lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Jedi

message: Good day. I know it's not our job to create words, but what do you think 'Jedi' would become in Latin?.
From the English article 'Jedi':
"The word 'Jedi' may be derived from the Japanese word Jidaigeki (時代劇) which translates as 'period adventure drama'. A period adventure drama is a Japanese TV soap opera program set in the samurai days. George Lucas is said to have mentioned in an interview that he saw a Jidaigeki program on TV while in Japan a year or so before A New Hope was made and liked the word."
Donatello (disputatio) 16:01, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC).
replies: text: Cum 'judo' sit ziudo, 'Jedi' ut videtur erit Zedae (pl.). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:07, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: : Ziudo, forma acutula nimiaque subtilitate ornata, fonte caret. Iudo autem multis fontibus confirmatur (Morgan; Vilbog; Pekkanen & Pitkäranta). Quod ad Jedi attinet, sit ut scriptum est; cf. Jazz. Neander (disputatio) 18:01, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Haec verba tua in disputatione Ziudo addo, Neander. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:03, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

text: ::Licet mihi. Non sequitur traditionem Latinam, nomina Anglicarum sicut John, (Galli Jean), Jesus verba Joke, Just, June ex Iohanne, Iesus, Iocus, Iunium tradenda quod verbum "Jedi" non hanc traditionem habet. Nam nos opertet fidelis esse sonum "J" quod melius sit Z vel (dz). Quamquam hanc rem incepi cum "Jedi" quod melius visus mihi modus vulgatus. Latina recta per se, melius sit Zedae (sicut Iacobus). We need the fons for that "Jidaigeki" else this would be speculation.Jondel (disputatio) 23:47, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I agree on that last point! The rest is speculative (as Donatello knows) because we do not invent spellings: we use Jedi unless an external reliable source gives us a Latinized spelling. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:59, 23 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Recte monent Neander et Andreas, quamquam paene omnis linguarum naturalium evolutio a sonitu, non visu, dependet. Zedae auribus, Iedi autem oculis favet. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:17, 23 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::: Fortasse Zedae auribus Anglophonis placet, sed appellatio scriptionalis ('spelling pronunciation') in multis linguis valet. Ego, cum JEDI aut JUDO scriptum video, IPA ['jedi] aut ['judo] appello. Si more Anglico appellem, homines me iocari credant. Neander (disputatio) 13:49, 23 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Hello. For 'Jedi' in Latin, what about the Greek name Τζεντάι (Tzentái)? I don't know if it's Greekinized word of 'Jedi' or an equivalent. Maybe Greekinized. The name Zedae mentioned be Neander sound similar.
replies: text: :::::::Donatello (disputatio) 17:07, 11 Octobris 2012 (UTC).
thread_title:  Jedi
Disputatio:Cylindrus panarius

message: "Cylindrus . . . est instrumentum qui saepe in panificio utitur pro massa complanare." = A cylinder is a tool; which (cylinder) often uses [something] in a panificium for a mass to flatten [something]. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:14, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To elaborate on Iacobus' comment: instrumentum is neuter, so it must be followed by quod, not qui (which is masculine); the verb utor, uti, usus sum is passive in form but active in meaning, so utitur means (and only means) "he uses," not "he is used" (another verb, such as usurpare, adhibere and so on can be used for the passive, and you can also use the noun usus is certain ways, though I won't elaborate on that); "in order to do something" has to be translated by ad or ut, so that "in order to flatten a mass" is either "ut massa complanetur" (notice the subjunctive) or "ad massam complanandam." Mattie (disputatio) 21:03, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Salve. Panificium baking Anglice significat et massa dough. Donatello (disputatio) 20:58, 23 Iulii 2012 (UTC).
thread_title: Definitio

message: Cibi coctura "the cooking of food" seems redundant. What about a simply coctura, or something else altogether? Mattie (disputatio) 22:58, 23 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene mones! Quippe cum cylindrus etiam alias significationes habeat, hanc suadeo mutationem tituli: "Cylindrus (cibi coctura)" ==> "Cylindrus pistorius" aut "Cylindrus panarius". Neander (disputatio) 23:08, 23 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: : Whitaker's ait "pinso = stamp, pound, crush" -- vae! Fortasse "panarius" melius est adiectivum, ne coqui nimis violentes fiant! Mattie (disputatio) 23:29, 23 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Fortasse ita. Etiam Ebbe Vilborg (Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok, 2009) cylindrum panarium praebet. Neander (disputatio) 23:59, 23 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Eo igitur utamur. Macte! Mattie (disputatio) 00:46, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title
Disputatio:Capitalismus negotiationum

message: "Chrematistica," mea sententia, in "capitalismum" convertendum est, Latinitate normali neque barbarismos nimis metuenti. De modo autem Latino, quo "corporate" dicatur, egomet nomine adiectivo corporatus uti soleo, quod in lexico quodam inveni, cuius specialiter tamen oblitus sum!, ac de quo in Victionario Anglico legere possumus, (et enim quod fontibus carentibus nihilo minus censerem usurpandum esse). Mattie (disputatio) 23:16, 23 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Quod scribis de pagina aliter inscribenda, nimis persuasus consilium accipio perficiamque. Quod autem ad rem alteram pertinet, mihi satis amibigitur quin auctores Latini necnon novissimi res corporatas ad greges oeconomiae circumscribendos adhibuerint. Ab omnibus vocabulariis vox qua corporates redduntur in negotiationem conversa est. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis (disputatio) 19:00, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: : Cum dixi 'corporatus' (et 'corporatio') fontibus quidem carentibus nihilo setius usurpandum esse, hoc habebam in animo, quod 'negotiatio' business (mihi quidem) significare videtur, et corporationes, sicut 'coöperativae' (ut ita dicam), non sunt 'businesses' sed genus business.  Si igitur 'negotiatione' pro 'corporatione' utamur, cui non obstem, quo modo 'business' et 'corporation' discriminemus? Mattie (disputatio) 15:24, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Veram habeo sententiam negotiationem potius ad res mercandas quam ad collegium/gregem/coetum/societatem etc. spectare. Attamen nescio qua voce coetus huiuscemodi appellentur. Quocirca, quum fontes satis indigeamus, ad verbum in tenebra eligendum proponam, si velis.--Martinus Poeta Juvenis (disputatio) 12:53, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Me paenitet, quod tantum tempus abfui! De 'corporatione' ne plura dicam, gaudeo quod 'chrematisticam' in 'capitalismum' vertisti. Symbola de corporationibus ad "negotiationem" igitur movenda est -- sed fortasse in Taberna petam, ut videamus, quid alii de his rebus cogitent, quippe cum gravia tractemus. Mattie (disputatio) 03:06, 3 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Digressiones ab historiae fide in pellicula Gladiatore

message: Formulam vicificandi in symbolam imposui, quoniam mire composita est. Subtitulus "Non evenisset Maximum removere," exempli gratia, secundo ordini inest (===blahblah===), neque ei est titulus in primo ordine (==blahblah==)! Mattie (disputatio) 16:12, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Vicificare paulatim conor posterior, subtitulos etc, nam primus solum simulavi ex origine re (Gladiator Pellicula). Emendationes  mihi placent.Jondel (disputatio) 02:00, 26 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vicificanda
Disputatio Categoriae:Reges ficti

message: And yet the deleted category was exactly analogous to the English one, Kings. Fictional kings, after all, are kings. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:02, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of following that logic (which, I think you'll agree, could be argued for ever) we should ensure that our categories for fictional things and persons are consistent and easy to navigate. They aren't consistent now, and I am among those to blame. It isn't urgent -- I'd say that the 1000 pages are more urgent! -- but it's necessary for us to schedule some work on this.

text: We are in some ways slightly in advance of en:wiki with regard to categories. But (for a reason even more pressing than the demands for recognition of fictional kings) we need to be clear which are person categories (= subcategories of :Categoria:Homines) and to keep unpersons out of them. My guess is that this is why UV acted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "no real persons"
Disputatio:Bellum civile Russicum

message: Nescio quo fonte utens Jondel ad "Bellum Domesticum Russicum" movit. Censeo ego "Bellum Civile ..." utilius. Bellum fuit praesertim non "intra domum" sed "inter cives". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:45, 29 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In dictionario John Turenberg est infra indice Bellum "Bellum domesticum" sicut Civil War.Jondel (disputatio) 09:11, 29 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Apud Cassell's, 'civil war' = bellum civile, intestinum, domesticum. Etiam apud The White Latin Dictionary. (Etiam sociale bellum apud Iuvenalem.) Usitatissimum autem eorum nominum (ut mihi videtur), quo ergo encyclopaediae plerumque uti debent, est bellum civile. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:21, 29 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
Me paenitet. Bellum civile non falsus est et nescio si magis rectus sit "Bellum Domesticum". Nunc reverto. Nam fontes habeo pro Bellum Domesticum-Civil War sunt paginas ex John Traupman dictionario, pp 154 and 698.Jondel (disputatio) 23:09, 29 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine
Disputatio:Avatara

message: "est consideratus??? Hoc anglice, neque latine est." Locutio Anglica fuerat 'has been considered', Latine consideratus est vel est consideratus (putatus, ductus, habitus, etc.). Nunc autem commentarius Anglicus emendatus est, qua pro causa commentarius Latinus est obsoletus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:37, 31 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Scripsit 90.180.173.128
Disputatio:Grex promotorius Nationum Unitarum

message: Oportet nomen mutare (sed quo modo incertus sum!) Hic enim habemus verba in casu nominativo tria sine nexu grammaticali, id quod Latinitati haud congruit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:40, 31 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Quomodo videtur "Grex Evolutio Consociationis Nationum"?Jondel (disputatio) 23:20, 31 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: : It's better to constrain the use of the word evolutio to biological contexts only (and, of course, classically, when it comes to unrolling or opening a book). My suggestion: Grex promotorius Consociationis Nationum. ¶  By the way, do we have an extra-Vicipaedian source for "Consociatio Nationum". My sources have Nationes Unitae (Reijo Pitkäranta) or Unitae Nationes (Ebbe Vilborg). Neander (disputatio) 00:29, 1 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Very nice Neander! Let's wait a bit until everyone is a bit comfortable, then make the name change.Jondel (disputatio) 01:24, 1 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I am moving this to Grex promotorius Consociationis Nationum. Jondel (disputatio) 23:28, 1 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Matthaeus Parisiensis

message: <<"There seems no reason to infer from the name by which he was commonly known that this famous English historian was directly connected with Paris either by birth or education": Catholic Encyclopedia.>> So that's why we speak of Scipio Africa, not Scipio Africanus, and of his brother, Scipio Asia, not Scipio Asiaticus, right? If the adjective isn't Parisiensis, why is Parisiensis associated with this Matthaeus in editions cited all over the internet? The name attached to the image provided in the article, an apparent self-portrait (so presumably labeled by himself), might prove dispositive, but it's been cropped just where it becomes interesting, on the right side, at Frat[er]:Mathia[u]s:P. Can a wider image of that page be found? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:58, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn you (in the nicest possible way), you're right. Here is the page and one could hardly find a better source. I'll make the changes gradually :)
replies: text: :Glad to oblige! It struck me as odd that somebody would have to have been born or educated somewhere to be deserving of an epithet from that place (though those causes may indeed be the likeliest ones). Elizabeth Barrett Browning was known as "the Portuguese," but not from any physical connection with Portugal. Indeed, inversion could come into play, so that a Mathiaus Parisiensis might really have been a Matthew who didn't want to have anything to do with Paris! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:43, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

text: Funny thing is, this image gives his Christian name as Mathias, not Matthaeus (or possibly, as in your transcription, he hedged his bets with Mathiaus). My impression is that most editions call him either "Matthaeus Paris" or "Matthaeus Parisiensis", very few "Mathias" and surely none at all "Mathiaus". Admitting you're right about "Parisiensis", do we need to check the Christian name further? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:24, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, but Vicipaedia's practice is to regularize given names: thus Gulielmus for Guillermus, Gulliermus, Willermus, Williamus etc. So Matthaeus should probably be OK. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:43, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::My problem with that argument, momentarily, was that "Matthaeus" and "Mathias" are both regular Latin and in his caption he fell between them. However, I find he wrote a poem to himself in 1250:
replies: text: :::Siste tui metas studii, Matthaee, quietas,

text: :::Nec ventura petas quae postera proferet aetas.

text: ::The metre guarantees the spelling there, so it seems OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:53, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Castellionum in Algia

message: De hoc oppido nescio, sed saepius "Castellio -onis 3 decl. = Châtillon/Castillon" vidi, nunquam "Castellionum = Châtillon/Castillon". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:58, 3 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen?
Disputatio:Franclinus Chang-Díaz

message: Unde forma Latina "Franclinus"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mihi nescio sed nomen originem 'Franklin' esse credo. Natus est in Costa Rica. Quomodo reddere?Jondel (disputatio) 09:34, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Franklin est origine cognomen, interdum in praenomen adhibitum. Praenomina "traditionalia" Latinizamus, si versio Latina reperitur, alia autem (nisi fallor) non convertimus. Dico igitur ego "Franklin". An alii consentiunt? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:30, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Many people in the USA have first names that are other people's last names. When we have respectably attested forms, like Beniaminus Franklinius, Thomas Jeffersonius, Georgius Vasingtonius, etc., perhaps those surnames will want to retain their Latinity when they serve as first names? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:08, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Franclinus
Disputatio:Iainismus

message: :Cf. Infinitas#Genni. Perhaps we should put this under the classically attested Genni "Jains" instead of coining Gennismus. Afterall, en doesn't distinguish between the two either. --Iustinus 07:20, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a start. There is a useful distinction to be made between a religious community (and its history) and its system of beliefs (and the history of that). But it doesn't have to be made at the beginning. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Absolutely, but so far as I can tell en doesn't have separate articles for the two concepts in this case (unless you count their :en:list of Jains article), so it's ridiculous to think we ever will. Unless, say, we manage to get a major contributor of the Jaina persuasion. --Iustinus 17:41, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The ism is different from the adherents, and I would think the philosophy would have priority over the adherents.--Rafaelgarcia 01:38, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputatio vetus hic mota 

message: Disputatio:Infinitas#Jaina. Again, Gennus may seem like an obscure word, but it is at least attested. --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:37, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Possumus igitur sine neologismo "Religio Gennorum" scribere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:55, 29 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: : Bene dicis, sive per me melius "Gennorum religio" ut discretivum verbum generali praeponatur. Num Ioscius adhuc moratur utrum Gennismus sit "religio" an "philosophia"? --Iustinus (disputatio) 23:20, 29 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Religio est modo philosophia satis cum pecunia. ;] -- Ioscius  ∞ 16:21, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

text: ::Ut sollemnius respondeam, Gennismus mihi videtur religione potius philosophia, non autem video cui bono sit inquisitio. Si Gennistae ipsi eam sicut religionem habent, annuo eorum coeptis. -- Ioscius  ∞ 16:27, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Ab altera parte... ;) --Iustinus (disputatio) 22:09, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputatio novior
Disputatio:Gubernator aëroplani

message: Gubernator aeronautae = an aeronaut's pilot? Potius gubernator aeroplani? Vel Latine recentiore fortasse aviator (et aviatrix)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:41, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita, aut fortasse "aëronauta"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:49, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Aeronauta potest esse etiam 'vector'(passenger)(non?) et est neo. Etiam cum Aviator. Quamquam Aviator neo sissit, duro repperire mihi in dictionaris (Traupman non,Collins forsan sit). Nam, id quod rectum tibi videatur, facite si tibi/vobis placeat.  Potius Gubernator aeroplani,mihi.Jondel (disputatio) 12:22, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

text: :Age. Iam nomen muto quod(gubernator aeroplani) omnibus gratum est.Jondel (disputatio) 23:17, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

text: :Aviator derivatum est ex ave('Bird'?!).Jondel (disputatio) 23:20, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::"Aeronauta potest esse etiam 'vector'(passenger)(non?)" -- non (dico ego), quod "nauta" non est "qui iter in nave facit" sed "qui officium utile ad navem vehendam fungit".

text: ::"et est neo." Ita, recte. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:37, 13 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Equus (scacci)

message: Ex capsa: "Neander movit paginam Eques (scacci) ad Equus (scacci): Sic aliae linguae excepta Anglica.)"
replies: text: Excepta Anglica? Hardly!—equus, though, does have the majority (here omitting the unknown be-x-old:Вершнік (шахматы)):
*EQUUS (horse)
*:ar:حصان (شطرنج)
*:az:At (şahmat)
*:bg:Кон (шахмат)
*:ca:Cavall (escacs)
*:co:Cavaddu (Scacchi)
*:el:Ίππος (σκάκι)
*:eo:Ĉevalo (ŝako)
*:es:Caballo (ajedrez)
*:et:Ratsu
*:fa:اسب (شطرنج)
*:fi:Ratsu (shakki)
*:gl:Cabalo (xadrez)
*:he:פרש (שחמט)
*:id:Kuda (catur)
*:it:Cavallo (scacchi)
*:kn:ಕುದುರೆ (ಚದುರಂಗ)
*:lt:Žirgas (šachmatai)
*:lv:Zirdziņš (šahs)
*:mn:Морь (шатар)
*:mr:घोडा (बुद्धिबळ)
*:nds:Peerd (Schach)
*:nl:Paard (schaken)
*:pt:Cavalo (xadrez)
*:ro:Cal (șah)
*:ru:Конь (шахматы)
*:ta:குதிரை (சதுரங்கம்)
*:tg:Асп (шоҳмот)
*:th:ม้า (หมากรุก)
*:tr:At (satranç)
*:tt:Ат (шахмат)
*:uk:Кінь (шахи)
*:zh:馬 (國際象棋)	
*EQUES (knight)
*:af:Ruiter (skaak)
*:cs:Jezdec (šachy)
*:cy:Marchog (gwyddbwyll)
*:en:Knight (chess)
*:fo:Riddari (talv)
*:fr:Cavalier (échecs)
*:he:פרש (שחמט)
*:hu:Huszár (sakk)
*:ka:მხედარი (ჭადრაკი)
*:ko:나이트 (체스)
*:ja:ナイト (チェス)
*:simple:Knight (chess)
*:sk:Jazdec (šach)
*:tg:Асп (шоҳмот)	
*SALTATOR (jumper, leaper)
*:da:Springer (skak)
*:de:Springer (Schach)
*:hr:Skakač
*:lb:Sprénger (Schach)
*:nn:Sjakkbrikka springar
*:no:Springer (sjakk)
*:pl:Skoczek
*:sh:Skakač (šah)
*:sl:Skakač (šah)
*:sr:Скакач (шах)
*:sv:Springare

text: So perhaps a better exordium would be: "Equus, vel eques, vel saltator"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:30, 12 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: : Gravi profecto testimonio superlationem meam — et quidem eam, quae hominem scientificum indeceat — demonstrasti! Si equitem aut/et saltatorem fonte extravicipaediano confirmare potueris, facile propositum tuum accipiam. Ego fontem habeo, qui equum et caballum confirmet. Neander (disputatio) 06:55, 12 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Eques, equus, saltator

message: "eques, [reference: Helf. in Morgan, apud facweb.furman.edu.]"
* The link is dead. Does that sill count as a source?
* What's "Helf." supposed to mean?
* Was the soure reliable or did it invent new words?
-84.161.32.66 16:09, 24 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Disputatio:Levans

message: Fons desidero quod huius regionis nomen antiquitatis tardius Latinum "Oriens" fuisse credo. Num "Levans" verae Latinitatis redolet, sive potius Anglofrancogallicitatis Latine versae, nescio! (Anglice ab anno 1497; Francogallice ab anno 1528) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 12 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ego quoque dubito; quales sunt meliores versiones? Nam "Oriens" sensum ampliorem habet. Litus orientalis maris Mediterranei? Fortasse Levant, verbum non conversum? Lesgles (disputatio) 19:32, 23 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vocabulum haud in historia hodierna ignotum est; vide Diplomatarium Veneto-Levantinum. Similiter in scientia:
replies: text: ::alga Pycnoporidium levantinum

text: ::dinoflagellatum Calciodinelluym levantinum

text: ::aranea Eusparassus levantinus

text: ::vespoideum Episyron levantinum

text: ::pseudoscorpio Garypus levantinus

text: ::anguis Eirenis levantinus

text: ::piscis Cobitis levantina

text: ::mammal Talpa levantis

text: :Omnia sane ex Levans ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:56, 24 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Bene invenisti; ego satis factus sum. Nunc apud Du Cange quoque levans video, sed illic de puncto cardinali agitur. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:07, 24 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Gratias ago, Iacobe: me persuasisti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:35, 24 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Fons?
Disputatio:Opus caementicium

message: Secundum usum auctorum bonorum usus est participium perfecti significans genus activi (et - nota bene! - masculini). Si quis exprimere vult genus in constructionem adhibitum, ita (vel aliquid simile) scribito! Nisi forte non recte intellego. - Bavarese (disputatio) 17:42, 13 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Salve. Mea culpa, esse necesse est 'Opus caementicium erat (sive 'fuit'; non certus sum) genus concreti Romani in constructione usum ...', tum verbum 'genus' masculine est.

text: Donatello (disputatio) 00:35, 14 Augusti 2012 (UTC).
replies: text: :Adhibitum, ut supra dixit noster Bavarese (vel usurpatum). Hoc in constructione usum = 'using in construction'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:50, 14 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ad 'adhibitum' mutavi. Sed quid 'erat'? Sit 'fuit'?

text: ::Donatello (disputatio) 16:03, 14 Augusti 2012 (UTC).
thread_title:  in constructionem usus
Disputatio:Marcus Paulus Venetus

message: Marco Polo's date of birth is given in the German Wikipedia as "c. 1254", footnoted to John Lloyd & John Mitchinson, The Book of General Ignorance. London: Faber and Faber, 2006. In many other wikipedias it is given as "15 September 1254" and usually not footnoted at all. In the Catalan Wikipedia -- an apparently well-documented article --  it is given as "15 September 1254" and footnoted to John Lloyd & John Mitchinson, The Book of General Ignorance. London: Faber and Faber, 2006. Something wrong somewhere. 
The current Britannica article agrees with the text of the German wiki: "c. 1254". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:16, 15 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :I found an old article that quotes the evidence, so I have used it. It's conceivable that some recently discovered source really gives a precise date, but also conceivable that someone has made it up. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:02, 15 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

text: And as to his birthplace, Croatian opinion favors Croatia. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:36, 15 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Are we surprised? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:02, 15 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
My handiest source turns out to be the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" article. It's the only short biography I've found that describes his travels in their context as a part of his life. The en:wiki article is hopeless from that point of view. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:28, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a reliable source