lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Fasti Imperatorum Romanorum

message: 45 BC = 45 Before Christ
45 a. Chr. n. = 45 ante Christum natum
vide: 
http://www.csjb.com/scuola-sgb/Roma/tempo.htm

message: Quamquam non tam peritus sum in historia Romana, ut certus esse possim, tamen dubito umquam Romae Dictatorem Perpetuum fuisse praeter Caesarem. Alii dictatores, ut puto, dimidium tantum anni imperium habuerunt. Si recta est opinio mea, homo peritior emendet articulum eo loco.
Die XXIII mensis Augusti AD MMV, 
M. Kirchner
thread_title:  Dictatores perpetui praeter Caesarem?
Disputatio:Praeses

message: Praeses, -idis est verbum solitum! Iustinus
Etiam cogitabo, sed vide Nuntii (novo)latini Finnici!Gbust 18:43 apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Bene, haec est unde disputationes oriuntur! Nam fontes praecipui et praeclarissimi Neolatini omnes inter se discrepunt. Sed me iudice praesidens est nimis "temporalis" nam est re vera aliquis qui praesidet neque ille qui "praesessor" ist. An diffusius loquor? Quidquid id est, fortasse opus erit pagina de his fontibus atque inter eis discrepantiae notae dignissimae.  Iustinus

message: "Latinitate mala praesidens"... sed dicendum est hanc vocem apud Tacitum inveniri: "saevitia ac superbia praesidentium" (Annales 3,40). MARCVS 23:21, 26 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita, sed fortasse non eadem omnino sententia? Intellego potius "superbia eorum qui praesidebant" neque "suberbia eorum qui praesides creati erant". Dico igitur ego non "Latinitate mala" sed "Latinitate haud exacta". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 27 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praesidens 

message: Lex Austriae anno 1952 statuta (et adhuc valida) praesidem foederalem Austriae (Theod.: Bundespräsident, Latine fere "praeses foederalis") Latine Praesidentem rei publicae appellat, vide hanc legem. Anno 1952, legati populi inter verba "praeses" et "praesidens" verbum "Praesidens" eligerunt, vide disputationem in consilio nationale (pp. 3139–3142) et disputationem in consilio foederale (pp. 1527–1533). --UV (disputatio) 20:53, 27 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Habemus commentationem: Praesidens rei publicae (Austria). --UV (disputatio) 21:49, 26 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Praesidens rei publicae" Austriae
Disputatio:Civilitas

message: Multi Georgium Bush stultissimus esse putant.
Iustinus ... et ego eum stultissumum esse puto, sed quid hoc rei est??

message: Nonne haec Aquini locutio rectius apud Vicicitationem stet? Ad minimum, sub titulo alio ==Sententiae== fortasse?--Ioshus Rocchio 20:10, 18 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aquinus

message: #What this page seems to be defining I would call ars politica.
#But surely what whoever created the first red link to this page had in mind was the Greek word πολιτεία, which is normally equated to the following Latin words, depending on context: res publica, constitutio, modus gubernandi. --Iustinus 16:34, 18 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politia 

message: Secundum Words
 civilitas, civilitatis  N (3rd) F   [XLXDO]    lesser
 science of politics/government; behavior of ordinary person; citizenship (Ecc);
item
 -ia
 -ness, -es, makes abstract noun;
 politus, polita, politum  ADJ   [XXXDX]    lesser
 refined, polished;
Ergo me sententia paginae nomen melius est civilitas nec politia.--Rafaelgarcia 05:09, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Politia an civilitas?

message: Véase Disputatio:Vigil#Propuesta_lexical Gertindo (disputatio) 21:13, 5 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propuesta lexical
Disputatio:Lexicon

message: Nescio, an hic dictioniarium et latine et germanice scriptum conferre possimus.

message: It seems to me that by far the most commonly used Latin word for dictionary is the only one that isn't listed: lexicon. I have almost never seen dictionarium, though apparently it is used: Worldcat lists 1034 latin titles containing dictionarium or dictionarius, vs 2660 containing lexicon or lexicum. --Iustinus 17:21, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur and suggest that this page be moved to Lexicon. Also, Thesaurus verborum would be appropriate but may be less readily intelligible.--Iovis Fulmen 07:16, 26 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionarium vs. Lexicon 

message: I wanted to change the second external link to: http://cafe.rapidus.net/ghiginio/NotaeNet/N_0.html because there was an external redirect to that site, but I could not do it because a spam filter was triggered. This was what triggered the spam filter: www.lexilogos.com Alex1011 14:59, 19 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam filter 

message: :Moved from Vocabularium to here. --Roland (disp.) 12:35, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Equidem censeo tres paginas esse quam celerrime contribuendas.--Iovis Fulmen 11:55, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita, maxime consentio.--Ioshus Rocchio 13:42, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vocabularium]]

message: Please, could someone have a look at :Categoria:Libri? I made some changes, but maybe some fundamental reorganisation is needed: lexicon/dictionarium, libri picti/comici ... --Roland (disp.) 13:29, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of [[:Categoria:Libri]] 

message: makes me believe that Glossarium is not a synonym of Lexicon but a special type of Lexicon. If so, we should remove it from the list of synonyms. --Roland (disp.) 20:58, 31 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it indicate this special type to be?--Ioshus (disp) 21:38, 31 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :I added the explanation to Glossarium: Wörterbuch zur Erklärung veralteter und fremder Wörter which should be what I tried to translate. I just switched the adjectives because it sounded better (maybe): lexicon ad explicandum verbarum peregrinarum et veterarum. "Wörterbuch" in  is just 1) lexicon or 2) verborum thesaurus.  has "Glossar" = glossarium, too.  does not have an entry "lexicon". --Roland (disp.) 22:25, 31 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lexicon vs Glossarium
Disputatio:Urbs Fluminensis

message: I moved the page according to the coat of arms of the Historical and Geographical Institute of Brazil, which says "Institutum historico geographicum in urbe fluminensi conditum die XXI octobris A.D. MDCCCXXXVIII".
There are still many changes to make.

message: I have been thinking about maybe moving this to Rio de Ianeiro. Urbs Fluminensis sounds way too archaic. As of now Rio de Ianeiro is placed as a "minor" name for this city and Urbs Fluminensis as the "main" name, while I think it should perhaps be the other way around? I mean, what other Wiki uses like a 1000 year old city names, would anybody call New York New Angoulême? --BiT 01:12, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it isn't: it's New York. If the historic-geographic institute of Rio de Janeiro calls the city Urbs Fluminensis, who are we to say otherwise? IacobusAmor 01:31, 16 Septembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Rio de Janeiro?

message: Versio "urbs flumenis Ianuarii" removi ob Latinitatem pessimam. Si fons exstat "urbis Fluminis Ianuarii", licet rursus inserere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:22, 14 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Flumenis"
Disputatio:Nova Zelandia

message: What should we call "Dunedin", which was named by its Scots settlers after an ancient word for "Edinburgh" - "Edimburgum (Anglice Edinburgh, Gaelice Dùn Eideann) urbs in Scotia est"? Robin Patterson 00:35 mai 2, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Carolus Egger's Lexicon Nominum Locorum gives the predictable Dunedinum, adj. Dunedinesis.

message: The original form here was Deus Defende Novam Zelandiam, but the imperative would require a comma (Deus, Defende Novam Zelandiam), acceptance of later Latin's use of Deus as a vocative, and maybe the presumption that human beings can command God to do things, whereas the English makes clear that the verb is subjunctive (as in "God Save the Queen" and "God rest you merry, gentlemen" and "God Bless America"), hence the correct Latin: Deus Defendat Novam Zelandiam. Of course whether the title should be in Latin here at all is another question. IacobusAmor 12:25, 19 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Deus Defendat Novam Zelandiam''
Disputatio:Felis catus

message: My dic (Lewis's Elementary) says the singular nominative form is "feles" or "feales" for cat(feles, -is). The name of this article should be corrected or it's a style for animals? Aphaea 16:37 iun 18, 2004 (UTC)
Both words are right - feles and felis. "Felis" is the scientific name.Gbust 20:15 iun 18, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Gbust. Aphaea 12:27 aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

message: We have two articles: Felis and Felis catus. IMO it is better to merge them. How do you think?
replies: text: Mea sententia res nunc errorum plena est. "Felis Catus animales domestici sunt," Vocem "Felis" scio, nescio "Felis Catus". "animales" non est, pluralis est "animalia", at felis est singularis! animal est neutrum , sed domestici est masculinum. "purvi et actives in nocte." - Vocem "purvi" nescio. "Feles summa in arbore sedet ab LA2" Quae feles tam sedet? Nusquam felem video. "ab LA2" Quid est "LA2"? Ceterum censeo rem delendam esse. :-) Sergius 13:41 aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: :Scilicet Felis catus est locutio scientifica, "Felis" enim (ut iam supra dictum'st) idem est ac "feles" et "catus" (nisi fallor saepius "cattus") est vox serioris aetatis. Ferunt felem esse omnem felinam, cattum vero domesticum tantum, sed nescio num verum sit. Quidquid id est, fortasse consilium ridiculum est symbolen scribere et nomine communi et nomine scientifico. --Iustinus 17:16 aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
Um, in addition to being superfluous, this article is getting weirder with every update. What is going on here? --Iustinus 16:12 sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up? =
Disputatio:Planeta

message: I see 69.11.209.213 has added the index numbers to asteroid links. As he is something of a newbie (someone I know), I am not sure if he intended to change the title of the actual entries or not, but in any case this strikes me as a good idea. Now that we've started distinguishing planets from gods, we need a way to do the same with asteroids, and this is the logical way to do it. What do you think? --Iustinus 17:38 iul 29, 2004 (UTC)
CalRis25 06:26 iul 30, 2004 (UTC): Hello, Iustinus. I suggest using 1 Ceres instead of (1) Ceres. That way we could avoid braces AND the way of naming articles about minor planets would be consistent with the one chosen by other Wikis. Have a look at en:1 Ceres, the en.Wiki Astronomy-Project and this list of minor planets.

message: Just wondering, 89.50.46.46, about a couple of things. What's the implication of changing my quod to quid in dictu quid exacte planeta sit? (I'd thought the text was trying to say 'to specify what sort of planet it might be', and it seems now to say 'to specify which planet it might be'; or am I reading it wrong?) Also, out of curiosity, why did you move my est to the end of the sentence? Neither position is "wrong," so this appears to be a question about style. IacobusAmor 01:22, 21 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brevia

message: Латинската дума "planeta" може ли да се употребява в женски род?
replies: text: Hello sir. :) No, it cannot. Planeta is only masculine.

text: Ave dominus. :) Non itur. "Planeta" solus masculinus est.

text: Donatello (disputatio) 18:11, 13 Aprilis 2014 (UTC).
thread_title:  Женски род
Disputatio:Pytho Montium

message: I should point out that I got that quotation and some of the titles listed on this page from the Latin text on the inside cover of the Life of Brian scriptbook. The latinitas is, of course, not excellent, and (for example) they botched the latin forms of their own names to a great extent. But since I generally prefer to refer to people by the Latin name they themselves chose (and since it was pretty damn cool of them to try at all), I thought we should retain their own choices, except in cases where they are out and out wrong (e.g. Numquam Quoddam in Toto Differens cannot be made to mean "And Now For Something Completely Different," no matter how hard I try). --Iustinus 16:56 aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining that: I was tempted to meddle with the quotation until I read your comment here. Now that I know, I'll point to this comment in a footnote and I will cite those Latin names of the Python team on their individual pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 22 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De citatione 

message: Forsan "Sensus vitae" melius sit, quia proprie de sensu agitur.
thread_title:  Sensus vitae 

message: HEY! What's the big idea with the  template? The Latin may indeed be questionable, but as I explained above, it seems proper for this page. --Iustinus 20:40, 7 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might have been the same issue that I had today. Indicating that the Latin is original needs to be done quite explicitly on the page itself, I guess. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 22 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubium 

message: I took it out because neither the image nor the caption means anything to me. (I'm British too!) The relevance has to be explained. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:31, 22 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that the foot that appears among the images at the start of every televised episode? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:26, 22 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :The caption in the English wiki reads: "Cupid's foot, as used by Monty Python's Flying Circus. A trademark of Gilliam's stop-motion animation, the giant foot would suddenly squash things, including the show's title at the end of the opening credits." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:37, 22 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Whoa! The English wiki has an article on that foot!—"The foot of Cupid." Now who will translate it for Vicipaedia?! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:41, 22 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prima imago
Disputatio:Sententia (gnome)

message: Shouldn't this page be moved to Gnome? --Roland2 10:07, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC) 
replies: text: Or to wikibooks?--Ioshus (disp) 03:04, 24 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Repeat that this should not be here, but at wikibooks.--Ioshus (disp) 12:07, 17 Martii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::You mean Vicicitatio? But shouldn't we keep a list here? At least to be able to redirect the several pages about quotations to this list. And: I think we need a template analoguous to . --Rolandus 12:15, 17 Martii 2007 (UTC)
And the MEANING of each should be given, as should the SOURCE (when possible). And "Horace's third book of songs" is an inadequate reference. IacobusAmor 12:50, 17 Martii 2007 (UTC)

text: This article remains nearly useless. The meaning & source of each gnome should be given. Quid significat "Veni, vidi, caepi"? et quis fuit hic Valerius Antonius Scutus? Google eum non novit! IacobusAmor 14:21, 19 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Since no one responded to this, I removed it. I found a few examples of "veni, vidi, cepi" in Google Books, but they seem to be mostly misquotes of Caesar. Lesgles (disputatio) 05:33, 2 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

message: * Sententiae Galliae--Chris1981 03:18, 5 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nexus mortuus 

message: There is this one in the article: "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam". But shoudn't it be "Praeterea censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"? Or is Cato famous for both? I know that the second one is more typical, so I'll add it.
Donatello (disputatio) 00:37, 11 Martii 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  Cato 

message: Collator Mr.framm& locutionem exempli gratia addidit, quae non cum definitione supra scripta congruit, sed cum nexibus Vicidatorum (:en:List of Latin phrases, :fr:Liste de locutions Latines, :de:Liste lateinischer Phrasen, etc.). Oportetne paginam ad Index locutionum Latinarum vel sim. movere, an oportet paginam sententiis vero moralibus definire? Quaestio autem de utilitate paginae supra posita non est soluta. Mea sententia, paginam conservare liceat si definitiones, fontes, aut nexus ad commentationes distinctas (e.g. Medice, cura te ipsum) in ea includamus. Lesgles (disputatio)  17:42, 20 Februarii 2015‎
replies: text: "Lorem ipsum" quoque non est sententia moralis! :) Lesgles (disputatio) 12:30, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Neque sententia moralis, neque Latine scriptum ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De paginae consilio 

message: Multae sententiae non sunt morales. --Alex1011 (disputatio) 20:18, 16 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  moralis?
Disputatio:Nova Caesarea

message: Some links for a future attestations section:
*1765: History of Nova Caesarea (New Jersey)
*1786-1790: New Jersey Coppers
--Iustinus 02:38, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, lots of good stuff here in general! --Iustinus 02:40, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attestations
Disputatio:Marcus Tullius Cicero

message: ad Vitam: Cicero mea sententia non Romae moritur sed prope Formias occisus est. Sergius 09:00 aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
Apud Vicipaediam Anglicam, Cicero fugerat et "extra Romam" necatus est. Adam Episcopus 16:17 aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

message: C. Verrem Siciliam non pro consule sed pro praetore gubernavisse constat.--138.246.7.9 08:53 oct 11, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verres 

message: Ita est, Cicero magnum hominum erat.
thread_title:  Cicero 

message: Cur pagina Marcus Tullius Cicero ducet ad M. Tullius Cicero? Sitne melior nomen paginae expletus esse?--Xaverius 22:05, 23 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibi magis consentio.--Ioscius (disp) 22:41, 23 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Et ego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:18, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
Plane movi.--Ioscius (disp) 15:23, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: de nomine

message: Sub hac titula multa scripta est difficilia creditu, siquidem aliquis velit ibi scripta legere.
thread_title:  Praetera Vide 

message: Is it really necessary to write it out in full, instead of just writing "a.C.n.", which is the accepted, standard practice? Toddcs (disputatio) 15:28, 6 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a waste of time to start a discussion. Better be bold and make the change. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 7 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ante Christum natum"
Disputatio:Index locorum in Britanniarum Regno

message: A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | MN | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z 
From Latin Names of Places, and by the power of grep, hopefully without any copyvio:
replies: text: Well, clearly it was a copyvio so I have removed it. The material can be found here Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:52, 17 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

message: :Hanc disputationem invenis hic: Disputatio:Insulae Normannorum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:00, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insulae Normannorum
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Petitio magistratus

message: "MediaWiki redere possunt" - (reddere?, legere?) ???
"certissimi, humanissimi, patientissimi". praefero: "certi, humani, patientes". satis erit, si quis certus, humanus, patiens sit. Sergius 09:07 aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Quod attinet ad superlativos, non magni mea refert, tamen certe Lingua Latina superlativi saepius adhibentur quam Anglica. Quod attinet ad redere, "mea culpa" ut Anglice dicimus. Nam Usor:Adam_Episcopus:Adam Episcopus scripserat reddire et ego fortasse studio nimium corrigebam! --Iustinus 12:19 aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: :Dictionarium meum "reddere" habet - sed verbo "transferre" uti possumus? (Ut Anglice, "translate".) Adam Episcopus 16:01 aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Both will do, though both can mean a lot of other things too, depending on context. Frankly I would just leave it as it is for now. --Iustinus 18:16 aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
*CalRis25 11:06 nov 1, 2004 (UTC) (CalRis): I wanted to vote PRO Nickshanks and wrote some corresponding notes. But even though I was logged in properly and CalRis25 appeared instead of 193.81.85.212 when previewing the page, my usr-name was converted to the 193.81.85.212 when I hit the Servare-button. Any idea why that has happened? Bye, CalRis

message: I think, since we are a small Wikipedia, we should have more time for the voting. What about 14 days? --Rolandus 21:53, 29 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting period

message: I contacted Adam nudius tertius, asking if he would be available to op Andrew should he win the election. With only a few hours to go, it seems unlikely that nine users will pop out of the woodwork to vote against him, but Adam never answered me. Crud. Do we have any other grapheocratae besides Adam? Cause if not, we'll be stuck. --Iustinus 18:56, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not worry. Adam was active very recently, but if he should be away for a longer period of time, we can always put forward our request to a steward at meta:Requests for permissions. --UV 19:27, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Out of curiosity, why do we not have an active grapheocrates?--Ioshus (disp) 23:22, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grapheocrates
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Nuntii

message: Not the most popular article for editing. Maybe this is partly why: "Nullae paginae hic nectunt." But the sidebar seems to link to it. I guess all the serious users are concentrating on classics and/or templates covering several millennia. Robin Patterson 06:24 sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason I don't update this page is that I don't have the discipline to do it with any regularity, and once classes start (in about a week) it will become especially difficult. --Iustinus 07:49 sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: :Do we really need it at all? It is there because it's part of the general navigation box in MediaWiki, but it can be removed (well, probably!). Adam Episcopus 15:38 sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

text: What about Gliese 581 c planet, recently discovered? --Daniel bg 10:59, 28 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

message: Dear Friend,
Please help creation this article in your Language and start this article. Thank you very much.
thread_title:  [[Frank Christoph Schnitzler]] 

message: ubi sunt nuntii a.U.c. 2772 et seq.?12.144.5.2 23:09, 25 Decembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: in pagina prima sunt. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 23:21, 25 Decembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :et ante 16 octobris a.U.c. 2773?12.144.5.2 23:24, 25 Decembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :: hic in historia paginae quaedam inveniuntur; nescio, an collecta aliquo loco sint. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 23:44, 25 Decembris 2020 (UTC)

text: :: In paginis annorum (2019, 2020 etc. ) colligebantur. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 00:33, 26 Decembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novum nuntium?
Disputatio:Hungaria

message: cum sentio res istas , textum de hungaria etc., ira mea cescit.
non puto wiKipediam latinam rem utilem ....
Moved comment from article to here:
haec scripsit Mercurius Hungaricus. visita paginam http://chat.yle.fi/yleradio1/latini/index.php! - CONTINUABITUR!
--Roland2 10:59, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

message: Partes mutatae (apud Historiam) anno MMV Mercurio Hungarico scriptae sunt, qui Linguae studiosus Latinae Foro Colloquiorum Latinorum est. --Martinus567 19:22, 9 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partes rei mutator 

message: Usor:90.25.106.235 removit pannonia ex lemmate sine verbo explicationis et, sicut fecimus alibi, recte. Hungaria sit hodierna natio, Pannonia immo provincia Romana. Consentimurne? --Ioscius  ∞ 18:04, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Si vidissem Pannoniam, sententiam non dedissem =] --Ioscius  ∞ 18:11, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  pannonia