Disputatio Usoris:UV/2016

Vide etiam disputationes annorum 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 et 2015.

De iubilaeo Vicipaedianorum

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

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

Quo dicto, Vicipaediani liberi sumus. Paginae etiam breves, quae inter veras "stipulas" admitti possunt (vide formulam "Non stipula"), accepturae sunt sicut iam antea accipi solent. Scribe igitur sine metu, sicut iam scripsisti! ^[en] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:38, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De urbibus

Greetings, UV. I wonder if UVbot is able to add the category Categoria:Urbes milies milium incolarum to the Latin pages listed at Usor:Andrew Dalby/Urbes and Usor:Andrew Dalby/Urbes2? (Note that for some cities in those lists a Latin page does not yet exist.) If it can't, I'll ask on the Taberna. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:10, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, that was easy! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:00, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De praenominibus

This might be easy too -- I hope so. Could UVbot turn the members of Categoria:Nominum redirectiones into simple redirects? (I have dealt with a couple that were not quite straightforward: I believe the rest pose no problem.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those contain additional categories, such as Hermann or Kamill. Should those categories be kept unchanged? --UV (disputatio) 14:14, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. My feeling is that those categories could be removed from the redirects (and in due course perhaps deleted). We are unlikely ever to have many substantive articles on forenames in other languages, and a category containing randomly selected redirects is of no real use. Would you agree? (If we're uncertain, the conservative answer is to retain the category, at least for the present.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:33, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done creating the redirects, but for Luigi. After Luigi has been dealt with, we can delete {{Redirnomen}}. For the moment, I have kept all the categories including Categoria:Nominum redirectiones, but it would be easy to remove them as well. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:08, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. That's a good start! thank you very much. Meanwhile we'll see if anyone else comments at Disputatio:Index praenominum.

I hadn't noticed the problem with Luigi. We need to write some text about that issue, but whether we should write it at Ludovicus or Aloysius I don't know :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about Luigi initially started nearly nine years ago at Disputatio:Index praenominum#Vernacular names ;-) --UV (disputatio) 22:32, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To save time I made the page Luigi into an ordinary discretiva. I guess we can now delete {{Redirnomen}}: I'll do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:57, 26 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good! --UV (disputatio) 22:16, 26 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De paginis specialibus

Salve UV! Abhinc aliquot menses in taberna conventum est, ut pro usore illo potius conlator poneretur. Sunt circa 350 ita dicta nuntia in VP, quae priore vocabulo utuntur. Quae libenter accomodabo. Dubito autem, utrum nexus interni, quibus usque ad hoc tempus vel ad conlatoris ipsius paginam vel ad eiusdem disputationem directum est, postea valituri sint necne. Qui si deficerent, quoddam damnum inceptui inferrent. Quod si ita esset, possetne fieri, ut veteriores illi nexus per automaton reparentur? Bene valeas! Laurentianus (disputatio) 13:45, 26 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salve! Debemus non solum nuntia mutare, sed etiam nomina spatiorum nominalium "Usor:" et "Disputatio Usoris:" (indicem spatiorum nominalium invenis hic: Vicipaedia:Spatium nominale). Difficilis est nomina spatiorum nominalium mutare, sed effici potest. Ne nexus frangentur, utilis est nomen vetus in alias vertere. E. g.: Imago:Example.svg redirigit ad Fasciculus:Example.svg, quia "Imago:" est alias pro "Fasciculus". Si "Usor:" creamus alias pro "Conlator:", omnes nexus valent. Indicem automaticum hic inspicere potes: [1]. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 22:16, 26 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salve! Quantum video, res eget quadam exercitatione. Scrutabor, quomodo eiusmodi alias creare possim. Quamprimum conatus ero, te certiorem faciam. Vale! Laurentianus (disputatio) 22:56, 26 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vide translatewiki:Translating:MediaWiki#Translating namespace names et translatewiki:Translating:MediaWiki#Namespace name aliases. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 23:25, 26 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asking user's gender

Greetings, UV. I wonder if you are able to comment on whether it's possible to delete the question to new users whether they want to be addressed in the masculine or feminine, as Laurentianus suggests on the Taberna. I think he is right -- our system simply doesn't need to know this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:56, 4 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite sure that it is not possible to delete this question. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:56, 5 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) I haven't been a new user in a while, but I assume that one can choose not to answer that question (that is, to answer it with the non-answer). StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:50, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The setting MediaWiki:yourgender allows for three possibilities: MediaWiki:gender-unknown, MediaWiki:gender-female and MediaWiki:gender-male (with the explanatory text MediaWiki:prefs-help-gender). --UV (disputatio) 19:51, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions on formulae

I am sure now that the purpose behind the formulae {{Appellatio}} and {{Appellatio geographica}} was not well thought out, and all examples (about 75) might as well be converted to pure redirects. Nearly all the relevant pages were mine. Can UVbot do this conversion? The formulae could then be deleted. If you're busy, of course, there's no hurry!

Sure, done. I have for now kept all the categories including Categoria:Appellatio Originis Protecta and Categoria:Appellatio Geographica, but it would be easy to remove them as well. --UV (disputatio) 21:41, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice {{Photomontage}} and its talk page? If you had any comment to add I'm sure it would be useful. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:47, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out! I have replied there. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:41, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedias having zero local media files

Salve! Wenn man das File:Wiki.png löschen könnte, dann könnte la-Wikipedia auf der Seite meta:List of Wikipedias having zero local media files eingetragen werden. Die historischen Versionen scheinen ja schon zu Commons kopiert zu sein. Was denkst Du? Die Idee ist, Commons mehr zu unterstützen, indem man zeigt, wieviele Wikipedias ohne eigene Files auskommen. Die zweitgrösste (meta:List of Wikipedias/Table) ist zum Beispiel frei von lokalen Dateien. 91.9.119.68 17:27, 28 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nachdem das Logo ja nicht mehr von dort geladen wird (phab:T98640), ist die Datei nicht mehr vonnöten und ich habe sie gelöscht. Grüße, --UV (disputatio) 21:40, 1 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, freue mich! Nun 98 in der zero-Liste. Grüße, 91.9.112.196 08:59, 2 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schön! --UV (disputatio) 20:26, 2 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is there a way for me to find out which article in my wiki (lad:) was article #3,000? It doesn't seem to have been recorded anywhere. Thanks. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 20:58, 11 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that there is not. In cases where the milestone was reached only recently (e. g. article count is 3.004 or so), one can speculate by looking at Special:Newpages. Still, the article count may change, inter alia, by page deletions, undeletions, page moves across namespaces, … so I fear that there is no reliable way any more to find out. Sorry! --UV (disputatio) 15:18, 15 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of what I thought. But thanks! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:23, 15 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Thank you for telling me, I didn't know anything about that. In tath case, please delete the one regarding Roman provinces. Regarding medical disciplines, which Capsa Wikidata do I have to use? --Katxis (disputatio) 08:02, 30 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother but why there is no image in Aegyptus (provincia Romana) on the Capsa? Apparently there is one on Wikidata but it does not appear on the article. --Katxis (disputatio) 08:07, 30 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For subdivisions, I did not include "imago" among the parameters because, usually, a geographical photograph is not much use to an encyclopaedia if it is not labelled. Therefore, and to keep the capsa to a reasonable size, I used instead the images for insigne, vexillum, and situs. ... But in the case of an ancient province like this, only the situs (a map) would exist ... and this Wikidata page has no map. I'll try adding one.

I added a suitable map at "situs (tabula apud communia)" on Wikidata, and it now appears in our capsa.

The imago parameter is currently only used on our "Capsa hominis Vicidata", because, in the case of a biography, normally it is obvious what the image represents, and it is useful even without a label. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:58, 30 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I have now deleted Formula:Provincia romana. Regarding medical disciplines, I fear that we do not have a suitable Wikidata infobox yet.

Andrew already fixed the problem with the image on Aegyptus (provincia Romana). Thanks a lot for your work on navboxes - like Andrew, I find the navboxes you create very useful! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:25, 30 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angli et Saxones

I reverted your edit at Categoria:Ars Anglosaxonica having meanwhile removed Categoria:Angli et Saxones from the "Homines" category tree. That seemed a good solution: hope you agree? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:16, 13 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:45, 13 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De imaginibus

Hi, UV. If you have a moment, please comment at Disputatio:Tribu. Thank you! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 14:33, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lat/Long abbreviations

Do you know where these are on translatewiki.net? I want to correct them for ladwiki. Thanks. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:22, 29 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see wrong translations that you would like to correct? --UV (disputatio) 20:55, 31 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's asking how to abbreviate latitudo and longitudo. They both can't be "L"! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:13, 31 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, not here, but Ladino Wikipedia. Second, I'm needing "W" to be "O". StevenJ81 (disputatio) 02:06, 1 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - could you please give me an example URL on lad.wikipedia where you see a "W" that needs to be "O"? --UV (disputatio) 19:39, 1 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the infobox of lad:Dublin. (Note that the ladwiki version of {{Coord}} displays correctly.) For now, there aren't many pages like this, because mostly we're just manually typing in the lat/long. But it would be better if we could just call them from Wikidata. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 22:44, 1 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If I understand correctly, then the output of {{#property:P625}} is not properly formatted (localized) on lad.wikipedia. Sorry, I do not know where this can be fixed. You might want to ask at d:Wikidata:Project chat. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:25, 2 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. Thanks. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 21:28, 2 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insipiens plus rogitat quam sapiens respondere vacat

Salve, o UV! Since you seem to possess deeper understanding than me about administrativo-juridical matters, I'd like to bother you a bit with my mediocre astonishment at some copyright restrictions in Wikipedia. In a layman's eyes, it seems to be the case that quod licet Iovi (the English wiki) non licet bovi (the other wikis). A recent example: when working on J. L. Mackie, it came as a surprise that no picture of this philosopher was available to the boves. Only Juppiter has a picture to boast about. This does not look too fair. ¶ The arguments in the verbose "use rationale" are good, but, as far as I can see, none of them explains why the use of the picture be restricted to the English Wikipedia only. Perhaps it's the Licensing section that clinches the case? Is there a severe legal constraint? On the one hand, "it is believed" (by whom?) that the use of this image "may" qualify as fair use under US copyright law, on the other hand, it seems to be believed that its use on other wikipedias "may" be a copyright infringement. I guess I'm wondering why the US copyright law applies only to the English wikipedia. What are the criteria of its application? Scarcely the language, because US obviously has no official language. Are the wikipedias country-specific? Somehow it doubt it. The location of the server? Indeed, where is the server of our Vicipaedia? If it is not in the US, obviously we have to obey some other law. But whose? If it is in the US, one wonders why doesn't the US copyright law apply and create the belief that it may not be a copyright infringement? And so on. I am sorry for sending this tirade to you! Let's say that it was a great relief to send this bunch of bits into the Space, even though nobody's listening. :-) Vale, Neander (disputatio) 16:32, 5 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but someone has been listening and talking about this problem for a long time! You'll see a striking example of it in our new article on Cubismus. Only sixteen out of fifty-six images at Wikipedia will reproduce in Vicipaedia. Often, as you point out, the forbidden images are essential ones, as, for example, the Demoiselles d'Avignon, one of the foundational images of Cubism. No demoiselles for us! Cubismus and related articles have to make do without it and several other indispensable masterpieces. Many of my articles on twentieth-century people, like yours on Mackie, have been hampered by this restriction, the result being that Vicipaedia has no picture or has to make do with an inferior one. I've long protested this interwiki unfairness, and have suggested that in retaliation, Vicipaedia accept the uploading of images that are not to be licensed for use elsewhere, but the consensus has disagreed, though the proposed practice would indisputably enhance Vicipaedia. As a photographic hobbyist (and sometime professional), I myself could have supplied dozens of good photos. Last March, for example, Sue Johnson posed for me, and not even Wikipedia has a photo of her; similarly Harville Hendrix, Daniel J. Siegel, and other notable psychotherapists at the convention that I photograph every year. Several photos I took of John Kabat-Zinn are brighter & clearer than the murky (though more or less acceptable) image of him already in Wikipedia, and several of Dick Cavett would be less unflattering than the one of him at the start of his article. I live across the street from an institution whose article in Wikipedia has a terrible picture of it, and a much better image could easily be supplied, but so long as the present policy is in place, it's not going to be. People will just have to check my albums in Facebook, some of which have captions in Latin. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:19, 5 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I add lots of images to Commons and then use them here. You should too, Iacobe. It's fun. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:50, 5 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given this situation of conceptual vagueness, I can somehow understand Iacobus's silent protest. But I am concerned above all with understanding the legal argumentation. At least the argumentation in the Licensing section of J. L. Mackie looks so sloppy that one wonders whether the purpose is argumentation or intimidation. Neander (disputatio) 10:00, 6 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, trying to describe the situation as I understand it:

The wikipedias strive to be free encyclopedias. This means (http://freedomdefined.org/, en:Definition of Free Cultural Works) in particular the freedom that everyone is permitted not only to use wikipedia's content, but also to modify wikipedia's content and to use modified content – all of these for any purpose, including for commercial purposes.

As a consequence, the wikipedias cannot (in general) accept copyrighted content (unless the copyright holder has granted everyone a suitable licence to use, modify and reuse, such as the "CC-BY-SA 3.0 License").

Some wikipedias do, however, accept certain kinds of copyrighted content. For more information, see wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy (the possible "EDP"s described there cover, inter alia, the en.wikipedia "fair use" exception). Here at the Latin Vicipaedia, we agreed a few years ago to concentrate on creating good (text) content in Latin and not to burden ourselves with the intricacies of copyright law, checking the copyright status of uploaded files etc. While we previously had a certain number of locally uploaded files (some of these ok, some of these were copyright violations), we moved the good ones to commons, deleted the bad ones and restricted local uploads.

Free content is great for reusers, so if you, Iacobe, would change your mind and would share your works under a free license (preferably on commons), it would be great – and if many people share their works under a free license, then there will be less and less topics for which a free illustration does not yet exist.

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 17:44, 6 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, UV, for guiding me to look at the issue from another point of view! If I understand correctly, nothing in principle would prevent us from using non-licensed pictures under EDP, if we were willing to wrestle with the intricacies of copyright law. I agree that we have more interesting things to do, and there is indeed still a lot to do if we are going to create texts that we need not be ashamed of in front of professional classicists. Greetings, Neander (disputatio) 07:45, 7 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is truly frustrating that we sometimes lack images to illustrate mid-20th century figures (who lived too late for copyright on earlier images to have lapsed, too early for the widespread release of images by today's photographers). Yet such images often appear eventually, and meanwhile the absence of them encourages lateral/irrelevant thinking. Remember, o Martine, your article "Iosephus Schumpeter", which at a certain point lacked an image of the subject. I scanned an image from my shelf of old guidebooks, and added it to Commons, just so that there would be a wintry picture of his birthplace to lighten the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:34, 7 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Neander, you are right: Nothing in principle would prevent us from developing a la.wikipedia EDP within the limits of wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy – and wrestling with the intricacies of copyright law from then on (checking whether uploaded images fall within the scope of this EDP or not). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:41, 7 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can add another couple of points.

All Wikipedias are subject to US law, because they are hosted in the US. Beyond that, non-English Wikipedias whose principal audiences/speakers are in certain countries usually also have to take into consideration the equivalent of US fair use or Commonwealth fair dealing rules for those particular countries. So, for example, French Wikipédia usually also has to worry about French/Swiss/Belgian/(maybe) Canadian law, German Wikipedia about German/Swiss/Austrian law, and so forth. I doubt any additional stricture would apply to Vicipaedia.

Many smaller Wikipedias have made conscious decisions not to have any fair-use content—only actual free content—for reasons elaborated above. See m:Non-free content for a fuller discussion. In order for a wiki to have fair-use content, it has to have a written EDP. (I'm trying to establish one at Ladino Wikipedia, but am finding it hard to get help. So I'm de facto using English Wikipedia's EDP for now.)

Even at Wikipedias allowing fair-use content, many restrict actual uploading to sysops as an additional control measure.

English Wikipedia contains far more fair-use content than other Wikipediae. Partly, it's because English Wikipedia is simply bigger. Partly, it's because the rules—which are stricter than US law requires—have long been established there. And partly, it's because there is a very active group of reviewers there watching to take down content that doesn't really meet the rules. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:20, 9 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bicol Regio

Hi UV, kindly restore the Article. I will be supplying the proper sources. Best regards,--Jondel (disputatio) 03:37, 1 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to notice this request. Iacobus marked the page "non stipula", Lesgles deleted it, so, to make this a team effort, I have restored it and Jondel can now expand it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:40, 1 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but leave something for UV to do, so as not to be left out! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:57, 1 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I should have added that UV is kindly hosting this discussion ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:06, 1 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

;-) --UV (disputatio) 22:47, 1 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank UV, Andrew and Iacobus. Thank you also for your patience.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:57, 2 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is a fun, friendly place to contribute. Why would anyone want to break their teeth at enwiki? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:47, 5 Octobris 2016 (UTC)[reply]