Disputatio:Bruxellae

message: Nomen ´Bruxellae´ falsus est. Olim Romani eam ´Bruocsella´ nominaverunt. -- [Anon]
replies: text: Fontem habemus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 14 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Multa nomina sunt, vide Graesse. --Alex1011 09:54, 14 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Nomen Bruocsella non est Romanum sed mediaevale, apparet saeculo XImo. Urbs Bruxellae condita est saeculo Xmo. Tempore Romanorum nulla urbs ibi fuit, fuerunt rura et in vico Anderlecht quaedam Villa Romana. Nomen classicum quod invenitur in libris typographice editis, est Bruxellae rarius Bruxella.--Bruxellensis 13:55, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)

message: Hoc nomen ad Bruxellae removere malo ob pondus nexuum (vide hic). An quis nolit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:15, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Tibi omnino approbo, non enim cogitavi de hoc immensi pondere nexuum qui ad urbem Belgicam referunt. Forse possumus paginam discretivam Bruxellae (Urbes) creare? Vale.--Bruxellensis 13:57, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ita, paginam discretivam ad Bruxellae (discretiva) iam movi: OK? Te consentiente, hanc paginam statim removeo. Gratias ago, Bruxellensis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 19 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motus fastidiosus 

message: I've put the 1000-pages marker on this page rather than Regio Bruxellana because this is the more significant page at the moment;  arguably, we might follow English and French and put the details into the page about the larger region, but for the moment, since this page is less of a stub, it's the one we should count on our list.  I've adjusted the IWL in English as well.  Those with more knowledge of the area should feel free to correct!  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:12, 6 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This has had ripple effects in Wikidata, not surprisingly.  The main item there is :d:q9005, described as "city of Brussels and the capital region, as a combined topic."  There is also an item for the city, :d:q239, and another for the region, :d:q240.  It looks to me like the present page is Q9005, our Regio Bruxellana is Q240, and we don't have a page on the city proper.  I propose to adjust Wikidata accordingly;  comments?  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:21, 3 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :The English page :en:Brussels is linked to :d:q9005, right? So we want a good page linked to :d:q9005. There seems currently to be some cross-linking (which I didn't think was possible at Wikidata). Hmm. I think the main thing is that only one of us should play this game, so let it be you! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:16, 3 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Actually there isn't any cross-linking, and if you try to add a Latin page to a Wikidata element, when that page is already named in a different Wikidata element, you can't do it.  But what you see in the sidebar may lag behind reality, as we've all already observed.  Right now the sidebar in :en:Brussels points to this page, but ours still points to :en:City of Brussels;  both are supposed to be looking at Wikidata. I bet the issue is that there's a cache of Wikidata entries, and it gets updated more frequently in English WP because there's more traffic there in general. Anyway, of the available Brussels-related pages, I think this is our best one, and since this is now all relevant to our Pagina Mensis, maybe it will become even better!  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:26, 3 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ah, of course, I should have thought of that explanation. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:45, 3 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Bruxellis et regione 

message: Cur credunt domini paginarum mille nos commentarium de Tocio non habere? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:28, 3 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Eadem ratio est atque de illis Bruxellis.  Sed quod facillior erat corrigere, iam feci.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 11:59, 4 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Bene fecisti! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:45, 4 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Toyko