lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Cursus publicus

message: For what it's worth, William Smith in his English-Latin dictionary translates the "post" as a method of travel by cursus publicus or cursus vehicularius, but for the "letter post", he gives tabellarii publici, saying "cursor publicus seems less suited to denote our modern postal service." Lesgles (disputatio) 15:12, 21 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cursus publicus, tabellarii publici 

message: A tabellarius = a modern postman or is there another word?
thread_title:  And the tabellarius
Disputatio:Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire

message: [This continues from discussion on my talk page.] There still has to be a reliable source of information to show that this book is notable. "Amazon" is no use because they want to sell the book (therefore not neutral) and because anyone can write reviews on Amazon (therefore not reliable). A reliable source would be a review in an independent journal, either printed or on line -- or, best of all, both. In this field, if the book is a really notable and useful encyclopedia, there should be several such reviews. If not, the book is maybe not so very good after all.
It may be handy to add a general point. This article seems to be based on the English article. Translating from one Wikipedia to another is OK -- many people start articles that way -- but if the original article has serious problems you might just be wasting your time unless you can solve those problems. In this case, the English article has no external links independent of the subject, no explanation of why the topic is notable, and an extremely short text that gives no real information. The template at the top of the English article serves as a warning. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:27, 23 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But maybe it's possible to save our article after all. This is the publisher's page (Iacobus looked for it but couldn't find it)No criticism intended -- it all depends how you happen to look. The ISBN is different which quotes three independent reviews very briefly and also gives a longer description of the book. This is the Wikipedia article about :en:Matthew Bunson, the author; one could add a sentence about him. He's not a Roman Empire specialist, rather a Catholic journalist. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:38, 23 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :(I didn't look for it; I simply clicked on the link. Oh well.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:08, 23 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :: I've added more information. Could you please take a look? --Katxis (disputatio) 09:41, 24 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::It's OK as a stipula now, I think. Well done! I removed the claim that "no similar work exists" because that's nonsense: I came across an Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire while checking this page, and there are others too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 24 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Thanks for all your help and sorry for the inconveniences caused :) --Katxis (disputatio) 14:14, 24 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
===Notae===
thread_title:  Nearly there 

thread_title: Notae
Disputatio:Psalterium Eadwini

message: I checked the article by Gerry, which in fact does not say that the manuscript is at Cambridge University Library. The Trinity College Library catalogue does not say this either. So I took out the statement, which is prima facie unlikely, because in general Trinity keeps and displays its own manuscripts. Of course, if there is a reliable source, the statement should be reinserted!
We should perhaps not give the alternative Latin name "Psalterium Cantuariense" unless a source confirms it, because this seems to be the common name of another psalter now in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:17, 27 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's why I used Eadwinianum (suspecting there'd be a case-respecting form somewhere) and am glad you found a Latin attestation of something. The assertions from Gerry came from the English wiki, which says that the book used to be called the Canterbury psalter, as in M. R. James (hence my psalterium Cantuariense), but the name involving Eadwin is now preferred for the reason you state. We often give former alternate names, if not in the text, then in a footnote. See many of our very own Nuada's articles. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:16, 27 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Not to mention the alternative lemmata offered in our newly amplified Partus caesareus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:09, 27 Novembris 2016 (UTC)

text: :Sorry for the typos & such; in the real world, this month is almost too busy to be borne! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:22, 27 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Well, I'm glad you found time to do this -- I never knew about this manuscript. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:45, 27 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De multiplicitate bibliothecarum
Disputatio:Lacus Bodamicus

message: Liber citatus est bilinguis; titulus Latinus sicut et textus Latinus in primo loco stat. Auctor ipse postea textum suum in linguam Theodiscam convertit. P. Caelestis Eichenseer OSB fuit Latinista sedulus, propter quod et paginam in Vicipaedia Latina habet. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 14:15, 27 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "De lacu Brigantino congelatu - Bodenseegefrörne"
Disputatio:Obstetricia

message: Duae sunt res, Optime, quas egoquidem, ut addiscendi semper sum cupidus, perquirendas esse puto. Prima: Cur modum coniunctivum (quibus in hora parturiendi adsit) vitandum arbitraris, quo modo utimur eo sensu, quo dicimus ut eis adsit?  Secunda: Mihi apud Quintilianum legenti mihi diligens aliquis ac peritus assistat plane non liquet, qua de causa adesse aptius habenda sit vocabulo adsistere. Me quaeso facias his de rebus eruditiorem. --Bavarese (disputatio) 19:57, 28 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  in hora parturiendi adest
Disputatio:Ohalo II

message: Quid significat "Aegilops geniculata sive A. geniculata"? Lesgles (disputatio) 19:47, 30 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm ... haud memini. Simplificavi! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 1 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Bene est; gratias ago! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:40, 1 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aegilops geniculata
Disputatio:In girum imus nocte ecce et consumimur igni

message: Sorry for writing in extremely vulgar language ... I am just interested by finding where in Nomen Rosae we can find this palindrome?
Couldn't find it in my French epub version of the book
replies: text: Not extremely vulgar, simply vulgar, like most of us humans most of the time!

text: I think you were right to question this claim. I have removed the sentence. Anyone could put it back again with a precise reference. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:26, 4 Maii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Categoriam "Aenigmata" addidi, quia neque papiliones neque daemones sine cogitatione in mentem veniunt! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 4 Maii 2020 (UTC)

message: Salve, non recte video conexionem inter imaginem vel picturam et rem. --Alex1011 (disputatio) 17:44, 15 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  imago
Disputatio:Malware

message: I would like to request a Latin version of the article. Below is the ongoing translation of the English version(in blue).--Jondel (disputatio) 06:01, 15 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
Malware (vox Anglica) nocivis programmata, de industria excogitata ut noceat machinam informaticam vel artificium vel gestabilis vel systema informatica vel moderetur furtive ex deforis vel alienum facultates dat ingredi et moderari obiectam machinam vel systema vel indicias furtive furatur. Hoc verbum comprehendit virus, troianum, expiscationem, worm. Remedia noxiae programmatae sunt murus incendiarius (firewall Anglice) et anti-virus.
Malware(An English word) is a harmful program, concieved with the intention to harm information or machines or devices or portable devices or information systems or control them secretly from outside or enable external agents to infiltrate and control the target machines and systems or allow information to secretly be stolen.  This word includes viruses, trojans, fishing, worms. The remedy to this harmful program is a firewal(English, firewall) and antivius
Malware potest:Malware can:
navigatrum moderari.control surfing
conatos scrutandi interretiarii divertere.Divert attempts to search the internet
venditiones molestias vel non cupidas ostentare.Display annoying or undesirable spam/sales.
sitios visitantes indigare.Investigate visited sites
indicias privatas talis sicut indicias argentarias vel creditae chartulae latrocinari.Steal private information such as money or credit card
machinam adhibenti alias machinas mittere spam oppugnareque.Use the computer to send spam and attack other computers
machinam stupefacere, machina stupit vel piger instabilisve fit, intuli potest Malware sit vel corrumpat.Make the computer illogical, slow, or unstable and make the computer itself introduce malware and get corrupted.
Etymologia
Malware est breve Anglico malicious software sive malevolent software, ambo "immaterialia mala", npl Latine. Verbatim malware est "merx mala".
thread_title: English of Latin article
Disputatio:Emmanuel Pacquiao

message: De "est senator et . . . ex anno 2010 est etiam membrum Camerae Repraesentantium Philippinarum." He's simultaneously a senator and a representative?—a member of both houses of Congress at the same time? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:00, 20 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Certe non! Licet me corrigam o Iacobe.--Jondel (disputatio) 19:37, 20 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Simul?
Disputatio Categoriae:Diaria Italiane edita

message: Italianice should probably be Italiane or Italice. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:29, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Let's move it now. We've fixed on "Italiana" as name of the language, so I'll use "Italiane".

text: Logically the other supercategory, aside from "Periodica Italiana", should be either "Diaria" tout court, or, if you prefer to create one, a new "Diaria per linguas digesta" category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:14, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Excellent. Notice, though, that Diaria in X edita = 'Newspapers published in Location X', whereas X scripta = 'Location X's writings', presumably meaning they were written down (but not necessarily published) in Location X. Thus, for example, Claudius the God seems to have been written in both England & Spain, but it was published in London in 1934 and at the same time (as Ich, Claudius, Kaiser und Gott) in Leipzig, not to mention again in 1947 (in German) in Munich and in 1989 (in English) in New York. Multiple printings and translations are going to make a mess of practically any cataloguing system. At least newspapers are typically published in only one place and at only one time! They may, however, be printed in multiple places (to ease their distribution to readers). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:56, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::For new categories: maybe next year; before the end of this one, a little more writing is begging to be done—and time is short! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:00, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Oh, yes, writing is the main thing. Categories sort themselves out.

text: :::"Scripta" was intentionally vague: could apply to the location of author, editor and/or publisher, just whatever is most noteworthy. Let's not forget the poor journalist, scribbling the stuff on a battlefield in Mexico or Afghanistan. Doesn't that deserve a category? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Moses Maimonides

message: Nonne aptius dicitur Nomen Huius benedictum sit? --Bavarese (disputatio) 07:01, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen Huius beatum sit 

message: It would be really nice to have a source specified for that. Maimonides is not typically associated with the Kabbalah. Quite the contrary, in fact (unless I am entirely mistaken). Toddcs (disputatio) 20:31, 9 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kabalae ... peritus"
Disputatio Categoriae:Diaria Francogallice edita

message: Is there a way of alphabetizing the catalogued terms according to their main words (Croix, Monde, Soir, Tribune de Genève), rather than randomly under La (the article)? Likewise, of course similar instances in other languages. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you add  to the page "Le Croix" to specify the filing order for every category on that page. If you want it to affect only one category, then you do it differently, like this: Croix, Le Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:01, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabetization

message: For the modern language known in English as French, is there a discussion anywhere (as in Taberna) of why, for an adverb, Vicipaedia uses both Francice and Francogallice and where each is apter? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly was discussed, but about ten years ago. At that time I think all who commented agreed on "Francogallice". Ever since then, that name is used in all pagenames and category names, but, natural language and natural people being infinitely variable, some still write "Francice" in text. In the same way, some still write "Germanice" although, about the same time, we all agreed on "Theodisce".

text: Whenever it was discussed, I know I was in favour of "Francogallice" and "Theodisce" (and in a later discussion "Italiane") because it's handier -- and politically more correct -- to use adjectives for languages that differ from the usual adjectives for nation states, if we conveniently can.

text: For a similar reason and at about the same time, I set up separate category series for things that are in a certain language and things written or published in a certain country ... The very distinction that you have now happily implemented for newspapers! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:27, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Franc....
Disputatio Categoriae:Diaria in Anglia edita

message: Note that, since Anglia is a once and perhaps future country, this item, rather than referring directly to "Diaria in Europa edita," should be a subset of "Diaria in Britanniarum Regno edita," which in turn should refer to "Diaria in Europa edita." Lots of newspapers are published outside England but still within the UK! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:22, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, but we might have just completed implementing the insertion of "Britanniarum Regnum" in every category tree when Britanniarum Regnum ceases to exist, or when England has dropped out of it (which has really been suggested). In the long run, is it worth it? Our category trees have mostly been geographically based in this tiny region: "Britannia" and "Hibernia". The islands are probably permanent :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Unlike some of the Pacific atolls, which seem to be sinking under the waves (now that Britannia seems to have stopped ruling them)! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 30 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The special instance of Anglia
Disputatio:Mahometus Ali

message: *'cotati'? --Jondel (disputatio) 15:10, 31 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoc vocabulum arcanum hodie delevimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:42, 7 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Quod est in re
Disputatio:Lingua Scotica (Teutonica)

message: Amice 31.15.152.149, lemma a Lingua Scotica ad Lingua Saxonica Scoticana commutasti, dicens "Term Lingua Scotica for Scots is neologism and neologism is unscientific." But you left the footnote in place, asserting in effect that the form that Kircherus attests is the one you prefer. But did Kircherus attest that? I don't have time to check, but I easily found that Kircherus attests Scotica, here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:12, 31 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, any term referring to the Scots language is a neologism as far as classical Latin is concerned! The DMLBS does have a quotation for Scoticanus, however: "b s1445 epitaphium ‥ in lingua Gallicana ‥ hic in lingua ~a translata: [t]he michti Makar of the major munde ‥’ Plusc. XI 7." Lesgles (disputatio) 09:39, 2 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :That's fine for "Scoticana", then. Well spotted! If moving to that name, we just need to cite the reference in a footnote. I wouldn't see any need to insert "Saxonica", though, as the anonym did: unless sourced, that very phrase is an unnecessary neologism.

text: :If we do that, we can then happily use the simple term "Lingua Scotica" (without "(Gadelica)") for Gaelic. The anonym wanted to do that too, but didn't think of discussing first. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 2 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The Good Old Days seem also to have given us the Ecclesia Anglicana instead of the Ecclesia Anglica. The -ana suffix had mighty powers in those days! Maybe that's why it survives as a productive grammatical element. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:00, 2 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma

message: Usor 46.123.250.88 scribebat: "Technically we have two scottish languages, why only one lingua scotica?" But 46.123.250.88's insertion assures us that the secondary lemma is attested in Kircherus, and I'm not finding it there, nor, for that matter, is the supposed attestation of the current lemma turning up—so a little reversion and possibly temporary hiding of Kircherus seems to be in order. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:25, 3 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the anonymous edit and yours. Let's not hide text.

text: The quotation is really there on page 212 (which is not that unhelpful website's view no. 212, in case that's what puzzled you). I am now linking to a different website on which it's easier to link to specific pages. Oddly enough, looking at the discussion above, you were the first of us to find this quotation!

text: I've cited it verbatim, and I've added the discretiva adjective in the best way I could, hoping thus to unruffle the anonymous editor. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 3 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Kircherus?
Disputatio:Magda van Tilburg

message: Titulus habet van, sed lemma habet Van. Quid est melius? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:13, 1 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "van" melius est quia Batavica, non Belga est (de hoc vide []. Quod nesciebam. Vale. Jeanthorlon (disputatio) 18:35, 1 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Lacus Huronum

message: Extatne fons qui traducit "Huron" in "Huroni"? Mihi adparet "Hurones" esse melior, unde "Lacus Huronum" et non "Huronorum" oporteat, sed si jam extat fons qui alium dicat non muto paginam. Gratias et spero opiniones vestras audire! - Cyllenicus
replies: text: You may be right, at least in view of the late David Morgan's compendium: <<American Indians: Huron Hurō -onis m. (Breviarium Monsasticum [sic] 1940, Fetum [sic] Ss. Jogues et al.: “Joannes de Brebeuf, Huronum apostolus merito nuncupatus”), ;  adj.  Hurōnicus, a, um (cf. Saxōnicus).>> Also, Hurones is attested in a dictionary published in 1751. So both Lacus Huronum and Lacus Huronicus should be OK. However, this article is in the oldest stratum of Vicipaedia's texts, and it may therefore have been written by people familiar with the name of the lake in Latin spoken at academic conventicula of the time. If any of them are still around, they might usefully comment. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:51, 4 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :For the present I'll move to "Lacus Huronum", which parallels the original form of the French name lac des Hurons. (Also a grammatical parallel to "Flumen Amazonum" rio de las Amazonas.) But a direct Latin source for the name of the lake might be better still.

text: :And there are sources, now that I look. Gratias vobis ago, Cyllenice et Iacobe! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:29, 4 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Algonquini

message: Nomina populorum in titulis apud Vicipaediam pluralia et simplicia scribere solemus, cf. Vascones, Celtae, Ojibwayenses; ergo "Algonquini" propono. An placet?
Utile erit fontem nominis Latini "Algonquini" citare. Id quod cito reperitur, e.g. hic. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:38, 7 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo 

message: Duae res:
# Si velis videre ligaturas (sicut "æ"), utere "Gadgets."
# Pro annotationibus, utere notis, sic:
replies: text: ==Notae==

text: 
Hoc nunc in commentario faciam, sed illud praeteribo, ut ligaturas emendare possis. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:45, 7 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

text: Etiam res minores: i (non j), et Fasciculus (non File). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:06, 7 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Mores vicipaediani
Disputatio:Irocosii

message: Iam habemus commentarium de Foedere Iroquesiorum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:51, 11 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
gratias ago, non invéni!
quomodo deleo paginam?
-Cyllenicus (disputatio) 21:13, 11 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Melius erit non delere sed cum alia pagina contribuere (i.e. omnes res utiles in unam paginam congerere). Quo facto, haec pagina in redirectionem converti potest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:23, 12 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

text: Redirectione facta, alias res huius paginae delere oportet: id quod nunc feci. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 17 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Irocosii
Disputatio:Mons Pessulanus (Mons Viridis)

message: Rogat Andreas "fons nominis?"—I think Traupman's Conversational Latin attests the Latin names of the US states and their capitals, but my copy has gone missing. Maybe someone with a copy can check? Iustine? Iosci? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:11, 17 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be good to have a source. The Latin name of the French city is a bit variable (though I would admit this one is the commonest), and I'm not sure we should apply any one of those forms without a supporting source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:18, 17 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Fons nominis
Disputatio:Orchidaceae

message: I took out the following because they are all red links and they make little sense without the concealed text ... which is in English. They could be put back in, with Latin explanations only, I'd say. But they are a bit like the old "Trivia section", which used to be acceptable on en:wiki but no longer is.  Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 13 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
* Adaptatio, pellicula
* American Orchid Society in Litore Delray Floridae
* Distributio specerum orchidum
* Moyobamba, "Urbs Orchidum' appellata, cui sunt circa 1500 species loco indigenae
* Nero Wolfe orchidum amator
* The Orchid Thief, liber
* Orchidelirium
* Orchid Conservation Coalition
thread_title:  Nexus interni
Disputatio:Pulmentum Turcicum

message: OK yay, I persuaded Iacobus to remove his  tag. But I ain't gonna lie: this is not exactly a long and thorough article. In my defense it is the longest article on this topic on any language Wikipedia ;) --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:00, 17 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Iacobus was right: external links were wanted and you have now added them. Don't make the page any longer unless it wants it. Latin is concise, and Latin encyclopedias are also concise! Many English Wikipedia articles are about five times as long as they need to be :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 17 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Andrew was right, too! It's a fine little article! For reference: any solid text (with a well-defined lemma, an example, sources, and links) that's larger than 2000 characters looks like plus quam stipula to me. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:17, 17 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

message: This is currently the only page under :Categoria:Ars coquinaria Israelena. There was one other, but it's been removed by a recent edit. While considering whether to revert that edit, I wondered: why "Israelena"? Google makes that adjective look a bit doubtful. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:19, 16 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category