lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Bellum alterum de libertate Italiae

message: Generis scribendi melioris causa hortor, ut ad titulum huius paginae verbum gestum addatur. Praeterea pro verbo Italiana verbum Italiae scribendum esse videtur.--Irenaeus 20:35, 16 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio. Maxime, quid putas?--Ioshus (disp) 03:20, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)

message: I find already the name as an open link. Therefore if you believe that's a better solution I agree with you to move the page to the other name. --Massimo Macconi 05:55, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)Ciao
thread_title:  o.k 

message: Dicimus caseus italicus eo sensu, ut dicamus de caseo certo, qui nusquam nisi in Italia fieri solet. Sed dubito, ne sit ulla libertas, quam putemus similiter propriam esse hominum in Italia habitantium. Nonne haec pagina movenda est ad Bellum alterum de libertate Italiae? --Bavarese (disputatio) 19:12, 2 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Cum clarius sit, assentior ego. Lesgles (disputatio) 11:21, 6 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Irenaeus iamdudum idem nomen suasit, sed Helveticus (per incuriam?) aliter egit. Nunc ergo sine mora moveo. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 6 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Gratias! Plane assentior. --Bavarese (disputatio) 16:25, 6 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonne de libertate Italiae agitur?
Disputatio:Ioannes Williams

message: Hmmm... :en:John_Williams_%28disambiguation%29 Maybe this should be discretiva...--Ioshus (disp) 01:54, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)

message: Sex tantum adiectiva cum fine -ilis superlativum formant cum fine -illimus. Haec sunt: facilis, difficilis, similis, dissimilis, humilis et gracilis. Cetera superlativum habent cum fine -ilissimus, exempli gratia stabilis --> stabilissimus. Vide Caesarem in Commentariis De Bello Gallico 1.2.1: "Apud Helvetios longe nobilissimus fuit et ditissimus Orgetorix." Nullos casus superlativi memorabillimus  aut memorabilissimus inveni, sed opinor nos exemplum adiectivorum stabilis et nobilis sequi oportere.--Fabullus 06:43, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probe dicis, Fabulle. Vide Allen & Greenough #126: "Six adjectives in -lis form the Superlative by adding -limus to the stem clipped of its final i-. These are facilis, difficilis, similis, dissimilis, gracilis, humilis." IacobusAmor 09:43, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :ago gratias tibi. I was taught that ALL words ending in -ilis ended with -illimus. --Secundus Zephyrus 19:35, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: memorabilissima/
memorabillima
Disputatio:Lucas Tuymans

message: Re: "artem et . . . historiam artis studuit."—Latinum studere Anglice significat non 'to study', sed 'to be eager, to take pains, to busy oneself'. Ergo gubernat casum genetivum, dativum, ablativum, vel phrasem praepositionalem, sed usitate non casum accusativum. Igitur fere melius: "arte et . . . artis historia studuit." IacobusAmor 12:41, 17 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: studeo
Disputatio:Index Regum Sueciae

message: Massimo, would you be offended if I change your form "Sueciae" (sometimes in parentheses, sometimes not) to "(rex Sueciae)" all through? This is the usual Vicipaedia standard now, I think. Or is there a reason not to do it in this case? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (rex Sueciae)?
Disputatio:Schola Praeparatoria Georgeopolitiana

message: ?--Ioshus (disp) 14:01, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)

message: Recte Georgiopolis? adiectivum Georgiopolitensis? IacobusAmor 16:23, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgetown, vicinia Vasintoniae, C.C.

message: I am going to redirect this page to one with no typo in the title and better information. 4m4z1ng 20:18, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REDIRECT
Disputatio:Melburnia

message: Genere (urbes feminina nomina sunt) et sono vocis, Melburna nomen melius Melbourno, sed paginam de Melbourno meliorem esse censeo. Urbs quoque Melburna vocatur in pagina de Australia. Igitur nomen Melbournum mutari debeat.
Renzokuken 15:33, 8 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Dictionnaire Latin-Français des Noms propres de Lieux ayant une certaine notoriété principalement au point de vue ecclésiastique et monastique (1897) has the nominative proper name Melburnum, but doesn't specify that that's the name of the city in Australia. In Vicipaedia, Melburnum is already in use for this city. ¶ In Esperanto & Latvian, the name of the city appears to be Melburna. IacobusAmor 16:41, 8 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Hic urbs Melburnium appelatur. Fortasse haec pagina recta est? Renzokuken 18:45, 8 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Melburna

message: Whatever the story with the noun, the adjective Melbournensis is well-established and has plenty of googleable attestations for the perciform fish Gerres melbournensis (also known as Parequula melbournensis), the fly Sigaloessa melbournensis, the bee Leioproctus melbournensis, the beetles Harpalus melbournensis (one of several names available for Gnathaphanus melbournensis) and Teraphis melbournensis, and the extinct eogastropod Australonema melbournensis. IacobusAmor 16:31, 8 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
True, but the University of Melbourne, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne all use "Melburnensis", no "o". 124.189.177.131 05:24, 12 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Melbournensis

message: Dear 163.1.188.30, why did you emend the text to move the city from southern (meridionalis) Australia to northern (borealis) Australia? Last I looked, it was still down there in the south-southeast, so I moved it back. IacobusAmor 23:48, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Urbis locus

message: Nomini urbis si adiectivum attribuitur, non locativo (nudo), sed praepositione utendum est. Ergo melius scribimus in meridionali Melburnia. --Bavarese (disputatio) 13:54, 13 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "In orientali Roma": quomodo intellegimus? Nonne "in urbe quadam orientali, Roma appellata"? Ergo scriberem potius "in orientali Melburniae parte/regione/suburbio".

text: Sed ubi legis "In orientali Melburniae", mi Bavarese? Haec verba in pagina Melburnia non reperio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 13 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In orientali Melburniae"?
Disputatio:Tag (ludus)

message: I would like to make this article. Do we have any opinions on a title? I liked the Spanish name, maybe we could do something of the sort, like Persecutio (ludus) or something, although, persecutio may have bad connotations... I'm eager to hear suggestions.--Ioshus (disp) 19:11, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite possible that we could find a reference in antiquity. For a close-but-not-quite locus, try googling for "habeat scabiem" --Iustinus 21:58, 18 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:en:Tag (game)]]
Disputatio:Havana

message: Credo evidentias  indicare "Sancti Christophori de Habana" esse nomen Archidioecesis nec nomen urbis. Nomen urbis solum est "Avana" (secundum has evidentias).Rafaelgarcia 07:40, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just found another Havana, -ae (from ) giving three sources in favour of an 'H' at the beginning. I think it would be sensible to move to that, Avana only being an assumption anyway (the name from Catholic Hierarchy could be Avanum, for example, however unlikely). Harrissimo 21:18, 17 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: :CHOMMODA dicebat, si quando commoda uellet,
replies: text: ::dicere et insidias Arrius hinsidias

text: :Nilohominus, rationi movendi assentior...--Ioscius (disp) 21:25, 17 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Challidissimum hexcerptum, Iosci geni! Harrissimo 22:15, 17 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
King Philip II of Spain granted Havana the title of City in 1592 and a royal decree in 1634 recognized its importance by officially designated as the "Key to the New World and Rampart of the West Indies" 
How can we translate into latin this designation as the "Key to the New World and Rampart of the West Indies"? It seems very difficult for me. Can someone help me? Thanks.

text: Maybe "Novi mundi clavis, Indiarum occidentalium munitio"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:27, 5 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Caserta

message: Why should we move this to Saticula? Is it not just a silly mistake by Campanini-Carboni? Modern Latin dictionaries are prone to mistakes. I find the Latin name to be Caserta in the list of Catholic dioceses and in Hofmann, and those are two good sources. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: your proposal, my problem was that I did'n have any name for Caserta, but with your reference the problem is solved. Thank you--Massimo Macconi 16:57, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I accept...
Disputatio:Iulius Cseszneky

message: I reverted the change by Usor:Koppany because de is correct (for Vicipaedia); von is German, and we're not doing German here (nor was he German, so far as I can see). Why Koppany wants to change the surnames round, I don't know: this was a man of many names, so why we should decide that one form rather than another is correct, let's hear.
I haven't yet moved the page back to its original location, but I note that the Hungarian Wikipedia says his original name means Milványi Gyula, lord of Cseszneg. If that's the case, the heading we had till yesterday (Julius Milványi de Cseszneg) represents him correctly in Vicipaedia. It would be a good idea to add some of his names, in italics, in Hungarian, Aromanian or whatever, in the first paragraph of the article, and make it clear (if possible) when his names changed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably a form like Csesznegensis is available if needed. IacobusAmor 16:29, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: This topic and the available sources seem to be rather disputed, see
* de:Diskussion:Fürstentum von Pindos und Mazedonien
* fr:Discuter:Principauté du Pinde et de Macédoine
--UV 15:45, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)
The subject's grandson, cited in the French discussion, is quite active on the Web. Perhaps he'll look in and comment. I'm going to move the page back to where it was (but changing J to I) until some good reason for including a von in his Latin name is given. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:26, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputationes 

message: Why we keep having his name changed, I don't know. I think unless some official source is cited we should have him at the name equivalent to that of most other Wikipedias (Cseszneky Gyula > Iulius Cseszneky). The rest is all just Ruritanian play-acting, so far as I can see. The Hungarian article cites many sources, but still has him under this simple name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 24 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has disputed this so I have moved him to our equivalent of the ordinary Hungarian name. There's plenty of room in the article to say what other names he had, if anyone wants to. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:37, 27 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names
Disputatio:Fiat

message: Removi hunc nexum a pagina
* [http: //www.all-carparts.com/Fiat/index.php Fiat photos]
quia dubito an utilis sit necne. Interdum notanda est lingua huius situs! Est lingua Martiana, fortasse? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:51, 24 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Certe non est Anglice! E.g., "Despite the proportions a little clumsy visual, the Chrome is an enough automobile looking at reasonable from the outside one. A time in the hut is spacious and solidly built, but a lot the materials hear very economical when compared the rivals. The back space of place is decent, but the boot is not large like she would have been waited for - incapable to equal the property of Passat of VW on the global volume. I announce advertising." ¶ I suppose it's been machine-translated into English. Puzzling out the source-language could be engaging, but I don't have time today to try. IacobusAmor 13:13, 24 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nexus
Disputatio:Stephanus Jobs

message: Labores??? I thought the surname was derived from the biblical Job, so unless the original writer of the article offers an authoritative source attesting this Labores, I suggest we not translate the surname. IacobusAmor 00:16, 25 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jobs =?

message: Why was the section about Jobs' death, i added, deleted? --Mystakuhl 17:00, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know. You were right, obviously. I'll adjust the Latin slightly (but it wasn't bad!) and put it back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:10, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sorry for not explaining my revert yesterday. I reverted because I saw at least four mistakes in the sentence that was added ("in die", "de Octobris", "amisi", "obit"). Thank you for improving the sentence, Andrew! --UV 19:56, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::And I in turn made one error, which Neander has corrected! That's Vicipaedia ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:06, 7 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yeah, ok. I have no problem with improving the style and correcting the miskates, thanks about that. But i didn't understand why it was deleted, but here it is again. And I see what my mistakes were...of course I didn't lose the fight angainst the disease, he did^^ But I am not quite sure, if you need the second i in obiit...it ist grammatically correct, but isn't it left out in some ancient latin textes?--Mystakuhl 09:25, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::"Obit" is a common form, certainly, and I think you're right that it is sometimes used for the perfect tense (I haven't checked). In pasting the text back in, I preferred "obiit" merely because it is unambiguous: it can only be the perfect tense. "Obit" can also be the present.

text: ::::Let me add that (in my experience) UV nearly always explains his edits, and nearly always has a very good reason for them. I think I guessed his reason here -- the fact of Jobs's death is already stated in the first sentence and (obviously working at speed) he thought it better to remove an ungrammatical sentence because it did not add any facts.

text: ::::As it happens, I nearly always seem to agree with UV! But this time, on reflection, I agreed with you, Mystakuhl, that the biographical text needed rounding off. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: For the record, the correct perfect form is always obiit. The contracted form obit is used only by some poets metri causa. E.g. Lucretius (3.1055) has ips(e) Epicurus obit decurso lumine vitae, because obiit would be metrically impossible. Neander 10:33, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::: Yeah, that all makes sense. Although I know that "obiit" is the correct form, I didn't know that "obit" was only used for a correct metric. You never stop learning. --Mystakuhl 21:03, 19 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part about his death
Disputatio:Praeconium Communisticum

message: "my dictionary says ablative case is used?"—Yes, apparently, but genitive is possible:
replies: text: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%236788
Looks like ablative is better in most contexts. IacobusAmor 17:59, 25 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: careo +?

message: Nonne fuisset melius si lemma mutatur ad Professio Communistae? Manifestum significat Anglice conspicuous, caught in the act nec manifesto.--Rafaelgarcia 02:54, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonne etiam melius sit Edictum Factionis Communisticae? --Neander 03:36, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Tua versio est etiam propior versioni Theodiscae.--Rafaelgarcia 04:09, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Raphael Merry del Val

message: How do you know the file is not free? The image must be taken before august 1914 . I put it on the it.wiki a year ago and nobody said it was under license. Thank you for answering me, if it is the case I will delete it also on it.wiki--Massimo Macconi 16:52, 26 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to the general rule in most countries, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author (post mortem auctoris). If we know who the author was and when he/she died, we can calculate exactly at which point in time the copyright expires.

text: Let us suppose that the photo was taken, for example, in 1910 by a man aged 30, who later died in 1955 at the age of 75, then the copyright will expire in 2025.

text: When we do not know the author exactly, some people say it is acceptable to calculate "date of publication plus 100 years", assuming the author still lived for 30 years after creating his work. But in our case, even this "rule of thumb" says no (1914 + 100 = 2014).

text: Italy has a special rule on copyright, see :it:Immagine:File0021.jpg. But this is not valid in other countries.

text: Do you happen to know who the photographer was and when he died? Then we would know for sure whether this photo is in the public domain or not.

text: Of course it is not very probable that Wikimedia will get sued because of THIS photo. But in my view, it is better to be on the safe side … Greetings, --UV 17:27, 26 Maii 2007 (UTC)

message: I don't know who was the auctor. I took the image from the book  "I grandi nomi del XX secolo, I Papi, De Agostini, Novara 1974, pag. 40." and under "Iconografia" there wasn't any useful information. Though I believe that in this case the auctor shoud have been died from more of 70 years (somebody who can take a official photo of a Pope was sure at his time a known photographer), I agree with you that's better to delete it. Thank you for your answer and your compliments. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 17:54, 26 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree with you it's better to delete it
Disputatio:Editha Piaf

message: Si Piaf, cur Piath? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:58, 27 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: Sorry it was a misstake, thank you--Massimo Macconi 19:01, 27 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen 

message: Al posto di parvus passer si può utilizzare il diminutivo di passer nel genere femminile, cioè passercula. --Neander 20:15, 27 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passer
Disputatio:Pro-wrestling

message: Due to my essay of a couple of weeks ago, I know that wrestling in Roman times was either luctatio (proper greco-roman wrestling) vel pancratium (fighing where everything was allowed but hitting in between the legs and poking in the eyes). The two were different-ish things, but either way, they would be closer to wrestling than saying that they were "gladiatorial and circus games of the Greeks". Should we change that very phrase?--Xaverius 08:35, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, not least because ludo gladiatorum circenseque Graecorum doesn't mean 'gladiatorial and circus games of the Greeks'. The rest of the first sentence—"Pro wrestling est ludus liber professionalis spectaculum institutus ludo gladiatorum circenseque Graecorum est quorum proventi a conciliatore praedestinantur"—is ungrammatical too. ¶ My eighteenth-century dictionary has (with an asterisk marking nonclassical words): to wrestle, luctor; to wrestle against, obluctor; to wrestle with, colluctor, deluctor; a wrestler, luctator, *palaestrita; a wrestling, lucta, luctatus, luctatio, luctamen, colluctatio; a wrestling-place, *palaestra; a champion at wrestling, *athleta; of wrestling, *athleticus, *palaestricus. ¶ Your pancratium might be more like muay thai (Thai kickboxing), or other "mixed martial arts," especially those fought inside a fenced enclosure called an octagon. IacobusAmor 10:42, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :My favorite on that list, for what it's worth, is Colluctatio professionalis.--Ioshus (disp) 14:21, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)

text: Simply referring to professional wrestling as "ludus novitatis" or "ludus  modernus" would be the most accurate Latin term. Ludus is the generic term for the athletic spectacles which Romans went to in large numbers, and is the closest thing to our modern pro-wrestling. Not only did they push entertainment and fight quality over winners and losers, but they may or may not have been predetermined. One of the professors at my university who specializes in this, David Potter, takes this position. The stars of the "ludi" were gladiators, who were hero-worshiped by many children, with their own clay action figures. "Ludus Liber Professionalis" is a bit of a reconstruction, borrowing from the Spanish term fro professional wrestling, "lucha libre," which in itself is using a derivative of the Latin "ludus." -- 14:35, IV Octoberis
thread_title: Luctatio
Disputatio:Sus scrofa

message: Should we retain this as a page about the wild species, or merge it with "Porcus" (which at present has the infobox about the species)? Personally, I think I'm for retaining this separate page and moving the infobox here. There's plenty to say about both boars and domestic pigs. And they taste different. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:09, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you notice the original text, before I made a minor adjustment, I'm pretty sure this was copied from es. Notice the categoría:Artiodactyla. Also notice in the interwikis, that es is the only interwiki link that actually goes to the article about the wild animal. Per our new policy on Disputatio Formulae:Contribuenda, I think we need to keep this, although we may want to trim some of the interwiki links which lead to articles not about the wild boar. And yes, as you said, they taste different. I have even heard of having rare pork chops from the wild animals. Sounds delicious.--Ioshus (disp) 14:17, 28 Maii 2007  (UTC)
replies: text: :Retain, per the argument about the different taste (who else other than you, Andrew, could have advanced this argument?   ;-)   ) --UV 14:19, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Retain or merge?
Disputatio:Theodorus Mommsen

message: Worldcat confirms that he normally used Theodorus Mommsen on his own work. I do note that Carl Georg Burns published in 1909 (after Mommsen's death) a Fontes iuris romani antiqui, 1909 Post curas Theodori Mommseni editionibus quintae et sextae adhibitas, so Mommsenus does exist, but we should give precidence to Mommsen's own prefered form. --Iustinus 16:37, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: I see that our German friends always write ordinals numbers or years with a point, e.g 1861. (cfr. Theodorus Mommsen before my correction) . I believe that the point is used in German but not in Latin, is it right or wrong? Thank you?--Massimo Macconi 08:22, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ordinal numbers and years!
Disputatio:Herbarius (pseudo-Apuleius)

message: Credo distinctionem esse, secundum Allen & Greenough: -arius 'person employed about anything' vs. -arium 'place of a thing'. Ergo: herbarius 'herbalist (person who collects plants)' et herbarium 'herbarium (place where plants are collected)'. IacobusAmor 12:21, 30 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio. Sed re vera manuscripti huius operis alii alios titulos habent: ut si Anglice librum appellabis vel The Herbalist vel The Herb Garden. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:15, 30 Maii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: herbarius vs. herbarium
Disputatio:Lycia et Pamphylia

message: Why are these two regions combined in one article? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mixed province, acording to my books is Lycia and Pamphilia; Cilicia was an independent province. Maybe it is a typo?--Xaverius 15:12, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fine, it's not... well, I have no idea. We should separate them--Xaverius 15:13, 1 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why combined

message: Editor hanc paginam ab Pomponii Melae Chorographia 1.69-70 furatus est. Vide hic locum. Wayne's Quicky Lube 16:02, 6 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Furta