Disputatio Formulae:Fontes desiderati
E Vicipaedia
Iustinus - I think originaly Fontes Carentes was for Articuli fontes carentes - fontes being the object of carens. (For the category Categoria:Fontes carentes). Still, the change makes sense, especially because the singular use of the tag now - it would have had to become [hoc] caret fontes, or something. --Tbook 16:49, 26 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
- We could do it that way to, but careo takes an ablative of separation, so it would have to be fontibus carentes/caret. --Iustinus 17:08, 26 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Correct. My error. --Tbook 17:16, 26 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
[recensere] less color
For the sake of the health of my eyes, thank you! ;-) --UV 22:41, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
[recensere] Two cases?
I think this formula has been intended to serve two cases, and that maybe we should distinguish them.
- The general Wikipedia case where a statement is made that ought to be justified with a citation.
- The special Vicipaedia case where, because of the shortage of modern sources in our language, we are uncertain of the Latin spelling of a name.
I also think that nearly all uses of this template at present belong to case 2. Therefore I am wondering whether to do the following:
- Change the wording of this formula (again) to "Fons nominis Latini desideratus." It will then be crystal clear that it applies to the name to which it is attached.
- Make a similar formula with the wording "Citatio desiderata" which we can attach to dubious-looking or unsourced statements.
Unlike most Wikipedias, we insert this present formula in a footnote. This makes it more time-consuming for editors: we have some extra typing to do each time we use it. So should the new formula, also, be designed for placing as a footnote, or should it appear in the line or as a superscript? Andrew Dalby 13:56, 13 Martii 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the observation that the template is currently used nearly exclusively in case 2. We also have {{dubsig}}, which asks rather for checking and confirming a word (and then removing {{dubsig}} again) than for providing sources.
- I do not have a particular preference whether to use the new template in footnotes or inline/superscripted or as a box. --UV 23:52, 13 Martii 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree, we should have two types of templates.
- The style: The actual styleof using footnotes has - in my opinon - the advantage that it demonstrates how to use footnotes, when a user wants to add a source. However, it is more complicated to add the desiderati-template than to add an inline-template. But - on the other hand - since we have some working examples for footnotes now, this argument might have become less important.
--Rolandus 05:44, 14 Martii 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Agree for the need for two templates. We definitely need the citatio desiderata one, badly. I see so many articles uncited. It's not going to work if we want to be taken seriously.--Ioshus (disp) 12:13, 14 Martii 2007 (UTC)
- OK, so I have now made {{Citatio desiderata}} to be used in the general case (comparable to en:Template:Citation needed). I take Rolandus's point, that setting it up as a footnote in the first place makes it easier for the editor who afterwards adds a citation, so I have continued that style. Andrew Dalby 21:13, 16 Martii 2007 (UTC)
- Agree for the need for two templates. We definitely need the citatio desiderata one, badly. I see so many articles uncited. It's not going to work if we want to be taken seriously.--Ioshus (disp) 12:13, 14 Martii 2007 (UTC)
-
