Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina prima/Nova/Tabularium 1

message: Moved from Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina prima/Nova to here. See also Vicipaedia:Pagina prima. --Rolandus 10:04, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

message: What about designing the pagina prima less colored? Maybe more black/white/gray with some colored flags, images etc.? For an example see :en:Portal:Dance. I mean to use grey where we use colors - and many colors - now. Instead of "grey" we can call this design "silver" ... sounds better. Or grey in combination with the colors of the flag of Rome? --Rolandus 14:12, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: #I like this idea, the colors are a bit confusing. More specifically, I also like the idea of using the colors of the flag of rome subtly as highlights to the silver.

text: #Also I think we could work on alignment.

text: ##While we're at it, why do we have a "salve" template right next to an "ave" template? Maybe we can merge  with the content under VICIPAEDIA - LATINA.

text: #UV, what do you think about :en:Template:Click for our flags under the legatio section? We could save space by eliminating text this way...the flags themselves could link to the various legationes.

text: --Ioshus (disp) 14:52, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)

text: * I copied the current main page to , which is unprotected so that all users can edit and improve it.

text: * I would welcome a radical re-thinking of our current main page, should anyone wish to do that. This should also involve a radical re-thinking of our Vicipaedia:Porta communis, which is pretty much worthless in its present state.

text: * :en:Template:Click: Due to legal reasons, this template may be used with PD images only, not with images licenced under the GFDL or any other similar licences. The reason is that GFDL requires to state the author and the licence on every use. This requirement is usually met by linking to the image description page, which states author and licence. :en:Template:Click makes the link to the image description page nearly inaccessible. Therefore, using GFDL images with :en:Template:Click constitutes a copyright violation. --UV 22:47, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :*BTW we have already had  for some time.  As for the copyright, en: uses a GFDL image in its featured article template. There does not seem to be any copyright paranoia about this, though the image does appear (with an ordinary link to its image description page) on the page that template links to.  [However, the copyrighted logos on the en: front page use this trick without any link to their license info.] —Mucius Tever 23:25, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :: This issue has recently been discussed on the German wikipedia: de:Vorlage Diskussion:Hauptseite Artikel des Tages#Warum imagemap? --UV 23:37, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: At any rate all the flags on pagina prima are PD, except for the Italian and the English amalgams.  —Mucius Tever 01:16, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)

text: Though I got accustomed to the present colour scheme of the pagina prima, I'm not against changing it into the proposed one. -- Alexander Gerascenco 04:27, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: The proposal is good. From my point of view the look of :en:Portal:Dance is better --Massimo Macconi 20:21, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagina prima in grey (silver) 

message: I agree.
*We should compare our solution for the left navigation frame with other Wikipedias.
*We should add a link to the taberna to the left navigation frame.
*We should think about a link "Latinitas" in the left navigation frame ... because the language itself is more important here than in other Wikipedias.
*etc.
--Rolandus 09:04, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-thinking

message: *What I like about the present page:
**Personally I like the present color scheme but I can see why others might prefer a more neutral scheme.
**I really like the "encyclopedia pane" on the right listing a divisions of knowledge.
**I like the pagina mensis section where it is on the page.
*I think it is important in any new version of the page to continue to provide links to the:
**legatio
**taberna
*Also it would be nice to add a links to:
**paginae mensis anteriores
**paginae corrigendae
**paginae dubium
**paginae etc..
**paginae monodicae Vicipaediae (pages unique to Vicipaedia)
--Rafaelgarcia 21:12, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Is it being proposed to get rid of the "Vicipaedia:Libera encyclopaedia" sign on the top?  I sort of like it.--Rafaelgarcia 21:19, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has not been proposed, no, it's just that everything else could be changed color by <fontcolor> methods, but that picture would have to get changed with a photoshop type of program. I think UV just left it out because he didn't have time. I like it too.--Ioshus (disp) 21:27, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Good I'm relieved!--Rafaelgarcia 23:18, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
One further suggestion just came to mind:

text: *It would be nice to also have links to
replies: text: :*http://la.wiktionary.org/

text: :*http://la.wikisource.org/
--Rafaelgarcia 23:18, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: my 10 cents

message: A few things I would like:
#Less color. I am fond of this grey/silver design UV has shown us. I also liked the idea above of using the colors of the flag of Rome as highlights to the silver.
#Alignment. Boxes should be congruent rectangles.It might be more subtly Classical if their measurements related by the Golden Mean, 0.618..... IacobusAmor 02:31, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
#A spot for Vicipaedia:Translatio hebdomadalis, and maybe an automated way to fetch the current week's page from Meta. We really should contribute to that project more, it has really good intentions.
#Perhaps a merger of Ave and Salve.
#Better organized or radically different content under Encyclopaedia.
#A more prominent link to both the Vicipaedia:Harenarium, and the Vicipaedia:Taberna.
#A more aesthetic approach to the Collaboratio section, and replacing vincula with nexus for consistency.
#A less garish section for the Legatio. All those flags are alot of stimulus for the eye. I don't really think we need any flags on the main page, but maybe I'm wrong.
Please, tell us what you'd like.--Ioshus (disp) 20:51, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even know about the Translatio hebdomadalis page!

text: Less garish legatio would be good too.--Rafaelgarcia 21:23, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Another thing I'd like is, by the updated/improved section for Legatio/Translation support, a link to our Babel center.--Ioshus (disp) 13:12, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  res nonnullae 

message: In my humble opinion, I would consider the following things:
*The heading should be the explicative part of the page: have a biref description of what we do here, probably not in that column capitel, and certainly not in that beige/browinish colour. It hould have the direct links to the taberna, the legatio (without the flags) and the date (very important)
*on the top right, our pagina mensis. 
*On top left, maybe a section of "curiosities" that many other wikis have: small links to pages that may not be long/complete enough to be a pagina mensis, but have good Latin (L>2)
*Under the pagina mensis, our nuntii
*Under the "mini-paginae-mensis", something, I do not know what yet.
*under the last two things, an expanded panel with our sections (the encyclopaedia bit)
*Under that, our links to other wikimedia proyects
I do not feel that the links to all the wikipedias existing is worth having. 
replies: text: I agree that having links to other wikipedias on the pagina prima is not that important but it is very useful having it on the left border when viewing a page or editing one since one cannot always understand what the Latin page is getting at, especially when the latinitas isn't that good.--Rafaelgarcia 23:12, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
And about the colour scheme, if only they faded a bit to neutral, it should be fine, but keeping them, not white/blue/black. And definetly not the colour scheme we have now... come on, a bit more colour. I bet we can get to an intermediate point! Fine, that colour scheme has gone.
--Xaverius 21:35, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry Xaveri, can you explain your thoughts on the color, again? I'm not sure I understood. Do you like the new proposal or the old scheme? ...or something else entirely?--Ioshus (disp) 21:39, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I was suggesting for us to use completely different colours (=P), I do not think the very pink colour we have in the top two rectangles is apropriate.--Xaverius 07:48, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Silly British spelling! The one thing I do spell the British way is "grey"...for some reason it looks prettier to me than "gray". But yes, have you looked at the new proposed scheme, the grey/silver/black one? Just click the Res cuius haec disputatio est pars. We were thinking this grey/silver/black scheme, highlighted with the colORs of the flag of Rome.--Ioshus (disp) 13:04, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I think:
*I like the modest greys (British) of the new scheme. Any other single colour gets tiresome to the eye, and a clash of colours is even more tiresome. But I do want the classical logo back at the top.
*(it may be heresy, but) we shouldn't just have a legatio in various languages. We should have other-language versions of the Pagina Prima (and if anyone else agrees this is a good idea, I volunteer to write the English version!) I often go to other Wikipedias and I often find the First Pages difficult to navigate. This leads to my next point:

text: Andrew, what do you think about this :Meta:Translation of the week? We could set up a box somewhere, like on the meta page, so that we can have the main page convertible into any language for which someone wants to do a translation.--Ioshus (disp) 14:07, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :You mean, inviting people to work on each version in turn? Seems a very good idea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:39, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
*When I go to those other first pages, what I am often looking for is a way into their categories (I could find what I want under History or Literature or Plants if I only knew in the first place what the word for History or Literature or Plants was!) Now, on our Pagina Prima, unless I've missed it, there isn't a direct way into the categories at all. I think there should be, either alphabetical, or maybe combined with the list of subject areas
**I now see there is a fairly easy way, by going to Omnes Paginae and choosing the category namespace. But it isn't obvious to the wikinovice.
*And I will just say again, though I think I'm in a minority here, that it's seriously wrong to link languages to national flags.

text: I'm not sure, Andrew, that you are in the minority here. I just don't think anyone has come up with anything better, unfortunately. For my part, I think it definitely looks bad on the main page, and I'm not sure it accomplishes our goal. Let's change that.--Ioshus (disp) 14:07, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thinking of a better way is difficult. The Babel way -- big two- or three-letter abbreviations -- looks boring, maybe, but is logical, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:39, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC) 
*Some of the pages linked from the "Encyclopaedia" box are a bit sketchy, aren't they? I hadn't realised. I guess some attention is wanted to them too ... But that's for another day.

text: Yes, that's what I meant when I said I'd like to radically rethink the content under Encyclopaedia. I think the idea and layout are sound, but like you said, the content a bit sketchy.--Ioshus (disp) 14:07, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
--Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I agree about the sketchy...I edited a little bit but a bit more is necessary. I think a page referring to articles specific to latin vicipaedia would be great to add.--Rafaelgarcia 01:38, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What I suggest

message: How shall the left navigation frame be organized?
LA now	EN	DE	LA proposita
*navigatio
**Pagina prima
**Porta communis
**Novissima
**Nuper mutata
**Pagina fortuita
**Adiutatum
**Donationes
*querere
**Ire / Quaerere
*arca ferramentorum
**Nexus ad paginam
**Nuper mutata annexorum
**Fasciculos onerare
**Fasciculos in Communia onerare
**Pagina speciales	
*navigation
** Main page
** Contents
** Featured content
** Current events
** Random article
*interaction
** About Wikipedia
** Community portal
** Recent changes
** File upload wizard
** Contact us
** Make a donation
** Help
*search
**Go / Search
*toolbox
** RSS  Atom 
** Upload file
** Special pages	
*Navigation
** Hauptseite (main page)
** Über Wikipedia (about WP)
** Themenportale (portals/by topic)
** Von A bis Z (from A to Z)
** Zufälliger Artikel (random article)
*Mitmachen (taking part)
** Hilfe (help)
** Autorenportal (portal for authors)
** Letzte Änderungen (recent changes)
** Spenden (donations)
*Suche
**Artikel / Volltext
*Werkzeuge (tools)
** RSS  Atom 
** Hochladen (upload)
** Spezialseiten (special pages)	
*Navigatio
**Pagina prima
**Nuper mutata
**Index paginae
**Index categoriarum
**Pagina fortuita
Some thoughts:
*To me it is not clear what for "Porta communis" is.
*Our "Adiutatum" is not a general help but the "Auxilium pro editione" page.vide subter
*We do not have an "About us" page.
**We should!!--Ioshus (disp) 12:13, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
*Do we want to provide a random article or should we rather provide "featured" articles?
**Random article scares me, as I have expressed many times.--Ioshus (disp) 12:13, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
*We have only 3 main sections, while other WPs have 4 main sections.
*I think a "Salve" link would be good. Many people might understand this word.
*Do we have a "press release"?
*I'd like to have a "Taberna" link.
*We have "Fasciculos onerare" and "Fasciculos in Communia onerare": We could omit "Fasciculos in Communia onerare" and "Fasciculos onerare" goes to a page which explains that we prefer that pictures will be uploaded to Commons.
**Great idea!--Ioshus (disp) 12:13, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
*"A - Z" would be a good title for a link. Many people will understand what it means.
**Index A - Z? I like that fine.--Ioshus (disp) 12:13, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
*The English WP has a "Contact us".
*The German WP has a link for "Author's portal"
*We could have a link "Index" (many people will understand), an alphabetic list of terms (Vicipaedia:Index)
*Would be "instrumenta"" an appropriate word for "tools"?
**Yes.--Ioshus (disp) 12:13, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
*What about renaming "Novissima" to "Nuntii" and "Nuper mutata" to "Novissima"? 
**I know I'm one of the few, but I like to keep "nuntium" neuter, "nuntius" being an actual messenger. I would change Novissima to Nuntia and leave nuper mutata alone.--Ioshus (disp) 18:19, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
===Example for left frame===
So I think of something like this:
*navigatio
**Pagina prima (target page covers "Paginae bonae" and "About us" and "press release")
**Paginae bonae
**Novissima
**Nuntii
**A - Z (target page covers the "Index")
**Index
*communia (?)
**Salve (target page covers "Contact us", "Legatio")
**Taberna
**Adiutatum
**Donationes
**Contact us
*quaerere
**Ire / Quaerere
*arca ferramentorum ... instrumenta (?)
**Nexus ad paginam
**Nuper mutata annexorum
**Fasciculos onerare
**Pagina speciales
(Maybe "Contact us" could be part of "Salve", "Legatio" could be part of "Salve", "Index" could be part of "A- Z", "Pagina bonae could be part of "Pagina prima" etc.)
--Rolandus 17:13, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not ignoring you, Rolande, still thinking on this one...--Ioshus (disp) 03:48, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I don't understand. Do you think to eliminate the **Nexus ad paginam? I think that sometimes it could be very useful e.g to check if all the related pages are using the same Latin translation of a name and if the case to prepare a redirect.--Massimo Macconi 20:35, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::No, no one has suggested this...--Ioshus (disp) 23:55, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: then I did'nt understand the table LA proposita, sorry --Massimo Macconi 04:31, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Non iam perfacta sunt proposita =] --Ioshus (disp) 04:42, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The left navigation frame

message: So I think of something like this:
*navigatio
**Pagina prima (target page covers "Paginae bonae" and "About us" and "press release")
**Paginae bonae
**Novissima
**Nuntii
**A - Z (target page covers the "Index")
**Index
*communia (?)
**Salve (target page covers "Contact us", "Legatio")
**Taberna
**Adiutatum
**Donationes
**Contact us
*quaerere
**Ire / Quaerere
*arca ferramentorum ... instrumenta (?)
**Nexus ad paginam
**Nuper mutata annexorum
**Fasciculos onerare
**Pagina speciales
(Maybe "Contact us" could be part of "Salve", "Legatio" could be part of "Salve", "Index" could be part of "A- Z", "Pagina bonae could be part of "Pagina prima" etc.)
--Rolandus 17:13, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not ignoring you, Rolande, still thinking on this one...--Ioshus (disp) 03:48, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I don't understand. Do you think to eliminate the **Nexus ad paginam? I think that sometimes it could be very useful e.g to check if all the related pages are using the same Latin translation of a name and if the case to prepare a redirect.--Massimo Macconi 20:35, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::No, no one has suggested this...--Ioshus (disp) 23:55, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: then I did'nt understand the table LA proposita, sorry --Massimo Macconi 04:31, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Non iam perfacta sunt proposita =] --Ioshus (disp) 04:42, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example for left frame

message: I made the beginnings of some changes--maybe someone can improve it.--Rafaelgarcia 01:18, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes ... but the space between "Vicipaedia·Latina" and "Pagina·mensis·Iunii·2007" is not intended ... can someone help, please? --Rolandus 18:50, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing the pagina/nova

message: We are a small wikipedia. Do we want to be listed on other people's talk pages? Does it hurt us at all to list all the wikipedias? Does it actually improve us? Part of me thinks, especially with a Latin wikipedia, for a language whose use was between countries and generations and eras in most of the western world, we owe it to ourselves and the world to facilitate interlingual relations. What do y'all think?--Ioshus (disp) 01:28, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think one of the great things about Wikipedia is that it is so interlingual, and one of the great things about using Latin as a modern language is that it can contribute to understanding between other languages. I'm all for interwiki links, so long as the servers can cope with the load. Just imagine 250 Wikipedias the size of the English one! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:46, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Maybe we could compromise both sides and have all the interwikis listed, but using our  formula.--Ioshus (disp) 03:43, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my thoughts on many wikipedias listed 

message: ...We make, it will still be better than our very first version of a pagina prima: 
replies: text: Wow...that's certainly true.--Ioshus (disp) 03:43, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No matter what...

message: I'm sorry, but I really don't like them. Much too eye-catching, I think. If the content is important (which it is), the border has to be shy and retiring. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:49, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
...ah, they've gone already! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:51, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry ... was just a temporary test, to see, whether the changes have an effect (check ). --Rolandus 18:56, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dotted lines

message: There are two auxlium pages right now: Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione on the left pane and Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine)  I think they should be merged .--Rafaelgarcia 18:52, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be a good idea to keep them separated, because Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione gives general hints which are true for all Wikipedias. There are interwiki links available for this page. Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine) tells about the specialities in the Latin Wikipedia. Maybe we should find better titles. The postfix (latine) is technically perfect, but does not seem to describe the differences between these two pages very well. --Rolandus 19:06, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Maybe something like Via Vicipaediana for the former, and Auxilium pro hac Vicipaedia?

text: :Or we could be a bit more daring and say Auxilium pro Wikipediis, Auxilium pro Vicipaedia (which is actually a feature of not-abnormal usage inter nos), but may scare some people (having a W on the main page).

text: :--Ioshus (disp) 22:31, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Auxilium pro editione (latine) looks like being sort of Anglo-Latin. At best, it is clumsy. Why not Auxilium latine edendi? --Neander 00:23, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I changed it to "De Latinitate Vicipaediana" and "Auxilium pro editione Viciis", without moving/renaming any pages. I'm happy with what better latinists than I choose. However, the naming as it has been is not very good, I agree.--Rafaelgarcia 01:30, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Edendi = of eating?--Rafaelgarcia 01:34, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Hmmm...well the page is not just about Latinitas... and what are Viciis? --Ioshus (disp) 02:18, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: :::::I guess I had in mind Vica = Wiki; sorry. I tried another set of words: Commendationes pro paginis bonis and Auxilium for editione paginae. Please feel free to improve.--Rafaelgarcia 02:28, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Edendi = of eating?' Believe or not, I did laugh a bit. But seriously, I thought I raised a syntactic issue. Have you or somebody else ever run across an auxilium pro construction? --Neander 03:02, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: : Yes.] Many of them are wiki pages, but many are actual texts.--Ioshus (disp) 03:14, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::How many of the actual texts are from people whose native language is/was Latin? Or is everybody just copying everybody? --Neander 03:30, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Look for yourself, amice. It's a healthy mix. Some Vatican posts, some neo-Latin posts, some posts from the right time period. What do you see wrong with it, or what would you suggest else?--Ioshus (disp) 03:41, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Are we not supposed to entertain and carry on those conventions and structures which kind of define Latin? If a ready-made structural feature exists (e.g., auxilium + genitive: auxilium editionis, auxilium edendi), I do not see what is gained by employing a novel structure (auxilium pro editione) for which there seems to be no philological evidence. By philological evidence I mean especially those people who have been native speakers of Latin. I tried to look for auxilium pro in the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae but found no instance. But if everybody thinks auxilium pro editione latine is ok, so be it. Maybe I have missed something. Neander 12:51, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::We are absolutely supposed to. I'm just saying before you didn't provide a reason, just that you didn't seem to like it. I merely asked what was wrong with it, I did not at all lambast you for bringing it up, so I'm not sure I understand your tone.

text: :::::As for "have I missed something"... yes. I responded about Vergil's use of this construction on your talk page.--Ioshus (disp) 13:00, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Thanks, Ioshe. Sent my reply to your talk page. I also carried out my proposals, as I should have done without more ado. --Neander 23:13, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Auxilium pro editione

message: Mea opinione iste novissimorum nexus aut secludi potest, cum vix quisquam operam navet, ut, quid novi sit in mundo, Latine reddat, aut ad nexum externum velut illos nuntios radiophonicos Fennicos referri. Assentior eis, qui ad contributores adiuvandos nexum ad paginam de latinitatis regulis scriptam in pagina prima sic esse exhibendum, ut quivis id facile inveniat, quod sibi opus sit. Praeterea censeo in salutatione aliquam rationis huius vicipediae explicationem esse praebendam, qua lector intellegat, quem usum fructum finem habeat vicipaedia Latine scripta.--Irenaeus 21:57, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio si Iraeneus probe dicit de pagina "Novissima" secludenda, sed cum Iraneio sentio ut debamus illuc in pagina nuntios radiophonicos referri. De explicatione, nescio quod est dicendi de rationibus vicipaediae latinae scriptae. Mea opinoine quisque habet suas rationes distinctas.--Rafaelgarcia 23:47, 5 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Si tantum ut hodie opus in de novissimis scribendo continuabimus dare, cum Ireanaeo assentiar. Fortasse nimis sollicito, at semper timebam ne novissima multis adiuvarent.--Ioshus (disp) 23:01, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  De pagina prima renovanda 

message: I still think the rectangles which are adjacent should be congruent. I wish I had a clue as to how to effect this...--Ioshus (disp) 02:27, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it would be better. I'm not sure how to do it, perhaps by making a table?--Rafaelgarcia 02:29, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :It must be...maybe we should recruit someone on Wikipedia who has an excellent user page, and ask them to come help!--Ioshus (disp) 02:46, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I got it to align the tops of the rectangles but I don't seem to be able to make the borders identical (make them match up at the bottom too).  I suspect it might have to do with the command         style="" that appears in the tables. Maybe someone can help with that..--Rafaelgarcia 03:13, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Certainly a good start. Now we need to get them aligned in the center of the page, too...never an end to the work.--Ioshus (disp) 03:42, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::It's not difficult to change the page so that the centers align in the center, all you have to change is the width ="40%" command that appears twice on the page to with ="50%". However, it does not look good since the left column turns into mostly white space. More important is to figure out if it is possible to make the borders fill the cells so that the rectangle bottoms align. I am unable to figure that out.--Rafaelgarcia 04:18, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::We can always add more content to get rid of whiteness, but we (by we I mean someone) should be able to set up a well balanced, well aligned page to start with.--Ioshus (disp) 12:04, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::As I said before, it might be fun (and arcanely Classical) if all the boxes related to each other in various iterations of the Golden Mean (0.618). IacobusAmor 12:22, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::The difficulty lies in controling this ratio, which seems to be outside of the realm of possiblity at the moment. At least I don't know how.--Rafaelgarcia 20:38, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alignment

message: The only thing that bothers me about Pagina prima/Nova is the font used on the headings of the tables such as "Pagina·mensis·Iunii·2007". I think that a seriffed font (such as Times New Roman) would look more classical than a "sans-serif" one (such as Arial or whatever it is now). Most arches etc. from ancient Rome have a font similar to Times New Roman, and I believe serifs were invented by the Romans. -- Secundus Zephyrus 04:30, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you experiment, and let us know when you come up with something better? That's what we're here for, trying out new ideas.--Ioshus (disp) 12:26, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :At the top, the placement & (nonserif) font of "Super TREDECIM MILIA paginarum apud Vicipaediam Latinam!" detract from the appearance of the display-word Vicipædia. Since that Vicipædia—with its æ (otherwise prohibited, and for good reason)—serves as a kind of logo, it may want to stand alone in all its splendor. IacobusAmor 02:27, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serifs

message: Is there anyone else, who, like me, is terrified of the "random page" at our fair Vicipaedia?
We have, don't mistake me, some wonderful articles. But most of what we have is small, and poor. 
In addition, by sheer rational mathematics, most of the time your pagina fortuita will be a year, date, or decennium page.
We either need, by my esitmation
#many more articles, all of which are well put together
#no pagina fortuita
#a way to limit the pagina fortuita
As it is now, the only thing I ever use it for is when I have a spare second, and I want to find a page I can make a few quick changes on. I have never used it to actually find a good page.
Thoughts?--Ioshus (disp) 12:19, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Meanwhile I was trying to think of a way to make something like this work. Ignore if irrelevant; but can we do the following --
# start adding any pages that we approve for Latinity and did-you-know interest to a common list; and
# find a method to get a random page from this list presented on, or linked from, the Pagina prima?
replies: text: ::I suppose the common list I'm taking about would be just another category, really. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:59, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Rolandus suggested something of this sort, asking the devlopers to include a way that we could just have a random page within a certain category. Or conversely, a random page NOT in a certain category. For isntance, if we excluded anything with the categories anni, dies, decennia, and anything with Latinitas -2 or lower, we would already be a huge step closer to solving the problem.--Ioshus (disp) 13:06, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not agree with the proposal to eliminate the pagina fortuita. When I'm short on time I use to find pages which need to be ameliorated. Sometimes the article I have found give me a good suggestion for new pages--Massimo Macconi 20:29, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :It would not be eliminated, there was only the idea to remove the link from the left frame. You can always get to this link via "Paginae speciales" or the link Specialis:Random, which you could put on your user page for example. I personally do not have a strong opinion about this question. --Rolandus 23:53, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :: in any case it would be more difficult to find it, in particular for new users. I'm not sure but I believe that on all other wikis this page is on the left frame--Massimo Macconi 04:29, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
===did you know===

text: As I have suggested before, I think that in the same way that we have a pagina mensis we could have a section with smaller pages but still interesting articles beside it. In the same way that in the Spanish wiki we have (or apparently we used to have, it has been changed very recently) a section called "sabías que..."  and the Polish one has "Czy wiesz...", it would be a way to find good articles that may not be long or complete enough to be a pagina mensis--Xaverius 12:28, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :En has the same thing, but on the main page itself "Did you know..." This would be cool.

text: :Unfortunately, this does not speak to my actual question...--Ioshus (disp) 12:35, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It does... sort of... it gives you pages to look at, avoiding the randomness of a "random page"--Xaverius 12:37, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Aha! I didn't realize you were suggesting this INSTEAD of a pagina fortuita...

text: Now let's work on grammar. "Scisne" literally means "do you know?" I'm wondering if we should make it past tense like msot languages, this would be "Sciistine?" But I'm wondering, if like at , we could go a little more colloquial, and just have "Scin tu?" or "Sciistin tu?".--Ioshus (disp) 12:53, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :--Ioshus (disp) 12:53, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I wouldn't go for the perfect... it takes away the sense of the question or so I feel, and I guess that "¿Scin tu..." is better in that sense. Using the present I feel that makes the question closer to the reader--Xaverius 13:11, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I like "scin tu...?" myself...now we just have the problem that Latin doesn't use upside down question marks =] --Ioshus (disp) 13:23, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Also, ar we going to use "ut" or indirect discourse?--Ioshus (disp) 13:30, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::That is we Spaniards are far superior to other peoples of the world: we know when a question starts  because we have the "¿" =P. However. I am afraid that I am a bit lost in this grammar thing. A direct question is a normally constructed sentence, isn't it. If it is indirect, I do not remember how to construct it, but it sounds more complicated. If we are going to have this sectio by the porta eruditionis, ¿should'nt we go for the clearest way?--Xaverius 20:32, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pagina fortuita 

message: :As I have suggested before, I think that in the same way that we have a pagina mensis we could have a section with smaller pages but still interesting articles beside it. In the same way that in the Spanish wiki we have (or apparently we used to have, it has been changed very recently) a section called "sabías que..."  and the Polish one has "Czy wiesz...", it would be a way to find good articles that may not be long or complete enough to be a pagina mensis--Xaverius 12:28, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :En has the same thing, but on the main page itself "Did you know..." This would be cool.
replies: text: :Unfortunately, this does not speak to my actual question...--Ioshus (disp) 12:35, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It does... sort of... it gives you pages to look at, avoiding the randomness of a "random page"--Xaverius 12:37, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Aha! I didn't realize you were suggesting this INSTEAD of a pagina fortuita...

text: Now let's work on grammar. "Scisne" literally means "do you know?" I'm wondering if we should make it past tense like msot languages, this would be "Sciistine?" But I'm wondering, if like at , we could go a little more colloquial, and just have "Scin tu?" or "Sciistin tu?".--Ioshus (disp) 12:53, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :--Ioshus (disp) 12:53, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I wouldn't go for the perfect... it takes away the sense of the question or so I feel, and I guess that "¿Scin tu..." is better in that sense. Using the present I feel that makes the question closer to the reader--Xaverius 13:11, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I like "scin tu...?" myself...now we just have the problem that Latin doesn't use upside down question marks =] --Ioshus (disp) 13:23, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Also, ar we going to use "ut" or indirect discourse?--Ioshus (disp) 13:30, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::That is we Spaniards are far superior to other peoples of the world: we know when a question starts  because we have the "¿" =P. However. I am afraid that I am a bit lost in this grammar thing. A direct question is a normally constructed sentence, isn't it. If it is indirect, I do not remember how to construct it, but it sounds more complicated. If we are going to have this sectio by the porta eruditionis, ¿should'nt we go for the clearest way?--Xaverius 20:32, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: did you know

message: Textus subter extractus ab Disputatio Usoris:Ioshus Rocchio#proposal
replies: text: Another idea I have is to set aside an area for Latin instruction and allow access to this from the main page. Again, since most are coming to Latin as a second language we might as well give them as many tools as we can to help them read and understand and eventually contribute.--Billiot 11:54, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Your second idea I think is great, and it's something I would definitely like to see on our main page. Something like Porta eruditionis. Roland and I have talked about this for a while, Vicipaedia should definitely be a place where teachers can bring their students.--Ioshus (disp) 11:59, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC) 
 textus sequens huic paginae novus
I think this is a good idea from Billiot. I definitely think that Vicipaedia is someplace, or should be, to bring the kids. We should definitely have a section for help with our language itself. This will, of course, include a beefing up and completing of our :Categoria:Lingua Latina.--Ioshus (disp) 12:26, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a very good idea, and I definetly think we should have something like this. When we have it finish, I'll tell my Latin teacher to look at it, but, I wonder ¿How is it going to be organised? ¿Will it be a proper portal, a "secondary" pagina prima?--Xaverius 20:34, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I would imagine, yes, something like a portal. And don't let my lack of a boldface fool you, I think this is a great idea, too, not just meek little "good". And hmmm, if you were to see my room or my truck, you would never ask me how something should be organized =] --Ioshus (disp) 22:44, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  porta eruditionis 

message: In fact what we want to create is a portal page. So we could let us inspire by some portal pages:
*:en:Portal:Dance: the colors (the grey is lighter), a bit more space between the frames, small pictures to give the page some color, a section "new and modified articles", a section "things you can do" (wanted pages etc.)
*:en:Wikipedia:Featured portals ... not a portal, just a list of featured portals
*:en:Portal:Alternative_music: other layout for the "Vicimedia" section
*:en:Portal:Architecture: section "good articles"
*:en:Portal:Food: section "quote of the month"
*:en:Portal:Photography: another variant of "grey"
*:en:Portal:Germany: national flags on the bottom ... ;-)
*:en:Portal:London: with a map of the disctricts of London (we could have the Roman provinces, maybe)
*:en:Portal:Numismatics: gray, again ... and section "Web resources"
*:en:Portal:World War I: stars for featured pages
*etc.
--Rolandus 17:15, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the objective of portals is that people who know of a field can structure the knowledge of that field in it, and thus I guess that we should have first and foremost a portal each, or something, for the fields we know about, rather than start portals on topics we do not really know. Maybe we can propose portals in a similar way, but of course, this does not mean that portals become personal fields of study, but there should be a "portal supervisor". comments?--Xaverius 20:37, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portals

message: Maybe it would be nice to have only the Ave box at top of the page and to move the Collaboratio et Coordintatio section somewhere else. --Amphitrite 17:54, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fortasse

message: I just want to thank Rafael for all the work he's been putting into this. We're starting to get somewhere!--Ioshus (disp) 22:35, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're very welcome!--Rafaelgarcia 23:38, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rafael's edits 

message: In case I forget, and in case we want to use them, I think these are the flag of Rome colors:
left: 7f0000
right: ff7300
--Ioshus (disp) 02:06, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't your point of hiding the other languages' wikipedias to avoid drawing attention to them.  Right now its the only color on the page which draws the user specifically to them! ;)--Rafaelgarcia 02:09, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I was just playing =] And no it wasn't to hide them completely, just to avoid the huge list that Xaverius was criticizing. But yes, something has definitely got to be done about this. =] --Ioshus (disp) 02:19, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rome colors 

message: Appellatio et nexus et paginae Auxilium pro editione illius mihi Latina esse non videtur. Propono et hanc et illum inscriptione auxilia editoria substituere.--Irenaeus 09:49, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auxilium pro editione? 

message: Quia nexus facimus in hac pagina prima, video paucissimas paginas sub categoriis Latinitatis +2 ad +5 exstare! Estne problema? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:32, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Die quadam ut spero erunt magis in illo rango +2 ->+5. Hoc tempore servit ut labores inspicendi corrigendi animet.--Rafaelgarcia 12:32, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categoriae Latinitatis

message: I my opinion it would be ok to list hundreds of links to Wikipedias in other languages. However, if we do not want this, we could consequently move that section to a page of its own and just link to that page, like on DE, see the link "Andere Sprachen" there. But using  is neither fish nor fowl. What do we want?
*A: Doing advertising for other Wikipedias? - Then we should not use .
*B: Do we feel that we should have these links but do not want to do so? - Then  would be a good solution.
*C: Do we want to point Latinists to Wikipedias in other languages? - Then we could just list the Latin names of the languages (without the translations).
*D: Do we want to save space? - Then we could list the language codes only.
*E: Do we just want to provide the information? - Then a simple link on Pagina prima should suffice.
I'd prefer method "C" or "E". If we think that people without knowledge of Latin will visit our page, we should have a list of languages with pointers to information in that language about the Vicipaedia. But nobody will go to the Latin Vicipaedia to find the German Wikipedia by clicking on the link "Deutsch" or the Tamil Wikipedia by clicking on "தமிழ".
--Rolandus 10:33, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the flip-down lists, but what's the terrifying Destructor doing at the end of them? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Errr...operator error...let me see...--Ioshus (disp) 13:34, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: :Fixed. It was because I copied the template from .--Ioshus (disp) 13:38, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section "Vicipaediae·in·linguis·aliis"

message: I must confess, that I do not like this logo very much. I'd prefer the wolf  for example. --Rolandus 19:32, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never likerd much the "VICIPÆDIA" in the pseudo-Ionic capital--Xaverius 22:41, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: I don't mind the ligature in the capitalized form, but I think we only encourage misuse around here, by leaving the ligature in the lower case part.--Ioshus (disp) 20:08, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or should we do away with the logo altogether? I guess there's beauty in simplicity...--Rafaelgarcia 20:15, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :the she wolf does grow on you the more you look at it..--Rafaelgarcia 21:09, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::She's a pretty gal, that's for sure.--Ioshus (disp) 23:56, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: ::Does any imaginipotens know how to flip the right picture, so we have a symmetricity?--Ioshus (disp) 00:10, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Is it ok as it is now?  It looks better to me with the shewolfs facing the center.--Rafaelgarcia 00:55, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I feel like the president of the United States...utterly useless, but surrounded by extremely powerful people. Except my people do wonderful things instead. =] Well done, man.--Ioshus (disp) 00:57, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: ::::Very good! --Rolandus 08:14, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new logo 

message: By the way I created a formula page for the Scin tu...? section so that if we adopt this page as the new page we could edit the scintu formula each month or so to update the question..--Rafaelgarcia 20:18, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is located here Formula:Scintu --Rafaelgarcia 20:19, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :And I've made a comment on the disputatio. ¡Bravo, maestro, por todo el trabajo en la pagina prima!--Xaverius 22:35, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scin tu?

message: I've put all elements of Pagina prima/Nova into :Categoria:Pagina prima. So it's easier to edit them. --Rolandus 21:07, 7 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Categoria:Pagina prima]]

message: Nostra pagina, ut sentio, nunc est plus quam speciosa.--Rafaelgarcia 02:39, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagina Nova

message: Amatisne "serifs" quod addidi?
replies: text: Yes makes a big difference (much better) I must say. I fixed a small error that made the frame around the pagina mensis disappear.--Rafaelgarcia 05:10, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I like the serifs. --Rolandus 08:28, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serifs

message: I have made an extra section for "Vicpaedianica" (removed it from "Encyclopaedia") and then I have copied it to the "Vicipaedia·Latina" section. I think the "Vicipaedia·Latina" section is a good place for this information. The idea is:
The user will be welcomed and gets information like "About us", the users of the Vicipaedia ... etc. The information addresses a reader, not someone who wants to join and help ("Tu·quoque·adiuvare·potes"). --Rolandus 08:27, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vicpaedianica

message: I think this section should be only adressed to editors and all links which could be of interest to readers should be put into another section, maybe "Paginae" (below "Pagina mensis"). 
In "Paginae" we should have:
*Pages we are more or less proud of: Optima | Melior | Bona | Bis inspecta | Inspecta | Nondum censa | Inspicenda | Dubia | Maxime dubia | Corrigenda | Maxime corrigenda
*Special pages: Paginae novae | Paginae nuper mutatae | Paginae mensis anteriores | Paginae hebdomales
* ... and other hints adressed to readers.
So we should simply split the actual section "Tu·quoque·adiuvare·potes".
The section for editors/contributors should maybe also have pages like Vicipaedia:Pagina desiderata, Vicipaedia:Dump/latest, Vicipaedia:Cleanup, Vicipaedia:Index formularum Vicipaediae Latinae, [[Vicipaedia:Structura paginae], ...
--Rolandus 09:03, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
The listing of "Optima| Melior etc" here isn't to show off to readers pages we are proud of. The point is to encourage editors to rate exiting pages and revise ones that need revising (dubium, corrigenda etc..). New usors/editors also get a view as to the range of latinitas here. Thus I think these should stay in "Tu quoque aiuvare potes". Pagina desiderata seems like a good idea but the others might discourage new would be editors, I think.Rafael Garcia--68.116.192.4 15:48, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From that point of view ... yes. --Rolandus 16:15, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Tu·quoque·adiuvare·potes

message: Did we once have a few latest news items on the pagina prima, or am I mistaken there? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so, not the way en does. And for consistency, we should consider nuntia. =]  --Ioshus (disp) 13:26, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sorry. How does that error creep in so often? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:36, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Should the page Nuntius be moved to Nuntia then?--Rafaelgarcia 20:38, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: :: See also Vicipaedia:Porta communis where is says Nuntii..--Rafaelgarcia 20:46, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC) on
replies: text: :::Under the section on Societas, I think it is more appropriate to point to news providers or Nuntius/Nuntii, rather than news items Nuntium/Nuntia. As such the page presently called Nuntius is appropriately referred to, I think.--Rafaelgarcia 04:53, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Yes, I have in mind to start a revolution, here...This Nuntius shall be moved... --Ioshus (disp) 05:08, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I have moved Nuntii to Vicipaedia:Nuntii, see Disputatio:Nuntius (discretiva). --Rolandus 08:07, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuntii

message: It seems that the actual Pagina prima/Nova is in all aspects better then the actual pagina prima. So I'd suggest 
#to go live with Pagina prima/Nova unless Rafael has objections, since he has done most of the work. 
#to continue improving Pagina prima/Nova and make an update whenever there is a better version of Pagina prima/Nova available.
#to talk about the links in the left frame then.
What do you think? --Rolandus 20:51, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm ok with it if you all are.  I wish we could settle what we call the news on this page (Nuntius, nuntia, nuntii ?). --Rafaelgarcia 21:32, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Agh! =] News should, in my humble opinion, be nuntia.--Ioshus (disp) 05:02, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I have gone live, as it were. We can still make this thing better, but it's so much prettier than the old pagina prima, already! --Ioshus (disp) 14:17, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Going live

message: Should the uppercase Us be Vs? 
On the one hand, it would look much nicer, and be more proper.
On th other, it might confuse people into thinking that we use consonantal u...
I think it should be ok as long as we have lowercase us and vs throughout the page...but I'm not sure... 
Thoughts?
--Ioshus (disp) 06:09, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree both that it woudl look better, but that it woudl mislead newbies. Keep in mind that we don't use vocalic V elsewhere, even in titles. --Iustinus 06:15, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :but we do use it elsewhere when all caps.--Ioshus (disp) 06:19, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The Vicipaedia rule doesn't require only V's in caps. However, all V's in Caps is pretty standard practice among modern latinists. I started to change all the U's to V's but ran into a problem. The formula  for the date for the pagina mensis title yields a U in IUNII. Rather than have an inconsistency in the title I reverted all my changes back. --Rafaelgarcia 07:26, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I can't find the formula--maybe its not a formula??Anyway unless someone can fix this maybe we should convert the titles on the bottom of the page to U's for consistency?--Rafaelgarcia 07:34, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::It's a pre-defined variable, and can be configured, see Vicipaedia:MediaWiki#Variables. --Rolandus 07:43, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Doesn't look like an easy thing to figure out.--Rafaelgarcia 07:52, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::I spent about 40 minutes on it and I don't think its within my capability of accomplishing the trick of substituting v for u in the output of the current month variable.  Perhaps someone at some other wikipedia would know how to make the substitution? In the meantime for consistency, should I go ahead and change the caps to at the bottom to U's.--Rafaelgarcia 17:07, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Sorry, I meant, that it is not a formula, but a variable; the content can be configured (but I do not know where) and I do not think that a casual substitution is possible. Maybe UV (!) might be able to help. ;-) --Rolandus 17:19, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::: Use  instead of  in the caption. Greetings, --UV 17:58, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::OK I updated with only V;s in the title bars.  Please comment if you are are happy with this new format.--Rafaelgarcia 18:21, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U an V? 

message: There have been made some suggestions above, see #The left navigation frame. I think we should now start to redesign the left navigation frame.
My main want is a link to the "Taberna". --Rolandus 17:31, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
-----
Please edit the following to suit, pretending it is the left pane. However, if you do edit it give your reasons below.
    * Navigatio
          o Pagina prima         → Pagina prima
          o Porta communis       → Vicipaedia:Porta communis
          o Nuntia               → Vicipaedia:Nuntii
          o A - Z                →   ???   maybe :Categoria:Omnia ? 
          o Paginae novae        → Specialis:Newpages
          o Nuper mutata         → Specialis:Recentchanges
    * Communia
          o Salve Invitatio  → Vicipaedia:Salve Vicipaedia:Invitatio
          o Taberna                 → Vicipaedia:Taberna
          o Adiutatum               → Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione
          o Donationes              → Vicipaedia:Site support
    * Quaerere
          o Ire / Quaerere
    * Arca ferramentorum Instrumenta
          o Nexus ad paginam                  → Specialis:Whatlinkshere
          o Nuper mutata annexorum            → Specialis:Recentchangeslinked
          o Fasciculos onerare                → Specialis:Upload Vicipaedia:Imagines onerare
          o Fasciculos in Communia onerare    → http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload
          o Paginae speciales                 → Specialis:Specialpages 
----
I think it is redundant to include a link to the Porta communis, Taberna and Vicipaedia:Nuntii, so I propose a link to Taberna and Porta Communis only. Also Pagina fortuita really isn't useful so I recommend replacing it with Paginae Novae.--Rafaelgarcia 18:05, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone ever made a donation? Might we replace that with a Paginae A-Z or an Index categoriarum?

text: Agree with Rafael on both his points above.--Ioshus (disp) 19:19, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I added Novissima -- was it left out by mistake, or was there a decision to omit it?

text: :On the other hand, did we think of omitting Fasciculos onerare (local) if we really don't want this to happen? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:42, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I have just created a page Vicipaedia:Imagines onerare which covers both links. --Rolandus 19:56, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: :I added section "Communia". --Rolandus 20:06, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Or better an "Invitatio" instead of a "Salve"? --Rolandus 20:49, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: :Could we rename "Arca ferramentorum" to "Instrumenta"? --Rolandus 20:10, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The page Porta communis already promiently displays the contents of Vicipaedia:Nuntii on its right side. THus it would seem terribly redundant to include a link to both Porta communis and Vicipaedia:Nuntii.--Rafaelgarcia 20:11, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::But why not get rid of "Porta communis" and have a link to "Vicipaedia:Nuntii". What else is provided by "Porta communis"? --Rolandus 20:16, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Added "A - Z" and reordered 1st group. And "Nuntia" instaed of "Porta communis". --Rolandus 21:17, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: Should the Porta communis be gotten rid of altogether then?--Rafaelgarcia 22:11, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :In its current form, I'd say yes. If you take away the Nuntia, it is just a mixture of several links which are already covered elsewhere. Or: Whom does this page address? --Rolandus 22:15, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The left navigation frame (part 2)

message: Think the sandbox image is overkill? Would it be better with a frame? Smaller? Have the whole ad experiendum line lower on the page? Gone?--Ioshus (disp) 22:40, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it looks like overkill here on the main page. But it would be a nice idea on the top of the Harenarium page itself.--Rafaelgarcia 22:48, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :ON the other hand it seems to grow on one.  Can't decide...If its going to be placd anywhere being placed in the center is best. We would need a pic on the Encyclopedia side to make up the empty space. .--Rafaelgarcia 22:50, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sandbox 

message: Hi, I fixed the problem with the bottoms of the pages not aligning. I did it by changing the code on the Pagina Prima/nova.  However, before it will look right, we need to change 
 Formula:Pp-style-frame
from
 border:1px solid #666;background-color:#F9F9F9;
to 
 border:0px solid #666;background-color:#F9F9F9;
I didn't change it because doing so would affect the present Pagina prima, removing its borders.
Nevertheless, if the magistri can change both the formula and the code on the pagina prima simultaneously it will work fine.
--Rafaelgarcia 06:05, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Argh!! I just noticed there is something wrong with the way the wikimedia box displays on a wide screen. Please hold on doing anything until someone can figure this out.--Rafaelgarcia 06:24, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Hurray!! THe problem is fixed!! Magistri please do make the above changes!--Rafaelgarcia 06:56, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Done, great job! Thanks, as usual, Rafael!--Ioshus (disp) 12:04, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Ioshus, I made another small modification to the Pagina prima/nova based on how the wikimedia section was displaying on a friend's widescreen. I changed the specified width to 20% for the wikimedia section.  This would seem to fix the problem even for his *very* wide screen.--Rafaelgarcia 18:22, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I hope you realize you could tell me anything, Rafael, and I would just copy/paste =] I hope you have not done anything "funny" to try and fool me, the gullible administrator =] --Ioshus (disp) 18:37, 11 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Pagina prima/nova

message: Below is the suggested left side bar as it stands including all the changes.--Rafaelgarcia 15:38, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
As before: Please edit the following to suit, pretending it is the left pane. However, if you do edit it give your reasons below.
    * Navigatio
          o Pagina prima         → Pagina prima
          o Nuntia               → Vicipaedia:Nuntii<-- also change page name to Vicipaedia:Nuntia?
          o A - Z                → :Categoria:Omnia 
          o Paginae novae        → Specialis:Newpages
          o Nuper mutata         → Specialis:Recentchanges 
    * Communia
          o Invitatio             →  Vicipaedia:Invitatio
          o Taberna                 → Vicipaedia:Taberna
          o Auxilium               → Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione <-- Change page name to Vicipaedia:Auxilium paginarum recensendarum
          o Donationes              → Vicipaedia:Site support 
    * Quaerere
          o Ire / Quaerere
    * Instrumenta
          o Nexus ad paginam                  → Specialis:Whatlinkshere
          o Nuper mutata annexorum            → Specialis:Recentchangeslinked 
          o Documenta apponere                → :Commons:Special:Upload
          o Paginae speciales                 → Specialis:Specialpages 
----
Irenaeus suggested above that Auxilium pro editione be auxilia editoria, which I like a lot.--Ioscius (disp) 14:34, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Changes to side bar (Summary)

message: Like it better or worse, centered?
Also, does anyone mind the new translatio hebdomadalis part? I know it may sometimes be a glaring red link on an otherwise very pretty main page. But maybe the eyesore will get people to contribute =] --Ioscius (disp) 04:43, 2 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral as to centering, translatio hebdomadis is good! I do not mind the admonishing power of the redlink ;-) --UV 10:08, 2 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Cool =] --Ioscius (disp) 12:25, 2 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  centering and translatio hebdomadalis 

message: Are there any objections or can we implement the proposed changes (see above)? --Rolandus 11:08, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What has to be done is to edit this configuration file: MediaWiki:Sidebar. For details see Vicipaedia:Allmessages. --Rolandus 11:25, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :This follows from what someone else said above: if we don't ever want people to upload images to la:wiki, we shouldn't tempt them by providing the link in the sidebar. Could we make it a direct link to the Commons upload page? In fact, with my next edit, I will try doing that. (If it's a bad idea, someone can revert it.)

text: :Otherwise, fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:37, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::This morning I tried to find out how the navigation works and it seems that we can easily change what is now in "navigatio", we can also add extra links and a new group like "communia". But what is now "quaerere" and "arca ferramentorum" seems to be fixed, there you can just change the labels. Then it seems that we could completely disable uploading (see MediaWiki:Uploaddisabledtext, which seem s to be the correspondig error message for that setting). However, there is the link "Fasciculos in Communia onerare" which is not standard and we were also able to add it. So it might be possible to redirect the users to Commons:Special:Upload, but at the moment at least I myself do not know how ;-) See my comment "Fasciculos in Communia onerare ... this one is tricky, see MediaWiki:Common.js" on page Vicipaedia:Allmessages. --Rolandus 12:03, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

text: ::... and I agree: We should not promote such a link, if we do not want that users upload to Vicipaedia. --Rolandus 12:06, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Looks good! Consider what Irenaues said, though, I think he has a good sententia.--Ioscius (disp) 14:34, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Do you mean should we rename 'Auxilium pro editione' as 'Auxilia editoria'? I agree that it is better so named.--Rafaelgarcia 16:55, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Yeah, that's what I meant, sorry. --Ioscius (disp) 17:38, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

text: ::: We can remove the upload link from the toolbox using JavaScript (via MediaWiki:common.js, in a similar way in which the "Fasciculos in Communia onerare" link is currently added). If there is consensus about removing the link, I will gladly do it. --UV 22:59, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I, for one, consent.--Ioscius (disp) 00:03, 6 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I think we should have only one link, called "Fasciculos onerare" or "Documenta apponere" or something similar, which does not directly go to an upload page, but is linked to a page which explains what we want and what not, maybe Vicipaedia:Imagines onerare or Vicipaedia:Documenta apponere or something else. On that page there should be a BIG upload link to Commons and a small upload link to the Vicipaedia. --Rolandus 06:19, 6 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::: What about linking directly to commons:Commons:Upload? This is not the upload form, but a page on commons that should make the upload process easier. The thing with providing a big link to commons here did not work out too well - for a long time now, we have an explicit warning on Special:Upload (MediaWiki:Uploadtext) but this did not prevent a number of people from dumping their files here (of course without specifying source, author and license). --UV 08:36, 6 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::: Yes, I'm against Rolandus on this (I don't think I've ever said that before!). Straight to Commons, in my view. The trouble with explanation pages is that people don't read them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 6 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::: Ok, what about a page with a link to Commons at the top and an explanation below? And if we did not provide a link for uploading files to Vicipaedia there? I think directly linking to Commons is too hard. We should find a more gentle way to redirect users to Commons. At the moment they can choose between two links. One links to a page where they are immediately asked to log in, the other one shows a page with some introduction (which they seem to skip or ignore) but they see input fields and know: Yes, that's what I wanted! So, looking at these two options, I am not surprised that users prefer to upload their files to Vicipaedia. It's much more attractive. But I think we should not directly switch from the one extreme to the other. At least we should redirect to a page which offers the link to Commons and explains why we just offer the upload link to Commons. We could even provide some help how to get an account on Commons. And this explanation should be in other languages as well. There might be users who want to upload an image of their favourite band but cannot read Latin good enough. So they do not realize that they are doing what is not desired. However, if we want to be harsh, we can do this even better by redirecting to a page. ;-) --Rolandus 15:58, 6 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::: Ok, let's create such a page. We can start with Vicipaedia:Imagines onerare but we should generalize this page, at least imagines → fascicula, or documenta apponere or another wording as proposed above. --UV 20:13, 6 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
Three things have to be done:
#The navigatio/communia section
#The (re)naming in all sectons
#The upload-link
Can we do #1 and #2?
#For #1 and #2 there seems to be a consensus and
#these two can be done easily (#3 is also technically more complicated).
--Rolandus 18:47, 7 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

text: # ok (but I am not too happy with "Communia", as this lends to confusion with Wikimedia Commons, which we call "Communia" as well)

text: # I am not sure that I understand what you mean here. --UV 00:56, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I meant to start doing the tasks. Only the last step, this update link, needs some rethinking. When we have decided what to do with the update link, I think we have to ask you, to do it, since it needs manipulating the MediaWiki:common.js, hence it is "technically more complicated" (at least for me). -- But I did not know that the titles are still in question ("communia"). My point is: better do it partly than wait for another month. Let's do the parts where we have consensus. ;-) --Rolandus 06:19, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: ok, go ahead! What about "communitas"? --UV 12:44, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::William Whitaker says "yes". --Rolandus 17:30, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I've done it partly: MediaWiki:Sidebar. --Rolandus 05:28, 10 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Some steps further ... --Rolandus 13:00, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::But, hold on, Rolande. I now have "A-Z" leading to :Categoria:Omnia. Surely the label for that should not be "A-Z" but something like "Caput categoriarum" or "Radix categoriarum" or just "Categoriae"? It isn't an A to Z. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::The #Proposed Changes to side bar (Summary) have "A - Z" ... but we can change this. The file MediaWiki:Sidebar has to be edited. --Rolandus 13:46, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::Yes, so they do. But it isn't an A to Z, is it? I never noticed before, but I think now that that label is misleading. Sorry. --- Well, I have actually changed it myself. I never dared to do that before. Hope it's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::Congratulations :-) If you want - for example - change "Adiutatum" to "Auxilium", you had to change the content of MediaWiki:help. --Rolandus 14:25, 19 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections to the proposed changes to the side bar