Latest comment:abhinc 9 menses5 comments3 people in discussion
To minimize clutter in the list of "Nuper mutata," could our kind programmers make itimpossible to post a new article without first entering something—any text, perhaps even a blankspace—in the editbox? The record of new articles where no text appears in the editbox consists of an unknown (to me) but excessively high number of characters. For an example of what I'm calling clutter, see the record of the article "The Amazing Digital Circus" as it appears in "Nuper mutata" on 30 November 2024. On my screen, that record occupies six lines of text, but one would do. (The same record may occupyfewer lines on screens with wider margins & smaller type andmore lines on screens with narrower margins & larger type.) An alternate solution might be to limit each record in "Nuper mutata" to no more than about one-fifth of the currently allowed number of characters. Ideally, one might argue, each record of a new article (oralmost every new article) should occupy one, and only one, line of text.IacobusAmor (disputatio)11:03, 1 Decembris 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Iacobus. I agree that creating a page without a summary, even just something like “Prima adumbratio”, is not the best. But what inconvenience exactly does it cause to you? --Grufo (disputatio)12:41, 1 Decembris 2024 (UTC)Reply
It takes up unnecessary space. ¶ A similar defect is that the box labeled "Active filters" is on a new line when it should logically be moved up to stand beside the box labeled "Saved filters" and could thereby avoid wasting a line. ¶ And why are these labels in English?IacobusAmor (disputatio)12:52, 1 Decembris 2024 (UTC)Reply
Carent, o amici, propositiones paginarum laureandarum a mense Februario 2025. Ite, s.v.p., addisputationem paginae mensis paginasque optimas ibi proponite.
Latest comment:abhinc 9 menses2 comments1 person in discussion
In paginaBremesgrave, in parte "Historia," addidi nonnullas sententias, quae a "chatGPT o1" correctae erant. Eius suggestiones mihi valde accommodatae videbantur. (Haec quaestio quoque a ChatGPT correcta est, non translata.) Ergo, in aliis quoque paginis latinitate pessima laborantibus emendationes feci, vel (quod etiam feci) “chatGPT o1” rogavi, ut easdem corrigere vellet. Hae sunt paginae quae emendatae sunt:
Non omnia errorum genera attentius inspexi. Contextus enim in translatione magni momenti est et non semper eum habuit. Melius est totam paginam ei dare, ad textum accuratius transferendum. Promptum chatGPT o1o tale fuit:
I will ask for corrections and translations into Latin. Please respond in Latin, giving reasons for the corrections I request. Please ensure that style is of the greatest Latinity you are able to suggest, especially finding ways to employ verb participles, gerunds and gerundives, where this is better Latin style. Where the texts include Wiki Markup, please retain this. Where there is Wiki Markup, please output the result to a "code block".
Utilius est quoque alterum agentum intellegentis artificialis rogare, ut plurimae correctiones et confirmatio haberes, exempli gratiaClaude.ai. In his paginis bis aut ter lecta sunt a ChatGPT o1 et Claude.ai, et rogationes eis posui, cum textus non clarus aut accuratus ostenderet:
Latest comment:abhinc 9 menses4 comments3 people in discussion
Salvete omnes! Quid faciendum est cum paginis a ChatGPT vel Claude.ai correctis? Scio eas non omnino rectas esse, sed meliores sunt. Si velitis eas examinare et novum gradum eis assignare, praesertim inCategoria:L -5, valde gratus sim! (Si melius sit mihi gradum novum eis assignare, possum id facere, sed malim aliquem alium probare quod feci.)
Interdum paginas inspexi & correxi, sed Latinitatis gradum accuratum assignare me taedet. Si igitur pagina post correctionem eiusmodi est, ut nihil aliud iam addere possim/velim, nihil de Latinitate indicare soleo (nam fieri potest, ut aliquid tamen melius dici possit). Si autem pagina post correctionem eiusmodi est, ut nescio quomodo meliorari possit (quamquam fortasse debeat), signo{{L-1}} utor. Ad summam, ego ista formula non egeo, sed pro ceteris loqui nolo.Neander (disputatio)15:46, 3 Februarii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Mihi videbatur, ut Calendarium Februarii ad annum currentem pertineret, qui his diebus caret. Nunc intellego, quod hi nexus ad mensem Februarium in genere ducunt. Gratias vobis ago.Bis-Taurinus (disputatio)20:59, 16 Februarii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 8 menses4 comments3 people in discussion
In subscriptione imaginis mensis currentis "Trinitas sacra" scriptum est. Trinitas autem in traditione, ut mihi paret, numquam sacra (quod esset "consecrata"), sed semper "sancta" vel "sanctissima" appellatur. Quis corrigat?Bis-Taurinus (disputatio)00:26, 3 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Plenum Collegii Trinitatis Dublini nomen estCollegium Sanctae et Individuae Trinitatis Reginae Elizabethae juxta Dublin. Similiter nomen Collegii Trinitatis Hartfordiae in Connecticuta siti:Collegium Trinitatis Sanctae (velSanctissimae). Vide sigillum:IacobusAmor (disputatio)10:12, 6 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 7 menses8 comments5 people in discussion
Ignosce mihi. Novus sum in lingua Latina et in emendatione Vicipaediae. Cur Vicipaedia non videtur tam optima amoenitate quam Wikipedia Anglica? Id est, dispositio et proprietates visuales.UxordeThermis (disputatio)01:39, 4 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Non sum peritus aestheticae. Sed dispositio et magnitudo columnarum in English Wikipedia melius videntur. Aspice paginam principalem utriusque et vide an idem sentias.Uxor De Thermis (disputatio)02:05, 6 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Intellexi, de columnis paginae primae agitur. Nescio, cur duae pulchriores sint, quam tres. Haud bene memini nec cito invenire possum, ubi haec quaestio disputata esset, sed nunc non primum paginam principalem reficere proponitur.Demetrius Talpa (disputatio)07:35, 6 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Assentior paginam principem nondum esse perfectam; quicumque igitur consilia certa habent ad eam excolendam, ea palam proferant. Unum autem vitium est nimium spatium vacuum sub pagina cottidiana. Praeterea velim paginam mensis, quae optimum opus nostrum repraesentet, conspici posse sine volumine evolvendo (scrolling).Lesgles (disputatio)14:27, 12 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Haec, quae dicis, fortasse corrigenda sunt. Etiam "Translationem hebdomadalem", ut mihi videtur, nemo apud nos curat, et illa deleri vel inferius moveri potest. Qui numerus columnarum optimus sit, nescio; Vicipaedia Anglica et multae duas nunc habent, Francogallica unam (!) et pro multis rebus ibi solum nexus relicti sunt. Res, quae in Vicipaedia Latina in columna prima et secunda sunt, interdum mutantur, sed cetera, in columnam tertiam posita, nunquam mutantur; an pro his nexus ponere possumus?Demetrius Talpa (disputatio)20:39, 12 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 7 menses5 comments3 people in discussion
Galahad paginam de "persona grammatica" delevit, dicens "Outside the project's scope (global sysop action)." Sed commentarium de persona grammatica in Anglica, Francogallica, Hispanica, Italica, Russica, aliisque vicipaediis legimus. Cur praeternostrum limitem iacet haec res?IacobusAmor (disputatio)12:00, 13 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
De causa a Galahad scripta nescio, sed "confestim delenda" iam duos menses in pagina haerebat. Si restituenda est, prorsus aliter componenda est, sine paradigmate coniugationis.Demetrius Talpa (disputatio)12:51, 13 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Maybe Galahad would like to come back and explain why the article is "Outside the project's scope," especially since its analogs are bothinside the scope of the major wikis and a topicparticularly pertinent in Latin.IacobusAmor (disputatio)22:24, 17 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 5 menses9 comments5 people in discussion
The result of making "Lysimachus" a redirect is that readers looking for the famous Lysimachus (see the article of the same name in the English wiki) aren't going to find him. Is that desirable? Someone has lately been making a lot of changes in relation to articles about names, and their usefulness isn't always obvious.IacobusAmor (disputatio)12:31, 19 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Greetings, I have to say that I changed the page into a redirect followingthese statements made by Andrew Dalby nearly 5 years ago, regarding another page name which, at the time, had only one blue link (another one has been created since then). Anyway, may you all have a nice day.2.42.134.6008:48, 20 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
@2.42.134.60, thanks, I didn't recall that conversation; perhaps Andrew will chime in. There is an argument for removing clutter, but I still see these pages as providing a slight benefit. I see three solutions: a) leave as is; b) delete; c) create an article on another Lysimachus (perhaps some Vicipaedian astronomer can name an asteroid after him).Lesgles (disputatio)17:06, 20 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
I notice my name taken in vain here, though, I'm sure, with no nefarious intent. If we have one sole article about a person calledLysimachus, and no article anywhere about the name Lysimachus, I do not see, and never did see, any reason for the redirect "Lysimachus (nomen)" to exist. The same would apply, as far as I can judge, to parallel cases.Andrew Dalby (disputatio)16:24, 29 Maii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 7 menses3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I am working in french Wikipedia. and I have a request for a translation from latin to english (or better french). This text is from Caspari Bauhini BasileensisTheatrum anatomicum page 602. It talk about cerebral anatomy details with ancient denomination, using «nates», «testes», «anus», «vulva», «penis». It comes from Greeks denomination who had a lot of immagination! Thank you for your support!
The text is following: I obtain a good approximation with google translation but not enough precies for WP
Glandulæ pineali à tergo, ex utraque ventriculi tertij parte, & quidem sub fornice, corpuscula quatuor P eminentia, rotunda ac duriuscula contigua sunt quæ cum totius cerebri particule sint, candem cum ipso substantiam sortiuntur: hæc inferiore parte cerebro enascuntur, superius vero & à laterib. nulli parti continuantur, sed tenui meninge solum obducuntur; quæ cum inter anteriorem cerebelli regionem & tertij ventriculi posterioré sedem locata sint, rectius cerebello remoto conspiciuntur. Et quia effigiem quandam duarum natium commissarum referunt γλετία, id est, paruas nates vocarút; quarum concursum (si cum spinali medulla perpendas) hominum femoribus inter sese coniunctis rectissime comparaueris; alij διδύμοις, testiculis ea assimilantes malunt δίδυμα, quam γλετία vocare. Non nulli vero (cum hæc corpuscula linea per transuersum lata tantum, non vero in plures partes distinguatur) ea corpora, quæ glandulæ pineali propinqua & superiora sunt, vocant διδύμια, testes; quæ vero his sunt proxima & inferiora γλωτιά nates, seu clunes appellarunt; quia in inferiore & posteriore horum parte meatus ex tertio vetriculo quartum petens (cerebello remoto) conspicitur qui foraminis ani speciem referre videtur.Oimabe (disputatio)23:01, 22 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Désolé, je crains que notre traduction ne soit pas non plus une «source fiable» ; Il s’agit d’une question hautement spécialisée sur la manière de traduire aujourd’hui la terminologie médicale du XVIe siècle en français.Demetrius Talpa (disputatio)09:43, 24 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 7 menses2 comments2 people in discussion
Re: "Index deletionum SHB2000 disputatio conlationes delevit paginam Ioannes Christophorus Gottschedus (Requested by the author (global sysop action)." Gottsched was important enough to have a bio in thirty-four wikipedias. Why shouldn't Vicipaedia have an article on him? Or, more to the point here, why does an author have the right to order the deletion of an article that others have worked on? Restore this text?IacobusAmor (disputatio)11:11, 29 Martii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 5 menses1 comment1 person in discussion
Salvete! Etiamnunc propter negotia in illo mundo, quem "verum" appellari solemus, detineor.Platonem in paginam mensis nuper promovi, sed hac in pagina errores vidi praecipue in declinatione nominum Graecorum. Primas paragraphas tantum corrigere temptavi: vobis, o amici, lecturae correcturaeque laborem commendo ...Andrew Dalby (disputatio)16:01, 29 Maii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 4 menses2 comments2 people in discussion
Volo scribere de herbicidis, e.g.trifluralinum; si non possim inventire nominem Latinum, quid debeo eos vocare?Anglice "prosulfocarb" ==> prosulfocarbium? -eum? Prosulfocarbs & prosulfocarbis, sicut "urbs"? Expecto nomines esse neutrum; sed sint feminina aut masculina?In paginaglyphosati, nota dubii adest, de nomine. Nescio utrum ei credere debeam.RustyOldShip (disputatio)11:12, 5 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Consilium #1: Quaere titulos earundem paginarum apud Vicipaedias linguis aliis, e.g. vide paginam FrancogallicamN,N-dipropylthiocarbamate de S-benzyle, quae Latine fit (puto) “N,N-dipropylthiocarbamatum S-benzeni”
Latest comment:abhinc 4 menses11 comments2 people in discussion
Dear 91.250.150.4, where Vicipaedia has reliably attested Latin lemmata, the custom is to use those lemmata as the titles of articles. This has been pointed out repeatedly, yet you persist in moving pages so as to change their titles from attested Latin names to names in foreign languages. I've changed some of these titles (back) to their Latin versions. Would you please do the same for the others.IacobusAmor (disputatio)11:35, 11 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Someone doesn't understand. New redirects have been added, creating new messes. For example, a redirect has been created from "Buila" to "Bühl (Badenia-Virtembergia)," where a formula suggesting that the page be moved to "Buila" has been inserted, but the page could have been moved directly from "Bühl (Badenia-Virtembergia)" to "Buila" in the first place. Such redirects are cumbersome & unnecessary, and some of them make moving the page impossible, except through additional workarounds.IacobusAmor (disputatio)00:33, 13 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that anonymous users don't have permission to move pages. They can only ask others to do it for them. The ideal would be to convince our anonymous friend to create an account and move the pages himself/herself. --Grufo (disputatio)09:10, 13 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that redirectsfrom titlesto which the editor wants articles moved shouldn't be created in the first place. I've tried moving two such articles from the wrong title to the right one, but the system wouldn't let me.IacobusAmor (disputatio)11:54, 13 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
For example, when I tried to move "Bodman-Ludwigshafen" to "Bothama-Portus Ludovici," the system wouldn't let me, saying "The page could not be moved, for the following reason: Nomen paginae quaestae fuit invalidum, vacuum, aut praeverbium interlingualem vel intervicialem habuit. Fortasse insunt una aut plus litterarum quae in titulis non possunt inscribier."IacobusAmor (disputatio)12:03, 13 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, because normal users have the permission to overwrite redirects only when the redirect page's history has no more than one single event. In the case of “Bothama-Portus Ludovici”, the history had two events, and so you need an admin to move the page. For cases like this you can add on top of the page (the original page, not the redirect page)
{{Confestim movenda praeter redirectionem|NOVUM NOMEN}}
and ideally an admin will come and do the moving for you. You should be able however to overwrite redirects with only single event in their history (e.g. “Buchinger”). You actually did it already when you movedAppenweier toAbbenwilare – and probably many other times without realizing. --Grufo (disputatio)12:22, 13 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I've corrected quite a few of our friend's redirection errors, but at least one other page defeated me (I tried to move it several days ago, but now I forget which one it is), and several other such pages probably exist. Administrators will want to find & correct them.IacobusAmor (disputatio)14:57, 13 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 4 menses2 comments2 people in discussion
Today, an anonymous editor (at IP37.61.114.187) seems to have added false years to six articles. I've fixed one of them; other editors will want to fix the rest. ¶ A few months ago, I found an example of this kind of disinformation in the English wikipedia. Would our esteemed magistrates like to write a program that would send them alerts when years are changed by anonymous editors?IacobusAmor (disputatio)13:01, 14 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Iacobus. Unfortunately it is not the first time on Latin Wikipedia either. These IPs did exactly that here as well in June:
As for a script that alerts when years are changed, although not impossible, it is not simple to implement (and would not be perfect). Admins have a tool that allows to revert edits with one single click, so the easiest solution is that people signal the malevolent IPs here and then an admin quickly intervenes. --Grufo (disputatio)14:02, 14 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Regarding heavily localized media not officially put into Latin and names within
Latest comment:abhinc 4 menses6 comments2 people in discussion
I looked at theSplatoon page today (among pages for other games) and found multiple oddities that brought to my attention that the policies (that I know of, at least) are ill-prepared for localization.
Characters et al. can have different names in various languages, and most likely will not have names in Latin, and I'm unsure of how to proceed. The aforementionedSplatoon page notably uses multiple unsourced names.
My immediate guess would be to use the names provided in the original language the game was created in (for example, Japanese forSplatoon, English forUNDERTALE).
(I remember seeing that if possible, one should try and see if they can be inflected like normal Latin names but I don't remember where I saw that, if it's even a thing. Please let me know what the actual rule is regarding that.)ArgentuTA164 (disputatio)20:32, 18 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thegeneral custom in Vicipaedia is to use Latinized names if Latin attestations exist, but to use original forms if not; however,special cases exist, as with the names of formal organizations where the sense of the words is obvious. ¶ If you're trying to LatinizeInkling andOctoling, you might start by recognizing that the suffix-ling is equivalent to something like 'people of the', and so a plainLoligines seems inadequate. MaybeAtramentiani orSepiani for 'Inkling' andOctopodiani for 'Octoling' would work? But those are unattested coinages, and some would object.IacobusAmor (disputatio)21:37, 18 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh "Inkling" and "Octoling" weren't my primary concern, it was moreso actual character names, like "Callie" and "Marie" (which are written as the ENTIRELY unattested "Tulla" and "Appia" on the page), which are different in every language. A similar issue exists for many Nintendo properties, which tend to have different names for characters et al. in various languages, but never Latin. Callie, for instance, is "Aori" in Japanese, "Stella" in Italian, "Ayo" in French, etc.
My personal instinct for these would be to use the Japanese names for characters (and their games), since it's the original language of the properties, but I do want to verify that there's no policy about this kind of issue (yet).ArgentuTA164 (disputatio)22:19, 18 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Would it be apt to create a proposal of some kind regarding localized media and what to do when names for characters, places, etc. differ between languages like this?ArgentuTA164 (disputatio)13:00, 21 Iulii 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 1 mensem10 comments3 people in discussion
MultisVicipaediis est quoddamspatium nominale adumbrationum (e.g. AngliceDraft:, ItaliceBozza:, et cetera). Si velumus, et nostrum spatium nominaleAdumbratio: nobis liceat habere, ubi adumbrationes et paginae nondum finitae poni augerique possint. De hoc apudMediaWiki (apud “Phabricator”) petere cogitabam. Sintne dubitationes sollicitudinesve?
ManyWikipedias have a namespace for drafts (e.g. EnglishDraft:, ItalianBozza:, etc.). If we want we could have ourAdumbratio: namespace too, in which drafts or incomplete pages could be placed and developed. I was thinking of asking about it onMediaWiki (on “Phabricator”). Any doubts or concerns?
SalveMarce. In hoc differt, quod paginae sub spatioAdumbratio: haud singulum sed plures auctores habere possunt – e.g. pagina a te adumbrata potest a me recenseri (nisi formulam{{In usu}} addis). Multas paginas habemus quae formulam{{Augenda}} adhibent, quarum nonnullae poterunt ad spatium nominale adumbrationum moveri. --Grufo (disputatio)18:23, 19 Septembris 2025 (UTC)Reply
Illa erit duplicatio. Si adumbratio erit bona cum pagina encyclopaedica unietur et vetus adumbratio fiet redirectio. Sin secus adumbratio delebitur vel indicabitur relicta vel ad spatium nominale usoris moveri poterit. --Grufo (disputatio)18:53, 19 Septembris 2025 (UTC)Reply
Spatium nominale adumbrationum harenario antepono. Melius mihi videtur paginas novas inter alias Vicipaediae paginas tenere, ubi omnes eas possunt emendare vel extendere. Nescio autem si necesse sit tale spatium facere, quia formulas habemus sicut{{Augenda}},{{Latinitas}}, nunc etiam{{Adumbratio}}.A. Mahoney (disputatio)14:44, 30 Septembris 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Amahoney: Gratias tibi ago ob sententiam tuam. Difficultas mihi videtur esse haec, quod formula{{Augenda}} sic monet: “Hanc paginam intra 3 menses augere oportet”, sed quid faciendum erit si post tres menses pagina non erit aucta? Ego nescio quid faciendum sit. InCategoria:Corrigenda paginas habemus quae iam anno 2022 erant augendae. Si autem spatium nominale adumbrationum habeamus, exempli gratia, paginae “Alkinum” et “Factio liberalis (Australia)” possint fieri “Adumbratio:Alkinum” et “Adumbratio:Factio liberalis (Australia)” – attamen de aliis paginis maioribus quae formulam{{Augenda}} adhibent, post tres menses eadem formula poterit tantummodo detrahi. Paginae in spatio adumbrationum non modo ab originalibus auctoribus, sed ab omnibus augeri poterunt. P.S. Formula{{Adumbratio}} non est in spatio nominali encyclopaedico adhibenda. --Grufo (disputatio)21:58, 30 Septembris 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 1 mensem1 comment1 person in discussion
Per triduum conatus sum textus recensere per recensere sed puga "Publish changes" post pressionem grisea fit et nihil accidit. Autem "Fontem Recensere adhuc bene operat. Mutationes non servantur. Estne hoc problema notum? Gratias ago pro auxilio!Redfoxtaily (disputatio)12:55, 20 Octobris 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:abhinc 26 dies2 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings. I've found on Google Books an old Latin book,Chronologiae Reformataeet ad Certas Conclusiones Redactae, which includes a so-called "List of Japanese kings" (page 37). The "kings" (actually daimyos or shoguns) are:
Tongim (probablyJimmu, the first emperor of Japan);
Apparently, according to Daniello Bartoli'sDell' Istoria Della Compagnia Di Giesù, written in Italian, Ciuan, "the king of Bungo", was baptized at the age of 49 years old, in 1578, by Francis Xavier himself, under the Christian name Francisco. I think "Ciuan" is no other thanŌtomo Sōrin, also known as Don Francisco, but I don't know the origin of this Latinized name.
Cubosama's rule ends in 1565, the same yearAshikaga Yoshiteru was murdered by Miyoshi Yoshitsugu (cfr.). I'm still trying to find some sources regarding 'Diuodonus'. Also, Tongim seems to be a misspelling, while 'Tengim' can be found in the same book (pag. 242) and other sources (here as 'Camis Tengim'). What do you think?~2025-29790-15 (talk)11:06, 26 Octobris 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think that if the Latin version of a name is completely different and only hypothetically identified with the modern one, then there is no need to rename the articles, but old Latin version can be indicated in the notes, and a redirection can be made. — This list also includes Franciscus R[ex] Bungi, not only Ciuan; apparently, there was some confusion.Demetrius Talpa (disputatio)15:53, 26 Octobris 2025 (UTC)Reply
De nova methodo paginarum cottidianarum promovendarum
Latest comment:abhinc 17 dies2 comments1 person in discussion
Quum scrutatorem cottidianum non iam habeamus, novam methodum simpliciorem excogitavi adpaginas cottidianas promovendas. Ex hoc tempore, non iam necesse erit paginas indici addere, deinde quandam paginam cotidie promovere (atque summarium scribere), ac tandem paginas iam promotas in tabularium stipare…tantummodo sufficiet novas paginas insingulo tabulario scribere, ex quo nostrum novum mechanema sua sponte unam paginam cotidie exhibebit, necnon veteres paginas in suum tabularium servabit.
Exempli gratia, si paginae “Lex Aurelia iudiciaria” et “Lucius Aurelius Cotta (cos. 65 a.C.n.)” vobis videntur esse promovendae, nihil ex indice detrahentes (ne paginas iam promotas quidem), inserite eas ordine creationis decrescenti secundum hanc syntaxin:Pagina // Descriptio // Imago – item ut inhac recensione:
...############################################################ -->| promovendae =Lex Aurelia iudiciaria // [[Lex]] de quaestionibus quae iudices inter tres ordines aequaliter dividebat // JMR-Memphis1.jpgLucius Aurelius Cotta (cos. 65 a.C.n.) // [[Senatus Romanus|Senator]] qui [[Consul|consulatum]] anno [[65 a.C.n.]] unā cum [[Lucius Manlius Torquatus|Lucio Manlio Torquato]] gessit // Roman SPQR banner.svg...
%23%2fmedia%2fFile%3aTrinity_College_Connecticut_Seal.svg){kind=link}