Disputatio Formulae:In usu

This is what I get for storia:

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?storia
stori.a              N      1 1 NOM S F                 
stori.a              N      1 1 VOC S F                 
stori.a              N      1 1 ABL S F                 
storia, storiae  N  F   [XXXCX]  
matting of rushes;

Does "res" work for you?--Ioshus Rocchio 19:58, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it from Matrix (spectaculum cinematographicum) without checking it. Yes, res sounds good. Or pagina? --Roland2 20:04, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with res...pagina is the term for the article as well as the page itself, res refers to content.--Ioshus Rocchio 20:59, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, actually that looks good (I just saw the template)!--Ioshus Rocchio 21:00, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quid censetis[fontem recensere]

De mutatione quam Le K-Li nuperrime fecit? Melius puto usores ducturum ad paginam disputationis quam recensionem ... --Ioscius ^(disp) 23:23, 10 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cogito modum tuum meliorem esse. Harrissimo 23:29, 10 Februarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Fortasse rationem meam exponam: Nonnumquam usores inponunt ~~{{in progressu}}~~_{Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo} {{in usu}} in commentationes quia tempore non consilio egent, et saepe formam ac commentationis contenta in animis habent. Exhortetur ergo formula ut recensores res disputent. --Ioscius ^(disp) 23:32, 10 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never liked the Anglicism labor in progressu, but infecta re and cum rectis datis is even worse. I would suggest to replace the text by something like: Haec commentatio nondum perfecta neque ultima lima polita adhuc in manibus auctoris est. --Ceylon 06:43, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity being the soul of wit (and even of Vicipaedia), you might consider omitting the neque ultima lima polita, nice though it is. But, yes, I think your sentence says just what we want.

I wonder whether directing users to the discussion page might be unnecessary. After all, there are still useful things that anyone can do. If I put up an in progressu and someone else still comes and adds interwiki links or categories or an image directly to the page, I like it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine Andrew, interwikis, nexus externi, spelling/grammar mistakes. My only point is that what Le K-Li wrote sounds like it encourages people to do major overhauls to pages which are in progressu. It is more the muting of that connotation which interests me than the redirection to a talk page.--Ioscius ^(disp) 17:36, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be possibly two cases deserving two distinct templates:

"I am just in the middle of a major overhaul. Please refrain from well-meaning interference, I know what I am doing although it might not be obvious. ¶ Feel free to leave any comment on the talk page and I will gladly explain my plan there and open it to constructive criticism. ¶ This template may be removed by any user when there has not been a substantive edit to this page in the last seven days."
"I know this article is in a bad state now. I intend to improve it someday. Please hold off nominating it for deletion for a month or so."

Thoughts? --UV 18:09, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about: (i) Pagina usque elaboratur: Haec pagina nondum perfecta in manibus auctoris est. Ideo rogaris ut minora quidem mutes hic, maiora autem prius disputes illic. Si vero auctor ipse nil mutaverit his diebus septem, hancce formulam audacter dele.

(ii) Succurre labori: Haec pagina nondum perfecta in manibus auctoris est, qui gratias maximas cuique refert qui sibi interea opes ferre dignetur. Si vero auctor ipse nil mutaverit his diebus septem, hancce formulam audacter dele.--Ceylon 20:00, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is wisdom to UV's suggestion, and Ceylon's rendering.--Ioscius ^(disp) 20:06, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since noone has objected, I have changed the text of this formula and created a new one called "Succurre". So now there are two formulae for 'work in progress': "In progressu" for those who prefer their new article to be left alone for the time being, and "Succurre" for those who would like to invite corrections even before they are done with it.--Ceylon 10:08, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! Harrissimo 10:44, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe we should have a different image for meaning "leave me alone"? Examples:

--Rolandus 20:32, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, done. --UV 20:36, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hancce formulam[fontem recensere]

Nescio an non 'hancce' scribi possit. Nonne illud -c in 'hanc' et ipsum iam est forma abbreviata suffixi demonstrativi -ce? Ita ut '-cce' haud sit aliud ac '-ce-ce'. Equidem in schola didici illud -ce tantum addi posse formis pronominis demonstrativi 'hic' in -s exeuntibus, ut 'his-ce' et hos-ce'. --Fabullus 06:54, 25 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iure monuisti, licet hancce haud raro legamus apud recentiores.--Ceylon 08:20, 25 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputatio "in progressu"![fontem recensere]

Vide Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 9#Disputatio Formulae:In progressu. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 8 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error[fontem recensere]

Cur iam altero die formula monstrat, ut septem dies manserit? — Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 07:27, 10 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]