Disputatio Vicipaediae:Auxilium pro editione

E Vicipaedia

Categoriae?? Robin Patterson 03:26 iun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Is it ok with everyone to move this page to "Auxilium paginarum rite edendarum" as per discussion on the Disputatio:Pagina prima/Nova#Auxilium pro editione, etc.. ?--Rafaelgarcia 01:18, 8 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
What about Auxilium paginarum recte recensendarum, instead?--Ioshus (disp) 14:33, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
It seems everyone is OK with this? --Rafaelgarcia 03:42, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I don't like this edendarum... It reminds me of eating... Scribo, or recenseo I think to be better verbs. And is rite really the most colloquial way of saying this? Non recte?--Ioshus (disp) 03:45, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
According to Whitaker's words: publish; disclose translates to
edo, edare, edidi, editus V (1st) TRANS [XXXAO]
So that the appropriate word is edandarum (of editing) NOT edendarum(of eating)--Rafaelgarcia 04:07, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Who's that Whitaker? In any case, edare, edandarum etc do not exist. Ask your Latin professors if you don't believe me. The prefixed dare changed its conjugation from I to III. The ambiguity of edo 'I edit' and edo 'I eat' gets mostly resolved contextually, so it's at most a theoretical worry. If we are concerned with paginae rite edendae, it's somewhat bizarre to worry about whether we are going to ordain how our pages should be eaten in the proper way. And what's wrong with rite? In some religious contexts it means 'with proper ceremonies', but mostly it means 'duly, properly, rightly, in the ordinary manner'. But by all means, rite may be replaced by recte, if that sounds better. --Neander 05:43, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
The only thing wrong with rite is exactly what you said, it sounds a bit ceremonious... Recte accomplishes the same thing without the pomp.--Ioshus (disp) 05:50, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
The Words program is here [Whittaker's Words], it includes neolatin and medieval vocabulary and I suspect edare is a medieval variant. --Rafaelgarcia 16:19, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
It's also at Words...--Ioshus (disp) 16:36, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Interesting debate, the need to distinguish edere from édere is precisely the reason why the best classical grammarians, whose tradition Quntilianus so gloriously preserved for us, recommend the use of the apex (cf. the article in the English Wikipedia, soon to be in this one as well) as necessary in some cases. Avitus 16:20, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I tried a few of the above ideas; each has its good and bad points. Since this is aimed at the beginning user I think we need to avoid difficult terms like edendarum and recensendarum and besides they don't mean anything very different than scribendarum. So in the end I edited the entry to be: Commendationes paginarum recte scribendarum and Auxilium paginarum scribendarum. Have a look and please comment. Would it be OK to move the pages to these new names? --Rafaelgarcia 03:58, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I actually was thinking recensendarum, because the top of everyone's page says "recensere".--Ioshus (disp) 04:06, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point I hadn't considered. OK I changed it to Commendationes paginarum recte scribendarum and Auxilium paginarum recensendarum. --Rafaelgarcia 04:21, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

[recensere] Auxilium pro editione Latiné et Latiné?

Quid interest inter Auxilium pro editione, quod Latiné scriptum est, et Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine), quod Latiné scriptum est? Avitus 16:20, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be general advice, not concerning Latin in particular. And, before you say it, yes! There is some unwanted overlap.
I think the first section (auxilium scribendi) applies to the Latin Vicipaedia in particular. I'm inclined to merge it into Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine). Does anyone disagree? Andrew Dalby 13:56, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

[recensere] I don't

understand the following line. Is it still valid, or does it relate to some older kind of wiki? Andrew Dalby 13:56, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Si verbum cum ? vides, nexum nudum vides. Editio nova fieri potest. Exemplum: terra?
This is horribly outdated. In very old versions of the wiki software, links to non-existing pages were displayed in this way (now these links are shown in red). --UV 22:11, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
In the preferences, in the "Misc" tab, users can still choose the old link style for broken links. --UV 22:13, 12 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was something like that. But they aren't likely to make the choice unawares, so I guess this line can be removed from the page. I'll do it. Andrew Dalby 14:14, 13 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

understand the following line either:

*Vide Vici formae: non Vici : <nowiki></nowiki> Andrew Dalby 14:37, 13 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

[recensere] Adiuvate me !

videte..vae..totas tabulas elementorum chemicorum pessime scripserunt (egomet censerem -5)! sed..sunt 115..et..nescio..singulas necesse est edere? (saltem) 115 editiones? :S quis potest mihi adiuvare eas edere? :P quis 30 edit.. et ego..50..et aliquis 30.. :P nescio.. hahae.

edo: iam vidi..et primi 30 articuli tantum eas habent..ignoscite :P

Hmmm, inspiciam.--Ioscius (disp) 18:35, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)