Vicipaedia:Taberna

(Redirectum de VP:T)
Latest comment: abhinc 27 dies by Grufo in topic Myrias
Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera.
Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.
Quaestio nova
Hic colloqui possumus.

De {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}} recensere

Vicidatis semper semperque auctis, haec capsa sub rubricis inferioribus "Officium" et "Laurae" res plurimas praebere solet linguis barbaris scriptas, aegre utilibus. Ergo ad interim has rubricas celavi. (Talem rem et in aliis capsis informationis facere possumus.) Si haec mutatio tibi displiceat, s.t.p. placita tua hic inscribe! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 10 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defaultsort vs. Lifetime recensere

Why do contributors keep using the Defaultsort formula? The Lifetime formula is more efficient, saving bytes by compressing the dating and automatically specifying Mulieres or Viri as appropriate (without the need for coded categorization of the distinction)? Efficiency in coding is generally held to be a virtue. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 14 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Mulieres" and "Viri" are added because of the interwiki link at Wikidata, not because of these magic words. But I quite agree with you that LIFETIME is briefer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 16 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, {{Lifetime}} (like {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}} and a few more templates) automatically adds the page to Categoria:Viri or Categoria:Mulieres according to the person's gender specified at the Wikidata item. Where neither of these templates is used (and where just perhaps the magic word DEFAULTSORT is used), neither Categoria:Viri or Categoria:Mulieres will be added automatically. So, {{Lifetime}} may be preferable to DEFAULTSORT. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:42, 16 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias ago: id non intellegi, quia semper, novam paginam biographicam creans, {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}} ad caput et {{Fontes biographici}} sub nexibus externis insero. {{Lifetime}} uti incipio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De nova categoria instituenda recensere

Mea quidem sententia oportet novam categoriam instituere quae omnes paginas ad jus pertinentes colligat et hac de causa nominetur "ius". Placentinus (disputatio) 08:30, 16 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usque adhuc, si recte observavi, nostra Categoria:Iurisprudentia idem opus perficit quam aliorum en:Category:Law et fr:Catégorie:Droit [etc.]. Ergo quid facere oportet --
  1. Movere Categoria:Iurisprudentia ad Categoria:Ius?
  2. novam categoriam Categoria:Ius creare, quae loco categoriae hodiernae "Iurisprudentiae" ad categorias barbaras "Law" et "Droit" [etc.] adnectanda erit?
  3. alia res?? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:44, 16 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probum consilium movere Categoria:Iurisprudentia ad Categoria:Ius mihi videtur. Placetne? Placentinus (disputatio) 14:43, 16 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In wikipaedia Anglica, "Jurisprudence" est subcategoria categoriae "Law," quae revera nos monet: "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable." Ergo ut videtur, subcategoria "Iurisprudentia" non delenda est, et categoria "Ius" creanda est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:24, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recte quidem mones! Quomodo creantur categoriae? Quaeso ut mihi ignoscatis, nam numeror adhuc inter homines quos Angli vulgo vocitant "noobs" (Heri tantum inveni instrumentum "HotCat"...). Placentinus (disputatio) 06:54, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Сategoriae eodem modo creantur, quo omnes paginae; categoriae superiores in pagina categoriae scribendae sunt. — Sed Categoria:Iurisprudentia nostra per Vicidata cum en:Category:Law Anglica coniuncta est, non cum “Jurisprudence”. (Ipse nescio, an movenda sit.) Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 09:17, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Si consentimus categoriam "Iurisprudentia" novo nomine "Ius" baptizare, deinde novam subcategoriam "Iurisprudentia" creare, deinde aliquas paginas in novam subcategoriam singultim movere, facile erit, hoc modo:
  1. categoriam nostram "Iurisprudentia" e Vicidatis pro tempore delere;
  2. postulare apud amicum @UV: (Vicipaedia:Automata/Petitiones de categoriis movendis hic) categoriam renominare omnesque paginas subcategoriasque, quae insunt, novo categoriae nomine munire;
  3. categoriam renominatam iterum in Vicidata eodem loco inserere;
  4. novam categoriam "Iurisprudentia" creare et cum linguis barbaris (Jurisprudence etc.) apud Vicidata coniungere;
  5. paginas (et fortasse subcategorias) nostras idoneas in hanc novam categoriam singultim matriculare.
An consentimus omnes? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non sum sic peritus de his disciplinis ut sententiam meam habeam (tantummodo scio vocabulum “iuris” esse antiquius vocabulo “iurisprudentiae”), sed si categoriam creamus credo motiones esse gerendas quamque paginam ponderando, quia aliquae commentationes ambas categorias requirere possint. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:06, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recte dicis, Grufo: vide iam meam rubricam #5 supra. Categoria mota, nova categoria creata, certe licet paginas aut una categoria, aut binis categoriis, munire.
Nemine contradicente, categoriam "Iurisprudentia" ad "Ius" ope UV et UVbot movendam suadebo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:49, 18 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categoriam movi. --UV (disputatio) 22:59, 18 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categoriam novam "Categoria:Iurisprudentia" creavi tamquam subcategoria categoriae Categoria:Ius". Denuo aliis licet ad pedem paginarum idonearum "Categoria:Iurisprudentia" inscribere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 19 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De "nexu linguarum" recensere

Addere "nexum linguarum" nequeo paginae cui index est Danaë imbrem aureum accipit (Titianus), quia – pro dolor! – mihi non licet inceptum exsequi: «You do not have the permissions needed to carry out this action.»

Placentinus (disputatio) 19:49, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Grufo: nonne tu eandem obstructionem passus es? An solutionem repperisti?
@Placentinus: ad interim potes nexum ad pedem singulae paginae barbarae subscribere (e.g. Anglicae aut Francogallicae aut Italianae), sic:
[[la:Danaë imbrem aureum accipit (Titianus)]]
Una pagina ita adnectata, automata (bots) nexum Vicidata inserere solent. Tempta! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:17, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias ago Demetrio Talpae qui quaestionem solvit. Placentinus (disputatio) 21:07, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gaudeo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:53, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrew Oportet 50 recensiones apud Vicidata habere ad nulli obstructioni occurrendum, at usores sine 50 recensionibus concessionem specialem petere possunt. Ego concessionem specialem petivi quae recusata est, quia ipsa petitio fuit mea quinquagensima recensio. --Grufo (disputatio) 23:05, 17 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Catch-22! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:30, 19 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:) --Grufo (disputatio) 22:47, 19 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Novae formulae de lemmate principi recensere

Novas formulas {{Res}}, {{Res typis italicis}} (compendio: {{ires}}), {{Subres}} et {{Res tacita}} (compendio: {{tres}}) habemus ad lemma princeps commentationum scribendum. E.g.

  • {{res|Ars coquinaria}} est... (in loco scriptionis '''Ars coquinaria''' est...)
  • {{ires|In vino veritas}} est... (in loco scriptionis '''''In vino veritas''''' est...)
  • {{subres|Apparatus computatralis}} est... (in loco scriptionis ''Apparatus computatralis'' est...)
  • vel {{tres|(instrumentum) '''computatorium'''}}... (in loco scriptionis vel (instrumentum) '''computatorium'''...)

Duae sunt commoditates his formulis utendi:

  1. Cum paginam recenseamus lemma princeps e vicitextu melius eminet
  2. Hae formulae notam HTML <dfn>...</dfn> adhibent (de hac vide hic), quam robota interretialia et “screen readers” melius intellegere possunt

  Nota bene: Hae formulae non sunt in locum '''...''', '''''...''''' et ''...'' in aliis casibus substituendae, sed sunt adhibendae in casu lemmatis principis tantum.

Hoc dicto, usus harum formularum est voluntarius et semper formam veterem scribere possumus. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:11, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gratias ago propter explicationem, @Grufo:. Ratio creationis {{Subres}} nescio. Nonne lemmata semper litteris fortibus scribimus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:45, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrew: Vide hanc recensionem meam, ubi pluribus harum formularum utor. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:27, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. Formulam {{Res tacita}} quoque nunc creavi. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:28, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, hoc in exemplo neque qua lege Apparatus computatorius litteris italicis scribatur scio, neque ad quem usum "(instrumentum) computatorium" in formulam includatur! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:47, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fortasse exemplum non est clarum. {{Subres}} est cum lemmate principi cuiusdam partis vel capituli paginae adhibenda (nonne est nostra norma typis italicis haec lemmata scribere?). E.g.
{{res|Lemma}} est bla bla bla ...

== De sublemmate 1 ==
{{subres|Sublemma 1}} est bla bla bla bla...

== De sublemmate 2 ==
{{subres|Sublemma 2}} est bla bla bla bla...
Ergo rare adhibebitur…
De {{Res tacita}}: Formulam “screen readers” et robota tantum credo adiuvare (at rare quoque adhibebamus). --Grufo (disputatio) 19:59, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias: intellego. Dicis: "nonne est nostra norma typis italicis haec lemmata scribere?" Nescio an regulam habuimus. Incertus sum, an tales locutiones re vera "lemmata" sunt eadem lege qua tituli paginae Vicipaedicae ... sed de occasione rara loquimur et de re minoris momenti :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:58, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neque ego scio. At quadam formula pro his casibus uti ({{Subres}}) nos sinit typos ubiqui mutare cum regulam Vicipaedianam de “sublemmatibus” inveniamus. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:06, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recte dicis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:37, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrew: Nunc formula {{Subres}} in nova pagina “Sagittarius A” usus sum. Quomodo tibi videtur? --Grufo (disputatio) 22:44, 20 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optime. Exemplum perutile. Experimentum temptavi, quod tibi aut mutare aut revertere licet, formulis {{qc}} et {{ec}} utens. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 21 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rem similem feci in pagina iam a me incepta Sazerac. An melius est, sicut hoc casu feci, non vocabula in textu sed rubricas respectivas internectare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:15, 21 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At nonne est hic usus enormis formularum {{qc}} et {{ec}}, quae ad membra bibliographiae nectenda sunt adhibendae? Typis ignoratis (si typos graves praeferimus formulam mutare possumus), haec recensio ostendit quemadmodum formula {{Subres}} adhiberi possit ad nexus per argumentum |ancora= creandos (talis recensio corrigenda est, quia et “Sagittarius A orientalis” et “Sagittarius A occidentalis” iam sunt nomina capitum et ergo iam nomina quoque ancorarum). “An melius est, sicut hoc casu feci, non vocabula in textu sed rubricas respectivas internectare?”: Ita, melius est capita et non lemmata nectere! (disputatio) 11:09, 21 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De sublemmatibus. Vicipaedia Anglica sublemmatibus typos graves adsignat:

Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section (for example, subtopics treated in their own sections or alternative names for the main topic – see § Article title terms, above).

Idcirco apud paginam “Sagittarius A” formulam {{Res}} in locum formulae {{Subres}} substitui, quia et Sagittarius A orientalis et Sagittarius A occidentalis sua capitula habent. Sed in pagina “Computatrum” credo Apparatum computatralem typis italicis scribendum esse (per formulam {{Subres}}), quia capitulo suo caret. Sed revera hoc ad rem minoris momenti attinet. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:29, 22 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Reference Tooltips" vs. "Reference Previews" recensere

Here on la.wikipedia, we are currently using a gadget that is called "Reference Tooltips". This gadget is useful in that it adds visual tooltips and highlights to footnotes and references. For details please see Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 33#De nexibus intra paginam ad bibliographiam iunctis.

The kind programmers that constantly work on improving the MediaWiki software and the Wikimedia wikis are thinking about generally replacing "Reference Tooltips" with a similar product, "Reference Previews", see Vicipaedia:Nuntii Technici#A new feature for previewing references on your wiki. The advantage in doing this is that "Reference Previews" would be managed centrally for all Wikimedia wikis, while our "Reference Tooltips" currently needs to be maintained by ourselves. There is, however a disadvantage, because "Reference Previews" currently does not yet feature all the capabilities of "Reference Previews". I have voiced my concern at meta:Talk:WMDE Technical Wishes/ReferencePreviews#Reference Previews to become the default for previewing references on more wikis. Let us see how the kind programmers will react … Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:09, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi UV. I do not know all the details, all I can say is that I appreciate the current change of background color during mouse hover. I even imitated the effect in the {{Ancora tacita}} template, but only after click.
On that note I have a question. Here are four different ways of creating anchors,
# <span id="foobar1">Lorem ipsum</span> {{an|foobar1}}
# <span id="CITEREFfoobar1">Lorem ipsum</span> {{an|CITEREFfoobar1}}
# {{Ancora|foobar2|Lorem ipsum}} {{an|foobar2}}
# {{Ancora|CITEREFfoobar2|Lorem ipsum}} {{an|CITEREFfoobar2}}
which produce:
  1. Lorem ipsum foobar1
  2. Lorem ipsum CITEREFfoobar1
  3. Lorem ipsum foobar2
  4. Lorem ipsum CITEREFfoobar2
As you can see, when you hover above “foobar1” and “foobar2” nothing happens. Instead, when you hover above “CITEREFfoobar1” and “CITEREFfoobar2” the background color changes. Furthermore, if you click on “foobar1” and “CITEREFfoobar1” nothing else happens (besides the page reaching the anchor), but when you click on “foobar2” and “CITEREFfoobar2” instead the background color of the nearby “Lorem ipsum” changes for some seconds. So my question is: How can I make the behavior of “CITEREFfoobar2” the standard behavior of {{Ancora tacita}} and other similar templates? Can it be done? --Grufo (disputatio) 00:43, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The background color change on click for some seconds, as you know, is the result of Formula:Ancora tacita/style.css. The background color change on hover is the result of "Reference Tooltips", which might be about to be replaced with "Reference Previews". I do not think that there is an easy way to add this behaviour to {{Ancora tacita}}. --UV (disputatio) 23:44, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought so… Well, nothing too tragic after all! --Grufo (disputatio) 03:11, 25 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is interesting news, @UV:. It was very kind of you to create the templates we currently have for linking references displaying tooltips, and in theory it will be still better if the display capability can be centrally maintained for the future. We'll have to see how the programmers respond to your concerns. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:16, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that the response was not promising, @UV: it's nice that one of them is a Latin lover, but they are interested in their new tasks, not in our problem. Do you have an opinion about what we should do?
My own quick reaction is, let's not change to Reference previews just yet, but only change later if needed to ensure central maintenance. (a) Is this choice possible, (b) is it advisable, (c) would we already be losing some advantages from Reference Previews? You probably understand the constraints better than I do, UV.
I think Spanish and English wikis are currently on Reference tooltips, as we are, and it seems to work well. I think German and French wikis are on Reference previews. On fr:Winston Churchill (for an example) Reference previews does not adapt fully to the complex and inconsistent footnoting): worse, if I go to "preferences - gadgets" and choose Reference tooltips instead, I then get no tooltips at all. On de:Winston Churchill the footnotes are well suited to Reference previews: it works OK, although the footnotes have to be long and repetitive because they do not refer on to the bibliography. On de:wiki I see no way to choose Reference tooltips instead. I think some other wikis may decide not to move immediately to Reference previews, or, if they move, will find it less helpful. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 30 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the unfavorable response at meta, I support your proposal not to change to "Reference Previews" just yet. We can stick with "Reference Tooltips" as long as the "Reference Tooltips" gadget works. Since "Reference Tooltips" is a "default gadget" on enwiki, it will probably continue to work for quite a long time. So my answer to your questions is (a) yes, (b) in my view yes, and (c) anyone who prefers "Reference Previews" over "Reference Tooltips" can easily go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and disable the "Reference Tooltips" gadget, which will automatically enable "Reference Previews" for this user. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:52, 3 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Debemus lingua nostra consensum indicare. Date veniam, o amici Latinistae, quia usque adhuc UV egoque Anglice de hac re disputavimus (nam Reference tooltips i.e. fenestrellae notarum subiunctarum adiutoriae, apud nos me postulante, UV agente, instauratae sunt). An nobis permittitis in hoc consilio pergere? Si dissonantiam videre vultis, videte en:Winston Churchill et fr:Winston Churchill et supra indices notarum subiunctarum (e.g.10, 16etc.) cursorem tuum movete. Systema nostrum, quod cum systemate Anglico correspondet, hoc tempore retinere suademus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:03, 4 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Negligence in fighting against cross wiki vandals recensere

There was NO edit warring but tagging for deletion only. These w:pl:WP:CHICAGO = w:en:WP:LTA/GRP nonsense vandalisms are permitted to stay here indefinitely for days, and are even wrongfully protected here instead of being deleted locally on sight, so stewards are constantly forced to intervene here. 83.30.174.241 10:39, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are, I think, talking about one discussion page on which a message, not obviously vandalistic, not obscene, remained peacefully for a few days. Evidently you are not fully informed of the scale of the recent attacks here: if you knew more, you would possibly reconsider the term "negligence".
This is a small wiki, and it has been difficult, but we do our best. Several stewards have been very helpful and, as one of the admins concerned, I'd be happy to discuss this further with them. They can easily get in touch with me on my talk page, or continue the discussion here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your talk page is protected from IPs, so we talk here. I repeatedly reverted this above LTA in other wikis especially. Links which once were at NOW deleted "Disputatio:Pugilatio (moderna)" talk page are nothing but GARBLED spam links from already ISP-deleted hate site by GRP named:
ƃɹo˙ǝɯǝɹdnsɐıpǝdoꞁɔʎɔuǝ˙ʍʍʍ
If you see something with it, delete it immediately, please.
83.30.184.119 15:25, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, of course. I know who added the information, I know that it is useless. I (like you, no doubt, and many others) was getting multiple obscene threats from the same person. I am also hearing once again from "Wikinger", a pen-friend of "Chicago boys". How nice! The WMF has "banned and blocked" both persons, but the WMF legal department has refused any help to me.
So, left alone by the WMF legal department, I tried an experiment. If I allowed this anonymous, useless, but not vandalistic, message to remain on a talk page (talk pages, after all, contain many other relatively useless and irrelevant messages) would I be named in fewer obscene semi-literate summaries? Would Vicipaedia get less vandalism for a few days? Yes, in fact, for those few days, it worked.
I have no sympathy for the WMF, its bans and its lawyers, since they have no sympathy for me. But I have lots of sympathy for the stewards and cross-wiki patrollers, who deal with far more of this stuff than I do. So, since you ask me not to run such an experiment again, I won't. Just keep on watching us, please! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:25, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So now all is good! Failed experiment is HOPEFULLY dead, it only would permit to trash latin wiki pages with spam. I use dynamic IP, and for example, I reverted "w:sl:WP:PZAP/GRP" once here: Specialis:Conlationes/83.30.168.216. If I will notice something then I will tag it for deletion, in other case revert. That's all. 83.30.187.141 16:50, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, fairly good :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:01, 24 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about verbs derived from dare on Wiktionary recensere

For those interested, there is a discussion I am participating to on Wiktionary concerning the derived verbs of dare. It started after I added a few verbs to the list of the “derived terms” of that verb (like abdere, addere, indere, perdere, etc.). Whatever your opinion is, if you are interested in the topic you are invited to participate. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:23, 27 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Grufo: I'm sorry, this will seem very unhelpful, but my inclination, when a wiki argument has become so heated that you can't stir it with a spoon (metaphor based on en:Porridge), is to walk away from it for about two years. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 27 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andrew, probably I will. But whether for two years or one day will depend on the fact that I am the only one discussing or not. If I remain the only one, it will probably be two years. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:48, 27 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quomodo invenire paginas autotranslatas? recensere

Succurrite mihi! Non scio quomodo paginas formula "paginae autotranslatae" ornatas inveniam ut videam num interim rescriptae/emendatae sint. Itaque apud Kamo no Chōmei addidi formulam de latinitate. Cui bono bella formula nova de autotranslatione si paginas ita signatas rursus detegere non possumus? - Giorno2 (disputatio) 16:45, 1 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Giorno2: Eae sunt in Categoria:Latinitas -7 (non latine). Vide documentationem formulae {{Pagina autotranslata}}:
Paginae quae hac formula utuntur in Categoria:Latinitas -7 (non latine) numerabuntur. Postremo, ab octavo die post tempus Vicipaedianum quod argumentum |tempus={{subst:REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} statuit, aut ab octavo die post ultimam recensionem si argumentum |tempus={{subst:REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} omittitur, in Categoria:Correctiones neglectae quoque numerabuntur.
P.S. Credasne fortasse paginas cum formula {{Pagina autotranslata}} in sua propria categoria esse numerandas (e.g. Categoria:Translationes machinariae)? --Grufo (disputatio) 17:40, 1 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optime vir! Scio paginas autotranslatas apud "Categoria:Latinitas -7 (non latine)" inveniri. Tamquam FORMULA. Sed nullo loco est elenchus singularum paginarum istarum! Ita examen de paginarum emendatione fieri non potest quia eas non iam in promptu habemus. Nam tunc tantummodo Formula:Pagina autotranslata aut Formula:Pars autotranslata apparet, FORMULA sed non CATEGORIA. Propositum tuum de CATEGORIA creanda laudo. Etiam est necesse omnes paginas vetustiores FORMULA signatas in CATEGORIA (nova) esse. Gratias! Giorno2 (disputatio) 03:18, 2 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Optime. Postremo categoriam novam creavi et formulas redintegravi. P.S. Multae paginae autotranslatae iam deletae sunt; nunc duae paginae tantum formulam ostendunt, quarum una est in spatio nominali usoris. --Grufo (disputatio) 04:13, 2 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias ago ego tibi. Giorno2 (disputatio) 11:55, 2 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Myrias recensere

Formulam {{Myrias}} sex commentationibus addidi (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6). Estne hic index nunc redintegrandus cum novis nexibus ad Vicipaediam Latinam? --Grufo (disputatio) 11:32, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Si, sus nombres deben fijarse en el índice, Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio. Yo he hecho el primero, de Sagitario A*. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:29, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias tibi ago, Iacobe. Sed cur locutus sis mecum Hispanice? --Grufo (disputatio) 12:31, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quia coffeum matutinum nondum biberam, et adhuc dormiebam, nihil mente comprehendens. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:52, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:) --Grufo (disputatio) 12:57, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]