Victionarium:Taberna/Tabularium/2004

E Victionario
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Project namespace[+/-]

Why is the project namespace (with the yellow background) for this still Wikipedia: ? —Mycēs 17:18 mai 1, 2004 (UTC)

Apparently it's been fixed to the default Wiktionary:. Is this something we'll stick with, or will a sysop change it to Victionarium: ? Are there any sysops here yet? —Mycēs 05:00 mai 8, 2004 (UTC)

Template for new pages[+/-]

Template for new pages? I guess Victionarium:Exemplum is it; will there be more detail on it soon? Robin Patterson 06:40 mai 5, 2004 (UTC)

What I put at Exemplum is basically a translation of the template on the English wiktionary. (Not very good, my latinization skills are so-so.) If anyone wants to contribute to perhaps making a better format, now would be the time to edit Exemplum with suggestions. —Mycēs 23:58 mai 5, 2004 (UTC)
Salve! Will we have a table of conjugation and so on in our entries? German Wikiwoelterbuch goes so. Or is it a field more appropriate to the WikiBook? KIZU 12:28 mai 19, 2004 (UTC)

Totae paginae[+/-]

Until we get too many pages for the system to handle, it can't hurt to have a few more direct links to at least one functional "Totae paginae" rather than having potential contributors put off by going to the "Paginae speciales" and hitting "Totae paginae (ex indice)" then being taken to http://la.wiktionary.org/wiki/Specialis:Allpages - which is quite capable of being blank apart from the message we will need when we get BIG:

"Pardono! Iste functionalitate es temporarimente inactivate durante horas de grande affluentia de accessos pro motivo de performance; retorna inter 02:00 e 14:00 UTC e tenta de nove.

Here's a saved copy from 05:54 mai 18, 2004:"

I know people can reach the list (currently 20 "symboles" plus five other pages) directly from Pagina prima by hitting "Verba ab littera initiali: A" - but that's a trifle obscure (and ought not to give a list from A to W anyway).
Now what about that second row of letter-links following "Verba incipiunt cum litteris aliis" - are they real or imaginary? Several (maybe most) of them lead to an empty page called "Totae paginae".
MAYBE some sysop has all of that in mind and just hasn't completed all the necessary fiddles. Leave the above (for those of us who want another way to inspect progress) until resolved, perhaps!


Kind regards - Patrifilius 06:16 mai 18, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about how to get Specialis:Totae paginae working, but the second row of letters is those from other scripts, which are ordered after A-Z. Once people start adding Latin definitions of Greek, Russian, Japanese, etc. words then those pages will show results. The whole construct is imported directly from the English Wiktionary, where clicking "Quick jump to words beginning with: A" has enough that it will only show A through Abrader. la: won't reach that for awhile, though. I've replaced the box with just a working link to Totae paginae for now. —Mycēs 17:14 mai 18, 2004 (UTC)

Breves[+/-]

Ordinarily I wouldn't prefer to put breves in the headwords. But given that this is a wiki, and much of the information we get may be incomplete, maybe it might be a good idea to use breves to show “yes, this vowel is short, and not just unmarked” ? I can add them to the box below the edit box if we go with that.

It'll also help us more honestly add words where vowel quantity is uncertain (such as some neologisms).

Egomet non praefero ponere signa brevia in lemmatibus. Wiki tamen est, et multus qui recipiemur non completus erit; fortasse prudens sit ut brevibus uti ut docere “ita, haec vocalis est brevis, nec solummodo sine apice” ? Capsae sub recensione addere possum, si volumus.

Etiam adiutabilis erit in addere verba cuius quantitas vocalis incerta est (e.g. nonnulla novicia).

Myces Tiberinus 14:48 nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Why not?
As long as I don't have to add them to Japanese transliterations;) --Vladisdead 14:50 nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Lang Marking[+/-]

I've realized that we may need to mark the language words are in for the browser to render them properly. Most language will cope fine being processed as "la" but CJK characters display differently depending on the language. However, tags aren't allowed in wikitext (see [1]) and <div> tags are inappropriate. How's this to be done? --Vladisdead 10:40 nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

If it's really necessary, a kludge could be used. For example for Template:furi I used a <b> (bold) tag, and then stripped it of boldness with CSS. —Myces Tiberinus 15:34 nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess we could just go with something like <font lang="xx"></font>, then? --Vladisdead 16:24 nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Anything that might be wrong with that, before I go and stick on every entry? ☺ --Vladisdead 17:17 nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


How about an example of the differences we're talking here? Is the difference of rendering supposed to occur for every character, most characters, some characters, or what? —Myces Tiberinus 18:01 nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Well, they're generally only minor differences, AFAIK, but occur for a fair few characters (eg if one radical is different, all the characters using that radical will be, too). Characters displayed incorrectly are still legible, but ideally they can be displayed in the proper fonts. It's not überimportant, but it would be good. --Vladisdead 18:21 nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
CJK-using langs aren't the only ones, too - some languages differ as to whether to use a caron or an apostrophe for characters with ascenders, and things like that. Nothing that would be illegible, but each language would prefer to be displayed in its own style. --Vladisdead 18:38 nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
All right — BTW, are any browsers smart enough to do this yet? Or is this just noding for the ages? —Myces Tiberinus 23:36 nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Well, mine (Firefox) is. And I suspect the latest version of IE is too, if the font support is set up. --Vladisdead 02:01 nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I checked it in Firefox shortly after posting; the zh displayed in a different font than the ja . Either Opera can't do that yet, or I set it up with the wrong fonts, not being prepared for the intricacies of East Asian typography (I suspect the former though). —Myces Tiberinus 05:31 nov 23, 2004 (UTC)