lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Res novae Octobres

message: We have just Revolutio Octobris Russica. --Rolandus 18:27, 14 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For reasons discussed in Disputatio:Res novae I would prefer Commutatio Russiae anni 1917 vel sim.--Ceylon 19:31, 14 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :We can certainly move it/rename it to the nicer name. However, if we read on the english page, the october revolution was only the second phase of the russian revolution of 1917. So we still need a new page with the name Commutatio Russiae anni 1917 in addition to the renamed rerum eversio Octubris Russica page.--Rafaelgarcia 05:47, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I would suggest to merge the two (under the common denominator of Commutatio Russiae anni 1917). We shall never have as many pages as the English wikipedia. So it may be preferable to have one good substantial page on the Russian revolution which everybody can easily locate, rather than two stubs whose distinction will have to be explained over and over again. Here, as in other cases, we can solve the interwiki conflict by directing :en:Russian Revolution of 1917 to Commutatio Russiae anni 1917, and :en:October Revolution to a Redirect page named, e.g., Commutatio Octobris.--Ceylon 10:02, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::What you suggest, which sounds reasonable to me. Hwever, regarding the interwiki issue, Rolandus implied that a simple redirect would foul the bots, and it would necessary to create a standalone stub to accomplish.--Rafaelgarcia 12:09, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

message: I moved the page to fit with Res Novae Russiae, to avoid the problems with the neologism revolutio, and since there was a source for "Res Novae Octobres". The Roman-esque adjectival use of octobris also appealed to me. But if someone prefers commutatio or eversio, I'd be fine with that too. Lesgles (disputatio) 01:50, 11 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motio
Disputatio:Zoologia

message: Domando se le voci di quest'articolo siano più corrette in questo modo:
Piscorum ---> Piscum 
Mammalia ---> Mammaliorum
Reptilia ---> Reptiliorum
Amphibia ---> Amphibiorum
Parasita ---> Parasitorum
--Usor:Raf
replies: text: Genetivi recti sunt Piscium, Mammalium, Reptilium. --Fabullus 16:49, 17 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Non sarebbe meglio trasformarli al genitivo plurale? Chiedo scusa per la perseveranza. --Usor:Raf

text: Mammale et reptile (nomina neutra), sicut piscis (nomen masculinum) declinationem tertiam sequuntur. --Fabullus 17:42, 17 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Non mi sono accorto della loro appartenenza alla III declinazione. Avevo confuso la -a tipica del nominativo neutro plurale della II declinazione e -ia tipica del nominativo di un gruppo della III declinazione. Grazie per la risposta! --Raf
thread_title:  Genitivo 

message: :Vide Disputatio Usoris:Cloud forest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:50, 3 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compendium
Disputatio:Metaphysica

message: Neander, do you have a latin source for this expresiion? It makes sense using the english preposition qua but to date I have not been able to find a latin source...--Rafaelgarcia 03:06, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe ens qua ens is a standard (and literal) translation of Aristotle's τὸ ὂν ᾗ τὸ ὄν. While I don't have a source at hand right now, I'd guess it's to be found in scholastic texts. --Neander 03:56, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks. I just have trouble understanding how the expression "works" in latin, since I have not previously encountered "qua" being used as a preposition in latin. Substituting the meaning of the relative pronoun gets me very little:"being whereby being". It would appear, then, that "x qua x", as a technical mode of expression originating in scholastic translation of Aristotle's greek, maybe is not to be taken quite so literally word for word in latin.--Rafaelgarcia 10:35, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Ens qua ens looks like being an elliptic clause, to the effect of ens, qua (condicione) ens (est), "ens quomodo ens est", "ens in se". In Latin, qua is absolutely not to be taken as a preposition, though we can see here the origin of the English (pseudo)preposition qua. --Neander 14:42, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: x qua x
Disputatio:Educatio

message: Institutio Eruditio
replies: text: Sive Eruditio, quae alienas notiones non complectatur?--Ceylon 10:27, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I just picked the one most often placed first in glossaries. Eruditio seem fine too and has the benefit of easier recognition.--Rafaelgarcia 11:47, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Most native speakers of English would more readily recognize educatio than eruditio. The English word erudition is much rarer than the English word education, and it's probably not in the vocabularies of many native speakers who do use the word education. In short, if "the benefit of easier recognition" is a guide, the desired Latin term is likelier to be educatio than eruditio. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:06, 2 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Haec commentatio non videtur educationem tractare, sed potius institutionem vel eruditionem. MARCVS 02:57, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

text: Consentio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:24, 15 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
Quid tum erit vocabulum Latinum quod Anglicum 'erudition', "the depth, polish and breadth that education confers" significabit? Vide :en:Erudition et commentarios illam rem in aliis vicis tractantis, et confer L&S. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:47, 15 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

text: Haud scio cur commentatio separata nobis necesse sit. Res Anglicam et Francogallicam perlegi: nihil sunt nisi definitiones lexicales exemplis munitae. Si vis, potes fortasse doctrina. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:48, 15 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

message: Traupman, 2007: eruditio. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:46, 1 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Cassell's, 1968: educatio, disciplina, doctrina, eruditio (verbis illo ordine perscriptis); et 'a man of good [education]' = homo liberaliter educatus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:53, 1 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
White's, 1928: 1. A bringing up, educatio. 2. A training of the mind, cultus & cultura. 3. Instruction, teaching, institutio. 4. Knowledge imparted by teaching, doctrina. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:06, 2 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Ainsworth's, 1837: educatio, institutio, instructio. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:11, 2 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem seems to be that we want a page for the modern system of instruction, which of course didn't exist in ancient times. Although we shouldn't be beholden to other languages, the interwikis do seem to suggest "education" as a central modern concept that is useful to define. Perhaps the first thing to do, though, would be to make this page more general, i.e. to include the meanings given by Lewis and Short: "a breeding , rearing , training , bringing up, education", and talk about the role of parents or guardians. Then if we need a page specifically on schooling, that might go under one of the other words. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:12, 5 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitiones Latinae 'education' verbi Anglici
Disputatio:Surditas

message: Impedimentum auris Surditas
replies: text: Surditas? (or is that word non-PC?) --Neander 19:49, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes the english page was merely being hyperprecise/pc about it; the other languages generally say deafness.--Rafaelgarcia 19:57, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Or maybe there's a real difference, unqualified deafness being total (which is why we have to say people are "somewhat deaf" or "partly deaf" or "going deaf" unless they're totally deaf), and mere "impairment" implying something that could be partial? Or see below. IacobusAmor 18:16, 25 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::However, the English page gives "deafness" as an alternative lemma, suggesting that the terms are essentially synonymous. PC in English often means using a circumlocution to avoid the preconceptions that we believe to be linked with the basic term in the minds of people with whom we disagree. That aspect of PC doesn't affect us here (I think) because few if any of the people with whom we disagree link their preconceptions with Latin words. So I would go with the basic term ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:40, 25 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

message: Since the English page was unaware of this article (the bots having failed in their mission) and it was hence missing from Secundus Zephyrus's latest report, I assumed that Vicipaedia had no analog of the English text, and I therefore made a hasty version here, as Debilitas auditus. Perhaps the two texts could be merged: but whoever does the merging should make sure that the English wiki has the correct link, or la: won't get its due number of points in the month-ending calculations relating to the 1000 pages. IacobusAmor 18:16, 25 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging?
Disputatio:Medicamentum

message: Medicamentum (Despite the fact that we have this page, it links to english drug. The distinction is subtle but medicamentum includes drugs and other remedys as our medicamentum page discusses. ALso some drugs are poisons and definitely not medicamentum. Hence the job here is to redo the interwikis and or create a separate page chemica pharmaceutica)
replies: text: Fixed typo--Rafaelgarcia 02:22, 28 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
This page should be linked with (english) "pharmaceutical drug" instead of "drug", but I am sorry, that I don't know how to do this.Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 13:31, 28 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: : Constat hanc symbolam (medicamentum) de droga redirectam esse. Nescio, qua de causa id fecerit redirector, nisi forte vocabulum Neolatinum respuit. Iam vero Bis-Taurinus hanc symbolam ita edidit, ut cum symbola q.e. medicamentum pharmaceuticum coniungi (vel "contribui") posset. Cum quidem medicamentum vocabulum generale esse videatur, forsitan utile sit hanc paginam facere discretivam, de qua nexùs sint ad

text: :* medicamentum pharmaceuticum sive medicinam,

text: :* medicamentum psychotropicum sive drogam

text: :* medicamentum somniferum sive soporem (sicut Seneca, Ep. 83.25), etc. Neander (disputatio) 17:19, 28 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Quibus rebus ad omnium consensum refectis, si difficultas nexuum manet, corrigere possum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:48, 28 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Vobis omnibus pro disputatione fructifera gratus sum. Si tu, Andreas semper adiutor, nexus corrigeres, tibi gratissimus manerem.Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:14, 28 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Hoc tempore igitur pagina nostra, quae ad paginam Anglicam Pharmaceutical drug adnectitur, est Medicamentum pharmaceuticum. Re vera duas paginas ad eandem paginam aliarum Vicipaediarum adnectere neque facile neque utile est. An Neander recte censuit "Medicamentum" et Medicamentum pharmaceuticum contribuenda esse? An utile erit paginam apud nos, quae ad Drug vel Droge (sensu latissimo) in aliis linguis corresponderet, elaborare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 29 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

message: Non credo, quod "sopor" est synonyma medicamenti. Ergo propono, ut hac in pagina scriberetur: "Medicamentum vel medicamen ..." .Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 12:57, 28 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Id anonymus anno 2010 scripsit ... qua ratione nescio! S.t.p. muta sicut tibi bene videtur, Bis-Taurine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 28 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

text: Plerumque sensus est 'altus somnus' tamen est in Traupman 'sleeping potion'. Quoniam perperam falsi interpretari facile potest, melius sit mutare.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:36, 28 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: : Constat soporem 'somnum altum' significare (quippe cum ambo ab eadem radice *sop- [somnum < *sop-no-m] deducti sint). Interdum quidem sopor per metonymiam 'res soporifera' intellegitur, sicut apud Senecam (Ep. 83.25), Cornelium Nepotem (Dion 2.5), et alibi. Neander (disputatio) 17:37, 28 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Me collocupletat gratias. --Jondel (disputatio) 13:19, 29 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sopor" - synonyma medicamentis?
Disputatio:Nazismus

message: Nazismus 
replies: text: nomen in lingua Theodisca, fortase etiam potest adhiberi Nazi?--Rafaelgarcia 00:07, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nazi compendio dicebatur pro Nationalsozialist. Ideo Nationalismus socialis?--Ceylon 06:05, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

message: Delevi:
"*quae ad socialismum attinent: statuere cautionem socialem, cautionem pro inopia operarum, universalia emerita pro senectute, auxilium oeconomicum ad societates commerciales parvas, auxilium ut classis media magnopere augeatur, stipendia pro studentibus sine respectu classium eorum socialium, communicationem lucrorum societatum industrialium cum civitate" 
Quae res omnes sunt verae -  et de re publica Vimariana et de re publica foederali et adhuc sunt partes programmatum et praxis paene omnium partium politicarum Germanicarum. Quamobrem et textum mutavi. --Alex1011 12:50, 8 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialismus?
Disputatio:Machina vaporaria

message: Motrum vaporificum
replies: text: Machina vaporaria= steam machine, not the same thing I think.--Rafaelgarcia 21:53, 25 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Correction: vaporarius means steam-powered, so machina vaporaria is a "steam powered machine" which is ok.--Rafaelgarcia 23:59, 25 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

message: Usor 82.36.88.233, scriptor sine nomine, nuperrime pistillum in embolo undevicies (!) commutatavit. Quid significat hoc nomen arcanum? IacobusAmor 11:39, 11 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Salve Iacobe. Fortasse iam scis, sed securae causae libenter explicare possum. Latinum-Sueticum Lexicon Norstedianum (editio prima, serissima) dicit vocabulum "embǒl|um" (-i, n, Graeca antiqua unde), significans stern et -trunk. Nota -trunk ut scripsi. Nullus lapsus calami est. Significat "aliquid" + "trunk".

text: Donatello (disputatio) 02:15, 9 Aprilis 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: :Ergo embolum et embolus ('an abnormal particle circulating in the blood') non sunt embolium. Sola verbi embolii significatio in Cassell's est "a dramatic interlude: Cic." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:26, 9 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::"Embolum" cum linea | scripsi. Pro dolor vitiose videbas. Sed "embolium" etiam scio. Lexicon meum dicit de hoc verbo:
replies: text: :::embŏlĭum (-i, n, from greek) interlude, pantomimic interlude; figurative: episode; pluralis: love affairs

text: ::Donatello (disputatio) 12:29, 9 Aprilis 2013 (UTC).
thread_title: Quid est ''embolo''?
Disputatio:Universitas Catholica Sacri Cordis Iesu

message: Cor, cordis, n.??? IacobusAmor 12:28, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Universitas Catholica Sacri Cordi Iesu'''

message: Since nobody has noticed my query above, let me reraise the point: this word cordi is dative, so the university's name translated into English is 'Catholic University for the Heart of Sacred Jesus'. Can that be right? IacobusAmor 14:10, 23 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iterum '''Universitas Catholica Sacri Cordi Iesu'''
Disputatio:Foedus Versaliis ictum (1919)

message: Foedus Versaliarum (1919) secundum nostram paginam de Versalliis
replies: text: Nunc autem per Google repperi Foedus Versaliis sancitum et incipio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:15, 15 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from Rolandus 1000 paginae desideratae
Disputatio:Spectrum

message: Spectrum visuale su Spectrum prismaticum, from Morg. [s.19] (Helf.)

message: I moved this to simply Spectrum, as most of the incoming links were for that meaning. The exceptions were from A Christmas Carol, where it means 'ghost', which I changed to Spectrum (spiritus); and two other physics articles where it means 'spectrum of frequencies' and should surely be a different page: perhaps Spectrum (frequentia)? Pantocrator 04:34, 9 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
This really needs to be a discretive, as it is on English. No one has stated why it should be restricted to visible light; that isn't how science works. But apparently no one here understands science. Pantocrator 21:57, 12 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Spectrum visuale" nusquam dicitur nisi in Vicipaedia, quatenus Google reperire potest; ad "spectrum visibile" movi. Fortasse purius "spectrum quod videmus"? Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 08:23, 19 Iulii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus
Disputatio Formulae:1000 paginae

message: Nonne oportet formulas nostras Latine scriptas esse? Scilicet: "Haec commentatio ex eis est quas omnibus wikipediis contineri oportet. Rogaris ut instituas commentationem Latinam de ea re, quam supra vides Anglice redditam.
Initium facere potes proponendo titulum Latinum.
Commentationi Latinae institutae adde :Categoria:1000 paginae."--Ceylon 18:11, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added . --Rolandus 18:22, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

message: Ut mihi videtur, nulla pagina hac formula utitur nisi paginae usorum.  Omnes illae 1000 Paginae apud nos exstant! (euge!)  Velim novam formulam creare, huius nominis, quae notam mittat in pagina et paginam in categoriam addat, similis formulae quam habet Viquipèdia Catalauna.  Vide disputationem ad VP:1000.  Si nemo dissentit, propono formulam die Iovis creare.  Quid censetis?  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:50, 17 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
(Eadem quaestio anglice):  As it looks like we've no further need for this formula, I propose to create a new one with this name that will mark pages as belonging to the 1000, like they have in Catalan Viquipèdia.  See VP:1000.  If there's no objection by then, I'll do it in two days, on Thursday. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:50, 17 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Non dissentio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:29, 17 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula non iam usitata?
Disputatio:Respiratio

message: Both :en:Respiration (physiology) and :en:Respiratory system have an interwiki link towards Respiratio. --Rolandus 06:43, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and Respiratio links back to :en:Breath ... which has no interwiki link. --Rolandus 21:31, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity
Disputatio:Collegium Sanctae Crucis Vigornii

message: Perhaps you didn't notice but the page Ecclesia catholica is all wrong. See the Disputatio:Ecclesia Catholica#Ecclesia Catholica Romana vs Ecclesia Catholica.--Rafaelgarcia 20:26, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't revert the change again without obtaining a consensus at the Disputatio:Collegium Sanctae Crucis Vigornii--Rafaelgarcia 20:28, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecclesia catholica romana
Disputatio:Chalybs

message: [moved from Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/Steel --Fabullus 19:45, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)]</br>
Aciarium Chalybs
replies: text: chalybs (-bis, m.) (aut vide hic) --Fabullus 14:15, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :That is not a good translation becuase it primarily means iron. The better translation is Aciarium which, though later latin, specifically means steel.--Rafaelgarcia 03:09, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Further research indicates that I am wrong. Chalybs is a better translation (more ancient yet accurate)--Rafaelgarcia 03:14, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I didn't know that word, arciarium: I'd love to know its origin and etymology. --Fabullus 12:22, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::By the way, I think it should be aciarium (> Fr. acier). --Fabullus 12:46, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::That's right. It was a typo. It should have been aciarium which is the word from which the romance languages got their word for steel. I believe it originates in the word acer (sharp) by way of the fact that sharp, hard tools were made of steel and specifically not simply iron or other iron alloys. --Rafaelgarcia 13:12, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::See Hofmann:http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof1/s0040b.html
replies: text: :::::::http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof1/s0818b.html

text: ::::::--Rafaelgarcia 13:19, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::So, something like: 'Chalybs (-ybis, m.) vel aciarium est ...'?
replies: text: ::::::::Precisely, with commentary about the origin of the two names, which is very interesting.--Rafaelgarcia 13:36, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine huius paginae
Disputatio:Pontifex Maximus

message: Care usor ignotus 201.2.235.112:
replies: text: 1. Summus Romae antiquae sacerdos (vide Pontifex)

text: 2. Titulus Papae
Cur? Quia significatio 'summus Romae antiquae sacerdos' significationem 'titulus Papae' antiquitate antecessit. IacobusAmor 23:29, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordo rectus

message: This page is linked to the English page about the Pontifex Maximus according to the Ancient Roman definition, and the page Pontifex (which is about the original Ancient Roman definition of the word) is linked to the English page Pontiff, which is generally about both the Pope and the Ancient Roman Pontifex Maximus. Oughtn't it be the other way around (i.e. en:Pontifex Maximus<->la:Pontifex ; en:Ponftiff<->la:Pontifex Maximus)? Or perhaps the articles need to be changed? --Secundus Zephyrus 00:05, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the error lies with the en: pages not with us.--Rafaelgarcia 00:26, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Apparently both pages are OK as is. It is that the english page decided to discuss the association with the pope on their Pontiff page because the etymological source of the term pontiff is Pontifex. We at the latin wiki don't have that etymological justification: we know that the pope corresponds to not merely the pontifex but the maximus pontifex ecclessiae catholicae romanae.--Rafaelgarcia 00:40, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The old Romans had the Pontifex Maximus (Summus Pontifex, etc.), and so we need articles on those topics, but Kyrios has redirected the title Summus Pontifex to land on the Roman Pope's page, and this can't be right. As I pointed out in the Summus Pontifex disputatione:
replies: text: :::<<==Summus Pontifex non semper est Papa Romanus==

text: :::Kyrios, amice, negasne personam in ludo scaenico Solymitana Clades a Thoma Legge scripto esse summum pontificem dum NON est Papa Romanus? Vide hoc website: http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/solclad/act6lat.html, quod ait: "Postquam Iudaei Galilaea finibus Romanos deturbassent, in templo de eligendis belli ducibus deliberant. Anani summus pontifex sorte urbis praefectus declaratur." Certe Anani non fuit Papa.

text: :::¶ Item: Catholic Encyclopedia dicit Gratianum imperatorem fuisse primum imperatorem Romanum qui non Summus Pontifex fuit: "The custom of decreeing divine honours to the emperors remained in existence until the time of Gratian, who was the first to refuse the insignia of the Summus Pontifex and the first whom the senate failed to place among the gods" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01650b.htm).

text: :::¶ Ergo necesse est ut mutatio recens reversa sit. Summus Pontifex non semper est Papa Romanus.>>

text: ::So it seems we need a discretiva with at least three references for Summus Pontifex: (1) the old Roman office, (2) its transformation into the Roman Catholic office, (3) at least one fictional treatment of the office. IacobusAmor 02:16, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interviki