lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio Categoriae:Museum Solitarium

message: I don't understand the purpose of this category, now that the Hermitage museum has been moved elsewhere. If this is now meant to list hermitages or retreats, presumably it should be plural. Whether "eremitagia" is the best word to choose, I don't know: my dictionary suggests "Secessus" ... but maybe there are other terms too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:57, 18 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so now "Categoria:Eremitagium (Petropolis)" is a subcategory of this one. How does that make sense? The Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg is not a kind of hermitage, it is a museum. If it once was a hermitage (which I don't know), the article needs to say so. Otherwise, it doesn't belong here, does it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:29, 19 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :It looks to me as if all this has happened because I, when creating the article "Eremitagium", unwisely didn't call it "Eremitagium (museum)" or "Eremitagium (Petropolis)". So, Alex, you have corrected that, and created a page "Eremitagium" about medieval hermitages. You were right there. That's fine.

text: :But it doesn't work the same way for categories. There can't be a justification for a "Categoria:Eremitagium" (so far as I can see), because category names have to be plural, unless they are about single indivisible things (like a museum). So, if you think :Categoria:Eremitagium is inappropriate as a category name for the museum, it has no other reason to exist, and we just have to delete it. Isn't that right really? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:46, 19 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
Well, I used this category, because it was already there. I have no objection to moving or replacing it by "categoria:eremitagia". (On German wikipedia the principle is to use only the singular form, so I had no problems with singular either.) --Alex1011 (disputatio) 17:09, 19 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)

text: Of course, yes, I see how it was. It's true that we differ from German wikipedia on this. Thanks for your reply! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:59, 19 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)

text: OK, so Categoria:Eremitagium is now useless and I have deleted it. I think the spelling "hermitagium" may be the oldest medieval form, sio I have moved the brief page about hermitages to that spelling. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:32, 17 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Now that a category is needed for hermitages, I have created one. The classical term seems to be ":Categoria:Secessus", so that's what I have called it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:14, 21 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
As far as the museum is concerned, I have now found a real Latin name, "Museum Solitarium", and moved the page and category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:46, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About "Categoria:Eremitagium"
Disputatio:Cantiliacum

message: I think the move to Chantiliacum was pointless. That form is certainly found, but "Cantiliacum" is found too, perhaps particularly in French sources, and it agrees better with French linguistic history (hence e.g. this name is used as an example in Nyrop's Grammaire historique). The move impelled me to add citations, which is of course a Good Thing :)
replies: text: Oh, yes, and while searching I found a Latin form for "Condé", which I had wanted earlier and couldn't verify. That's a good thing too! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 19 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Adam

message: Ave. Nunc quando nomen additum "Adamus" video si exsistit demiro. Aliquis qui scis? Si est, quid censetis commentatio vocari oportet? Adam sive Adamus? -- Donatello (disputatio) 00:29, 27 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: Per me liber Genesis, versione Vulgata, est fons bonus! Ibi "Adam" scribitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:44, 27 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen Adae et commentationis
Disputatio:Olea europaea

message: This seems improper material for a worldwide factual encyclopedia. I don't think we have many other articles that address the reader in the imperative. If this is a United States regimen (as it appears from the sources) it might be OK to put it in the infinitive, with a sentence explaining to the rest of the world that this is what US people tell each other to do ... but it might be better just to delete it? Any other views?
If I must not eat olives at the fanciest dinners (as I am instructed in the last sentence of this section) what, then, is to be done with the dish of olives on the table? Something missing here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:34, 27 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and since no one responded, I've copied the text here, in case someone wants to rewrite it in a more encyclopedic way in the future: Lesgles (disputatio) 23:56, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Regimen morum
Cum in taberna aut caupona oleas edas, tuis digitis tangere licet. Primum unam oleam tuis digitis primoribus colligas. Deinde si olea parva est, excerpe digitis saxum ex olea, et immitte oleam in tuum os.  Postquam pone saxum in tua patella. Si olea magna est, dum eam inter tuos digitos tenes, oleam morsibus parvis edere debes.  Si modus edendi tuis digitis tibi non libeat, oleam furcilla pungere debeas. Cum tamen domi in mensa escaria edas, furcilla semper uti et saxum in extrema patina ponere debes Eating Olives (with pits).. Politely... . Web log. 5 September 2006. CBS Interactive. Chowhound.com.
Non licet edere oleas occasionibus omnibus.  Per familiarem cenam tibi licet constituere utrum necne oleas edere.  Per tamen lautissimam cenam oleas edere numquam tibi licet “Dining Etiquette Guide.” What’s Cooking America..
thread_title:  Regimen morum
Disputatio:Franklinus Oz

message: I think the most obvious meaning of "vir neurospasti" would be "the husband of a string-puppet", while "Categoria:Homines neurospasti" would be "men who are controlled by strings". I don't think these assertions are true of Frank Oz :) I guess the meaning intended, in both cases, is "Puppeteer(s)". Can anyone devise a term?
Am I right in thinking that the Muppets were not string-puppets but glove-puppets? Surely I'm right! We need to consider that, because "neurospastum" can only mean a string-puppet or marionette.  I don't know if we have a word for a glove-puppet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:26, 29 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puppets
Disputatio:Opifex

message: Laborator est vocabulum mediaevale; lingua classica potius opifex, operarius, etc., utitur. Propono ut pagina ad "opifex" moveatur. Alii quid dicunt? Lesgles (disputatio) 18:58, 29 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Movi. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:10, 21 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen classicum
Disputatio:Domitus

message: * "Domitus plantarum": ita neque Cicero scripsit, neque alius mihi cognitus. Scripsi enim (cum Cicerone, si recte legi) "cultus plantarum".
* "Dilectu humano": "arte humana" scripsi, quia an dilexerunt cultores e.g. neolithici, haud scimus.
* "Domi exstricatus": de his verbis, sicut synonyma "domitús" posita, alius quis iam dubitavit. Ego quoque.
* "Animal dilectum": hanc locutionem nos Vicipaediani, nisi fallor, ad mundum introduximus (vide Google s.vv.)  Est fortasse calque sive versionem mutuatam locutionis Anglicae "pet (animal)"? Locutio Anglica (nisi fallor) cum difficultate ad consuetudines hominum veras accommodatur: sunt qui animalia capta aut domu alita diligunt, sunt qui non diligunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 31 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aliqua muto
Disputatio Categoriae:Tabularium Ethnologiae Americanae

message: This is the "Bureau of American Ethnology". I'm not sure of the best term. I avoided the suggested "Ministerium" because (in our modern context) that sounded too governmental ... but I don't know really! One might also try "Quaestorium", but I don't think that word has been used in the sense of an office or bureau. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:55, 1 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Acco

message: According to this, the succession of names in Latin seems to have been Ace, Ptolemais, Colonia Claudii Caesaris, Accho, Acon, ?Acre. The Vulgate actually seems to use Achcho, with two ch's. Hofmann to uses Acon, Acre, and Ptolemais, in a confusing web of entries; his longest entry, though, is at Ptolemais. Lewis and Short list Ace, Ptolemais and Ptolemaida. Ptolemais seems to be the most constant classical usage; quid dicitis de motione istuc? Lesgles (disputatio) 14:50, 1 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew I didn't just make it up ... I have added some citations for Acco, Accon, and the adjective Acconensis. I think your first source (hadn't seen that book before) is bang on, except that it maybe should have spelt the Crusader name "Acco(n)" rather than "Acon". I haven't seen elsewhere that form with one c.

text: I'd say that as long as the article is brief and the focus medieval to modern, as it is now, there's not much reason to move it: it was maybe more significant in the 12th/13th century than before, Acco and Accon were usual forms then, and Acco corresponds closely with the modern Hebrew and Arabic names. On the other hand, "Ptolemais" was not forgotten (it's seen as an alternative in at least one of the sources I cited, and, as you say, in Hofmann) so you might argue for a move, yes! Do you feel like extending the article a bit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:36, 1 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, Hofmann uses Acon, but I think for medieval and Renaissance writers these differences (one or two cc's, or ch, or n at the end, etc.) weren't seen as that significant. I wasn't planning to do much to the article now, so I think you're right about keeping it where it is. I noticed it because of Index urbium Israëliticarum, which opened up a bag of naming and transliteration worms. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:53, 2 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::No problem. If you do more work around this, and think it's best to move it, I wouldn't object! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:13, 2 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio Vicipaediae:De bibliographiis et nexibus externis

message: Addidi hodie varias res quae, hac pagina congruentes, usque adhuc in pagina Vicipaedia:Structura paginae steterunt. Minima hic mutavi, sed multa inserui. Si ea quae feci aliis non placet, s.v.p. disputate! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:41, 2 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addidi ...
Disputatio:Vascus Gama

message: Fortasse Vascus (vel Vasquus, Vasquius) de Gama, quorum nominum fontes sunt?  Lesgles (disputatio) 15:39, 5 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene repperisti. "Valascus" mihi videtur cognomen Lusitanicum fuisse, Latine expressum, sed non praenomen. Sed quomodo eligere? Illis fontibus, "Vasquius (de) Gama", "Vascus (de) Gama", etc. etc., praebentibus, consensum haud video! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:54, 5 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Carmen epicum Lusiadae Latine redditum praenomen habet "Vascus" (lib. 1 v. 442) et cognomen "Gamma" (v. 391, cf. v. 147). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:17, 5 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Consentio, fortasse hoc melius est. Lesgles (disputatio) 03:29, 6 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::"Gama" posui (sicut historicus Thuanus) quia cum orthographia Lusitanica congruit: OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:36, 7 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Parlamentum Europaeum

message: Salve. Habemus fons pro Parlamento Europaeo, sed ut lingua latina classica in Vicipaedia Latina adhibemus, nullum nomen bonum sit. Fons pro Senatu Europaeo etiam habemus, et fortasse hoc nomen melius est. Quid censetur vobis? -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:48, 6 Februarii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: Est disputatio de notione "parlamentum", vide Disputatio:Parlamentum--Utilo (disputatio) 10:46, 8 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen commentationis et aedificii
Disputatio:Ludovicus (persona ficticia)

message: Why Luigius and not Ludovicus? What a terrible rendition! If there is not a fount of the name in Latin, translate his name according the traditional rendition, id est Ludovicus.
replies: text: Greetings. That might be good to do. What do others say? -- Donatello (disputatio) 01:11, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: :Unless we have a source for "Luigius", we don't allow ourselves to invent such a form, and there's no need to. Ludovicus seems fine to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:15, 11 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::We have "Ludovicus" and "Aloisius/Aloysius" for the name Luigi. Do we know which one is the most common one for Luigi? -- Donatello (disputatio) 01:17, 12 Martii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: :::I am sure that Ludovicus is commoner in French contexts. Beyond that I don't know. Maybe someone else can help here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:43, 12 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Aloysius seems to be more common in Italy, eg. "Aloysius Galvani(us)", instead of "Ludovicus Galvanius". But Ludovicus seems to be pretty common too, so I think either would be fine. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:21, 17 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::This was dragging on too long. I have moved, to put an end to Luigius. I therefore accepted the only positive proposal (by the anonymous editor) but if the preference is eventually Aloysius that's fine by me.Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 26 Martii 2014 (UTC)

text: :::::I may have misunderstood the second sentence (why were both "Luigii" and "Marii clarioris" in the genitive? I had to guess which was intended to be the subject of the sentence): please correct if I've got it wrong. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:12, 26 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luigi in Latin
Disputatio:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

message: An titulum Anglicum recte intellegi, haud scio (paginam Anglicam vano perlegi) sed ad versionem Latinam lectoribus nostris praebendam propono aut "Minatio phantasmatica" aut "Phantasma minax": hoc praefero ego. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:55, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Salve. "Minax" contra "minae" et "minatio" rectius est, ita "Phantasma minax" bene sonat. -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:16, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC).
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Trump International Hotel and Tower (Sicagum)

message: Nomen "officiale" huius aedificii est "Trump International Hotel and Tower", sed difficile et fastidiosum nobis erit talia nomina, longissima, officialissima et interdum protecta, Latine ad pedem litterarum vertere. Laetus enim sum quia apud Anglos vidi nomen usuale "Trump Tower" esse. Possumus, mea sententia, scribere "Turris Trump (Sicagum)". Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:22, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Initium commentarii fortasse melius sic: Trump International Hotel and Tower, vulgo Turris Trumpiana, est. . . .

text: Vel: Trump International Hotel and Tower (Anglice), vulgo Turris Trumpiana, est. . . . IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:37, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Si recte memini, verba adiectiva sicut "Trumpianus" in titulis et lemmatibus fingere non nobis permisimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:19, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :: "Turris Trumpiana" sine fonte addito in titulo/lemmate vix potest admitti, sed ceteroquin "Trumpiana" adiectivum idoneum mihi videtur, quod in medium textum inseratur. Sed "vulgo" illud requirit, ut de dictione Latina vere usitata agatur, quod non verum est. Itaque partim Iacobum secutus commentationem retractavi, et quidem ad meum gustum. Si cui autem non placet, mutato, dummodo iustam causam statuat. Neander (disputatio) 21:33, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine paginae
Disputatio:La Scala (theatrum Mediolanense)

message: Credo nos errare si "alla Scala" > "ad Scalas" vertimus. Credidi ego, usque hodie, Teatro alla Scala et Piazza della Scala ob "scalam" i.e. portum fluvialem nuncupatas esse, sed erravi. Nomen habent propter ecclesiam S. Maria della Scala iamdudum deletam. Haec ecclesia Mediolanensis non fuit "S. Maria de Scala ad Paradisum" (sicut re vera alibi reperimus): rursus breviter erravi ... Fuit ecclesia S. Mariae a Regina Scaligera condita! Igitur fortasse, cum Ephemeride, nobis oportet "La Scala (Mediolanum)" aut "La Scala (theatrum Mediolanense)" scribere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:38, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Si Wikiepdia sic recte dicit "The noble family of the Scaliger (also Scaligeri, from de Scalis or della Scala)," locutio Teatro della Scala ut videtur = Theatrum de Scalis. Si autem theatrum ex Regina Scaligera appellatur, tum nomen Latinum more Linnaeano erit Theatrum Scaligeranum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:46, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita, nomen gentilicium huius familiae Latinum est "Scaliger". Sed theatrum non a Regina Scaligera appellatur; nomen habet Italianum ab ecclesia, quae agnomen habuit Italianum dominae Scaligerae. Igitur, si Latine "Theatrum Scaligeranum" sine fonte scribimus, in errorem etymologicum (mea sententia) cadimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:55, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::What does the Vatican call other things that are alla Scala and della Scala and such? E.g. Santa Maria della Scala (Siena). For that matter, since the theater in question was named for the (demolished?) church, does the Vatican have a Latin name for Santa Maria alla Scala? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:57, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::As I said, "alla Scala" was the church's Italian nickname. Its Latin name, so far as I could find, was "Sancta Maria ad Portam".  Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:29, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Santa Maria della Scala, a Roman Cardinal titular church, in called "Sanctae Mariae Scalaris", vide --Utilo (disputatio) 19:30, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::It's an interesting discussion, but I think it's getting away from the name of this theatre :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:48, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
Ut ad theatri nomen redeamus: Mihi quidem videtur nomen Italicum retinendum esse, donec attestatio Latina appareat (aut saltem etymologia certa proficiscatur). Item de nomine plateae sentio.--Utilo (disputatio) 20:15, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Hadrianus Smith

message: Bene est si eius totum nomen hic scriptum est, sed de "D." in eius nomine "Adrian D. Smith" in quaestionibus meis non inveniebam. Quaeso adiuva. -- Donatello (disputatio) 15:06, 10 Februarii 2014 (UTC).
thread_title:  Eius nomen
Disputatio:Tabulatum

message: Est fortasse ratio aliqua, cur verbum "diaeta" hoc sensu detur, sed rationem nescio! Quis explicare potest? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:52, 10 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse error conversionis est. Suecice våning = apartment, storey; Latine diaeta = diet, apartment; sed non sequitur ut diaeta 'storey' significet. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:21, 12 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: : Ita quidem! Neander (disputatio) 16:55, 12 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diaeta
Disputatio:Limon

message: ; Limon Lauferi
"... , atque Laufer, de origine Indico cum aliis consentiens, cultivationem post religionem Buddhisticam trans sinum Bengalicum dispersam incepisse arguit.Laufer (1934) p. 147
Nomen Sinensis li meng descriptioque brevis primum apud Fan Chengda, peregrinum saeculi XII qui regionem meridianam visitavit, in opere Gui hai yu heng zhi, mox plenior apud Zhou Qufei in Lingwai daida leguntur:
replies: text: Quidam hunc fructum nobis a barbaris meridianis transmissum adseverant. Populus Cantonensis aceto rarius utuntur, sucum huius speciei praeferentes propter acritudinem notum ... Fructum insuper e melle fervent, sale condiunt et sub sole siccant, ita ad comedendum parantes.Laufer (1934) pp. 145-146"
Satis constat Laufer hic limonem cum "lumia" aliqua confusisse. Vide versionem Anglicam  Gui hai yu heng zhi paginam 109 et notam 54 . Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:19, 13 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
; Poncire Rabelaesii aliorumque
* 1601 : Carolus Clusius, Rariorum plantarum historia (Antverpiae) p. 7 "Poma Adami"
* 1646 : Ferrarii Hesperides s.v. Ponzino
* Ponzino amalfitano hodiernum
* Idem
* Neque idem (ut videtur) atque :it:Limone Costa d'Amalfi, neque :it:Limone di Sorrento. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:52, 7 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verba hic pro tempore deposita ...
Disputatio:Nates

message: ... sed pinacothecam anatomicam removere volo. Vicipaedia non est pinacotheca: videte Communia. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 15 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio metuens, ne haec expositio magis de expositore quam de natibus narret. :-) Neander (disputatio) 11:10, 15 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date veniam, editores recentiores ...
Disputatio:Ioannes Reuchlin

message: Secundum meum fontem Ioannis Reuchlin d. 22° m. Febr. a. 1455° natus est.
replies: text: Care Anonyme, secundum quem fontem? Videas quaeso paginam Johannes Reuchlin in Vikipaedia theodisca cum adnotatione ad diem natalem accuratum! - Bavarese (disputatio) 18:32, 17 Februarii 2014 (UTC)

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 16. Lipsiae 1908, p. 836 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons primae recensionis
Disputatio:Walking Street (Pattaya)

message: Salve. Si solus "transsexualis" personae in textu scribimus, nescimus cuius generis persona transsexualis est. Itaque in textu scribebam "mulieres cum penibus". Sunt varia genera personarum transsexualium, sicut vir ad mulierem mutatus, et aut cum pene aut vagina habet, et mulier ad virum mutata, et aut cum vagina aut pene habet. Quod genus personae transsexuales in imagine in pinacotheca habent scire non possumus, sed de illis in textu scribebam sunt mulieres aut cum pene aut vagina. -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:40, 19 Februarii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: Locutiones usales Anglice duarum formarum transsexualitatis distinguendi sunt "trans man" et "trans woman". Antonymum transsexualitatis est cissexualitas (quam paginam scribere opus est). Itaque "mulieres cissexuales et transsexuales" proposui. Acceptabilis est? Lesgles (disputatio) 19:29, 19 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Mihi quidem. Verbum "cissexualis" mihi videtur omnino neutrale! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:47, 19 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transsexualis
Disputatio:Oprah Winfrey

message: Bene, bene! Credidi "Orpah Gail Winfrey" errorem esse! Da veniam, Donatello. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:26, 22 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nullae quaestiones (no problem). :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 19:39, 22 Februarii 2014 (UTC).
thread_title:  De nomine 

message: Care 152.26.177.40, usor ignote, V in loco W substituisti. Genuinum huius nominis habes fontem? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:36, 11 Maii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Vinfrey?