Vicifons:Scriptorium/Vetera II

E Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


(LA) Spatium nominale (Namespace) "Scriptor:" addendum puto
(IT) Propongo di richiedere l'attivazione del Namespace:Scriptor. Che ne pensate?
(EN) I propose to activate the Namespace:Scriptor. What do you think about?
(FR) ... (traduction svp)
--Accurimbono 15:57, 20 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(LA)Ave, non video utilitatem. Mutatio titulorum ex "titulus" in "Scriptor:titulus" gravior est
(FR) Bonjour, Je n'en vois l'utilité. S'il faut rajouter dans chaque titre scriptor, c'est plutôt lourd. Marc 12:13, 21 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(IT) Buongiorno, io non ne vedo l'utilità. Aggiungere in ciascun titolo scriptor è piuttosto pesante.
(EN) Hello, I don't see the point in using it: If Every title [[scriptor]] should be changed into [[Scriptor:Scriptor]] it would be quite a heavy task
(LA) ... (translate please)
(IT) Ciao! Io penso che il Namespace:Scriptor sia utile per distinguere una pagina di autore da un pagina di testo. Nel namespace principale dovrebbero esserci solamente i testi mentre per gli autori (solo per le pagine degli autori) ci dovrebbe essere un namespace apposito. Attualmente il Namespace:Scriptor è utilizzato in su en, it, pl, sv e non è utilizzato su fr, de e es.
(FR) ... (traduction svp)
(EN) Hi! I think the Namespace:Scriptor could be useful to distinguish an author's page from a text's page. In the principal Namespace should be insert only texts while for the authors (only for the authors' page) should be create an specific Namespace. Currently the namespace:Scriptor is used in en, it, pl and sv and isn't used in fr, de and es.
--Accurimbono 15:06, 21 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(FR)Pourtant, la distinction ne semble pas nécessaire, par exemple, en français, cela ne pose aucun problème ; et en revanche, pour catégoriser ces pages, c'est moins facile. Marc 16:23, 21 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Trinitate Augustini[recensere]

It is clear from the article itself, that this De Trinitate is not, I repeat not by Augustin, however it is by Boethius. Please correct the error, for I would like to start an article of Augustine's De Trinitate.

Yours &tc. C.J. van Rhijn

Hi! You can see here: De Trinitate for the two different texts. --Accurimbono 10:13, 20 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrologia Latina vol. II as PD online at the IA Toronto project[recensere] (without OCR). I think other volumes will follow -- 23:52, 12 Februarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(EN) Why it is not allowed to write in German? -- 23:54, 12 Februarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(EN) I'm not quite sure, but probably because no admin speaks german. --Denwid 13:35, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(LA)Sine ulla dubitatione omnes linguae hic possunt scribi, sed non omnes intelleguntur, si hic aliquando ambulant Francogalli, Italici aut Angli... igitur scribe libenter in theodisca lingua, sed noli iubere nos facile vertere aut plane intellegere. Si Latinam linguam non intellegis, "tantum dic verbo" et Anglice vertam. --εΔω 14:30, 5 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Error Grammaticus[recensere]

(EN) The link to open editing help is translated as "adjutatum ad recensere," which is grammatically regrettable (infinitives don't operate as the objects of prepositions); I suggest "auxilium in recensendo" - a better translation of the word "help" and a charming gerund.

(EN) Are you sure it wouldn't be "auxilium pro recensione"? On vicipaedia it says "auxilium pro editione", not "in". And I don't know where the word "recensendo" is coming from, but I couldn't find anything in my dictionary, instead there was the word "recensio". --Denwid 13:48, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(EN) Latin language doesn't use gerund so much, but doesn't love much absract nouns either, here's the dilemma. If you say ad+acc. or pro+abl. there's no particular difference (even if I found pro+abl. used more as "in favour of a person"), this is linguistic luxury. Auxilium pro recensione follows established standards in and doesn't hurt grammarians too much... - εΔω 14:37, 5 Martii 2006 (UTC)

quod ad nomen pertinet: at ego auxilium recensentium malim, cf. Auxilium Christianorum

Fridericus II anno 1232[recensere]

To anonymous contributor of this text, (

Hi! In wikisource we don't use interwiki link for the words in the original text, because the principal goal is to preserve the original text. You can see the same behavior in all other wikisource, for example the deutsche version of the same text.

If you log in, we can talk about easily.

See you soon.

--Accurimbono 09:05, 29 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitatio ad disputandum[recensere]

Novus usor sum, et proiectum meum certe non sine erratis et lapsibus est: Acta S. Petri in Augia. --AndreasPraefcke 11:40, 18 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There's a problem with the namespaces. The Wikisource-Namespace is called "Wikisource", not "Vicifons". Hence, Wikisource:Magistratus etc. are in the main namespace, as are the "Scriptores". The developpers should change that, the pages should then be moved. --AndreasPraefcke 13:47, 18 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you!
  • Namespace:Vicifons, you can see also here a similar discussion. I think namespace:Wikisource should be renamed in Vicifons and the discussion, Disputatio Vicifontis.
  • Namespace:Scriptor, you can see an old discussion about it in this Scriptorium. I think that the namespace:Scriptor should be created and the discussion renamed in Disputatio Scriptoris.
Those namespaces could be a great improvement for Vicifons and all our works on this project.
Hi! --Accurimbono 10:02, 20 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consentio utrique recommendationi. (et similis propositio Tolanoris originaliter mea cogitatio erat quam in de.wikipedia-Chat dixi... ;-) --AndreasPraefcke 16:24, 20 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iam prius disputatum est: addam me in consentientium numero (et bene sit latinum nomen eorum), sed nisi maior clamor fit (quot usores haec legunt?), Marc nos non audiebit! Ergo scribamus, clamemus, fortasse erremus, sed omnia preferam quam gelidum silentium.
(EN) We've already discussed, as stated by Francesco, and I'll add my positive vote (also for Latin names), but if we shan't yell loud enough (how many active contributors read these lines?), Marc won't listen! So let's write, let's be bold, maybe we'll mistake, but I prefer everything to a cold silence. - εΔω 07:50, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I mandated Bdk from de.wikipedia to ask for the namespace-name.changing, which she promised to do this evening. --Tolanor 15:10, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, see bug 6041. Please vote for it if it takes too long, or ask me on IRC. Have fun :-) --Bdk 01:44, 22 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marc won't listen! Je te propose de ne pas supposer ce que j'écoute ou non, et de ne pas user de ce genre de procédés qui ressemble à une accusation publique particulièrement ridicule et offensante. Le changement de ce nom n'est tout simplement pas de ma compétence. Marc 05:37, 22 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pour le Namespace:Scriptor, je ne vois aucune discussion sur son utilité réelle (et il ne semble en avoir aucune, cf. fr:). Ça m'a tout l'air d'être un souhait arbitraire. Marc 06:10, 22 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marc, je suis sur que le Marc won't listen! était en peu ironique et pas offensant de tout. Je ne sais pas que le Namesapce:Scriptor est un souhait profondement discuté, mon consent était seulement pour les noms proposés. Mais je pense que le nouveau nom pour le namespace Wikisource est une necessité evidente. --AndreasPraefcke 07:37, 22 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, pour le namespace de Wikisource, je ne peux qu'être d'accord, cela me paraît parfaitement logique. C'est seulement pour le namespace Scriptor que je suis perplexe : j'aimerais savoir ce que cela apporte ; l'expérience sur fr: et de: montre que cela n'a pas d'utilité. Marc 07:49, 22 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excusez moi, je lis vos mots, mais mon Français est tout illisable... I switch to English, or if preferred, to Latin. First of all I beg Marc's pardon for having been so rude, but it wasn't my purpose to upset anyone: AndreasPraefcke is totally right, I totally agree on "ridicule", which was used to call your attention on the problem (your absence in the last months forced me to try this charade), and if irony didn't work with a text written in a foreign language i'll try to restrain my posting and go on with formatting pages and correcting titles every now and then... working in it.source I noticed a clearer vision of the big picture, by means of a namespace better than by means of categories. In wikisource authors are indeed something more important than templates and discussions. In de.source a single namespace is dedicated to a single Encyclopedia, and that's no scandal. Why should scriptor be that complicated? If setting up a namespace brings a full load of technical problems then this is a good point to discuss, and that's a field I quite ignore - alas! - I'm open to explanations.
so again excuse my brutal beahvior, no offense meant. As I wrote up there, maybe we'll mistake. - εΔω 14:54, 22 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Vicifons linguae Graecae[recensere]

vobis nuntio propositum esse Vicifontem aliam creari lingua Graeca scriptam, in qua opera Graecorum habeamus. valde igitur mihi placeat si mihi adiuvetis ut eis, in quibus summum imperium est, suadeatur. -- Nema Fakei VII Kal. Jun.

I agree with you and I vote for support! Ciao, --Accurimbono 06:34, 25 Maii 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Iamdiu statuendum erat! - εΔω 12:38, 25 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Vicilibri Latina[recensere]

Hi. I'm from the Latin Wikibooks, which is a shambles. I've been made administrator there until July 31, and I'm trying to fix the place up. However, I seem to be the only contributor there. If you are in any way so inclined, please come over there and lend a hand. As a bonus, you'll get tons of free material over here. Thanks. -b:Usor:Dbmag9

Look in b:categoria:Vicifons --The Doc

Bene -[recensere]

Hello, I asked on de:Wikisource:Skriptorium#Quellenwünsche if they would be interested in a text by Scriptor:Beda Venerabilis. A source can be found online with the CEEC Cologne [1]. I would be interested in "De computo vel loquela digitorum" ([2]). How are the chances to find somebody here to do such a job? My reading skills for this kind of text aren't good enough, not to speak of my knowledge of the latin language. -- 10:43, 25 iulii 2006 (UTC)

Certiores faciamus patres de laboribus nostris[recensere]

En I recently discovered a page in oldwikisource: oldwikisource:Wikisource:2005 and oldwikisource:Wikisource:2006 which should be used like a log of milestones in each project. Since la:source has done a lot of changes, and got better during all this year, I'd suggest to leave trace of our achievement on those pages. I did it for it.source, but here I have a feeble grip of all the la.source revamp. - εΔω 11:01, 21 augusti 2006 (UTC)

IT: Ho creato la pagina Vicifons:Milliaria per segnalare lo sviluppo e cambiamenti importanti di Vicifons e ho aggiornato la pagina sulla vecchia Wikisource
Grazie per la segnalazione. --Accurimbono 14:12, 15 septembri 2006 (UTC)
EN: I have created Vicifons:Milliaria for remember all the milestones of development and the most important changes in Vicifons. I also update the page old Wikisource page.
Thank you very much. --Accurimbono 14:12, 15 septembri 2006 (UTC)

Scriptor:Marcus Valerius Martialis[recensere]

These need to be expanded. People like Martial, Ovid, Pliny etc cannot be ignored on a site such as this. In case you didn't know, many Latin techers and schools use la.wikisource as an easy reference to original text. The twelve epigrams are listed, but with liber III onwards as redlinks. Some formatting needs to be done on the existing ones though: Epigrammaton liber II for instance, looks like some formatting went wrong - far too many br tags, and a little disorganised with the line references. If anyone bothers replying, go to User:Vanderdecken until the single user login is implemented. 10:14, 12 octobri 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your opinion. IN the next days those important text will insert and formatted.
Anyway, anyone could editing and insert text (with source).
Thanks, --Accurimbono 11:31, 12 octobri 2006 (UTC)

Descriptio Moldaviae[recensere]

EN: I created this page, but I think it does not respects the style standards of wikisource. Maybe it should be splitted, so that each chapter be put in its own page. Is anyone who knows more about the styles willing to help? Bogdan 11:08, 21 octobri 2006 (UTC)
EN: First of all, thank you very much for your contribution!
There are some unwritten rules that we usually use:
  • the text must have the source (fons): web site from you take the electronic edition of text, if you take from a web site
  • the text must have the edition (editio): the original book from who the electronic edition is token.
Fons and editio must be insert in the pagina disputationis of the text inside the Formula:OperisInfo

Formatting the text:
  • Title: Use the Formula:Titulus2 you can insert:
    • author (if isn't an anonymous text): will be created a link to the author's page
    • name of the text
    • name of the page on wikisource
    • pubblication's year (recommended)
    • Subtitle (optional)
  • Use the tag <div class=text> at the begin and </div> at the end of the text
  • If the text is a poem use the tag <poem>, </poem> (with this tag you have not to use the tag <br /> at the end of each line)
  • Quality: put the Formula:Textquality in the bottom of the page, (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%: see the help page)
  • Categories: at least the cronological category with the century of pubblication.
  • Interwiki: as usual

I'm going to put all this little but important information in your text.

To split the page in sub-pages pay attention to use the syntax:
For an example you can see those texts: De pictura or De viris illustribus urbis Romae a Romulo ad Augustum; the first page have an index, the other sub-pages have also the Formula:Liber to link a page to the previous and the next sub-page.

I known I should write an help page with this information for everyone but I don't write in Latin very well... :(
When I'll could, I'll write in english at least.

Ciao! --Accurimbono 11:47, 21 octobri 2006 (UTC)