Disputatio:Lingua constructa

message: The text, currently titled Lingua artificiosa and linked to en:Artificial language, is marked , but it's not turning up in Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio/Anthropologia et psychologia, where, instead, en:Constructed language appears to be the most closely pertinent article among the 10,000 listed articles. Further: the text here seems to have been adapted from some earlier version of en:Constructed language. (Perhaps the Meta people have made news that never reached Vicipaedia.) So I propose adapting the text to match en:Constructed language more closely and renaming & moving the page to conform. That will clear up the confusion and gain for Vicipaedia the points it's been deserving but presumably lacking. OK? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:09, 6 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Our page is already about conlangs rather than artificial languages, and the former is much the more interesting and important concept.  The key step is to change Wikidata so that our page is connected with en:Constructed language -- that's what'll get us the points.  I'm not sure we need to re-name our page, necessarily:  I'm not sure what's a better way to say "conlang" in Latin.  As for expanding and enhancing the page, well, that's always desirable, surely!  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:36, 6 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, the page has been redone, renamed, and moved to the new name. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:48, 6 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Good start.  But as it's still linked to en:Constructed language, you haven't accomplished what you had in mind.  Wikidata rules all!  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 22:26, 6 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::It had been linked to en:Artificial language, but now it's linked to en:Constructed language, and the link from there to here is working. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:23, 6 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Good:  I plan to run the statistics stuff tomorrow and we should pick up pointsn for this one!  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:28, 8 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Alas, the correction didn't go through at Meta, perhaps because of the previous confusion with Lingua artificiosa. (Meta doesn't work for me.) Further, I notice that Officium and Spes aren't marked correctly there either. :( IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:54, 15 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::At Meta, m:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life shows "Constructed language," which is a link to d:Q33215, whose title in Wikidata is "Constructed language."  That Wikidata item links to en:Constructed language and to our Lingua artificiosa -- which is of course the old name for the present page and a redirect to it.  This looks like what you wanted, except for the slight inefficiency of having a link through a redirect at Wikidata.  As for Officium, it has no Wikidata link at all, so naturally doesn't appear;  it's an invisible page as far as anything outside Vicipaedia Latina is concerned.  Spes, as far as I can see, is fine.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:36, 15 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Well, but your program here isn't recognizing Lingua constructa (= en:Constructed language) and Spes (= en:Hope), and for that matter Dubium (= en:Doubt); likewise your program here isn't recognizing Officium (= en:Duty). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:56, 15 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::Check dates!  I update those lists about every 6 weeks, based on what's in Meta (the master list) and Wikidata at the time.  They are not real-time reflections of Meta or Wikidata but snapshots;  they're static pages, though I use a program to generate them.  If Wikidata does not correctly link to our page at the time I run the program, then the output of the program doesn't show that page.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:04, 15 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::Spes was added on 31 March 2014 (!), Dubium was added on 31 May 2016, and Lingua constructa was marked "Myrias" on 6 Aug 2016, but your update was run on 9 August 2016. Officium was added on 31 July 2016, but your update was run on 9 August 2016. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:03, 15 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::::Spes seems not to have been marked "Myrias" until 12 August 2016. If your program relies on such markings, it could be missing the occasional article added, but not appropriately marked, by someone unaware of the 10K enterprise. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:09, 15 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::::I'm not looking at the markings at all -- I know they're not reliable (that's why the first column of the 10K epitome table says whether a page has that formula or not).  I am only looking at the list in Meta, which contains references to Wikidata, and the items in Wikidata therein referred to.  That's because those are what the programs that create the stats tables in Meta look at.  I have a program that I run occasionally that goes through and rationalizes the Myrias formula;  that does start with the lists here (Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio and Category:Myrias) rather than going back to first principles.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:27, 15 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Not among the 10,000 most important articles