVbot could perform this task.

Bon voyage! --UV (disputatio) 23:37, 19 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I do not think it is a problem that the image will sometimes be the same: it is merely a hint to editors that they could look for a different one. Whenever you have time, it would be a good idea to give UVbot this task. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:24, 20 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Done! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:31, 7 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing that. I will return to the cardinals in due course, and meanwhile I will extend the "Capsa civitatis Vicidata" gradually to other countries. A "Capsa urbis Vicidata" is taking shape at the back of my mind ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:23, 8 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Great! --UV (disputatio) 14:31, 8 Martii 2015 (UTC)

On another talk page Iacobus asked: But when the new capsa is inserted, shouldn't a duplicate image be deleted? As in, e.g., Carolina Gulielma Sandell-Berg. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:07, 21 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

For the reason I had given above, I think it best not to do this automatically (it would, as UV says, be very difficult to achieve with a bot). If the capsa is substituted by hand, as has happened in several hundred cases, the intelligent hand can indeed decide to do this and will very often do so, substituting a different image if there is one available. If the capsa is substituted by bot, the next editor who chances on the page can consider the image issue. Checking for additional images is worthwhile, and a human can do the job quite quickly, I find. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:53, 24 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Just to add that there may be various reasons to retain the same image: if it contains several subjects that need to be identified; if it needs to be enlarged to show the main subject fully; if it is by a known painter or photographer, or from a manuscript or a museum that should be identified and linked; if for any other reason our caption is, or ought to be, more detailed than just giving the name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:41, 25 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Salve UV! Der Artikel de:Himmelsrichtung hat eine Infobox zu den Himmelsrichtungen, die - Bearbeitung vorausgesetzt - auch für die lateinische Vicipaedia nützlich wäre. Frage: Wo bzw. wie finde ich den Quelltext dieser Infobox, um ihn ggf. bearbeiten zu können?--Utilo (disputatio) 10:32, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Salve et tu, Utilo! Meinst Du de:Vorlage:Linkbox Himmelsrichtungen? Übrigens: Vielen Dank für Deinen Ausbau des Artikels zur Alma mater Rudolphina! Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 20:25, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Salve iterum! ich habe ein verwandtes Problem. Vor einiger Zeit habe auch der Seite "Germania" einiges rezensiert. In der Infobox dieser Seite sind einige überlüssige, rot geschriebene Angaben, die ich nicht weg bringe. Andrerseits bringe ich die "Forma administrationis" nicht in diese Infobox hinein. Für gelengentliche Hilfe diesbezüglich wäre ich Dir dankbar.Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 14:42, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Salve et tu, Bis-Taurine! Die "Forma administrationis" habe ich jetzt ergänzt (da war einfach ein Parametername völlig falsch geschrieben: Einen Parameter "status_rei_publicae" hat die Vorlage derzeit nicht; ihn anzugeben, ist daher derzeit wirkungslos).

Was das Ausblenden der überflüssigen, rot geschriebenen Angaben betrifft, zögere ich ein bisschen, da jetzt noch Energie in eine Reparatur der alten Infobox {{Capsa nationis}} hineinzuinvestieren: User:Andrew Dalby arbeitet gerade (siehe oben: #Wikidata and infoboxes) an neuen Infoboxen, die ausschließlich Informationen darstellen, die bereits auf Wikidata vorhanden sind (ein Entwurf ist hier zu finden: Formula:Capsa civitatis Vicidata). Das hätte den Vorteil, dass wir uns um den Inhalt der Infoboxen nicht mehr zu kümmern brauchten und uns auf das Schreiben des Artikeltexts konzentrieren könnten. Informationen, die auf Wikidata nicht vorhanden sind oder die nicht in geeigneter Weise in der neuen Infobox dargestellt werden können, sollten dann besser statt in der Infobox im Artikeltext beschrieben werden. Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 20:25, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Zusammenfassung für Andrew/Summary for Andrew: No need to fuss around with the old {{Capsa nationis}}, new Wikidata infoboxes prepared by Andrew are coming, yay! --UV (disputatio) 20:25, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

I confirm this :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, Utilo, für Deine Hilfe! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 20:58, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Et gratias praesertim UV et Andreae!--Utilo (disputatio) 13:16, 23 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

UV, ich wollte vor allem Dir danken für Deine liebe Hilfe. Leider komme ich immer wieder mit UV und Utilo durcheinander. Schön, Euch beide und Andreas als Unterstützer zu haben!Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 00:09, 25 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Kein Problem, sehr gerne! --UV (disputatio) 00:20, 25 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

No longer counted among the 1000

Was it changes that this bot made in Agitatio Australis El Niño / La Niña that caused other wikis no longer to recognize that page and helped cause Latin to slip a notch in the reckoning in the List of Wikipedias by sample of articles? or did the break in the links happen from some random cause? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:23, 9 Martii 2015 (UTC)

If UV finds a different explanation, believe UV rather than me! But I glanced at this a couple of months ago, and my diagnosis is as follows.

1. At the time when en:wiki had a very long name for its one article on this topic, we translated it, faithfully copying the very long name.
2. The name at en:wiki was then simplified to en:El Niño, in accordance with common usage and with all other wikis.
3. Later, at en:wiki only, some editors thought that an article with a longer name, covering a more general phenomenon, was needed after all; so it was "forked" and an article with a longer name was recreated. (See en:Talk:El Niño Southern Oscillation#Re-creation.) But the 1000-page article at en:wiki has always been the older article, the one that now has the short name, en:El Niño.
4. Our article always retained its very long name (see our talk page). Therefore, from its title, it now appears to be a clone of the forked, new English article en:El Niño Southern Oscillation, not the 1000-page en:El Niño. Some other Wikipedian (probably not a bot, but I don't know) noticed this and made the change at Wikidata.
5. There are several easy solutions, any of which will make us rise nicely in the ratings again whenever they are applied, so all will be well. The quickest solution would be to rename our article en:El Niño (vel sim.), and then change the interwikis at Wikidata. I see that Lesglas has raised this problem meanwwhile on our discussion page, so I will copy this discussion there. I suggest continuing there: OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:57, 9 Martii 2015 (UTC)

According to the difference-between revisions page, the problem, whatever it was, happened between 5 February and 8 March. By all means change the title and recover those points! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:54, 9 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copy that opinion across :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:06, 9 Martii 2015 (UTC)

The change Iacobus mentions was caused by a user at wikidata, who on 18 February 2015 removed our article from the item d:Q7939 (referencing, inter alia, en:El Niño) and added it to the item d:Q14524818 (referencing, inter alia, en:El Niño Southern Oscillation). No objection to the solution proposed by Andrew! --UV (disputatio) 23:49, 9 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Alerts

Salve UV! Danke für deine Korrekturen in der Wiener Inschrift! Eine Frage: Ich bekomme häufig (auch von dir) alerts: Wie kann ich diese beantworten oder selbst welche schreiben? Offenbar passiert das ja nicht auf der Disputatio-Seite.--Utilo (disputatio) 17:05, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Salve, Utilo! Alerts beantworten oder selbst schreiben geht nicht direkt; aber manche Aktivitäten lösen automatisch einen Alert („Echo“) aus, beispielsweise wenn man jemandes Benutzernamen mit Link auf dessen Benutzerseite erwähnt, so wie ich es jetzt gerade tue. Eine ziemlich ausführliche Information dazu findest Du in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia unter de:Hilfe:Echo. Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 22:46, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago!--Utilo (disputatio) 09:07, 14 Martii 2015 (UTC)

De verbis corrigendis

Hi, UV. I have a feeling you will know how to make the changes suggested by Bis-Taurinus at Vicipaedia:Taberna#Paginae "custoditae", categoriae "proxima", emendatio "novissimus"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:30, 28 Martii 2015 (UTC)

I have now tried to do so on translatewiki:. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:59, 29 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Mabelina

Salve UV!

I am unable to sign off as Mabelina at the moment because an inappropriate email address keeps appearing. I should be grateful if you could fix the removal of this automated signature? Also ref Donaldus Adamson article I have made some suggestions, basically pointing out inconsistent capitalisation of letters, adding two categories and proposing the removal of the editing block given that the Latin text now reads well. Many thanks in advance for your assistance. M

Hi, UV. On the signature question, note what I have already written at Disputatio Usoris:Mabelina ... but if you think I am mistaken about this, by all means say so! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 19 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Mabelina has now deleted that discussion, but meanwhile thanked me, so apparently I solved the signature problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:55, 19 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mabelina, have you been able to fix the signature problem (with Andrew's help)? As to the Donald Adamson article, I am sure User:Amahoney will comment on this in a short while. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:28, 19 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Salve Andrew & UV: thanks you both for your help and I am most grateful for Anne's likewise. Meanwhile I have deleted talk page duplications of proposed amendments to the Donaldus Adamson article, for the avoidance of confusion and to reduce the risk of new (or indeed current) readers editing previous versions! Many thanks again. M Mabelina (disputatio) 21:32, 23 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Moved categories

Now that moving small categories is less awkward than it used to be, I often do this. I normally create a redirect page (the default option) because, in the short term, it assists in editing the relevant pages. Ideally the redirect pages should later (I think) be deleted, because redirects in category space are (I think) in the long term more of a nuisance than a help. Do you agree on this point? If so, do you perhaps already delete category redirects with a bot from time to time, or would you be able to do that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

I personally dislike redirects in category space as well, although they are not as bad a thing as they used to be years ago: When a page is a member of a redirecting category, this page nowadays automatically becomes a member of the category the redirect is pointing at. Still, in my view, redirects in category space reduce clarity and may make it more difficult for both editors and readers to find the correct category.

UVbot cannot delete category redirects because deleting pages (including redirects) is something that only magistratus can do. A list of all redirects in category space is available here: https://la.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=xmlfm&action=query&list=allpages&apnamespace=14&apfilterredir=redirects&aplimit=5000

Perhaps it would be a good idea if both you and I from time to time take a look into this list and delete unnecessary redirects? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:40, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I had not noticed that "When a page is a member of a redirecting category, this page nowadays automatically becomes a member of the category the redirect is pointing at" and I had forgotten that (unless promoted to magistratus!) a bot would not be able to delete a redirect. Yes, I agree, it's best to check category redirects in that list from time to time.

Right, I looked at the list, reformatted it slightly, got rid of all the old redirects except the Italian ones ... and except Categoria:Collegium Rutgersense, because, it's true, if using HotCat one selects this correct but outdated name, the automatic result will be a category under the new name. There is some value in that. So possibly (as at Commons) a few category redirects will be worth retaining after all. Still thinking about that ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:52, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Another question

Another question. Had you noticed that when using the editing window it is no longer possible to click on one of the special characters below to insert it in text? One can still do it by copy-and-paste or highlight-and-slide, but not the other way. On other Wikipedias, I notice, this function still seems to work. Has something gone slightly wrong here? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:45, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

I have tried it and I can still insert special characters from below the editing area fine just by clicking on them. Strange ... --UV (disputatio) 20:04, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps it's a browser problem. I'll do some more experiments. Thanks ...

My usual browser is Opera. But no, the special characters down here don't work for me with Firefox either. And yet when I go and edit on the French and English wikis, they work fine. So it must be something in my preferences, then. Is that possible? Still experimenting ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 15 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that must be it. I have now signed out, and the special characters §§§ work beautifully. That seems to pin it down. I'll go through my preferences. 109.214.244.37 12:52, 15 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

OK, sorry to have troubled you. I had disabled "advanced editing toolbar", because I never use it, and perhaps that also disabled the special characters below. They now work for me again :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:58, 15 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

No problem, glad it works again! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:13, 15 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

... and still another

as you will see, if you happen to look at my userpage ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:16, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

I have replied there. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:04, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

If there were a "talkback" template here, or even a "ping" template here, I'd use it ...

Please have a quick look at Disputatio usoris:StevenJ81#Other desirable changes. Thanks. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:29, 22 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I have replied there. Just in case you did not know: Pinging someone is easy even without a template, just add a link to someone's userpage, and the mentioned user will receive a notification, see en:Wikipedia:Notifications. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:02, 22 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Didn't know that. Do now. Thanks very much. And thanks very much for getting me to the right translatewiki links, too. I'm not sure in the end if I'm going to change them—the question is whether "Adar I" or "I Adar" is more appropriate for Latin, and in the end I think it doesn't really matter. But at least I know where to change it if I decide I need/want to.

I'll see what I can find out at Wikidata and let you know. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 03:03, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Good, thanks a lot! --UV (disputatio) 18:36, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Parva reletura Pietralatae

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes?

Tibi peto parvam relecturam huis paginae quae feci. Tibi gratias ago!!!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 08:57, 30 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

... for restoring HotCat. I use it all the time now, it's so timesaving and helpful.

I must remember those two CathHier formulae. I've added a headnote at the old formula page -- probably mainly a note to myself. Greetings! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:35, 9 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about HotCat brings to mind two other things I use among the preferences at en:wiki. I simply don't know how easy it would be to introduce them here.

1. "Redirect image links to Commons for files that are hosted there". On some wikis, incuding French and German, this is the standard behaviour: I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be standard here if we could do it
2. "Reference Tooltips: Roll over any inline citation to see reference information, instead of having to jump away from the article text": this is handier as articles get longer

You will probably know whether we could do these things, and you will also have an opinion about whether these are good ideas! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 9 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

No problem! I have added these two gadgets – you can activate them in your preferences – but I have currently not activated them as default for everyone. Any gadget code is likely to break someday, and I would not want to risk introducing flaws that would possibly one day affect everyone. Hopefully there will some day be "global gadgets" that can be maintained in one central place (e. g. on meta) and not on each wiki individually – that would make life easier! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:00, 9 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you guys can help me a bit, in fact. I'd like to put HotCat in over at Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia, where I am currently serving as a (temporary) administrator. How do I do that? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:55, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Hello, this is not too difficult. The process is explained at commons:Help:Gadget-HotCat#Using the Commons version of HotCat on another wiki. Let me add the following (I am referring to the five steps listed on that page):

1. Step 1: You can skip this step.
2. Step 2: This is easy.
3. Step 3: Here, you need to do two things:
   1. First, create a local page "MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat" on your wiki with a one-line description of HotCat. This description will appear in Special:Preferences to describe the HotCat gadget. You can take a look at en:MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat as an example.
   2. Second, add the line "* HotCat[ResourceLoader]|HotCat.js" to the local page "MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition" on your wiki.

   By now, HotCat is working on your wiki!

4. Step 4: This is optional but useful. Take a look at MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/local defaults as an example.
5. Step 5: You can probably skip this step.

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:22, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, UV. Will copy over there. Thanks! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:00, 12 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Everything working, and it helped me install two gadgets there! (The other is a bidirectional control gadget available at Wikidata, Meta and Yiddish Wikipedia. It's really useful if you work in both LTR and RTL scripts.) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:43, 12 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Glad it worked! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:19, 12 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Bitte um technische Hilfe!

Lieber UV,

jetzt schreibe ich schon 10 Monate in der Vicipedia Latina, scheitere aber heute wieder an etwas ganz simplem: Ich hätte gerne von der deutschen oder italienischen Seite Ariccia das Ortswappen auf die lateinische Seite Aricia kopiert, aber es will mir nicht gelingen. Vielleicht könntest Du mich da an der Hand nehmen? Ich wäre Dir dankbar! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:24, 4 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Salve, Bis-Taurine! Leider ist es nicht möglich, das Wappen hier einzubinden: Die Datei ist zwar in der italienisch- und deutschsprachigen Wikipedia verfügbar, ist aber (wie auch die Warntexte auf den Bildbeschreibungsseiten de:Datei:Ariccia-Stemma.png#Lizenz und it:File:Ariccia-Stemma.png zeigen) ziemlich sicher nicht frei verfügbar (frei kopierbar und veränderbar) und hat daher eigentlich in einer freien Enzyklopädie, wie sie Wikipedia sein will, nichts verloren … Herzliche Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 19:16, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Salve UV, herzlichen Dank für die Aufklärung und herzliche Grüße! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:23, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Archidioecesis Seulensis

Vale, carissime UV, quomodo te habes?

Haec pagina feci et tibi parvam relecturam peto, et tibi magna gratias ago!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 21:45, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Propositio unius paragraphi ad deletionem

Salve iterum UV, te rogo, ut propositionem meam ad deletionem in pagina Disputatio:Podagra factam probes. Spero me tibi non nimis molestem esse. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:57, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Translatewiki question

Salve, UV!

Are the secular month abbreviations (i.e., the output you get when you type {{#time:M}} = Dec) located in translatewiki? If so, where are they? I was looking for them (for a different project, not Latina). Thanks. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:17, 16 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are, see translatewiki:MediaWiki:Jan/la, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Feb/la, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Mar/la, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Apr/la, translatewiki:MediaWiki:May/la, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Jun/la, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Jul/la, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Aug/la, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Sep/la, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Oct/la, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Nov/la, translatewiki:MediaWiki:Dec/la. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:55, 7 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Not a totally different question ... See the latest discussion on my userpage. I mention it in case you have any idea why the dates in our {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}} are suddenly in English, even though we can see them in Latin on the Wikidata pages. More important, I hope you're well? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:03, 30 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I am perfectly well, real life keeps me busy ;-)

StevenJ81 has found out meanwhile, see Vicipaedia:Taberna#Capsa hominis Vicidata, so there is hope that it will be fixed in a few days' time! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:55, 7 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer to my original question, as well as the support on the Wikidata issues. Real life always comes first, but it's nice to see you out and about here once in a while. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 02:01, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Projected "supplementum" space

I guess you're still busy in the real world, but if you have any ideas or comments relevant to Disputatio Vicipaediae:Spatium supplementorum -- positive or negative -- it would be very good to know. Best wishes Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:36, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

De emendandis vel convertendis verbis, quae ad ipsam VP pertinent

Salve, UV! Andrea auctore auxilium quoddam abs te peto. Nam fugit me, quomodo ea verba, quae ad superficiem, ut ita dicam, huius vicipadiae spectant, emendari vel converti possint. Exstant enim plurimae formulae ex Anglico sermone vel nondum omnino vel in pessimum tantum Latinum, quin etiam barbarum conversae. Gratissimus ero, si viam vel medium quoddam ostendere volueris. Vale. Laurentianus (disputatio) 20:09, 13 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Salve, Laurentiane! Ut scripsit Andreas, haec verba apud translatewiki: mutare potes. Valde gaudebo, si ea emendas vel convertis! Sed difficilis est: Multa verba non solum uno in loco, sed in permultis nuntiis apparent (vide indicem nuntiorum). Si unum verbum malum, quod multis in nuntiis apparet, mutare vis, igitur oportet haec omnia singula nuntia hoc verbum continentia recensere. Olim incepi glossarium: Usor:UV/MediaWiki l10n/Glossary. Nuper mutata apud translatewiki.net hic inspicere potes. Ut valeas optime! --UV (disputatio) 00:09, 14 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Gratias tibi habeo maximas, mi UV. Aliquantulum animosius coepi, priusquam glossarium tuum inspexi. Libenter illi disputationi interero. Nihilominus nulla emendationum mearum iam visibilis facta est. Igitur damnum non nimium reputo.

Difficile quidem videtur, inter ea, quae nuntia appellare solent, singula emendatione digna reperire. E.g. lineam illam "Paginae a te visitatae et adhuc mutatae in litteris pinguis monstrantur", quae supra indicem paginarum observatarum apparet, nusquam inveni. Scin tu, qui faciam? Vale. Laurentianus (disputatio) 21:09, 14 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

• I ad paginam ubi haec verba apparent: https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist
• In finem URL, adde "?uselang=qqx" (si nondum est littera "?" in URL) vel "&uselang=qqx" (si iam est littera "?" in URL): https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist?uselang=qqx
• Nunc vides titulos nuntiorum. Reperis "(wlheader-showupdated)"
• I ad translatewiki:MediaWiki:Wlheader-showupdated/la et nuntium recense.
• Si iam est nuntium MediaWiki:Wlheader-showupdated apud Vicipaediam Latinam, adde "{{delenda}}" in paginam disputationis Disputatio MediaWiki:Wlheader-showupdated.

Ut valeas optime! --UV (disputatio) 01:42, 15 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Lepidissime! Gratias ago tibi maximas. Libenter temptabo. Progressus certe videbis. Vale! Laurentianus (disputatio) 11:22, 15 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Iterum gratias tibi ago maximas, mi UV, qui nonnulla nuntia emendata ad sensum pristinum reduxeris. Sine tibi proponam haec dubia in nuntiis emendandis orta:

1. An aliquo modo invenire possim, ubinam (h.e. quo in contextu) quodque nuntium appareat? Quod interdum necesse est, ut id sine maioris detrimenti periculo mutem.
2. Quomodo singula variabilia (velut $1, $2) casibus adaptentur? E.g. Watchlistfor2/la requirit praepositionem ab, cui proprie ablativus servit. Nonne est facultas casus cuiuscumque formandi?

Vale felicissime! Laurentianus (disputatio) 19:43, 20 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Tibi gratias maximas debeo pro labore tuo in nuntiis Latine convertendis!

1. Vereor, ne abest locus ubi contextus cuiusque nuntii describitur. Paucis nuntiis autem est descriptio apud translatewiki: Nuntii translatewiki:MediaWiki:Wlheader-showupdated/la est descriptio translatewiki:MediaWiki:Wlheader-showupdated/qqq.
2. Non est facultas ad nomina usorum declinandum. Nomina inceptorum aegre declinari possunt ({{grammar:accusative|{{SITENAME}}}} ait Vicipaediam, vide Usor:UV/MediaWiki l10n/grammar), sed si temptares nomina usorum hoc modo declinare, multos errores invenires.

Cura ut valeas! --UV (disputatio) 20:45, 20 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

... for your immediate improvements to "Capsa natationis"! You'll understand, the name of it came to my mind as a joke, as I wanted, simply, to test an alternative basis for navigation boxes. You will have seen, too, no doubt, my explanation of what I had in mind on Steven81's talk page. It's good to see you around ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:00, 13 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Does the template still look good to you now, after my changes? I have replied on StevenJ81's talk page. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:15, 13 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does! I'll answer over there more fully. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:12, 14 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on the navboxes. Really great. There's one detail you might care to look at when you have time. (You may already have seen this and have your own view on it -- tell me if that's the case!) I think you noted that the old Capsa navigationis had two parameters, "Imago" (which appeared high on the left) and "imago" (which appeared on the right, below the title line). There was no good reason to have both; it's simply that both went on being used in different boxes. Both (I think) were at first visible in the mobile view, both on the left! Until yesterday "Imago" was still visible in the mobile view, on the left, but "imago" didn't any longer show up over there. Today (unless I've made a mistake) neither of them show up over there. It's not a big issue, but it would be better if they were visible even in mobile view, because many "imago" images, coats-of-arms, are usefully formatted to provide a direct link to the relevant country (etc.) As to left or right, it doesn't matter (I'd say); in the mobile view left was probably the ideal place. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 17 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

I tried to test this, and in the mobile view, I see no difference between "imago" and "Imago", and both show up: https://la.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicipaedia:Harenarium . Can you point me to a page where an image does not show up in the mobile view? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:13, 17 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's a browser problem. I don't see the images via Opera (my usual browser) but I do see the images via Firefox. So this doesn't matter at all, because in any case I am merely testing the interface on my PC: what would matter would be if they couldn't be seen on a real hand-held device! Sorry to waste time! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 18 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

No problem! I wonder what causes Opera not to display the images ... Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:37, 18 Decembris 2015 (UTC)