Disputatio:Bogota
Nomen
[fontem recensere]IP 24.251.29.163, care usor ignote, mutasti Bogota in Bogotá, citans "Carolus Egger, Diurnarius Latinus. Epitome actorum diurnorum in lingua Latina. (1980.ISBN 88-209-4366-2) p. 51." Sed ut hic videmus, Egger loco citato (p. 51) revera dicit nomen Latinum esse Bogota, non Bogotá. Te nunc reverteris? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:49, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
- Talibus casibus oportet statim revertere, id quod nunc feci. Anonymi rarissime paginas disputationis legunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:23, 11 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Animus
[fontem recensere]One could argue that the link on "animus" should be removed, since the usage of the word here is figurative, while the article being linked to explicates the word's literal meaning exclusively. Toddcs (disputatio) 18:01, 21 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
- Some articles are over-linked. If you consider a link definitely unhelpful (and the reason you give above is a good reason) remove it. Anyone who reads the text later, and disagrees with you, can restore it or put a better link in its place. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
- I've removed it. The surrounding text strikes me as grammatical but unnecessarily wordy (maybe I needed more coffee). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:22, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
- (1) Someday, every word will be hyperlnked without the clutter of double brackets and the shock of contrasting colors, so we could do worse than thinking ahead as to where the links from variously signifying words should lead. (2) Efficiency in coding texts is a virtue, but getting a high(er) score at Meta is a goal not without merit, and therefore cutting the size of one of the 1000 most important articles (such as "Bogota") is hardly a high priority. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:19, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I've gotten rid of animus altogether. In doing so, I encountered an example of the importance of "thinking ahead as to where the links from variously signifying words should lead": the noun (N.B.) medicus should link to "Medicus," but the adjective (N.B.) medicus should link to "Medicina." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:48, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
- The day you wish for has already arrived. If your browser is as nifty as mine, you can highlight any word in the text, right-click, and search for it on Wikipedia and various other platforms. Yes, the choice for us remains as it was: whether or not to make a hotlink, and where that hotlink is to be directed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
- Having said that, it's taken me 40 minutes to make my browser do a Latin Vicipaedia search on the highlighted word instead of any of the options it already offered me. But I've done it. Put that down to
artificial intelligencehuman and slightly limited intelligence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I've gotten rid of animus altogether. In doing so, I encountered an example of the importance of "thinking ahead as to where the links from variously signifying words should lead": the noun (N.B.) medicus should link to "Medicus," but the adjective (N.B.) medicus should link to "Medicina." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:48, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
- (1) Someday, every word will be hyperlnked without the clutter of double brackets and the shock of contrasting colors, so we could do worse than thinking ahead as to where the links from variously signifying words should lead. (2) Efficiency in coding texts is a virtue, but getting a high(er) score at Meta is a goal not without merit, and therefore cutting the size of one of the 1000 most important articles (such as "Bogota") is hardly a high priority. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:19, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)