Hac pagina scriptorium Vicifontis est.
Nunc iam sunt 9 817 paginae. Hodie dies Mercurii, 28 iulii 2021.


(DE) Neue Nachrichten dürfen auf Latein, Französisch, Englisch oder Italienisch gestellt werden.
(EN) You can write a new message in Latin, French, English or Italian.
(FR) Vous pouvez écrire en latin, en français, en italien ou en anglais.
(IT) Potete scrivere in latino, italiano, francese o inglese.

(ALIAE) Aliis linguis uti potes, sed noli iubere nos facile eas intellegere


Quaestio nova
Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide Vicifons:Scriptorium/Vetera


Forum-de-César.jpg
Scriptorium Vicifontis

Alia scriptoria

Vicipaedia:Taberna
Vicicitatio:Taberna
Victionarium:Taberna


Erasmus' Colloquia familiaria et Encomium MoriaRecensere

Salve omnes, this is to let you know a few things, and to ask for some help:

  1. I transcribed some of the Colloquia familiaria last year from this C19th edition
  2. I have copied across the rest of the plain text transcriptions of Colloquia familiaria from UC Leuven into the C19th edition of Colloquia familiaria so that the text can be mapped to source, and of course, is easier to read and convert to ebooks etc.
  3. The edition has footnotes, which I have yet to complete transcribing
  4. There are a few pieces I could not find at Leuven
  5. Early on, I did not manage to convert u consonant » v consistently from Leuven
  6. The edition also includes Moriae encomium; I have mapped the transcription already done here to the pages in the book. The notes need finishing and Greek needs adding.
  7. The edition uses original Greek, which needs adding throughout
  8. Pages with missing Greek or footnotes are marked as "problematic"

Nevertheless, we have a nearly complete and properly sourced version of the Colloquia familiaria in Latin, which I hope will prove useful. At least, I could not find a fully digitised and sorted version elsewhere. Any help to complete this would be appreciated! JimKillock (disputatio) 13:06, 29 Novembris 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks a lot for your precious work @JimKillock: :) --Barbaking (disputatio) 14:36, 30 Novembris 2020 (UTC)
(Thanks for your kind words @Barbaking:)
Quick appeal for help with the Greek – this is the one bit I cannot do at all. 16:40, 13 Decembris 2020 (UTC)
Everything is now proofread at leat once with the exception of Greek and a tiny bit of Hebrew. JimKillock (disputatio) 11:21, 19 Decembris 2020 (UTC)
Greek is now nearly all done and a small amount of Hebrew remains to be added, so this is nearly all done. It does need to be checked / proofed a second time though. JimKillock (disputatio) 08:35, 19 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata descriptions changes to be included more often in Recent Changes and WatchlistRecensere

Latin ghost storiesRecensere

Just a note that English Wikisource has an index (starting halfway down and running several pages) containing 12 "Ghost Stories" in Latin that is Public Domain, but should probably be proofread/transmigrated by Latin Wikisource :) Peace.salam.shalom (disputatio) 19:09, 5 Decembris 2020 (UTC)

@Peace.salam.shalom: cool! :D many thanks, we'll try to work on it asap --Barbaking (disputatio) 09:52, 6 Decembris 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind helping a bit; I note there are a few Latin sections (not just ghosts), perhaps the other issues and volumes also have some Latin content tho? JimKillock (disputatio) 09:05, 7 Decembris 2020 (UTC)

2020 Coolest Tool Award Ceremony on December 11thRecensere

Community Wishlist Survey 2021Recensere

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

00:52, 15 Decembris 2020 (UTC)

Moving Wikimania 2021 to a Virtual EventRecensere

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language. Thank you!

Wikimania will be a virtual event this year, and hosted by a wide group of community members. Whenever the next in-person large gathering is possible again, the ESEAP Core Organizing Team will be in charge of it. Stay tuned for more information about how you can get involved in the planning process and other aspects of the event. Please read the longer version of this announcement on wikimedia-l.

ESEAP Core Organizing Team, Wikimania Steering Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Events Team, 15:16, 27 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Project Grant Open CallRecensere

This is the announcement for the Project Grants program open call that started on January 11, with the submission deadline of February 10, 2021.
This first open call will be focussed on Community Organizing proposals. A second open call focused on research and software proposals is scheduled from February 15 with a submission deadline of March 16, 2021.

For the Round 1 open call, we invite you to propose grant applications that fall under community development and organizing (offline and online) categories. Project Grant funds are available to support individuals, groups, and organizations to implement new experiments and proven ideas, from organizing a better process on your wiki, coordinating a campaign or editathon series to providing other support for community building. We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal support upon request. Contact us if you would like feedback or more information.

We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into motion, and submit your proposal by February 10, 2021!

Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with your grant application, or about serving on the Project Grants Committee. Contact us at projectgrantsFormula:Atwikimedia.org. Please help us translate this message to your local language. MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 08:01, 28 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Interpres in Formula:TitulusRecensere

hi, I finally added the parameter |Interpres= in Template:Titulus, to specify the Latin translator of the work, if any (something that was asked for here, near the end of the thread). This also add the category Categoria:Opera quae <interpres> latine vertit. Optionally can also be specified:

  • |AnnusInterpretationis= - for the year of the translation, adds Categoria:Saeculi x interpretationes
  • |LinguaNativa= - for the original language in which the work was written, adds Categoria:Interpretationes a lingua x (for now this works with graecus, Greek, anglicus, English, arabicus, Arab, francogallicus, French, italianus, Italian, hebraicus, Hebrew, germanicus, German; other languages can of course be added if needed).

as an example please see De interpretatione, a Boethio latine versa). As always comments/criticisms are welcome, please let me know what you think about all this... vale, --Barbaking (disputatio) 10:16, 5 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me :) JimKillock (disputatio) 09:45, 17 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 is back!Recensere

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

Please support us in translating the project page and a banner message to help us spread the word in your native language.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 13:25, 6 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Set two-letter project shortcuts as alias to project namespace globallyRecensere

Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

I apologize for posting in English. I would like to inform everyone that I created a new global request for comment (GRFC) at Meta Wiki, which may affect your project: m:Requests for comment/Set short project namespace aliases by default globally.

In this GRFC, I propose that two-project shortcuts for project names will become a default alias for the project namespace. For instance, on all Wikipedias, WP will be an alias to the Wikipedia: namespace (and similar for other projects). Full list is available in the GRFC.

This is already the case for Wikivoyages, and many individual projects asked for this alias to be implemented. I believe this makes it easier to access the materials in the project namespace, as well as creating shortcuts like WP:NPOV, as well as helps new projects to use this feature, without having to figure out how to request site configuration changes first.

As far as I can see, Wikisource currently does not have such an alias set. This means that such an alias will be set for you, if the GRFC is accepted by the global community.

I would like to ask all community members to participate in the request for comment at Meta-Wiki, see m:Requests for comment/Set short project namespace aliases by default globally.

Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions about this proposal.

Best regards,
--Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:12, 18 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo contestRecensere

01:50, 2 Martii 2021 (UTC)

A new textRecensere

Hi. I've just discovered the existence of this site, and I am thinking about adding a text I have in .pdf format (a book from 1563, Johann Waver's De Praestigiis Daemonum). I have a .pdf of the original. But I don't know the procedures here (I have just found this site), so I don't know what the first steps are for someone who wants to start entering a new text or book. Could you direct me to the page where this is explained? Thanks in advance. --85.149.78.152 07:05, 22 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, first off, I would suggest you create an account or log in with your Wikimedia / Wikiedpia account details and that will help us communicate with you. You can also use your "user space" for any experimenation (which might otherwise be deleted, if in non-user space).
The details for adding books are IMO a bit haphazard, I learnt it by adding books at en.wikisource first, then trying the same here. The guides at en.wikisource are ok but can also be a bit confusing. From that point of view I would be happy to help you get your book added so you an get started. Once you see it done once, it gets easier.
The procedure is roughly
  • Find a (public domain or cc-licenced) book, check for missing pages if you can. This will save you time later. Delete any copyright notice page from Google.
  • Add your text to WikiCommons, preferably as .djvu AIUI (PDF is possible tho?) - there are various PDF to .djvu conversion tools online.
  • In any case if possible import a document with the raw OCR text contained within it (this is normal with Google Books PDFs for instance).
  • Create a "Liber" page here, eg Liber:Erasmi Colloquia Familiaria Et Encomium Moriae.djvu; use the same name as the file name at WikiCommons and it works automatically
  • Amend the raw document page numbers to match the actual numbers, using the values in <pagelist> (see the source of Liber:Erasmi Colloquia Familiaria Et Encomium Moriae.djvu to see how this works).
  • Commonly as you match the document page numbers to the book page numbers, you will find duplicate or missing pages. Duplicate pages can be ignored, but if you have missing pages, you may need to find these from a different scan, or the original book, and add them to your source document. You can do this on your own device, and then add the amended DJVU / PDF to the WikiCommons page as an "updated file".
  • As you create each raw document page, you may need to press the "OCR" button to import the text for editing.
  • Mark these pages as "Vacuus" or "Nondum emendata", using the select tool at the foot of the page
  • As you edit each raw document page, mark them as "Emendatio difficilis" or "Emendata".
  • You can now start setting up public facing Wiki pages which show the book as an online book which can export to epub, PDF etc; seee Colloquia familiaria for an example of this. Each of the online book's Wiki pages displays a section or chapter, this Wiki page pulls the relevant raw source document pages or parts of pages onto the Wiki page. Links are provided to help users get to the source pages so they can correct any errors they spot.
  • On the source document, ideally a second person proofs document pages and turns them to "bis lecta", and they are then marked on the source document as "green".
Hope that helps, I have been meaning to write a guide to this! JimKillock (disputatio) 09:10, 17 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)
PS: @Barbaking:: would it be worth adding some pages onto 'Auxilium'? I can't translate into Latin with enough accuracy but I can start drafting some information in English, and point to relevant pages elsewhere? JimKillock (disputatio) 09:22, 17 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)
@JimKillock: I think that the help pages could as well be in english; to translate them to Latin would be quite an effort, and probably pointless since it would make also reading them harder for most users. so, if you wish to add some Auxiliorum pages, please feel welcome to do it (it is usually a work nobody wants to do...) ;) vale --Barbaking (disputatio) 10:51, 19 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Futrue of FlaggedRevs (Pending Changes) extensionRecensere

Please help translate to your language

Hello, I’m posting this here because this wiki has FlaggedRevs (Pending Changes) enabled.

This extension is one of the oldest extensions we have in production and currently does not have a maintainer. FlaggedRevs has been the cause of several incidents and visible regressions, especially because software decays and our technology constantly changes.

Another problem with this extension is its scope. While most of its functionalities are not enabled at Wikimedia, or are enabled on a very small set of wikis only (e.g. "multiple dimensions" was enabled only on Hebrew Wikisource, and they agreed to disable it). This has made maintaining the extension a tall order (more of a nightmare). In other words, this extension does too many things, and none well.

To move forward, barely used functionalities of this extension will be removed. Such as: support for multiple dimensions (like “style” and “tone”), multiple tiers (“quality” and “pristine”), several one of its special pages (ProblemChanges, ReviewedPages, ReviewedVersions, QualityOversight), and more. This will make it less of a burden to start maintaining and improving the main functionalities. The user interface will have only one mode in the future (currently it has four).

You can check this Phabricator ticket for more information about functionalities being removed: phab:T277883

These removals would simplify its logic drastically, and enable us to rework its old interface, fix several deprecated dependencies that this extension is the last to block their removal of (like the "action=ajax" API), and reduce the number of issues/incidents/regressions that can be caused by this extension.

Most users of wikis that have this extension enabled (including English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia) won't see any difference. Wikis will still be able to use multiple "levels" (but not multiple "tiers") and will still be able to enable pending changes for whole namespaces, or on a group of pages only (otherwise known as “protect mode”). Those features will not be removed.

To follow the discussion around this, take a look at T185664.

Thank you for understanding and sorry for any inconvenience. Ladsgroup (talk) 17:17, 23 Martii 2021 (UTC)

Ad Alpes book index problemRecensere

Hi there, I have just tried adding Liber:Ad Alpēs, but it isn't recognising the sourcebook ("Error: No such file") to show the index for some reason. Can anyone see why? JimKillock (disputatio) 11:21, 5 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Worked it out, my error. JimKillock (disputatio) 11:36, 5 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct – 2021 consultationsRecensere

Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2Recensere

Please help translate to your language

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a universal baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire Wikimedia movement and all its projects. The project is currently in Phase 2, outlining clear enforcement pathways. You can read more about the whole project on its project page.

Drafting Committee: Call for applicationsRecensere

The Wikimedia Foundation is recruiting volunteers to join a committee to draft how to make the code enforceable. Volunteers on the committee will commit between 2 and 6 hours per week from late April through July and again in October and November. It is important that the committee be diverse and inclusive, and have a range of experiences, including both experienced users and newcomers, and those who have received or responded to, as well as those who have been falsely accused of harassment.

To apply and learn more about the process, see Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee.

2021 community consultations: Notice and call for volunteers / translatorsRecensere

From 5 April – 5 May 2021 there will be conversations on many Wikimedia projects about how to enforce the UCoC. We are looking for volunteers to translate key material, as well as to help host consultations on their own languages or projects using suggested key questions. If you are interested in volunteering for either of these roles, please contact us in whatever language you are most comfortable.

To learn more about this work and other conversations taking place, see Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations.

-- Xeno (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 5 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Line numbering coming soon to all wikisRecensere

-- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 15:09, 12 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Book categories for learnersRecensere

Hi there, I would like to link together some educational materials - books for beginners and intermediate Latin readers. In English, would suggest something like:

Category: Latin for learners
Category:Latin texts for beginners
Category:Latin texts for intermediate learners

What would be some good Latin category names for these, and where should they slot into the hierarchy at Vicfons? JimKillock (disputatio)

Suggested ValuesRecensere

Timur Vorkul (WMDE) 14:08, 22 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1Recensere

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021Read the full newsletter


Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.

You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.

  • Affiliate consultations – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. (continue reading)
  • 2021 key consultations – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable discussions – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. (continue reading)
  • Phase 2 drafting committee – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. (continue reading)

--MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 23:06, 11 Iunii 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion of a book to add in hereRecensere

https://archive.org/details/mobot31753000814233Jerome Charles Potts (disputatio) 09:38, 15 Iunii 2021 (UTC)

Wikimania 2021: Individual Program SubmissionsRecensere

Dear all,

Wikimania 2021 will be hosted virtually for the first time in the event's 15-year history. Since there is no in-person host, the event is being organized by a diverse group of Wikimedia volunteers that form the Core Organizing Team (COT) for Wikimania 2021.

Event Program - Individuals or a group of individuals can submit their session proposals to be a part of the program. There will be translation support for sessions provided in a number of languages. See more information here.

Below are some links to guide you through;

Please note that the deadline for submission is 18th June 2021.

Announcements- To keep up to date with the developments around Wikimania, the COT sends out weekly updates. You can view them in the Announcement section here.

Office Hour - If you are left with questions, the COT will be hosting some office hours (in multiple languages), in multiple time-zones, to answer any programming questions that you might have. Details can be found here.

Best regards,

MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 04:19, 16 Iunii 2021 (UTC)

On behalf of Wikimania 2021 Core Organizing Team

The Main page must be changedRecensere

The "Antiqua" section of the Main page states:

"Eusebii Sophronii Hieronymi (interpretis) Vetus Testamentum (editione Stuttgartensia)
eiusdem Novum Testamentum (editione Stuttgartensia)"

First, Jerome did not translate the whole Old Testament; and as for the New Testament, he only translated the four Gospels. See w:en:Vulgate#Content for more details.
Second, the links both link to disambiguation pages, and not to the Old and New Testament.
Thirdly, the content of the Stuttgart edition of the Bible was removed from Vikifons three years ago due to copyright problems (e.g. Exodus); its page was only deleted recently, as apparently nobody between 2018 and 2021 thought leaving a page containing only a list of dead links was a bad idea.
There is now finally an edition of the Latin Bible on Vikifons with no copyright problem, the Vulgata Clementina (first published at the end of the 16th century) which can be used.

I ping @Barbaking: so that he/she may see. Veverve (disputatio) 00:03, 20 Iunii 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: hi, thanks for the hint, I tried to fix like this, by linking the "disambiguation" page Biblia Sacra, and then the Clementine and Amiatine editions, the only two we have at an acceptable state (the Amiatine is still to be completed, but at least is being woked on). Please let me know if you find this a good solution, or if you have other ideas...
I must admit, since we are talking about this, that I don't like our Main page; I can't see why we should show only a (necessarily) limited list of the works we have (as for the Antiqua section only, why only those three works by Cicero, for instance, why Ovid but not Horace, why no not also Catullus or Virgil [seriously?] and so on). I really have no better options to offer though, it should be rethinked again from scratch... --Barbaking (disputatio) 08:18, 21 Iunii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: I think it is way better this way, thanks!
I just noticed that the Patrologia Latina is considered as Hodiernae - which I disagree with - and is also in the Antiqua section. On the top of that, this Patrologia's content goes until w:Pope Innocent III (13th century!).
While I am a it, is it normal that the "recensere" button of the main page - in both Latin and English version - leads to a "Bad title" page?
As for the content of the main page: is there enough content on Vikifons to make the main page into something more like the English or French Wikisource main page?
Sidenote: is it me, or is the logo of Vikifons still a bitmap image and not an SVG? If yes, I think we should make a request to make an SVG version at the WCommons Graphic Lab. Veverve (disputatio) 10:28, 21 Iunii 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve: I agree on Patrologia, I have removed it from Formula:Pagina prima/Hodiernae. The problem with the recensere button is, I think, that the page is restricted so that only admins can edit it. About the logo, it should be File:Wikisource-logo-la.svg (well, I hope...). About the contents in pagina prima, I suppose we culd try, but presonally my graphic skill are very, very, VERY low :(. We could copypaste the code from en. or fr., and then replace the contents and see what happen... probably we could find at least 12 works to list in the "month's featured work" section --Barbaking (disputatio) 13:22, 21 Iunii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: Thank you for removing the Patrologia from there.
It may be me, but the Vikifons logo is more blurry than that of the other projects, see my comparison taken from my screen.
I advise that if you want to completly change the main page, you should ask someone who knows what he is doing. As far as I am concerned, I do not have the skills to help you. You idea of revamp seems good, altought I believe a wider census should be carried out before such a change is made. Veverve (disputatio) 14:10, 21 Iunii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: while I am at it, should it not be better to have a bot to archive the Scriptorium discussions which have not receive any post since one year and a half, instead of having to do it manually? Veverve (disputatio) 16:24, 21 Iunii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: the "Totae linguae" module at the bottom of the first page has not been update since 2007. I think it should be updated or removed, as its information are really outdated. Veverve (disputatio) 00:34, 23 Iunii 2021 (UTC)
So, @Barbaking: what do you think about removing or updating the "Totae linguae" module? Veverve (disputatio) 21:38, 7 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve: since I don't think anyone will ever bother to keep the section up to date, what if we leave only the link to the main language navtool, something like this? --Barbaking (disputatio) 11:45, 8 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: works for me! Veverve (disputatio) 11:49, 8 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

ok, let's wait until monday if ever someone has something else to suggest, and then I will proceed with the change. Thanks, ;) --Barbaking (disputatio) 11:55, 8 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: I just noticed that the link at "sub Creative Commons licentiae" leads to a page which does not exist. Maybe it would be a good idea to create a small article on the CC license on the Latin WP to fix this. Veverve (disputatio) 20:04, 8 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: or we could just link the english Wikipedia article (of course anyone who wants to write the article on lawiki is welcome, but that person is not me :PP) --Barbaking (disputatio) 07:28, 9 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: You can. Anything is better than liking to an inexistent article. Veverve (disputatio) 12:29, 9 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

@Barbaking: a user told me why the logo looked so blurry. In short, there is no problem. Veverve (disputatio) 12:02, 10 Iulii 2021 (UTC) @Barbaking:you wrote "let's wait until monday if ever someone has something else to suggest, and then I will proceed with the change"; it is Wednesday, so I think you can safely proceed with the change :). Veverve (disputatio) 01:16, 14 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: done ;) --Barbaking (disputatio) 08:10, 14 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #2Recensere

14:15, 24 Iunii 2021 (UTC)

Server switchRecensere

SGrabarczuk (WMF) 01:19, 27 Iunii 2021 (UTC)

New DAB pagesRecensere

Just to say that I created two new DAB pages in case anyone feels concerned: Ubi primum and Optime noscitis. Veverve (disputatio) 17:59, 8 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

optime fecisti! :) --Barbaking (disputatio) 07:29, 9 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

Some problemsRecensere

Categories should reflect the fact that not all Latin texts of the Bible are the Vulgate versionRecensere

Categoria:Novum Testamentum and Categoria:Vetus Testamentum are only in the Categoria:Vulgata category, and I think Categoria:Novum Testamentum and Categoria:Vetus Testamentum are used as categories only for Vulgate texts. However, what about the Vetus Latina texts?

Can't categories nest? They don't I think have to be wholly hierarchical so you could have:
Or something similar? --JimKillock (disputatio) 19:09, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@JimKillock: Very good idea! I have created Categoria:Biblia. Veverve (disputatio) 20:14, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@JimKillock: Now that I think about it, this solution might not be so elegant. Maybe it would be better to have Categoria:Novum Testamentum and Categoria:Vetus Testamentum part of Categoria:Biblia, and have individual articles classified as "Vulgata" or "Vetus Latina", depending on their classification. What do you think? Veverve (disputatio) 21:16, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
I actually don't think this matters very much, so long as it is reasonable and navigates ok. Categories are pretty flexible notions, and many categories can be applied to pages, so it is really about not making matters too complicated or hard for others to implement or navigate. I am finding it a bit hard to understand how the categories would work for the main navigation pages for each Bible version. Also, if you are looking at Categoria:Vetus Latina you should be able to find all the pages belonging to that Bible, or if you are looking at Categoria:Novum Testamentum you should be able to find all the pages of versions of the NT. So long as both those conditions are satisfied, it is probably ok. --JimKillock (disputatio) 21:24, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

Forsaken DABsRecensere

Also, what do you think should be done with Genesis? It is a DAB with only one link working, and it leads to a page which I think should be deleted. Moreover, its interwiki links are manual ones, not Wikidata ones. Veverve (disputatio) 10 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
Also, both links at Liber Psalmorum are dead. Veverve (disputatio) 21:01, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

If we have pages to disambiguate major Bible sections, and we have multiple copies of them, then this should link the the Clementine etc; however, it could just as easily go. Deletions policies though should be discussed via the pages, and I am not sure if we have a policy and process yet. --JimKillock (disputatio) 21:14, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@JimKillock: I have fixed those DABs. I think Liber Genesis, Liber Exodus, and Liber Leviticus should be deleted and turned into DABs or redirect to DABs. It seems there is no DABs for all books of the Bibles on Vikifons; it is not a problem I think, but having DABs for some Bible books and not for all looks quite strange to me. Veverve (disputatio) 21:28, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of some isolated pagesRecensere

And what should be done with the Liber Genesis, Liber Exodus, Liber Leviticus, The Old Testament (Vulgate)/Manasse, The Old Testament (Vulgate)/Psalmus CLI, Iesus nascitur, and Epistula ad Laodicenses pages? Those are unsourced texts which may be copies of the deleted Stuttgartensia texts; I suggest they all be deleted. Veverve (disputatio) 01:21, 10 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
For those wondering, The Old Testament (Vulgate)/Psalmi is used here, which is why I redirected it to the psalms of the Vulgata Clementina, as it was leading to a deleted page. Veverve (disputatio) 01:24, 10 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

My own view is that these are probably pointless copies, that don't explain what they are copies of; so therefore better deleted now that we have a sourced version or two; but we should have a transparent process for deletions as other wikis do. Other wikis would flag the page, so that the original creators of the pages and posters of the content have a chance to see the suggestions, have a discussion for a while, and reach a consensus. --JimKillock (disputatio) 20:58, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
I also found those isolated pages: In principio erat Verbum, Iudica me, Filiæ mæstæ Jerusalem. Those are texts from the 1962 Roman missal: Lauda Sion, Ordinarium missæ (1962). Those are Ancient texts, but from the 2005 Catechism of the Catholic Church: Veni, Creator Spiritus (Libreria Editrice Vaticana), Benedictus. There is many, many more of those three kinds of texts at Categoria:Precationes christianae, and part of them are unsourced. I am in favour of the following: 1) delete every one of those pages which is unsourced or find a source, 2) delete all pages which use the 1962 Roman missal as a source, 3) see what remains, and delete if needed on a case by case basis. Veverve (disputatio) 18:09, 12 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
My preference would be to link pages to sources where possible, rather than simple deletion. This is more work but also more useful. Modern sources are not really to be used, of course. And again with deletions, we should really have a process, and part of that process could be seeking sources. As an example of an unsourced text which has been linked to a source, I copied Moriae encomium into Colloquia familiaria/Encomium Moriae which is linked to a source. This was of course work but allows for error correction as well as vouching for the copyright status. --JimKillock (disputatio) 20:21, 12 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@JimKillock: Feel free to add sources for pages which do not have one, and if needed to correct the Vikifons text. However, I would appreciate if you could give a deadline for when you think one can start deleting unsourced pages; this way, we will not be waiting one year or more for you to finish in case you disappear or lose mtivation.
What are we to do with texts from the 1962 edition of the missal and from the CCC? And, moreover, why should we keep isolated pages like that, what even are they supposed to be?
@Barbaking: What do you think about the following pages: Liber Genesis, Liber Exodus, Liber Leviticus, The Old Testament (Vulgate)/Manasse, The Old Testament (Vulgate)/Psalmus CLI, Iesus nascitur, and Epistula ad Laodicenses? I think the "Liber..." ones should be turned into DABs, and the others should be deleted (see my full rationale in the first message). Veverve (disputatio) 23:18, 12 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve: ok for turning the Liber into DABs; I made a test with Liber Genesis (and also turned the previous DAB Genesis into a redirect-I tried to merge the histories but I can't understand how that tool works). Before going on with the others, what do you think? Did I forget something? Should we place the DABs into Category:Vetus Testamentum in your opinion? Or perhaps in a subcategory Libri Veteris Testamenti ("Books of the Old Testament")? let me know what you think... --Barbaking (disputatio) 07:51, 13 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: Thank you. I changed the wording to make the DAB shorter. Yes, those DABs should be placed in Category:Vetus Testamentum; I do not see why we would need a new category. Veverve (disputatio) 13:09, 13 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: fine, I will work on the remaining pages tomorrow! :) --Barbaking (disputatio) 13:48, 13 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: ok, Genesis, Leviticus and Exodus are now paginae discetivae; I deleted the others except Epistula ad Laodicenses, about which I am in doubt; it seems to be not an extract from the New Testament (please correct me if I'm wrong, I am not really an expert on this) but an apochryph, for which we could easily find a source. Are we sure we want to delete this? --Barbaking (disputatio) 08:22, 14 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: The source seems to be this. However, the text is the exact same as the Stuttgart Vulgate, including the verse division. The texts of the Stuttgart Vulgate have already been deleted from Vikifons for possible copyright violation. Is there any way to know what the source of Documentacatholicaomnia is? Veverve (disputatio) 12:58, 14 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve: I don't know about Documentacatholicaomnia, but as long as the text is concerned, it should not possibly be copyrighted being (far more than) outside copyright boundaries; translations, notes, and everything else may be copyrighted if it is from an authore deceased less than 100 years ago, but not the original text as far as I know... --Barbaking (disputatio) 13:04, 14 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: There is no such things as an original text of biblical books, there is only editions of texts in some languages which are copyrighted whether this language is a translation or deemed the original one. Same goes for any new critical edition of Ancient or Medieval works. Therefore, I think the safest thing to do is to delete the page or to replace the text of the page with one from an edition whose editor died more than 70 years ago.
As a sidenote, it seems your edits are marked as unchecked, is it normal? Veverve (disputatio) 13:11, 14 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
I'm frankly not entirely convinced, but I am not lawyer, so I'm going to delete the page as to avoid any doubt. About the last question, I honestly can't understand how the whole "checked edits" thing works; in theory I am flagged as a "recensor" and "revisor" and my edits should be authomatically checked, but \°/ (if it was for me, I would do without the whole "checked revision" system, it is quite an annoying complication) --Barbaking (disputatio) 13:19, 14 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
We ought to have a transparent process for this, as other projects do. On the copyright position, yes, it depends if the Latin Biblical text in question is a fresh translation or a significantly edited version of the Latin. if it is on the other hand a literal copy, or perhaps with very minor textual changes such error correction that do not reach a threshold of creativity, then it is not entitled to copyright. But worth bearining in mind also that the publishers may believe they do have copyright. --JimKillock (disputatio) 16:40, 14 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

Gospels DABsRecensere

All the "Evangelium secundum" (e.g. Evangelium secundum Iohannem) pages 1) only contain one version of the Gospels, despite the fact we have complete Gospels at Vulgata Clementina; 2) state those gospels have been written by the evangelists, while it seems to me that simply saying they are attributed to them is the more sensible thing to do. Veverve (disputatio) 01:30, 10 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: i fixed like thisfor all the 4 gospels, adding the Clementina edition and changing scriptum to adscriptum --Barbaking (disputatio) 07:44, 12 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: I just noticed there is the same problem for the Evangelists in their categories and author pages (e.g. Categoria:Opera quae Lucas Evangelista scripsit and Scriptor:Lucas Evangelista) of 1) being considered matter-of-factly as having written the Gospels and other books of the New Testament; 2) not having the Clementina edition of "their" books in their categories. For point 1, I think their categories should be renamed. For point 2, I think only DAB should be in their categories, e.g. what I did at Evangelium secundum Lucam. What do you think? Veverve (disputatio) 17:53, 12 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve: I would avoid to rename the categories, since they all follow the same scheme, in most cases automatically generated by the {{Titulus}}, and I would advise against introducing a different cathegorization (it would also be a coding nightmare for the same reasons expressed here about the ablative: opera adscripta would require the dative: Lucae evangelistae). Wouldn't it suffice to add in the category description and in the Scriptor: page a note saying that the works are only attributed to the author? About point 2), I can agree with you, we can only put the DABs there if anyone objects. --Barbaking (disputatio) 07:31, 13 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
Is there no way to change it to keep the nominative? For example, by saying "Works that X the Evangelist is said to have written". There is numerous apocryphal books in the world which are very well known for their apocryphal attribution, such as the w:Symbolum Quicumque; therefore, we should have a way to express it. Veverve (disputatio) 13:30, 13 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
I fear not :( an objective clause needs the accusative (opera cujus Lucam/Marcum/Iohannem Evangelistam auctorem esse dicitur). The only solution I see is to manually put the category in the page, but I would advise against it, because (in my experience) a non-authomatic categorization is condemned to be flawed (there is no way anyone will always remember to put the categories in all the pages that need them). Anyway if someone has a solution to offer, I am open to suggestions --Barbaking (disputatio) 13:48, 13 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
wait, maybe if we find a good latin translation of the adverb “purportedly” or something like that, we could use a sentence like “opera quae x *purpotedly* wrote”, which may be a compromise… I will look into it! —Barbaking (disputatio) 13:59, 13 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

@Barbaking: If you ever find a good adverb like "suppposedly" or "purportedly", it would also be good to update Scriptor:Paulus Tarsensis, i.e. change the red link at "Categoria operum". There is numerous apocryphal works attributed to him, I do not know if some are already on Vikifons. Also, which categories should we be using for apocryphon like Vulgata Clementina/Hieronymus Paulino (it was not written by Jerome)? Veverve (disputatio) 23:11, 14 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: still working on it, the best options I have come up with are
  • Categoria:Opera quae x fortasse scripsit, fortasse meaning "possibly" or "perhaps"
  • Categoria:Opera quae x scripsit ex communi opinione or secundum opinionem communem, meaning "according to the common opinion"
I'm not really fond of either of them, so I am looking for alternatives; unfortunately I can't think even of a good italian translation of "supposedly", so my faithful Italian-Latin dictionary isn't much helpfull (en.wiktionary too is not offering much help. But I have still hope we will find something eventually... --Barbaking (disputatio) 07:26, 15 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
Another possible solution: Categoria:Opera quae x scripsit - ei adscripta, meaning literally "works that x wrote - attributed to him", which may work given that it would be a subcategory of Categoria:Opera quae x scripsit --Barbaking (disputatio) 07:30, 15 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
Oh, about Vulgata Clementina/Hieronymus Paulino, if we do not know who the author is, Categoria:Opera sine nomine scripta is the right place for it, but in general chapter of a larger book, i.e. subpages, may well go without an author category (which is why the {{Titulus}} by default does not adds them to subpages) --Barbaking (disputatio) 07:33, 15 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: I would favour "fortasse" for now, until you find something better. Veverve (disputatio) 12:59, 15 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
"attributed" seems the most accurate of these descriptions (the evidence is thin, but "fortasse" is too weak for the relationship). The Latin is a bit strained I guess, for the reasons you state tho! --JimKillock (disputatio) 08:27, 16 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

How editions are handledRecensere

I have now noticed that it appears there was no bot task to put the manual interwiki links into Wikidata and then to remove them from Vikifons, see for example Te Deum or Commentarii de bello Gallico/Liber I. Veverve (disputatio) 17:17, 10 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
While I am at it, I feel like there is a big problem: for works which have numerous editions - which are the majority of Latin works -, the title of the work should be redirecting to a DAB, like for Biblia Sacra, not to a certain edition. For example, Commentarii de bello Gallico should be turned into a DAB, even if we currently have only one edition. I feel most pages on this WProject, as well as those on other WProject (example), have this problem, which is... a big problem! Especially since it makes it impossible to have an efficient interwikification: our Latin edition of the Commentaries on the Gallic War is not the equivalent to a translation in another language, especially if the translator used another edition of the Latin text to translate. Veverve (disputatio) 17:55, 10 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

On disambiguation as a whole: reorganisation would be welcome where it is needed, and I can certainly see the sense in ensuring that page names reflect the text editions, rather than making claims to be canonical ("the" Bible, "the" Vulgate, etc). However, where we only have a single text on la.wikisource I am less sure that there is utility creating a disambiguation page that only links back to a single text. To be consistent, the policy would also need to work for each language and text, so I would caution against doing a lot of work until the policy is clear across Wikisource. It does feel a little like Wikidata would end up forcing an organisational logic within Wikisource that wouldn't be tremendously helpful from a navigation perspective, eg:
  • Each language would need a disambiguation page (Gallic Wars), linked to a specific Wikidata item;
  • Under this, each language would need to only link a specific translation to a different Wikidata item, linked to a specific original Latin text
  • The result would be that translations would rarely link to other texts in other languages, making their visibility lower.
  • The schema also breaks down when multiple (single language) translations of the same original text emerge, as only one of these can map to the Wikidata item. Here, you'd need extra disambiguation pages for those as well.
While this is logical on the surface, it feels like a lot of work and complication with potential negative effects, and thus would only be worthwile if and when Wikisource has multiple versions of these texts, as it does with the Bible and a few other works.
To put it another way, what you are highlighting is the limitations of the Wikidata model, which supposes that only one page within a Wiki project will ever relate to a Wikidata "item" and that a Wikidata "item" is always clearly delineable to some abstract notion of an "entity". Wikidata is no doubt generally useful, but data models can have trouble mapping to the real world.
In any case, implementing this would require consistency across all Wikisource languages and all texts, so probably beyond the scope of just la.wikisource to fix; bluntly an enormous job even if you can get consensus on how to approach it. JimKillock (disputatio) 14:13, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve, @JimKillock: this is a major problem, and it is handled differently on different wikisources (and never in a perfect way, as far as I know). On the Italian wikisource (the project I know best), they have a specific namespace Opera:, replacing the DAB page for works with multiple editions (i.e. Opera:Eneide), while it seems that on the English wikisource the problem is dealt with simple DABs. On most wikisources it is at least suggested to link each edition of a work to the Wikidata item of that specific edition, which makes sense, but, as JimKillock points out, this a) requires a lot of work and b) means that same texts on different projects will never be linked via wikidata. We probably could try to change the {{Titulus}} to look for the P629 property on wikidata (edition or translation of) and see if there are interwikis linked there, but if a work is linked to the wikidata item A edition or translation of B, and a work on en.wikisource is linked to a C edition or translation of the same B, there is no why to connect A and C. I have not good solutions to offer; for Kircher's Turris Babel I connected it directly to the the main item and not to the edition, since I don't think we will ever have other versions of that work. For Opera latina minora (Boccacius), being a collection of several works, I connected it to the edition or translation item. Probably what @JimKillock: is suggesting is the more sensible think to do for works that can, realistically, have more editions on the project, like the Bible of course, but also the Eneid or other major works of Latin literature. I can't think it would be a good idea to do that with more recent and/or less famous works, given the extra work and the complications involved, but I am pretty unsure what to do... --Barbaking (disputatio) 08:02, 12 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking, @JimKillock: I feel a global policy should be implemented before we do anything. Has there never been any proposal of this kind? Veverve (disputatio) 14:01, 12 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
I don't know but I doubt it. I think there are many reasons why this is unlikely to be easily resolved, and is best left as slightly broken. If all the different wikis have to agree a policy, with Wikidata perhaps, that will be a very long process, likely to end up with the most minimal changes that can be agreed as that is the path of last resistance. --JimKillock (disputatio) 20:25, 12 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
I also don't think a general discussion on the matter has ever happened, and based on how those things usually go, even if we call for one it could take years before a conclusion is reached... and that's the best case scenario! --Barbaking (disputatio) 07:36, 13 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

Leo vs LeonisRecensere

And why is Scriptor:Leo XIII not called "Leonis XIII"? Veverve (disputatio) 13:18, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your work and thought on this, Veverve. On Leo vs Leonis, he is Leo on Vicipaedia; Leonis is the genitive of Leo, so not an error I think. JimKillock (disputatio) 14:13, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@JimKillock: thank you for your feedback. You also made me realise how badly organised my list of problem was, so I reorganised it; I thus took the liberty of splitting your answer in two according to which section each part was pertaining.
On Leo vs Leonis: I am not very good in Latin, so I believe you are right. Still, he is called Leonis in numerous official documents where its name does not seem to be the genitive, e.g. Felicitate quadam or Ubi primum (Leonis XIII, 1899), but he is also called "Leo" in other official documents, e.g. Conditae a Christo, Misericords Dei Filius, Vigilantiæ studiique. The instances of "Leonis" in the Vikikfons titles of Ubi primum (Leonis XIII, 1899) and Ubi primum (Leonis XIII, 1878) are mine and are very recent; I will ask for them to be moved to titles with "Leo". Veverve (disputatio) 15:46, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, @Veverve:. I think the point here is that the genitive means "of Leo", so "First 'Ubi'" of Leo, etc? So also fine to use in titles in this way, if that is what is used. JimKillock (disputatio) 18:41, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@JimKillock: It would be "Ubi primum of Leo XIII". Roman Catholic documents are referred to by their first words, in this case "Ubi primum" ("As soon as" or "The first things") from the sentence "Ubi primum, arcano divinae providentiae consilio, ad supremam Petri Cathedram fuimus evecti, oblato conspectu ingruentium in dies maiorum, Apostolici muneris esse duximus expediendae salutis agitare consilia ac studere, quibus maxime modis Ecclesiae tutelae et catholicae fidei incolumitati prospici posset." I have moved the pages so that they use the nominative for the names of the author, as per the current standards on Vikifons. Veverve (disputatio) 18:56, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to be a Latin Grammarnazi :), but JimKillock has expressed the point: in Ubi primum (Leo XIII, 1899) the words CONSTITUTIO APOSTOLICA SSMI LEONIS XIII mean "apostolic constitution of the most saint Leo XIII" :) You cannot write in latin without names' inflection, so his name will be written as Leo, Leonis, Leone etc based on syntax ("Leo, of Leo, by Leo etc.; same with Cicero, Ciceronis...); but in the Scriptor: page, or in the title of the Vicipaedia article, it goes in the nominative Leo --Barbaking (disputatio) 08:18, 12 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
P.S. this is also why our categories have the somewhat cumbersome structure Categoria:Opera quae Leo XIII scripsit (or quae Cicero scripsit, quae Iulius Caesar etc.) meaning "works that Leo XIII wrote"; it would be easier (and more elegant) to use Opera a Leone XIII scripta ("works written by Leo XIII"), but it is nearly impossible to automatically generate the en:ablative case for each writer's name, and in a passive sentence Opera a Leo XIII scripta is a (serious) grammar error, so we are forced to change the sentence in an active one, allowing us to use the nominative Leo :) --Barbaking (disputatio) 08:24, 12 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

Christian prayers and VivaldiRecensere

@Barbaking, @JimKillock: I have moved part of Vicifons:Scriptorium#Deletion_of_some_isolated_pages in this new section for the sake of clarity. I understand that a standardised procedure may be useful, but I feel there is not much people who would participate in it; moreover, I think we should keep the current momentum of cleaning Vikifons.
There is many, many more of those kinds of texts at Categoria:Precationes christianae, and part of them are unsourced.
All those pages are unsourced:

a text from Vivaldi which is isolated: Filiæ mæstæ Jerusalem.

Those have an implied source which might have a copyright, but the details are unknown:

someone decided to put part of the 1962 Roman missals at Ordinarium missæ (1962) and to create pages for some of the prayers which are part of it: Lauda Sion, Confiteor (1962), In principio erat Verbum, Iudica me.

Those are clearly sourced, but may have a copyright problem:

Ancient texts, but from the 2005 Catechism of the Catholic Church: Veni, Creator Spiritus (Libreria Editrice Vaticana), Benedictus, Gloria Patri.

I am in favour of the following: 1) check all the texts in Categoria:Precationes christianae, 2) delete every one of those pages which is unsourced or find a source, 3) delete all pages which use the 1962 Roman missal as a source, 4) see what remains, and delete if needed on a case by case basis. Veverve (disputatio) 17:19, 14 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

I think it is only polite to warn people prior to a deletion, it is very disheartening when work goes into something and it disappears. It may be that with a bit of effort, many of these texts can be linked to out of copyright works. The source itself in that sense is less important than whether it is a literal copy or not. So the 'ancient texts' for 2005, for example, are not in copyright even if they are copied from a modern source, so long as they have not editorialised in that new 2005 edition. These are the kind of topics which may be raised if the orginal page authors are given a chance to comment. For speed, tho, a warning notice that links to a discussion page for all the texts should be enough. --JimKillock (disputatio) 22:19, 14 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve: if we want to follow the policies, discussions on page deletions should occur in Vicifons:Deletiones Propositae, but I a agree that in some cases it is better to speed things up (we also can discuss the matter here, and then put a notice in the deletiones page for future reference). About the copyright issue, as stated before, I don't know if the editorial work on a text from, say, the V century AD (or from 1850 for that matter) can be considered enough to put that text under copyright from the editor, I would suspect not, unless whole parts are written anew, but IANAL. About the Precationes christianae, ok for the check as in your point 1), about 2) I think we could find a source for most of the texts, and about the remaining, well, we could probably find some source other then the 1962 missalis and try to keep them as well --Barbaking (disputatio) 07:14, 15 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
IANAL either but I do know about copyright. Editorial work can and is commonly supposed to introduce a new copyright, so long as there is 'creativity' applied (a low bar). A mere transcription on the other hand does not. The real problem is that editorialisation places a work into a grey area, where it is unclear if the editorialising, selection and so on is sufficient to create a new copyright. From our POV, we should avoid using editorialised editions. However, in the case of say Carmina Burana, or Catholic prayers, which are short, it should be possible to show that the text is out of copyright and can be found in the same form elsewhere, even if the source first used was modern. --JimKillock (disputatio) 08:33, 16 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

"religionis Christianae Iudaicaeque"Recensere

The expression "religionis Christianae Iudaicaeque" is present here and here. What does this expression mean? Veverve (disputatio) 21:07, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

"liber sacer religionis Christianae Iudaicaeque" - "the sacred book of the Christian and Jewish religions" (italics in genitive case). --JimKillock (disputatio) 21:16, 11 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

Wikisource Satisfaction Survey 2021Recensere

  Hello!

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

In the past year, there has been a lot of changes to Wikisource features and tools. This was done by the Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation, grantees funded by the Foundation or through projects like Google Summer of Code. We would like to understand what you feel about the changes. Tell us what you think about such tools as the Wikisource Pagelist Widget or the new Ebook Export tool.

Take the survey in English, French, Spanish, Polish, Hindi or Punjabi. The deadline is 25th July 2021.

This survey will be conducted via a third-party service, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement (English, Spanish, French, Polish, Hindi and Punjabi).

If you prefer to send your answers via email, copy the text of the survey and send to sgill@wikimedia.org.

If you have any questions or feedback about the survey, write to me at sgill@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! SGill (WMF) 22:30, 16 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

New Easy Latin CategoryRecensere

Hi @Barbaking:, I would like to add a new category for the books aimed at learners I've been transcribing and need a good Latin name for it. This / these could include:

Sorry for any terrible guesses here, and thanks for any better suggestions. --JimKillock (disputatio) 11:57, 24 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

@JimKillock: hi, sorry for the late reply, I almost never have time on the weekends. I like those categories, but the latter two should be ad discendam linguam latinam (the gerundive must concord with the name it refers to, as in ad tuendam rem publicam or ad tuendum ius). I would also avoid the capital letters. Maybe it would also be better to use simplex instead of facilis but I'm not sure about this. To add the categories, we could simply use the |Genera= parameter in the {{Titulus}}: |Genera= Lingua latina facilis would add the category without problems (that parameter adds as a category whatever is its object, separated by commas). I suppose the latter two categories would be subcats of the first one? vale, --Barbaking (disputatio) 07:35, 26 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, yes they would be subcats, so:
It’d be great to add a link to this small collection from the front page as well sometime, I think it'd be good to encourage others to add similar texts over time. --JimKillock (disputatio) 07:54, 26 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@Barbaking: PS I updated Colloquia familiaria with the new category, could you allow the updates? (It's got very old! What is the process for keeping changes reviewed, do we rely on you to do this as the most active (only?) administrator? --JimKillock (disputatio) 08:15, 26 Iulii 2021 (UTC)
@JimKillock: done. And since we are talking about this... (follows in the next section) --Barbaking (disputatio) 08:55, 26 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

Getting rid of the checked reviewsRecensere

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, and JimKillock's comment in the section above is only the last drop: wouldn't it be better to get rid of the Reviewing pending changes system? (if you don't know what I'm talking about, right now we need a "reviewer" to approve changes made to a "checked page" in order for them to be displayed; here there is an example of a page with unapproved changes). As it is now, I found it pretty useless and (I must confess) extremely tedious.

The system requires to approve every change, including typo corrections or minor edits. If something is changed in a page in Ns:Pagina, the text transcluding that page must be rewiewed too, and for some reasons, if a change in made in a ns:liber index, all the pages transcluding that book must be validated (citation: I'va had to do that several times for all the chapters and subchapters here). The aim of all this is (I suppose) to prevent vandalisms on small, unpatrolled projects, but given that

  1. we may not be the most active project, but expecially in the last months we have had our small community of users that can intervene against vandalisms if needed
  2. that we do not seem to have big issues with vandals right now
  3. that most wiki projects, even smaller ones like the Italian Wikibooks (no offence intended, expecially to my fiend Wim_b which is admin there :P) do not use checked reviews, and yet seem to still function
  4. that checking and reviewing the edits is extremely, extremely, extremely boring, and
  5. that it could in my opinion discourage new users from editing

I propose we do without all this. If after some time we find ourselves in trouble with vandalisms or out-of-control edits (but I doubt), we can always get back. Please note that I have not the faintest idea how to do this, but I suppose we could ask on Meta if we reach a consensus on the proposal. I hope many people will answer, let me know what you think, vale --Barbaking (disputatio) 08:55, 26 Iulii 2021 (UTC)

I imagine you are right and that this can be done with reasonably low risk. The main danger would be from automated users I suspect, doing link dumps and the like. There may be some means to mitigate against those, if for instance we keep an eye on the 'recent changes' page; I wonder also if there is a means to require checking / reviews only for new users, and then ignore them after 3-4 sensible edits, that would stop the vast majority of automated attackers. --JimKillock (disputatio) 19:20, 26 Iulii 2021 (UTC)