lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Porta eruditionis/Scriptorium/Deiotarus

message: Totus commentarius:
replies: text: Deiotarus rex erat. Non Pompeium amabat, quod cum illo bellum gessit. Aliquando Cicero illem defensit, quod Deiotarus Caesarem opprimere voluit et Cicero Caesarem non amabat. Oratione Ciceri Cicero fecit captatio benevolentiae. Caesar clementiam monstrare voluit, itaque Cicero vicit.

text: Deiotarus was a king. It wasn't Pompey whom he was loving, because he carried on a war with him. Cicero once defensed hoom, because Deiotarus wanted to crush Caesar and Cicero wasn't loving Caesar. By an oration for a chickpea, Cicero made [something]. [It was] a feint of goodwill. Caesar wanted to show mercy, and so Cicero won.
Would someone like to do better by poor old Deiotarus? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:14, 26 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

text: Allow me to praise your skilful translation :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 26 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::For better or worse, we have to work with what we've got. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:43, 26 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

text: :But this is the Scriptorium:  it's supposed to be for beginners, isn't it?  Wouldn't we rather have them trying out their first steps in article articulation here' rather than in the main namespace?  Still, as the anonymous author of this page hasn't been around in some 5 years, there seems no harm in removing the redirect on D's name, creating a proper page, and removing this one, should someone be so inclined.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:47, 26 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::According to the history of the page, the original author must have thought it was ready for the main namespace. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:43, 26 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Verba puerilia
Disputatio:Politicus

message: Vide Meretrix et disputationes veteres:
* Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 5#Vir publicus, Mulier publicus
* Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 6#"Vir civilis," "legatus," etc.
* Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 13#Politicorum peritus?
* Disputatio:Coemgenus McCarthy
--UV (disputatio) 08:46, 27 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficultas exstat cum de "viro publico" sermo fit, quia "publica", cum de muliere agatur, meretricem significare potest. Multae tamen sunt mulieres quae definitioni hac in commentatione datae congruant neque pro certo, cum mulieres sint, viri vocari possunt. MARCVS (disputatio) 10:00, 27 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mulier publica" 

message: Si commentatio haec ad homines in re publica versantes pertinet, viri publici definitio hic prolata non est apta. Iuxta enim viri publici definitionem in hac commentatione datam, etiam cantores, verbi gratia, et histriones et athletae viri publici esse possunt. MARCVS (disputatio) 10:15, 27 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De viri publici definitione 

message: Nemine contradicente, nunc cum "Politicus" contribuo. Difficultatem, quam tu suades, mi Marce, ego iam in disputationibus supra annexis indicavi! Terminum "vir publicus" evitare oportet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:40, 27 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Optime. MARCVS (disputatio) 11:52, 27 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nemine contradicente
Disputatio:Turris Vetera Pia

message: Lemma, Turris Vetera Pia (locutione genitiva Turris Veterae Piae praeditum), adnotationem habet ubi verba Latina in speciem non exstant. Unde hoc verbum vetera, -ae? Cassell's offert vetera, -um (pl.), sed non vetera, -ae (sing.). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:55, 27 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Pinoculus (liber)

message: Titulum mutavi secundum fontem, qui nomen libri "Pinoculus" esse adseverat. An recte feci? Titulus anterior "Rei mirae Pinoculi" impossibilis (atque ergo ficta) mihi videtur quia nom. pl. "res" est "res". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:58, 27 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Neptunus (deus)

message: Ignote amice qui scripsisti de deo Neptuno voce: apud quam auctoritatem invenisti notitiam Neptunum vomitum esset Iove adiuvante, cuius dolo Saturnus satureiam, herbam venenosam, sumpsisset? Quia Latino sermone Saturni dei nominis apparet originem ad hoc eventum esse relatam. Puto tamen non satureiam sed saturium vel sature, Graeco sermone satyrion, hanc herbam fuisse.Aldrasto11 (disputatio) 03:01, 28 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Auctor fuit Usor:Semibos, qui fere nihil aliud apud nos scripsit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 28 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satureia venenosa
Disputatio Categoriae:Universitates pontificiae

message: Pontificium Collegium Civitatum Foederatarum Americae Septemtrionalis non est universitas et Pontificium Institutum Altioris Latinitatis est universitatis studiorum pars, sed non est in Civitate Vaticana. Quid agamus? MARCVS (disputatio) 07:11, 29 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oportet res veras dicere! Si in hac categoria non congruunt, e categoria removere oportet. Romae sunt et fuerunt alia talia collegia; fortasse oportet categoriam eis destinatum creare. Sunt alia instituta eruditionis.

text: Nescio an haec categoria utilis sit. Quantae universitates in civitate Vaticana iacent? Haud multae. Melius fortasse :Categoria:Universitates Romae: sunt multae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:43, 29 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Etiam categoria "Universitates pontificiae" potest esse utilior. Ah, ea iam exstat. MARCVS (disputatio) 08:57, 29 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

text: Ita: iam diu creavi!

text: An censetis nunc eas duas institutiones me melius categorizavisse? Rursus corrige si necesse sit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 29 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
Categoriam "Curia Romana" commentationi "Pontificium Collegium Civitatum Foederatarum Americae Septemtrionalis", Andrea, imposuisti? Hoc parum intellego. MARCVS (disputatio) 09:13, 29 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

text: Non respondi: da veniam! Hanc categoriam imposui "pro tempore" quia collegium (a) non est universitas pontificia, sed (b) pontificatú sive curia Romana relevat. Usque adhuc categoriam specialem de collegiis vel seminariis pontificiis non habemus. Sed pro certo, Marce, potes meliorem categoriam (creare et) imponere hancque categoriam retrahere! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 3 Maii 2013 (UTC)
 
Optimum duco, Andrea, categoriam "Collegia pontificia" creare, quam tibi delere sane licet. MARCVS (disputatio) 22:13, 3 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antea "Disputatio Categoriae:Universitates Civitatis Vaticanae"
Disputatio:Susanna Cutini

message: ... fortasse, nisi alius quis ante me emendat. Historicos rei cibariae faveo :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:46, 30 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the present I have deleted this page because it is linked with large scale disruption to Vicipaedia. This isn't final, of course: the page can be recreated if the subject appears notable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:15, 2 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emendabo ...
Disputatio:Mr. Bean

message: Mr.Bean sive Mr. Faba est persona fictilis in serie eiusdem nominis. Anglice = 'Mr.Bean or Mr. Faba is an earthenware person in a series of the same name'. ??? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:41, 3 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but if one can see a solution, it's even more helpful to apply it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:15, 3 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Indeed, but that cues the old proverb about how, if you give a man a fish every day, he'll become dependent on you, but if you teach him how to fish, he'll go and feed himself. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:19, 3 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Vox televisuali. ¡Ay de mi! =:o IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:23, 3 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Glad you like it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:24, 3 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio lemmatis
Disputatio:Detroitum

message: I wasn't sure how to Latinize the French and Indian war, which is what someone has questioned on the page. I thought Bellum Franciae Americanique Indi was a good Latinization, though.
128.187.97.20 18:21, 3 Maii 2013 (UTC)

message: I apologise, as my Latin ability is minimal, at best. So I defer to the actual Latinists working diligently on this site. But "Detroitum" looks, well, wrong. Unless it's well historically attested in Pre-Modern Latin, it's just adding "place" (-um) at the end of the usual name. While I think that's probably better Latin than some of the other rather fanciful place-names I've seen on here, it seems unlikely that informed speakers Latin speakers (prior to our era) would do that. 
The translation would be "Destrictum", I think. Seeing as how "Detroit" is Latin for "[of the] strait", referring to the Straight of Magellan. Perhaps 18th century writers and cartographers would use "Detroitum" though. I really don't know. Quinto Simmaco (disputatio) 22:50, 8 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the first footnote, you will see that a late 19th century source really uses "Detroitum". The second footnote tells you that the Catholic Church officially uses the adjective "Detroitensis" currently. This is a good start, I hope you'll agree. But if you can find sources for "Destrictum" or any other Latin form of this name, please cite them!

text: The "strait" in question, as you probably know, is the watercourse that joins Lake Huron to Lake Erie, now called Detroit River (see English Wikipedia for details). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 9 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Incidentally, whenever you see on Vicipaedia a Latin place-name that looks hard to believe, you could first check whether it's supported by a footnote citation, but if it isn't, you are welcome to flag it. The simplest way is to put the formula  immediately after the name. Please feel free to do that. Our aim, like other Wikipedias, is to use and cite reliable sources. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 9 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::French Détroit actually is derived from districtus, past participle of distringere 'to draw apart'; it is etymologically the same as district (there is a verb destringere, but it means 'to strip off'). Anyway, we must be governed by the sources, as Andrew says. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:54, 9 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Detroitum
Disputatio:Gemini (astrologia)

message: Cur, o amice Philetyme, emendationes meas rursus mutavisti? Dic mi quaeso, quid sibi vult in han zona. Nonne dicere vis in hanc zonam? Porro, non est usus Latinus numeros cardinales cum genitivo partitivo coniungere, sed praepositionibus sive ex sive de est utendum. Ad summam, cur Latinitatem bonam reddidisti dubiam? - Bavarese (disputatio) 15:56, 4 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Salve, amice Bavarese! In han zona erat lapsus, volui scribere in hac zona ablativo utens, sicut nuper emendavi. Inspexi etiam, quid dicitur de genetivo partitivo in quodam bono opere grammatico, et ibi erant etiam exempla "duo fratrum" et "tertius quisque militum". Ergo genetivo partitivo uti posse videtur et cum numeris cardinalibus. An quid tibi videtur? -scripsit Φιλέτυμος
replies: text: :Allen & Greenough nos (Anglice) monent: "Cardinal numerals (except mīlia) regularly take the Ablative with ē (ex) or dē instead of the Partitive Genitive. So also quīdam, a certain one, commonly, and other words occasionally" (346.4.c). Praeterea, Bradley's Arnold ait: "With numerals, and words expressing number, as nēmō, multī, ūnus, paucī, etc., and even with superlatives, the ablative with ex, ē, dē, or the accusative with inter, is often used instead of a partitive genitive" (296). Verba fortasse maximi momenti: regularly et often. Nunc video Φιλέτυμον etiam me revertisse cum eandem locutionem (praepositione ex utentem) in locum genitivi partitivi in uno aut duobus commentariis substituissem. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:36, 4 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Recte, amice, dixisti. Mi quaeso permittas unam addere rem: numerale unus a bonis auctoribus numquam nisi coniunctum praepositioni dicitur - exceptum ad omnes cum superlativo. Quod Hermann Menge in suo Repetitorio der lateinischen Syntax und Stilistik Latine scribentes theodisce docet: 79,b. Eo loco praebet exemplo: Aristides unus omnium iustissimus fuisse traditur. - Bavarese (disputatio) 11:08, 7 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malae re-emendationes
Disputatio:Barnastapula

message: Haec:  "Barnstablia"Res britanicae: libri VII Von Georg Horn " removi quia verbum ibi non reperio. Si quis rursus inserere vult, oportet paginam citare (et titulum libri recte scribere! Res britanicae est error Googleorum). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:35, 4 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If Dunstable and Barnstable share a common suffix, the attested Dunstaplia for the formerAnnales de Dunstaplia. suggests Barnstaplia for the latter. Indeed, regardez-la. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:53, 4 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks, I've added that source to the page. That makes five Latin forms already ... probably enough to be getting on with ... it's only a small town! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:11, 4 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removi 

thread_title: Adnotationes
Disputatio:Buckfastleigh

message: Fontem postulavi quia, secundum Ekwall (), nomen "Bucfestre" non ad Buckfastleigh sed ad Buckfast applicatur. "Buffestra" usque adhuc sine fonte dicimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:42, 4 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fons?
Disputatio Categoriae:Instrumenta lucifera

message: Our usual category names are plural. Why singular, in this case? What else would go in this page apart from the one page that's here already? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:00, 5 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Please fix. I wont be creating singulars no more.Pc is a bit slow.Jondel (disputatio) 12:26, 5 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Bad luck, Jondel. Yes, I know, when my connection is running slow, my thought processes seem to behave the same way :) We aren't becoming computer-dependent, are we? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 5 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::we shouldn't. PC tends to freeze, so I tried to get a lot of work done. Haste makes waste.Jondel (disputatio) 13:19, 5 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::That's life! I've created instead :Categoria:Instrumenta lucifera, which will perhaps gather more members. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:44, 5 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why singular?
Disputatio:Dynamites

message: *depositum involvit in charta.<!--?in short logs and a deposit wraps in paper-->
How do you say : formed in short sticks with the preparation wrapped in paper?
 Nitroglycerin per se fortissimum [[materia displosiva|displodere]], et admodum disploditurum est facile affecto vexamini.
How do you say: Nitroglycerin by itself tremendously explodes and easily explodes affected by shaking?  I will change admodum to facile and remove affecto.Jondel (disputatio) 12:38, 5 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Emendationes
Disputatio:Michaël Jordan

message: Care 128.119.168.155‎, just so you know what you're perpetrating, here are the first two sentences and a literal translation of them: 
replies: text: Michael Jordan eram natus 17 Februarii 1963 in Novi Eboraci. Is lusit Lanius alta ludi in Wilmingtae

text: I, Michael Jordan, had been born on 17 February 1963 in at New York. He, Lanius, played a game's high things in at Wilmingta.
As you see, machines aren't yet up to the job of translating accurately. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:51, 8 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Care 128.119.168.155‎
Disputatio:Ioachimus Bellaius

message: Ad "Du Bellay" movi quia hoc est nomen Francogallicum, sed an de talibus nominibus antea disputavimus nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:40, 9 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide fontem nuperrime inventum. Ipse Scaliger ut videtur erit fons permultorum nominum Latinum hominum qui tempore Renascentiae vivebant. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:05, 9 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Optime, mi amice! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 9 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Fontes Latini apud Google reperti praenomen Ioachimus/Joachimus praebent. Ergo iterum moveo Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:24, 1 Decembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De/du 

thread_title:  Fons recensionis mense Aprili 2020
Disputatio:Abundius

message: ... et propter hanc rem non oportet versiones nominis Latini praebere sub specie veritatis. Possumus pro certo indicare an hoc nomen/praenomen re vera in aliis linguis adhibitum sit, sed nolimus fingere. An Angli quidam "Abundius, Abondius, Abundias, Abbondio" iam appellati sunt? An Francici "Abbondio"? An Hispani "Abondius, Abundias, Abbondio"? Dubito ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:22, 10 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomen femineum ut videtur exstat. Vide Abundia Rangel in Facebook. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:23, 10 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vicipaedia est neque dictionarium neque index Facebook :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:36, 10 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicipaedia non est dictionarium ... Noli fingere ... 

message: In any case, rather than to simply delete this page, it should be made a redirect to Abundius (episcopus Comensis) until the time when we will have two Abundii. Sigur (disputatio) 11:31, 16 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:40, 16 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: And as with all articles whose lemma is the name of things, rather than the things themselves, the lemma should be italicized. Confer:
replies: text: Homerus est poeta.

text: Homerus est nomen Homeri.
Not the same kinds of words at all. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:47, 16 Augusti 2020 (UTC)

text: That's an interesting view, but it isn't currently among our guidelines or policies (I don't think). Our policy is more radical: not to create articles about words or names, on the general principle that "Vicipaedia is not a dictionary". "Victionarium" exists to do that work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:57, 24 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :We'll, but we do italicize the names of things to call attention to their taxonomic status, rather than to the things themselves. Consider:
replies: text: ::Ada is a plant (in my garden, growing next to her brother, Odo).

text: ::Ada is a genus of plants.

text: :Not a perfect analogy, but there we are. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:25, 24 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

text: In addition, and as recently discussed elsewhere (perhaps in Latin), Vicipaedia doesn't aim to list names in other languages, certainly not if we are adding no real text on the subject, certainly not without reliable sources. The long list of non-Latin names on this page, in my view, isn't appropriate to Vicipaedia, but it could be added to Victionarium.

text: For these reasons, unless there is a consensus to do otherwise, I will convert this page, which has already been marked for deletion, into a simple redirect.

text: I am writing this in English because there is a recent series of edits on pages of this kind by anonymous IPs: they know Latin (if they are an item) but they communicate with us, if at all, in English. Si quis postulet, statim hae verba Latine convertam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:57, 24 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics
Disputatio:The Big Bang Theory

message: Nomen adiectivum rullius, -a, -um ut videtur rarum vel non classicum (non in Ainsworth's, non in Cassell's, non in White's); si Anglice significat 'rustic, clownish, boorish, uncouth', Latine fortasse = rusticus, inurbanus, agrestis, rudis, incultus, inconditus, inhumanus. Similiter rullitas. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:04, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: rullii, rullitas

message: I have a feeling that it's not good Latin make Sheldoni the genitive of Sheldon. I think it's better treat it as undeclinable. Casquilho (disputatio) 17:25, 19 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I argree. -- Donatello (disputatio) 17:43, 19 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  "Sheldoni" 

message: Sceldo, Sceldonem, Sceldonis, Sceldoni, Sceldone.--181.47.159.236 16:43, 14 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Versio possibilis, sed mos noster est nomina non fingere. Lesgles (disputatio) 02:20, 18 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Non fieri potest, nisi in Urbe Vaticana, ubi sce = /ʃe/. Alibi sce = /ske/. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:29, 18 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ita, aut /stse/ in terris Germanicis et Slavicis. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 17:11, 18 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Sceldo''
Disputatio Categoriae:Via Sericaria

message: Vel fortasse melius "Categoria:Via Serica." Vide commentarium Via Serica. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:12, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, de eo nomine meliorem fontem postulo. An Beatrice Hsu et Taiwan Today nomen Latinum verum reppererunt et recte transscripserunt? Mihi "Via Serica" dicit "Chinese Road", non "Silk Road". Sed, si nomen re vera e fonte Latino venit, optime. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:58, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Cassel's: Sericus = 'silken' (Hor., Tac.); n.pl. serica = 'silken garments' (Prop.); sericatus = 'clothed in silk' (Suet.). Etiam 'silk' = vestis serica. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:05, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It may be fine, but I'd love to see it in a Latin text. Cassell's doesn't really help (so far as I can see): it isn't a "silken" road or a road clothed in silk, it's a road along which silk was transported. So, we don't say "via Sal", nor "via Salis", nor "via Salina", but "via Salaria". D'you see what I mean? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes, the parallel is obvious, except that sal is a noun and has no option but to change its morphology (into salarius, -a, um ~ salinus, -a,-um ~ salsus, -a, -um) to become an adjective; serica, however, is both a noun (serica, -orum) and an adjective (sericus, -a, -um). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:23, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Fortasse hic locus (ex en:) ad rem pertinet: "The Seres (Gr. Σῆρες, Lat. Sērēs) were inhabitants of the land Serica, named by the ancient Greek and Roman.Schoff, Wilfred H.: "The Eastern Iron Trade of the Roman Empire", Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 35 (1915), pp. 224-239 (237) It meant "of silk," or people of the "land where silk comes from," and is thought to derive from the Chinese word for silk, si (Traditional Chinese: 絲; Simplified Chinese: 丝; pinyin: sī). It is itself at the origin of the Latin for "silk", sērĭcă." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:23, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::No, it doesn't show that you can call this road "Via Serica". As soon as we find some reliable Latin author who does, fine! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)

text: :::::I'm just one guy. I think "Via Serica" is a bad name, but I can be wrong: maybe others think it's perfect? Obviously someone at EphemerisHerimannus Novocomensis, "De via serica saeculi XXI" in Ephemeris (10 Maii 2009) thought it was OK! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

thread_title: Notae
Disputatio:Insulae Seisellenses

message: Insulae Seychelles (sic Anglice ac Francice) appellantur de nomine Iacobi Moreau de Séchelles. Cognomina vertere sine fontibus vitabamus? Ergo cur versio nominis insularum in Insulae Seisellenses est? Iam sine fonte est, penso me id delere debere... Franciesse 16:08, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fons, ut videtur: Catholic Church in Republic of Seychelles: "Also known as: Seychellen (Deutsch), Seychelles (español, Português), les Seychelles (français), Seychelles (Italiano), Seszele (polski), 塞舌爾 (繁體中文), セーシェル (日本語), Insulae Seisellenses (latine)." Google est noster amicus! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:27, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias vobis duco! Nunc scribo de fontibus in pagina. Franciesse 15:23, 17 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Buda

message: Sententia mea commentatio Aquincum ab illa Budae distinguenda est: Aquincum est urbs Romana et locus archaeologicus loco posterioris Budae (sive partis hodierni Budapestini), Buda et Pest(inum) sunt urbes aetatis inferioris, continuatione habitationis verisimiliter carente.--Utilo (disputatio) 09:43, 18 Maii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Probe dicis, amice. --UV (disputatio) 23:35, 18 Maii 2013 (UTC)

message: Please add more sources in Latin or English. ˇˇˇˇ
thread_title:  Sources