Trlit

Salve!

Salve Trlit!

Knowledge of Latin is not required here. We thank you for assisting us. Feel free to use English,

German, French, Italian, or Spanish when communicating with other users.

In transcriptionis paginis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in disputationis paginis

memento recensionibus tuis cum nomine tuo subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~.

Quibus insertis, nomen tuum et dies ostendetur.

Omnibus utiles nexus: Paginae desideratae (missing pages)

Omnes libri (transcription projects) — Systema naturae (1735) (proofreading project)

Gratum tibi sit tempus apud vicifontes peractum! Vale!

Vicifontium amici

Zyephyrus (disputatio) 18:10, 8 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Anchors

About Formula:DA art, if I understand what it does, couldn't we obtain the same result with {{Ancora+}}? it generates an ancor to a section while displaining some other text, so it could be used like {{Ancora+|art.1.2.3|3}} or something like that (and we would avoid an overprolification of templates...) Let me know what you think about this, vale --Barbaking (disputatio) 08:10, 1 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

Well, quite not. Apart from the anchor and details of formatting (and subsection headings (which is a mere bonus convenience)), the main function of Formula:DA art, is injecting section markers (which was not easy to make for a newcomer like me: there's a bug about the #tag parser function not allowing one to inject section tags...):

<section end="art._XXX-1" /><section begin="art._XXX" />

to allow someone to cut a piece of the text through a

<pages from=XXX to=XXX fromsection=art._XXXX tosection=art._XXXX />

The reason I bothered to do that is that I thought it might be quite useful for this text, since this text is suitable for studies in mathematical history... (and that some "sectio" are so big they might fit better in multiple subpages, so to be able to do that you have to have section markers at some place, so why not make it systematic, hence easy to change.)

I added a little link to explain what is meant by "section" in the description of the template. Trlit (disputatio) 17:19, 1 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

I have now stated in the template doc that this is not a general purpose template: it is a project specific template, and you have to edit a copy of it to use the functionality it provides in another project.Trlit (disputatio) 17:33, 1 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood the purpose of the template :) thanks for your answer, have a nice day --Barbaking (disputatio) 17:42, 1 Februarii 2021 (UTC)

Splitting up a section/chapter in many subpages

@Barbaking:I will need to make many subpages for the DA's enormous sectio quinta... (Sectio quarta (which is six times smaller) already takes more than 20 sec. to load...)
I'm wondering if a proper latin naming for subpages would be:

• Sectio quinta (pars prima)
• Sectio quinta (pars secunda)
• etc.

Trlit (disputatio) 17:46, 5 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

hi @Trlit:, sorry for the late reply; I think Sectio quinta/Pars prima e Sectio quinta/pars secunda might well do, we should have other works subpaged like that. bye, --Barbaking (disputatio) 10:55, 19 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)

<small> splitting in Contenta in DA

@ShakespeareFan00: By sheer chance (for I don't connect quite regularly), I've just seen the changes you did earlier today.

I had resolved to enclosing whole subparts of the contents in <small> tags to maintain the compact typography of the original (which, though it adds no textual legibility, gives more of an overview of the span of topics in a glance...).

Can I ask you the reason for these changes? (If it has something to do with a deprecation / future incompatibility with tags hidden in footers for example???)

I must admit it boosts legibility. It's probably better.

What do you think of my initial choice about "scope of screen" and typographical mimicry? Do you plan on doing the same thing for the rest of the contents or should I go on (if we agree the balance for legibility and scope settles toward legibility)? Trlit (disputatio) 18:50, 30 Martii 2023 (UTC)