lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Automata/Formulae capsarum urbium

message: It's a bit late, I guess, but I now realised that when a reference is defined in the Infobox, it becomes undefined. I don't know whether you can teach your bot to repair this automatically in the first place, nor whether it's still time to fix it, but just in case... Otherwise, editors will just have to do it manually. Sigur (disputatio) 08:05, 13 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. I will pay attention to this from now on. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:35, 13 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: There's something else to look out for. A few of these old infoboxes placed articles in categories, e.g. "Urbes Birmaniae". So, when they go, the page may no longer be categorized. As I remember Aylin saying long ago, this was never a good idea, but we never eliminated it from the old infoboxes. Is UVbot able to sense this and reinstate the category? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:00, 13 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. I will pay attention to this from now on. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:35, 13 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories
Disputatio Categoriae:Auctores Latini mediaevales

message: Auctores et litterae mediaevales usque ad annum 1400, ut Petrarca et Boccacius auctores mediaevales sint? Μmm.... Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 18:24, 13 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Textum "Auctores qui inter annos 500 et 1400 Latine scripserunt" scripsi ego (nisi fallor) sed sine inquisitione profunda. Quem annum dicere debemus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:08, 13 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: De saeculo XIV
Disputatio:Hostis

message: In hac pictura res non est de hoste, sed de inimico. Credo ergo hoc in pagina de hoste inutile esse. --Bavarese (disputatio) 21:01, 15 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio an delenda sit, sed nexus corrigam (sint rectae, etiam si mox delebitur). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:37, 15 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: : Si stricto sensu (ut apud Lewis et Short) hostis publicus ab inimico privato distinguitur, interdum hi et apud scriptores antiquos confunduntur. Vide hanc partem commentationis longae TLL: "latiore sensu de quibuslibet adversariis fere i.q. inimicus, ἐχθρός (saepius in compar. vel imag.)". Puto non imaginam delendam, sed commentarium augendum esse. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:02, 16 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictura (Eugen Onegin)
Disputatio:Corregimentum

message: De: "Corregimentum (-i n.) est Hispanicus terminus": re vera? Corregimentum est vocabulum Hispanicum?! Quid ergo est corregimiento? Vocabulum Latinum?! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 05:09, 17 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. As to the Latin word, it pops up here (p. 181), but I can't access the definition/translation. Does anyone have that dictionary? Sigur (disputatio) 07:42, 17 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Iosephus Broz Tito

message: Nomen non est "Titus", quidni?--Сивисоколе (disputatio) 12:34, 17 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias propter commentum tuum. Cognomina et agnomina hodierna non sine fonte fidei digno Latinizare solemus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:01, 17 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias!--Сивисоколе (disputatio) 15:24, 24 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Lingua creola Haitiana

message: Cur in genere masculino? Fons unicus, qui invenitur, lexicon del Col est, ubi lingua creola. (Et categoriam linguae creoles => linguae creolae). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 04:32, 18 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sermo creolus? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 05:07, 18 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Locutiones "creolus", "sermo creolus", "lingua creolis", "lingua creola" haud extra Vicipaediam reperiuntur (nisi male quaesivi), lexico Del Col excepto, sed quo fonte Del Col usus est? "Lingua creolica" semel saeculo XVIII legere possumus . Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 18 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ergo lingua + genus femininum non dubitatur. Inter creola et creolica eligendum est,

text: ::Etiam patois Iamaicanus inveni... Etiam si vocabulum Francogallicum patois cepimus, mihi videtur, ut id Latine generis neutrius sit, patois Iamaicanum? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:29, 18 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Sed patois Francogallice est nomen masculinum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:16, 18 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Lingua Francogallica genus neutrum non habet. Pagina Theodisca "an das Patois" reperio. Sed admittere necesse est: perpaucas indicationes habemus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:18, 18 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
De genere patois consensio abest, — sit, ut est. Sed categoriam creoles movebo ad creolas, si nemo negabit. Cur non creolicas — bibliographia Munteriana vetustior est, quam lexicon del Col, sed labor lexicographi, qui 'in corpore vocabula comparat et aestimat, mihi gravior videtur. (Sed non urgebo, linguae creolicae possibiles sunt). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:12, 19 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

text: I, move. "Creolica" non amo.

text: Media pagina 230 habes unam inter antiquissimas citationes verbi creole. Anno fere 1685 locutor "bilinguis" de commilitonibus suis ad auctorem iter facientem dicit: "tu Latinam Portugallicam, illi Latinam creolam loquuntur" (verba e lingua Francogallica reddo). Haud ad rem -- da veniam -- sed volui hic rescribere! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 19 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias ago, facetus est locus. Multa macaronitatis genera sunt. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:13, 19 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: De genere
Disputatio:Delphina a Saxonia Coburgensi

message: I've translated the surname, because the Belgian press systematically treats the surname as "translatable":
* French: de Saxe-Cobourg
* Dutch: van Saksen-Coburg
* German: von Sachsen-Coburg
The Belgian Constitution indeed does the same in Article 85 concerning the name of the first Belgian king.  Thus I think that the name should be considered "translatable by essence". Sigur (disputatio) 17:44, 5 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname
Disputatio:Civitas Unita Russiae et Rutheniae Albae

message: For 'union', Cassell's (1968) gives: "the act of uniting," (con)iunctio, consociatio, congregatio ; "agreement," consensio, consensus, concordia ; "united body," societas, sodalitas, concilium. For 'unite', Cassell's gives: [transitive] (con)iungere, copulare, congregare, (con)sociare, miscere ; [intransitive] coire, consentire, or render by passive of transitive verbs, as in societatum (cum homine) inire. No hint of any form of unio and unire. Likewise Ainsworth's (18th century). Likewise White's (1938). Likewise Traupman (2007). L&S say the verb unire is "post-Aug. and very rare." So would, say, Civitas Coniuncta be an apter lemma? After all, the pertinent states remain separate & distinct— conjoined, as it were, not completely & thoroughly (omnino & penitus) turned into one. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:52, 30 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it may not be irrelevant that Romance languages (French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish) and Germanic languages (English, Dutch, German) find a reflex of unio to be acceptable. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:58, 30 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Me, it's either way.  I had actually thought of "coniuncta", but "unita" seemed to be so much closer to the translation in many other languages. In Russian, it's an adjective derived from the noun "союз", which we would translate with "unio" without hesitation (as in URSS). But as I said, I don't really have a preference. If you want to move, I'm okay with that. Sigur (disputatio) 14:41, 30 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Heterocera

message: If this is a paraphyletic group, it doesn't have a place in Linnaean taxonomy, so putting a taxobox in it is misleading. So I'll remove the taxobox. If it's shown that this could be a Linnaean clade, then it could go straight back in, but the present article says that it isn't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:10, 31 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody doubts that moths are in a valid taxonomic ranking down to the level of the order (Lepidoptera), which is how the English wiki shows it. I'd have continued the English wiki's style by showing the level to be "(unranked)," but how does one make Vicipaedia's taxobox do that? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:33, 31 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Every imaginable grouping of animals and plants is "in a valid taxonomic ranking". The question is, is it synonymous with a valid taxonomic ranking? If yes, then we use the official Latin name for the taxon, and we give it a Capsa taxinomica.

text: :If not, it isn't part of Linnaean taxonomy: we'd want to give sources for the meaning we apply to our chosen Latin pagename, and we wouldn't give it a Capsa taxinomica: it would mislead readers to do so, because it isn't a taxon. Unless I'm mistaken, that is the present case.

text: :Unranked is different again. An unranked taxon is one that has been properly defined in Linnaean terms, but hasn't been given, and perhaps can't be given, a Linnaean rank. E.g. Avialae. I think I explained how to do these in answer to a previous comment of yours. Unless I'm mistaken it isn't relevant here, but I'll find my answer (which you might very easily have missed :) and put it in the documentation at Formula:Capsa taxinomica. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:38, 3 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That answer of mine is at Disputatio:Archaeopteryx. If you had missed it, you might still want to respond to the last part (or of course to any other part!)

text: ::I will soon rephrase it and put it at Formula:Capsa taxinomica. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:49, 3 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capsa taxinomica
Disputatio:Herbisectrum

message: Thanks for the edits, but wondering why instrumentum is better Latin than machina for French machine, Italian macchina, Norwegian maskin, Russian машина, Spanish  máquina, Turkish makinesi. Is it because it's better to tie Vicipaedia conceptually to the vaguer notions seen in German Gartengerät ('gardening equipment'), Portuguese equipamento, and Swedish hjälpmedel, than to those other languages? Cassell's implies that instrumentum is the more general term, defining it as 'equipment, tool, implement' and 'any means to an end', while it defines machina more particularly, as 'any artificial contrivance for performing work'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:47, 1 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for being somewhat high-handed. I changed back to machina because I can't really defend my choice. By "dictio Anglica" I referred to some stylistic features which, in my opinion, sometimes come close to the source language, without being idiomatically backed by the target language. But of course this attitude may smack of snobbery, so perhaps I shouldn't grapple with your Latin (which is excellent per se). Neander (disputatio) 04:11, 2 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: De "dictione Anglica"
Disputatio:Res publica foederata Germaniae (1949-1990)

message: Cur genetivus Germaniae et non res publica foederata Germania? (Bundesrepublik Deutschlands aut Bundesrepublik Deutschland?)--Bavarese (disputatio) 20:31, 3 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hic quia ibi ita est. Cur ibi ita est, nescio, sed alia exempla cum genitivo video (Res publica popularis Sinarum, Regnum Navarrae, Regnum Italiae (1861-1946), ...). Sigur (disputatio) 22:22, 3 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Res publica Germaniae?
Disputatio:Codex geneticus

message: Is codon, codonis attested somewhere in Latin?  I understand it was coined by analogy with "carbon" or "boron", which would plead for either codo, codonis or codum, codi.  But if it's based on Ancient Greek -ον, as the text says, then wouldn't one expect a Greek-style genitive? Sigur (disputatio) 23:07, 3 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codon
Disputatio:Lasania

message: Lasagna Italica a lagano antiquo (OLD: "a thin flat cake, pancake") multum differe videtur. Etymologia, quod plus est,  duo vocabula non certe coniungit (American Heritage Dictionary: "lasagna [...] possibly from Vulgar Latin *lasania, dish cooked in a vessel like a chamber pot, noodle dish (perhaps influenced by Latin laganum, thin flat sheet of dough), from Latin lasanum, chamber pot, from Greek lasanon, tripod, chamber pot"). Fortasse "pasta segmentata" praeferenda est? Quid dicunt alii? Lesgles (disputatio) 05:18, 8 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis. Origo Lasagne non est "laganum" classicum sed *lasania < "lasanum". Melius erit conversionem Del Col, i.e. "pasta segmentata", accipere. De laganis aliam paginam scribere debemus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:41, 8 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Re vera lasania non est "forma stellata" quia fontem habemus. Ergo paginam moveo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:35, 23 Iunii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Lasagna'' et ''laganum''
Disputatio:Haiphongum

message: Nomen tituli de "Hải Phòng" ad "Haiphong" (secundum nomen dioecesis) movere volui, sed non potui. Quis vestrum me adiuvet? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 01:02, 10 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quomodo movebo?
Disputatio:Les Trois Mousquetaires

message: I moved to Les Trois Mousquetaires (a) to agree with the lemma, (b) because that's our policy for literary works unless a Latin translation of the title has been published. If it has, then of course let's cite it and move back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:08, 11 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's fine. Also: it should have a bibliographic citation to the best critical edition (if one exists), but which one that would be is unknown here. Feel free to add it, or some critical appraisals! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:50, 11 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Good point. I'll see if I can do that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:58, 11 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movi
Disputatio:Lingua coactionis

message: FWIW, "lingua compositiva" (compiler language)? Sigur (disputatio) 16:00, 13 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Compiler' is compilatrum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:36, 13 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, I had seen the page given as a source there but I have some doubts... "assembler 1. (assembly language) subst. lingua machinalis; assembler,i m. 2. (compiler) subst. compilatrum (assembleri)"  For starters "machine language" is a different concept, "assembler, -i" looks rather like English with a Latin declension, and when I looked up "compilo", it didn't sound like what I first innocently thought it meant as well. One can wonder about the reliability of that source, and I think there was a reason why someone wrote in "compilatrum" "vel fortasse puriore Latinitate compositrum". In other words, between "lingua compilatri" and your lemma, I'd definitively stick to yours. ☺  Sigur (disputatio) 20:20, 13 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio:Mulai Abd al-Hafiz

message: The Arabic Wiki has "عبد الحفيظ بن الحسن" (ʿAbd al-Ḥafīẓ bin Al-Ḥasan), "moulay" seems to be a honorific title (corresponding to female "lalla"). "Abd al-Hafiz Hasani filius" (unless someone has found a Latin version of "Abd al-Hafiz")?Sigur (disputatio) 14:29, 17 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio:Anaximander

message: It isn't clear that he lived in Greece -- in general he certainly didn't -- so I moved him to "Geographi Graeci antiqui" which covers him like a glove. But the new category's fine and I found an inhabitant for it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:20, 18 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graeciae > Graeci antiqui
Disputatio:Melchior Adamus

message: Cur non "Melchior Adamus"?  In libris depictis ablativum "Adamo" et accusativum "Adamum" video. Sigur (disputatio) 07:37, 19 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio, sed consentio--Xaverius 08:26, 19 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Adam scripsi, quod paginam Adam habemus. Sed si movebitis, nihil contra dicam. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 09:50, 19 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Credo in Biblia nominativum "Adam" esse, sed in Google Books plus "Melchiorem Adamum" video quam "Melchiorem Adam" ("Melchior Adam" Theodiscum esse potest). Ita movere cogito.  Sigur (disputatio) 10:45, 19 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma 

thread_title: Recensio mense Iunio 2020
Disputatio:Coacervatio datorum

message: Vocabulum “coacervationis” similius mihi videtur verbo Anglico amassing quam verbo Anglico storage. Credo “conservationem” esse meliorem locutionem. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:52, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die 27 Septembris 2023 — Estne haec pagina ad “[[Conservatio datorum]]” movenda?
Disputatio:Diafarus Mahometi filius aṣ-Ṣādiq

message: Given our recent discussion about non-Western forenames, I checked this one out and I found him as "Djafarus Sadik" . I suppose that we can safely add "Mahometi filius" and that "aṣ-Ṣādiq" is a cognomen we don't translate, in which case I would tend to use the usual transcription.  The lemma thus could be "Diafarus Mahometi filius aṣ-Ṣādiq" (otherwise Diafarus Mahometi filius Verus). But perhaps others find even better sources. Sigur (disputatio) 20:45, 24 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:47, 24 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio:Victorius Alfierius

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, tomus 1. Lipsiae 1905, p. 309-310 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mense Februario 2020

message: Revera nomen eius fuit “Victorius”, sicut Marcus Victorius Marcellus, non “Victor”. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:32, 31 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sine dubio, movenda est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 13:49, 31 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :Certe consentio. Victorius est forma Italica Victoris (Victor), ut Armandus est latinizatio formae Francogallicae pranominis Hermanni. Certe, Italici etiam nomen Vittore habent, sed rarior est quam Victorium. 2.38.67.180 08:00, 1 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ita: Vittorio > Victorius; Vittore > Victor. Movi igitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 1 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die 31 Augusti 2023 — Estne haec pagina ad “[[Victorius Alfierius]]” movenda?
Disputatio:SARS-CoV-2

message: Bene venerunt hae duae paginae de viro et morbo. An possumus, in titulis paginarum, "Coronavirus" et "Coronaviri morbus" (vel aliquid non dissimile) ponere? Est enim verbum Neolatinum saepissime in diariis etc. variis linguis adhibitum. Sed scientia microbiologica mihi carente, incertus sum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 26 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Certo, Andrew, rectius includere erit. Ordinis mundi sanitarii nuntiorum recentiorum nunc etiam in Europa non longius sine cura incrementi contagionum sumus. Tuo de commetario accessus simplicius faciam.Hodie in nosocomio nostro consilium internum revocatur, ut minacem eruptionem futuram praeparetur. Video etiam, ut multi sodalium incerti sint - ut alibi.Hac de causa Vicipaedia quoque continuo se ad epidemiae cursum conferat et dedicet. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 09:58, 26 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ego autem, alibi in nosocomio morans, spero me ante adventum huius morbi egressurum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:14, 26 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De viro et morbo
Disputatio Formulae:Colores2

message: Quem ad finem delenda sit? Maneat, nam nemo futura scire potest. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 23:55, 29 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene! --UV (disputatio) 15:14, 1 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: An delenda sit
Disputatio:Franciscus Gilbert (historicus)

message: There is another François Gilbert, a sculptor. I suggest we avoid every problem by making the distinction  immediately. Sigur (disputatio) 20:27, 4 Martii 2020 (UTC)
I do approve the suggestion.
Monspessulanus (disputatio) 19:58, 5 Martii 2020 (UTC)Monspessulanus
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio:Ali Abbae filius al-Maǧūsī

message: "Haly Abbas" is claimed to be a "Latinisation" in Commons, but I haven't really found it in any Latin texts, while there are quite some in Latin that refer to him as "Ali".  "Haly Abbas" does pop up in a lot of other languages, though. Maybe someone will find some good Latin sources with the version "Haly Abbas" (in Liber Pantegni?), but otherwise, I'd rather use a Latin lemma of the kind we use for other Arabic/Persian people. Sigur (disputatio) 22:28, 4 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio:Puggle

message: Foristan puggle necnon puggulus (VP:NF) --Xaverius 15:42, 6 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Concurrere possum! Mox paginam movebo vel novam creabo. --Denwego (disputatio) 15:57, 6 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine
Disputatio:Universidade Estadual da Região Tocantina do Maranhão

message: "Anno 2016 in urbe Imperatrix constituta est" Anglice = 'The empress was appointed/established in the city in the year 2016.' IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:22, 8 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocabula apposita casu congruenda sunt
Disputatio:Ali Abitalibi filius

message: Habemusne fontem huius declinationis? Lesgles (disputatio) 22:49, 8 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after the discussion we had here, with a first source given by Andrew having both the genitive "Alis" and the accusative "Alim", to my surprise, I came accross quite a number of occurrences of "Alis" and "Alim". I won't find them all back now, but take e.g. Hofmann here, or some other sources here, here, here or here.  I did not find an "Alium" as Andrew had seen somewhere, but I did see a lonely "Alin" at one occasion.  And of course you do find the name undeclined as well. But as I said, I've seen quite some sources with "Alis" and "Alim" (all other cases there being "Ali"), so I reckon that this must have been pretty widespread. Sigur (disputatio) 23:46, 8 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, I hadn't seen that discussion, thanks! Lesgles (disputatio) 01:20, 9 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Incidentally, yes I did also find "Alium" but it's surely better avoided given the ambiguity! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:30, 9 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ad Alim"
Disputatio:Elias Fakhfakh

message: The first name quite clearly corresponds to Latin "Elias" (see :en:Elias). As to the last name, our normal translitteration habits would require al-Faḫfāḫ based on the Arabic page (just like in Spanish it's :es:Fajfaj), but given the strong position of French in Tunisia I'm open to Fakhfakh as well (which is pretty probably what his passport says in Latin script). Sigur (disputatio) 19:36, 9 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you're right about Elias. I didn't want to guess, but I would go with this change. As to the surname, the reason you give is exactly why I kept the present spelling. In Lebanon, likewise, there seem to be reasons to retain French spellings. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:17, 9 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio:Index formarum Latinarum nominum Arabicorum Persicorumque

message: There is an issue with the name(s) having the  Arabic triconsonantal root Ḥ-M-D (): You will find people named  (Ḥāmid/Ḥāmad),  (Ḥamīd) or  (Ḥamad).  apparently means "Lauder", while  means "Lauded" (no idea about the third one).
Likewise, in Latin, you will find Hamadus, Hamidus and Hamedus. I very much doubt that there was anything systematic in the choice of one of those versions.
Now, one possibility would be to assigne  to Hamidus (because of the long i) and the two others arbitrarily (say  to Hamedus and  to Hamadus). But then we would e.g. end up with a Hamedus (or Hamadus) Karzai whom everybody else calls Hamid.
Or we don't care (just as I suspect earlier Latinists haven't) and assign one of the Latin forms according to the most frequent rendering in the vernaculars, without bothering about the exact Arabic spelling.
- Sigur (disputatio) 22:49, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamadus/Hamidus/Hamedus
Disputatio:Leopoldus I (dux Lotharingiae)

message: Constantin von Wurzbach: "Habsburg, Leopold Joseph Karl", In: Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, 6. Theil. Kaiserlich-königliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Vindobonae 1860, p. 431-432 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons primae recensionis