lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Nationale Admonitorium Concilium pro Aëronautica

message: Duae quaestiones:
replies: text: 1. Fortasse melius verborum ordo: Concilium Admonitorium Nationale pro Aeronautica ?

text: 2. Concilium ('council' &c in Traupman) aut consilium ('committee' in Traupman) ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:31, 18 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: : As for #1, Concilium Admonitorium Nationale pro Aëronautica would be more standard for Vicipaedia, but would lose the correspondence with the “NACA” acronym. I don't have strong opinions about this.

text: : As for #2, the two words often gets confused, however I think the right word here is concilium. The situation is explained in Lewis&Short:
replies: text: :: , -ii, n.: An assembly for consultation, a council (in concreto; on the contrary consilium signifies the counsel in abstracto that is taken in such an assembly. The meanings, however, often pass over to each other; hence in MSS. and edd. a freq. confusion of the two words; cf. “”)

text: : --Grufo (disputatio) 16:51, 18 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ordine verborum Latino Anglicoque omnino differente, congruentiam cum acronymis Anglicis renuntiare solemus. Aliis linguis eadem res accidit, e.g. NATO - OTAN. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:13, 18 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Credo Latinum esse liberum circa ordinem verborum, et etiamsi tenuem praelationem adiectivi nomen sequentis habeat, plura contraria exempla invenimus, et credo verba Anglica calcanda ordinem rariorem excusare posse. Sed si paginam movere vultis, ut dixi, validam repugnantiam non habeo. De ordine “nationale” + “concilium”, cfr. “Liberum Nationale Concilium” et “Nationale Concilium Parisiis” (p. 73; haec citatio est immo robustior, quia recte Francogallicum “Concile National de Paris” traducit). --Grufo (disputatio) 19:27, 18 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Sicut in vita politica, libertate non absoluta sed relativa fruimur. In textu nostro singula talis nominis verba commutare possumus et solemus, sicut ars grammatica Latina monet. In titulis et lemmatibus ei, qui enumerationes dictionariosque et encyclopaedias Latine conficiunt, ordinem verborum satis regularem in nominibus institutorum praebent.

text: ::::In titulis huius generis, ante substantivum (e.g. "Concilium") aut nihil aut adiectivum honorificum poni solet (e.g. "Pontificia Universitas", "Regium Institutum"). Ergo hoc casu aut "Nationale Concilium ..." aut "Concilium Nationale ..." acciperim. Alii quid dicunt? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:44, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Ne dua adiectiva conveniant, fortasse Nationale Concilium Admonitorium pro Aëronautica ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:45, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De lemmate
Disputatio:Lyceum Hannibalis Calini

message: Francisce carissime! Num Gallorum lingua re vera in lycaeo edocetur? Cur heros sic declinatur? Cur Primus Levi in numero plurali? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:06, 24 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Aliquas res minores interdum correxi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:55, 24 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrigenda
Disputatio:Missale Romanum

message: Multa in hoc textu corrigenda erant, quae corrigere coepi, sed labor manet.
Erant enim nonnulla simpliciter falsa. Exempli gratia nunc constat sacramentarium Leonianum haud Leoni Magno attribuendum esse, sed est multo tardius. Antiphonalia antiquissima saeculo octavo apparuerunt (vide dom Hesbert), non quarto. Variae affirmationes erant "ex post" scriptae, ut puta "Ordines Romani indicabant necessitatem componendi librum unum, qui omnes missae ritus et preces complecteretur." - nemo ordines octavo vel nono saeculo scribens de "necessitudine" habendi librum unicum locutus est. Item "correctio urgebat, quae malas novitates tolleret et unam formam daret ritibus": haec est opinio posterior; Medio Aevo diversitas liturgica de more erat.
Alia erant non de subiecto. Cum Missale Romanum saeculo circiter XII apparuerit, tota historia celebrandae missae Romanae a saeculo primo usque ad XI est iuxta meam opinionem solummodo brevissime tractanda. Hic textus non est de historia missae, sed de historia missalis. Quae ergo abbreviavi.
Multa vero erant chaotice scripta, cum longissimis enumerationibus, ut puta temporum liturgicorum in missali (immo haud omnes partes librorum complectentibus). Iuxta meam opinionem sufficitur proprium de tempore in missali adesse dicere, non est opus Adventum, tempus Nativitatis etc. enumerare; haec in textu de anno liturgico tractanda sunt. Ailamnos (disputatio) 18:27, 26 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correctiones mense Iunio 2023 factae
Disputatio:Monasterium Sancti Georgii (Weltenburg)

message: Formulae  et  sine disputatione aut conspicuis emendationibus a usore Comgenus de pagina . Mihi videtur pagina mendosa esse translatio a :de:Kloster Weltenburg, sed credo auctorem bona fide eam scripsisse et proinde non esse delendam, at saltem formulam  in paginam nobis inserendam esse. Ad differentia iudicia colligenda, formulam  in hanc paginam disputationis insevi. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:45, 26 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ego NON credo auctorem bona fide eam scripsisse, ignoscite! Et ego libentissime pro Vicipaedia Iaponica commentationes pangerem. Quamvis Iaponice nesciam, ecce machina translatoria usus sum mox scribam primam meam  commentationem pro Vicipaedia Iaponica. Quia bonae fidei sum (bonae fidei quod ad qualitatem machinae attinet). - Giorno2 (disputatio) 14:58, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Latinitate
Disputatio:Ventilatrum

message: If ventilatrum = '[electric?] fan', what's the title of the Latin article equivalent to English ventilator ('a piece of medical technology that provides mechanical ventilation by moving breathable air into and out of the lungs, to deliver breaths to a patient who is physically unable to breathe, or breathing insufficiently')? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:17, 27 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Idem vocabulum, sicut Anglice aliisque linguis: machina enim rem similem contextibus differentibus efficit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 27 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio:Miyamoto Musashi

message: Andrew, you changed  to gladiator, saying "paginam iam habemus," but no, we don't, as the the latter links to en:Gladiator. but the former should be linking to en:Swordsman (same article as en:Swordsmanship). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:57, 12 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The formula as you wrote it links to our gladiator. So, if you want there to be a different page, to correspond with swordsman, you could rename the existing gladiator (for example, to gladiator (ludi Romani)), leaving the name "gladiator" free for the new proposed page; or, I think better, you could suggest a different name for the new proposed page, e.g. , leaving the current page gladiator where it is. "Ars gladiatoria" would correspond to the existing English "swordsmanship", so that's the choice I'd probably make (I haven't checked dictionaries, however). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:19, 12 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :In case you hadn't seen the full beauty of it, the formula works like this: . If the 4th and 5th items are the same, no need to repeat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:27, 12 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Oh, OK. I hadn't known about the penultimate item. I'll see about fixing it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:15, 13 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gladiator
Disputatio:Gibunoscius

message: Here we have an attestation in "church Latin" (the modern Italianate pronunciation system) that's going to mislead classically trained readers. The spelling Gibunoscius for Japanese conventionally transcribed as Jibu-no-shō would lead Cicero redivivus to the pronunciation /gibunoskius/. whereas the attesting author undoubtedly intended for the name to be pronounced something like /d͡ʒibunoʃus/. Cicero, invoking the Latin phonology of his day, might have transcribed the modern Japanese name (were he to have heard it) as Sibunosus. But then the Japanese pronunciation of the first century BCE might have differed from the modern Japanese pronunciation! Whether any of this should be noted in the text—and similarly with similar orthographic doublets in other words—may one day be a pertinent question. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:36, 17 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita vero, recte dicis; vereor tamen ne a se ipso excogitatum condemnetur. Quodcumque id fit, haud sane dubito quin, qui Iaponicam noverit linguam, appellationem rectam intellegat; qui verum "Ciceroniana" ista appellatione utatur minime impediatur, quominus de qua agit rem legat. Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 17:21, 17 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: : In general I agree with avoiding the church pronunciations. However the case of the [sh] sound is very interesting, because [sk] became [sh] in a lot of European languages, like English, German, French, Italian, just to mention some (the very fact that you say “shoe” is because in PIE it was *skek-). So if Cicero had encountered a Proto-Germanic person and both had an argument about someone called Gibuno[SK]ius, and the story ended up in folk tales, today's German, English, and Italian might all have a word similar to Gibuno[SH]... --Grufo (disputatio) 01:41, 18 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation
Disputatio:Coronamentum regis Philippi II (1179)

message: I suggest to move the article to Coronatio regis Philippi II (1179). As a medievalist, I have never seen the word "coronamentum" in the Latin sources. At least in Central Europe, the word "coronatio" has always been used for "coronation". I also feel that the first word in the article ("sacrum") could be a gallicism, as I don't know it from Central Europe, but maybe it could be specific for Latin used in France? Packare (disputatio) 20:38, 26 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For English coronation, Cassell's says "express by phrase with diadema." That might suggest the words Impositio diadematis Philippo II Regi (1179) in some order or other, perhaps Philippo II Regi diadematis impositio (1179). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:08, 27 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :Mediae aetatis vocabula de rebus mediae aetatis scribi licere oportet. De verbo coronatione vide Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis:

text: :

text: :atque de verbo coronamento:

text: :

text: :Igitur, mea sententia, utroque nomine uti nil impedit. Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 04:44, 27 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ita, sed in fontibus hac in pagina citatis neque "sacrum" (subst.) neque "coronamentum" reperio. Cur his vocabulis abhinc undecim annis usus sum, nescio. Rogerius de Hoveden (vide citationem) "coronatio" habet. Ergo, si quis primam sententiam rescribere paginamque movere ad "Coronatio ..." velit, per me licet! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:23, 27 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Consentio. Fortasse Packare id faciat, si quidem velit. Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 17:34, 27 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

text: ::: Ego quoque “coronationi” faveo. --Grufo (disputatio) 06:46, 28 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coronatio" - better Latin expression?
Disputatio:Portus Cale

message: Inter alia res duplicatas delevi. Textum sequentem e pagina excisum, postquam regulis linguae Latinae aptus factus est, forsitan pars novae paginae Area Metropolitana Portucalensis esse possit (ego quidem non omnia bene intellego):
Est sedes Areae Metropolitanae Portucalensis, quae partes 17 municipiorum cum 1,737,395 incolis in area 1,900 km² confluunt, cum incolarum densitate prope 914 inhab/km², quae urbs XIII celeberrimam in area urbana facit. Unio Europaea, et secunda regio celeberrima (NUTS III) in Portugallia. Portus Cale et Area Metropolitana Portucalensis constituunt nucleum structurae Regionis septentrionalis, quae incolas habet 3,689,609 incolas (2011 Census), eamque celeberrimam regionem (NUTS II) in Portugallia habet. Continet 8 subregiones seu campestres III unitates (NUTS III). 
Praeterea dempsi:
… pro principalibus equipis, pedis eu Clube do Porto, Boavista Futebol Clube, Sport Comércio et Salgueiros, pro sua universitate publica principali: Universitas Portuensis, inter 200 optimas universitates in mundo et inter centum optimas universitates in Europa, tum pro qualitate centra collocavit hospitium. 
Ex parte historica sequentem textum forse postea inspiciendum tractandumque exemi:
Duobus denique saeculis post initium irruptionis, anno 999, nobiles Vascones, in iis D. Nónego, episcopus Vindocinensis in Gallia, et postea Portucalensis episcopus, cum magna classe ad ostium fluminis Durciani ingressus est, ut moras expelleret. Haec classis, quae Armada dos Vasconis divulgata est, cum D. Munio Viegas sociata, Porto Maurorum urbem expugnavit ut eam Virgini Matri Dei dedicaret. Post hoc proelium D. Munio et "Galli" Porto reficere conati sunt. Muros veteres et munitos struxerunt, et in summa urbis parte, castrum cum castro et munitissimo condiderunt, quod post Henricum Comitem, cui donatum est, sedes episcopalis ministravit. Turris et ostium principale opus fuit D. Nonego, qui, in memoriam patriae, ostium Vandomae nominavit, et qui templum in fronte turris aedificavit, ubi imaginem Nossa Senhora do Portucalensis, quam iam e Gallia adduxerat.
Anno 1111, Teresia de Leão, mater futuri primi [[Portugallia|Portugalliae]] regis, concessit Hugoni Episcopo Portuensi Couto. Imago Beatae Mariae Virginis est pars urbis lorica. Hinc quod Porto etiam "Virginis urbs" cognominatur, cui addenda sunt epitheta "Antiquae, Mui Nobre, Semper Leal e Invicta", quae ei per saecula attributa sunt et post fortissimi viri. incolae, et Regina Mariae II Portugalliae decreto rata fuerunt.
Ob sacrificia quae urbs ad sustentationem armadae quae supererat, anno 1415, ad expugnandam Abylam, cum Portuensi populationibus omnibus escas in promptu offerebat, relinquens tantum "ventres" ad barbaros pascendos e Portucale cognomen "tripeiros" potitus est, dictio magis affectuosa quam peiorativa. Haec etiam causa est cur disco urbis hodie "Tripas à moda do Porto" adhuc sit. Utilo (disputatio) 09:55, 3 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  res mutatae aut excisae
Disputatio Formulae:Numerus articulatus

message: @Grufo,  "I modified  to match thinsp, but I restore the former because it is better for search engines and copy&paste operations " OK, but the formula wrongly inserts a thinspace in four-digit numbers and therefore shouldn't be used until it's fixed. According to information we received some years ago, ISO does not insert a thinspace in four-digit numbers. Incidentally, that's one good reason to use color to distinguish years from nonyears, as 1945 (printing blue) is a year, while 1945 (printing black) might be the population of a small town. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:04, 1 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Iacobus, I did not know about the four-digit rule. I have updated  accordingly. However I do not know how the template should behave in case of four digits + decimal part. This is the current behavior:

text: * 

text: *: ↳

text: * 

text: *: ↳

text: * 

text: *: ↳

text: No idea if it is the correct one. --Grufo (disputatio) 11:29, 1 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: : Apparently the document that rules about the thousand separator is ISO 31-0, but the PDF is behind a paywall. However I might have found the solution concerning decimal numbers on English Wikipedia at Decimal separator § Exceptions to digit grouping (emphasis mine):

text: :

text: : So, apparently, after my last fix this template behaves correctly. --Grufo (disputatio) 12:52, 4 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four-digit numbers
Disputatio Formulae:De hoc

message: Haec formula saepe post imaginem vel post capsam Vicidatorum inserta est (ne linea omittatur). Nunc in paginis  talibus omnibus capsa vel imago textu non circumitur, videas e.g, Prusa. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 08:50, 7 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: codicem clear: both; addidi, quia imagines formulae superponebantur. At nunc talis recensio imagines post formulam collocari requirit. Possum codicem clear: both; ex formula removere, sed imagines iterum formulae superponentur. Solutio sit positionem formulae corrigere in , sicut  apud paginam "Prusa"… --Grufo (disputatio) 09:09, 7 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  error
Disputatio Formulae:Urna Latinitatis

message: I don't recall that there was consensus for the use of this formula. One could conduct a trial anyway, in case there are other comments, but meanwhile, it's false to say that the community has judged the page if in fact only one user has done so. It would be true to say "One user ...", "2 users ...", etc. Can we do that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:21, 8 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Andrew, of course, we can only mention the number of users (). I am very happy to receive suggestions, because this is a large composite template and I happened to put all the pieces together alone!

text: P.S. Concerning the last talk page where I added it, the nice thing about this template is that you can add your own estimation to disagree with me.  --Grufo (disputatio) 13:32, 8 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's a good design, it works well. I'm quite happy now that the text has been revised. Let's wait and see how others may use it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:49, 8 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De sententia
Disputatio:Nassovia (Bahamae)

message: Nassovia, sicut urbs Germaniae, cuius nomen accepit? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:20, 10 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A Vicipaedia Anglica transcribo:

text: Ergo motioni paginae ad "Nassovia (Bahamae)" assentior. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:03, 11 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
Pagina mota est. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:24, 15 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  de nomine
Disputatio:Nodus Gordianus

message: Nullum fontem inveni qui nodum appellat “Gordium”, at Leo I “Gordianum” . --Grufo (disputatio) 17:39, 12 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ecce:
replies: text: :Gordianus nodus hic.

text: :Nodus Gordii hic.

text: OK? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:36, 13 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: : Gratias tibi ago, Iacobe! At credo “Nodum Gordii” (Gordius = subst.; ✔ fontem habemus) non idem esse “Nodo Gordio” (Gordius = adj.; ✘ fontem nondum habemus). --Grufo (disputatio) 12:59, 13 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::"Nodus Gordius" ab Lewis & Short datur, Ammiano scriptore saec. IV citato, vide notam subiunctam 1, sed nodum Gordium in textu Ammiani non reperio. An errorem fecerunt L&S? Id rarius reperimus!

text: ::"Nodum Gordium" (cas. accus.) nihilominus bis alibi reperio, in titulo operis Iacobi Zaborovii (1617: vide citationem) et in alio libro eodem anno divulgato . Certe "Nodus Gordii" et "Nodus Gordianus" eundem sensum habent (distinctionem a Grufo factam non intellego) sed mea mente non necesse est paginam movere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 14 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::"Nodum Gordium" est lectio vetus pro "nodum et codicem", ut editores recentiores accipiunt. — "Gordianus" melior est, movendum est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 09:35, 14 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Gratias tibi ago: rationem discrepantiae intellego! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 14 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

text: :::  Quod ad hanc disputationem pertinet est  a Lewis&Short:

text: :::

text: ::: Sed “Gordĭus … adj.” et “Amm. 14, 11, 1.” mihi sine probatione videntur, et omnes attestationes “Gordii … adj.” quas invenio sunt recentes. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:00, 14 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Ammianum e fontibus removi. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:15, 15 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
Pagina mota est. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:39, 16 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die 13 Augusti 2023 — Estne haec pagina ad “[[Nodus Gordianus]]” movenda?
Disputatio:Religio Iudaica

message: Is "Pentateuchum" in principles 8 and 9 really correct? Quite arguably not. Maimonides almost certainly meant the entire Torah Law, both Written and Oral. Not just the text of the Five Books. Toddcs (disputatio) 15:29, 13 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principia 8 & 9
Disputatio:Subola

message: Nomen provinciae Vasconicae huic in Latino sermone Subola est. Id comprobatur in Chronico Fredegarii, septimo saeculo. 88.9.67.210 09:23, 20 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene. Movere possumus quando textus apud Chronica Fredegarii citatur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:03, 20 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hic <https://aunamendi.eusko-ikaskuntza.eus/eu/dagoberto-i/ar-27495/> apparet mentio Subolae a Fredegario, a Studiis Vasconicis Societate in suis encyclopediis collecta.— Commentationem pristinam non subscriptam usor sine nomine 88.9.67.210 scripsit (disputatio) 09:23, 20 Augusti 2023‎.
thread_title:  Subola
Disputatio:Mauleo

message: Nomen huius civitatis in Latino sermone est Malus Leo. Ita apparet anno 1277. Vide Jean-Baptiste Orpustan, Toponymiae Basque, 1991, pag. 175 88.9.67.210 09:31, 20 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias agimus. "Mauleo" non est error, sed recte dicis: nomen "Malus Leo" etiam reperitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:54, 20 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malus Leo
Disputatio:Sanctus Ioannes sub Pede Portus

message: Communissimum huius urbis nomen latine est Sanctus Iohannes sub Pede Portus. Ita iam anno 1234 apparet. Vide Documenta Academiae Vasconicae Linguae <https://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/es/?option=com_ecoeoda&task=lekuaIkusi&Itemid=471&lang=frEuskaltzaindia&kodea=56867>— Commentationem pristinam non subscriptam usor sine nomine 88.9.67.210 scripsit (disputatio) 09:39, 20 Augusti 2023 (UTC).
thread_title:  Sanctus Iohannes sub Pede Portus
Disputatio:Lapurdum (discretiva)

message: Lapurdum numquam fuit Lourdes vel Lorda, sed territorium circa Baiona. Erravit Ioannes Jacobus Hofmann in fine saeculi XVII. Adhuc una e septem Vasconicis provinciis Lapurdi appellatur. 88.9.67.210 13:21, 20 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Lorda, sed Baiona
Disputatio:Pollutio plastica

message: Credo nomen “pollutionis” genitivo subiectivo in loco ablativi favere (cfr. “”, “”, “” et alias sententias). Si verum, nomen correctum huius paginae sit “Pollutio plasticae”. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:07, 20 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die 20 Augusti 2023 — Estne haec pagina ad “[[Pollutio plasticae]]” movenda?
Disputatio:Visensis

message: Verurium non erat Viseu. Fortasse erat San Vicente de Beira. Ipsa Dioecesis Visensis appellatur. <https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0064%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DU%3Aentry+group%3D4%3Aentry%3Dverurium-geo> 88.9.67.210 10:32, 21 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viseum
Disputatio Formulae:URL occultum

message: I feel doubtful about this formula because, if I've understood, it includes a history link which would guide a reader towards the deleted spam. That isn't a good thing to do, surely? Better, having deleted it, not to render it more accessible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:41, 24 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Andrew. The  parameter is totally optional (I introduced it for borderline cases). For instance, these are both good use cases of this template:

text: * Vide -- quia est bonus fons.

text: *: ↳ Vide --Grufo quia est bonus fons.

text: * Vide -- quia est bonus fons.

text: *: ↳ Vide --Grufo quia est bonus fons.

text: If I am not wrong, also using it with the  parameter should never be problematic, because old versions of Wikipedia pages don't get indicized by search engines (but I would need a second opinion about this). --Grufo (disputatio) 12:16, 24 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :I think you're right there. OK, that reassures me! It'll be better, if we're dealing with spam, not to use the "prius" parameter. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:55, 24 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :: That is a good guideline :) --Grufo (disputatio) 12:58, 24 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De usu huius formulae