Vicipaedia:Taberna
Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera.
Legatio nostra
Officina
Fora Vicipaediae
Quaestiones indomitae
Disputationes recentes
Actae gratiae
Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.
 |
Hic sunt tabularia! Veteres disputationes ad specialia tabularia motae sunt (auxilium). Si vis, hic infra scribendo in talibus tabulariis quaerere potes. |
De paginis nimis magnis quae formulā {{Augenda}} utuntur
[fontem recensere]In Categoriam:Corrigenda plures subcategoriae formulā {{Augenda}} stipantur (e.g. Categoria:Augenda a mense Februario 2023, Categoria:Augenda a mense Ianuario 2024, Categoria:Augenda a mense Decembri 2025, et cetera). Inspiciens, multas harum paginarum invenii quae longiores sunt 1000 octobitis (e.g. Graecia archaica: 2928 octobiti). Quid censeatis si mechanema cum monitu in formulam {{Augenda}} inseram, ne in paginis longioribus quam 1000 octobitorum adhibeatur? Nam si pagina est satis longa, vanum est legentes monere paginam intra tres menses esse augendam. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:30, 27 Februarii 2026 (UTC)
- Pagina de Graecia archaica (#1) lemmate proprio, (#2) definitione idonea, et (#3) fonte externo caret, et omnis Vicipadia ut videtur (#4) nexibus ad hanc paginam ducentibus caret. That's all four of the formula's four criteria. ¶ For the difference between a stub and more-than-a-stub, the cutoff I've been using has been 2,000 octeti for general articles and 1,900 for articles with a taxobox. I don't recall a consensus on that limit, but articles having 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 octeti have been marked "stipula"; that's likely too high a limit, and I'd suggest that 2,000 (or possibly your 1,000) is a more defensible upper limit for stubs. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:15, 27 Februarii 2026 (UTC)
- For example, just today, someone added "{{urbs-stipula}}" to the article on Barcino, which already had more than 3,500 octeti! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:04, 28 Februarii 2026 (UTC)
- Stipulae are not problematic from an administrative point of view, because in theory they can remain as such forever. Barcellona is an important city with a lot of history that can be written in an encyclopedia, it can be understandable if someone feels that the current page can be greatly improved. Instead, what scares me about the {{Augenda}} template is that it is not only an invitation to improve pages, it also asks us to delete pages after three months (which is why it should be used with care). --Grufo (disputatio) 15:57, 28 Februarii 2026 (UTC)
- Then why not change the verb from will to may or introduce some other indication of indeterminacy? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:31, 28 Februarii 2026 (UTC)
- Stipulae are not problematic from an administrative point of view, because in theory they can remain as such forever. Barcellona is an important city with a lot of history that can be written in an encyclopedia, it can be understandable if someone feels that the current page can be greatly improved. Instead, what scares me about the {{Augenda}} template is that it is not only an invitation to improve pages, it also asks us to delete pages after three months (which is why it should be used with care). --Grufo (disputatio) 15:57, 28 Februarii 2026 (UTC)
- For example, just today, someone added "{{urbs-stipula}}" to the article on Barcino, which already had more than 3,500 octeti! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:04, 28 Februarii 2026 (UTC)
- Iacobus, we can set any limit we want, but what I think makes little sense is saying that a page must be increased within three months, but then after three months nothing happens and the categories above keep growing. We must set a realistic (relatively low) threshold and then, after that, be ready to delete the pages that do not respect our threshold (in another thread I had proposed the
adumbratio:namespace where after three months all these “augenda” pages can be moved, but that is a separate topic). A page like Graecia archaica only needs relatively little work to be adjusted—certainly does not deserve to be deleted. What I want to stress here is that every time you add {{Augenda}} to a page you are basically saying “If the page stays like this, I am okay if after three months it gets deleted”. --Grufo (disputatio) 03:58, 27 Februarii 2026 (UTC)- That's correct, but I heartily endorse a separate namespace, a kind of purgatory, where such pages can go until they've become worthy of standing in the mainspace. As a rule, I don't work on formulas, so I likely had nothing to do with the wording of this one, but three months must have been the original consensus. If memory serves, @Andrew Dalby and perhaps others have occasionally enforced the three-month rule, though sometimes after well more than three months have elapsed. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:08, 27 Februarii 2026 (UTC)
- Intellego. Novum spatium nominale a “Phabricatore” petiturus sum. Quid censeres si in paginis amplioribus (e.g. inter 2000 et 1000) formulā {{Nondum stipula}} (quae nullam categoriam cum tempore praefinito imponit) pro formulā {{Augenda}} utereris? Aut aliam novam formulam quoque nobis excogitare licet. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:57, 27 Februarii 2026 (UTC)
- That's correct, but I heartily endorse a separate namespace, a kind of purgatory, where such pages can go until they've become worthy of standing in the mainspace. As a rule, I don't work on formulas, so I likely had nothing to do with the wording of this one, but three months must have been the original consensus. If memory serves, @Andrew Dalby and perhaps others have occasionally enforced the three-month rule, though sometimes after well more than three months have elapsed. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:08, 27 Februarii 2026 (UTC)