lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Regio Ilocana

message: Jondel, you asked UV about the -6, and I agree with you that that may be a bit too low; maybe -4 or -5 would be more accurate. And you ask why. For starters, the map shows the area to be in the northwest, but the lemma says otherwise: Regio Luzonus Orientis Semptentrionalis = 'The Luzon Region of the Northeast'. Next, regio is feminine, but Luzonus is masculine, so those words can't go together. Next, Semptentrionalis is misspelled (it has an unwanted em). Next, in Regio Luzonus Orientis Semptentrionalis aut Regio I, this aut is probably the wrong conjunction: it usually introduces, as Cassell's says, "an alternative which positively excludes the first" (it's the kind of or seen in "Give me liberty or give me death," in which you can have one thing or the other, but not both); for lemmata that list acceptable alternatives, vel or sive or seu are ordinarily apter. Then, if Luzonus is reflecting the same root as Luconiae, something could be wrong with the spelling of one of those names. Then, in sermo Regio Ilocos, there's no grammatical connection between sermo and Regio (forcing the English translation 'the discourse, the region'), and Ilocos looks accusative plural, so it can't modify either of the preceding words, both of which are nominative singular. Then in Orientis Semptentrionalis insula Luconiae seems to mean 'in Northeast Lucon's island', and that seems odd. The name Urbs Sanctis Fernandi Civitas 'City for Fernando's Saints the State' can't be right. Then locum is accusative (or wrongly neuter), but the syntax wants the nominative. Then natalis can't grammatically modify locum. Then Ilocana can't modify linguae. Then praesidentium seems to be in the wrong case. Then all the words of Situ est Chordae Administrativo Regione look wrong; the adjective Administrativo can modify only the noun Situ (it's in the wrong case to modify Chordae and the wrong gender to modify Regione), but Situ is in the wrong case to be the subject of a clause, etc. Most of these problems indicate the ineffectual use of gender and case. If you put those things in order, this passage will be well on its way to a -1. Good luck! IacobusAmor 12:28, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I uh, regret my post to UV now whether he was exagerating or not. I honestly thought,well the grammar was correct. I get upset but I accept I still have far to go. I can't understand how I mixed up east and west in the map. Please let me work on this later. I have to go now. --Jondel 12:53, 19 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Res variae
Disputatio:Principia et parametra

message: Care mi Iacobe, veniam mihi quaeso des tuas conlationes recensenti erasisse. Nimis sero noctu adumbrationem huius commentationis scripsi quare oblitus sum    in summa pagina includere. Difficultas est haec: permulti, nimis mea quidem sententia, omnibus verbis Chomskianis sine dubio plenaque idolotria adhaerent, quare sunt multae commentationes apud en: ... angli dicant twee... Exemplum head-initial/head-final est inter parametra proposita numerosa, et non habet rectum locum in lemmate. Gratias tibi rationem meam intelligenti abundanter ago! -- Ioscius  ∞ 22:01, 20 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quod erat convertendum: "a framework within generative linguistics in which the syntax of a natural language is described in accordance with general principles"

text: A Ioscio conversum: "hypothesis seu compages theoretica in disciplina linguisticae generativae, qua putantur generalia principia omnibus linguis communia esse."

text: A Iacobo conversum: "hypothesis seu compages theoretica in disciplina linguisticae generativae, qua syntax cuiuslibet linguae naturalis describitur secundum principalia generalia"

text: A Neandro conversum: visio doctrinalis in modum linguisticae generativae concepta, quae aditum praebet ad qualibet lingua naturali loquentium cognitionem syntacticam eiusque originem describendam." IacobusAmor 11:45, 26 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Mea sententia est problema in dicendo "convertendum". Commentatio est sine dubio compondenda, id quod scriptum est apud en: non est nobis (mihi saltem) sat... -- Ioscius  ∞ 16:31, 26 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: apologia

message: Iosci, initium rescripsi, nam credo P&P nimis "magna" esse, ut hypothesis loco habeatur. Et "compages" mihi nimis concreta videtur, quamquam "framework" = "compages" in nonnullis lexicis praebentur: credo enim id in illis sensu concreto, tectonico, fieri. Initium etiam idcirco rescripsi, quod, ni fallor, in P&P potius de acquisitione structurarum syntacticarum agitur quam de syntaxi describenda (quamquam profecto hoc vix alio modo fieri possit nisi describendà syntaxi). Si qua in re dissentias, quin hic rem disputemus. Valere iubens Neander 23:40, 25 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Rectius quidem rescripsisti, mi Neander, nullo pacto dissentio. Verba de "descriptione syntaxis" sunt vera a Iacobo scripta. -- Ioscius  ∞ 07:52, 26 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vide supra. IacobusAmor 11:48, 26 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

text: Non puto eum quid falsi scripsisse, tu autem scilicet clarius. Sicut ipse dixit, modo convertit definitionem de en:.

text: Mihi quoque visa est "compages" nimis concreta et volui  addere, nihilominus olim proderit habere :en:Conceptual framework Latine aliquomodo conversam. Habesne animo titulum meliorem?

text: Sicut tibi dixi et te rogavi, sententiae tuae his de rebus syntacticis sunt mihi gratissimae, nam sum ego quidem ad initium meii studii. -- Ioscius  ∞ 07:52, 26 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altera apologia
Disputatio Categoriae:Geographia humana

message: UV removes "Categoria:Homines|Geographia" and says "geographia non est homo"; but in the English wiki, "Category:Human Geography" is a subset of "Category:Humans|Geography," which in turn is a subset of "Category:Anthropology" and "Category:Hominina." IacobusAmor 23:47, 25 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: la:Categoria:Homines is the equivalent of en:Category:People (which should contains articles about individual persons only). The equivalent of en:Category:Humans is la:Categoria:Homo sapiens. I have added this category now (although it is my personal view that we should not strictly follow/copy the category system of en.wikipedia, which in my view has several disadvantages). Greetings, --UV 14:56, 26 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Categoria:Homines|Geographia"
Disputatio Categoriae:Autobiographi Germanici

message: Melius "Autobiographi Germani"? IacobusAmor 13:10, 28 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Suadeo "Germaniae": categorias ethnicas arceo. Categoriis geographicis saepissime utimur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:43, 28 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Melius?
Disputatio:Havaii (civitas)

message: "Insulae Havaienses, olim Insulae Sandvicenses" aut "Insulae Havaiensis, olim Insulae Sandvicensis" est??? cum "i" aut cum "e"?? - Is it written with "i" or with "e"?? --Karlven 21:07, 28 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Insulae = 'Islands'. That should give you your answer. Both Insulae Havaienses (= Havaiʻi, the island-chain) and Insula Havaiensis (= Havaiʻi, the U.S. state) should be OK because they denote different things. IacobusAmor 00:49, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

message: How is it possible that we do not yet have the Eggerism here? --Iustinus 00:13, 3 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: How
Disputatio:Delphinidae

message: I am almost sure that in classical Latin it was used the word delphin, delphinis. -- [Anon]
replies: text: Yes, it was, but Classical Latin seems to accept delphinus -i as well. However, Delphinus is possibly not the best title to choose here, because (a) this page seems to be about Delphinidae, and we usually have a preference for Linnaean terms (b) there is a Linnaean genus Delphinus which is not the topic here. For clarity, I suggest we move this page to the unambiguous Delphinidae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:47, 29 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputatio e "Delphinus" 

message: A reason it might be deleted is that in Delphinus it causes the link to Delphinidae to print ostentatiously in red, as "DephinidarumHIC REDIRIGIT"—a visual interruption that no doubt was why Chris1981 deleted the link (which I've restored because someday there will be an article on Delphinidae and it will want to have this link). IacobusAmor 13:54, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have the choice in your interface whether self-links are highlighted in red or not: ordinary readers don't see it like that. That's how it used to be, anyway; if you find it distracting check with UV, who will know for sure. Therefore that's not a good reason in itself (I think).

text: Several other pages link to Delphinidae. The question is, until that future page is written, is Delphinus helpful to readers following those links, or not? If not, then the redirect should indeed be deleted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:27, 6 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Since Delphinus is now leading us to the Delphinidae, I've created the article Delphinus (genus) to lead us to the Delphini. IacobusAmor 16:19, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputatio e "Delphinidae" 

message: As suggested, I have now moved this page to "Delphinidae" because it seems to be about the family, not the genus. For the present, "Delphinus" redirects here, but a page about the genus can be started any time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:50, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: [Edit conflict:] I think what I have done and said above corresponds precisely with Iacobus's hidden note on the page (since it was hidden, I didn't see it till now): 'This needs rethinking. "Delphinus" = both (1) any mammal in the herein named families [=en:Dolphin] and (2) a particular genus of them [=en:Common dolphin]. Perhaps the latter can be placed in an article "Delphinus (genus)"'. That's a relief ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:59, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :And there's now the new note above. You're ahead of me, Iacobe :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:03, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movi
Disputatio:Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

message: Can anyone think of something better than clarus/sine colore?-- Ioscius  ∞ 00:05, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Incolor, incoloratus, achromaticus, achromus. Achromaticae notiones virides rabide dormiunt. Furenter dormiunt incoloratae cogitationes virentes. &c. IacobusAmor 00:19, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Achromaticae is a little better for me than incolorata. Colorless as opposed to uncolored. But maybe not. -- Ioscius  ∞ 08:15, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Colorless
Disputatio:Clive Harcourt Carruthers

message: De eius vita aliquid scripti non invenio, frustra petii. Scitne quis quid? -- Ioscius  ∞ 11:00, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: # Genealogica

text: # Aliquas commentationes philologiae scripsit. E.g. "Studies in Greek Noun-Formation: Dental Terminations IV. 1" in Classical Philology April 1931. Utilis erit fortasse questus per JSTOR. Tu potes? Ego possum si vis ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:19, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Illam tantum commentationem video ego. Non est maximi momenti, gratias pro tuo questu.-- Ioscius  ∞ 17:13, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: de vita
Disputatio:Syntactic Structures

message: Yeah Andrew, you're probably right. I just saw all the other translations and figured that, since there wasn't much room to discuss what the translation would be, were there one at all, it wouldn't be sooo wrong to have the title in Latin, but yeah, per our rules, probably right at Syntactic Structures. -- Ioscius  ∞ 11:03, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't like to be a pedant, and I'm sure this is the right title to use when you do publish the Latin translation ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:07, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: De titulo
Disputatio:Partes theta

message: Titulus hic convertere conatur en:Theta role. Role = pars (drama?), munus, officium? -- Ioscius  ∞ 00:04, 1 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse partes theta aptius sit theoriae, qui dicit theta role ex multis relationibus thematicis compositum esse...-- Ioscius  ∞ 00:11, 1 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: de conversione "role"
Disputatio:Edwardus Williams Byron Nicholson

message: Sorry, I didn't mean to revert without explanation. The reasons were that
# "Eduardus" is certainly OK but "Edwardus" is not wrong;
# "Williams" is not the same as "William". It has the form of a surname, and cannot be translated into "Gulielmus". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:57, 2 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Disputatio Categoriae:Locutiones Latinae

message: === Movenda? ===
Quae hic continentur fere omnes sunt "locutiones Latinae"; exstant autem multae sententiae (gnomae) in aliis linguis, hic non inclusae. Sub linguis aliis categoriam habemus "Locutiones Hispanicae" etc., ubi continentur locutiones, "phrases", sententiae etc. in illis linguis inventae. Propono igitur hanc categoriam ad :Categoria:Locutiones Latinae movendam. Possumus postea, si volumus, eas quae re vera sunt "sententiae" in subcategoriam novam :Categoria:Sententiae Latinae distribuere (sed iam habemus pagina Sententia (gnome) ubi congeruntur). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 5 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ex pagina ''Disputatio Categoriae:Sententiae'' 

message: Quae hic continentur fere omnes sunt "locutiones Latinae"; exstant autem multae sententiae (gnomae) in aliis linguis, hic non inclusae. Sub linguis aliis categoriam habemus "Locutiones Hispanicae" etc., ubi continentur locutiones, "phrases", sententiae etc. in illis linguis inventae. Propono igitur hanc categoriam ad :Categoria:Locutiones Latinae movendam. Possumus postea, si volumus, eas quae re vera sunt "sententiae" in subcategoriam novam :Categoria:Sententiae Latinae distribuere (sed iam habemus pagina Sententia (gnome) ubi congeruntur). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 5 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda?
Disputatio:Jakarta

message: Propono paginam ad "Jakarta" movendam quia:
# Batavia est nomen a colonialistis affixum ad honorem patriae suae
# Jakarta est nomen in lingua maternali Indonesia constitutum et ab Ephemeris Latina praelatum; 
# Habemus paucas citationes pro "Iacarta" (sed possum accipere!) et "Iacartum" (cur neutrum?) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 6 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Martinus hodie ad Iacarta movit sine disputatione. De destinatione finali nihil praeiudico, sed oportet antea disputare. Ego "Batavia" olim reieci, "Jakarta" proposui sicut supra legendum est. Nemine contradicente, movi. Si removere vis, rationem da, mi Martine! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:27, 20 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, apud Catholic Hierarchy invenio "Archidioecesis Giakartanus", "(vicariatus) Bataviae", "(vicariatus) Diakartanus", "archidioecesis Diakartanus". Giakartanus scriptura Italiana videtur, Diakartanus (Djakarta) Nederlandica. Lesgles (disputatio) 01:28, 1 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Optime Lesgles, latinam fontem inveniste et ita movendam est re.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:56, 1 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Move to which form? I don't see any reason to prefer those sources, which conflict with one another anyway, over the source we already have. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 1 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

text: ::I have added sources for the adjectives "Jakartensis" and "Iacartensis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:52, 1 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Optime Andrew, haud est questio favoris quam fontis habendi.--Jondel (disputatio) 04:31, 3 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda
Disputatio:Zara

message: Anonymus hanc paginam ad "Soravia" movere vult; sed oportet usori rite nominato movere, quia anonymus non potest. Placetne? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:21, 6 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomen urbis Germanicum Sorau, quod indicat Latinum nomen "Soravia" vel "Sora"; nomen Polonum est Żary quod simile est nomini Latino "Zara". Secundum Graesse Sorau, St., Preußen (Brandenburg); auch Zara, Soravia (Soraviensis). utrumque nomen est attestatum. Quia loci nomen vulgare nunc est Żary, Latinum verbum "Zara" mihi plus videtur. --Alex1011 23:13, 6 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sed Orbis Latinus ipse refert Soraviensis adiectivum huius urbis esse (quod Soraviae favet, non Zarae) et Zarensis autem adiectivum Zeringiae urbis.
thread_title:  Movenda
Disputatio:Facepalm

message: De <<mea sententia "celebre" est nimis optimisticum.>> Tell it to the people over at en! ;) IacobusAmor 13:19, 8 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As Andrew has often pointed out, I don't think our goal should be to translate or emulate en:, often it's the case that a much better lemma can be reached. If I had to rate the en: version of this article, I'd give it about a 2. It's real real crap. Ours is at least encyclopaedic. This is often the case. I do not think that en: should be our model, nor should we be translating per se, but writing, as it were. -- Ioscius  ∞ 22:43, 8 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :I'm afraid I don't have the creativity to create an article :( --Robert.Baruch 21:47, 9 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::No need to feel down, Robert. I definitely think translating articles from en: is a good start: better to have the article than not!!! I just don't think translation should be the ultimate goal, especially in cases, like this one, where at en: there is fat that needs trimmed. -- Ioscius  ∞ 23:34, 9 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::That's good to know :) I typically translate an article, except that I try to add references where possible. If I find something that seems suspect and has no reference, I usually don't include it. --Robert.Baruch 00:21, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I often do just the same. Creativity is hard work ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Optimismus

message: I had originally left out the whole Jim Horne facepalm thing because I couldn't find any citation or reference or evidence for Jim Horne "using the brow-smite to typify the disgust aspect", nor that the photo became an Internet meme. Suggest we delete.
For similar reasons, I left out the whole Picard reference because I don't know of any Star Trek episode where Picard showed disbelief using a face-palm. The pictures I've seen appear to show Picard simply rubbing his forehead.
Finally, I left out faceplame because the only references to it that I could find pointed back to Wikipedia!
Still looking for a good exemplar for head-desk, though. --Robert.Baruch 16:48, 8 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented on this at the discussion page at en. I think Jean-Luc is again extremely optimistic. If you (the royal "you") can't source an episode or find a picture it has absolutely no place in the article. -- Ioscius  ∞ 22:46, 8 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: De Jim Horne et alia res
Disputatio:Pugna Catalaunica

message: Alex noster mutavit (proelium) apud campos Catalaunicos (inventionem meam fateor) in pugna Catalaunica (cum fonte saeculi XVI). Sed versiones in campis Catalaunicis/campos Catalaunicos sunt illae a Isidoro et Iordane scriptae. Quid sit tunc melius? Movenda est pagina rursus ad proelium in campis Catalaunicis/proelium in campos Catalaunicos?--Xaverius 22:29, 9 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Exstincto igitur Litorio, pace deinde Theuderedus cum Romanis inita, denuo adversus Hunnos, Galliarum provincias saeva populatione vastantes, atque urbes plurimas evertentes, in campis Catalaunicis, auxiliante Aetio, duce Romano, aperto Marte conflixit, ibique praeliando victor occubuit. Gothi autem, dimicante Thurismundo, Theuderedi regis filio, adeo fortiter congressi sunt, ut inter primum praelium et postremum trecenta fere millia hominum in eo certamine prostrarentur." - nihil de proelio! Alex1011 10:28, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

text: "Convenitur itaque in campos Catalaunicos, qui et Mauriaci nominantur, centum leuvas, ut Galli vocant, in longum tenentes etc. etc." - nihil de proelio! --Alex1011 10:35, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita, sed verbum talis proelium aut pugna necessarium est: non possumus simpliciter "in campis catalaunicis" scribere. Tandem, quod dicere volui, fontes antiqui in campis/campos utuntur pro nomine, et fortasse nos etiam in campis/campos utamur.--Xaverius 10:50, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Vide "Pugna Catalaunica" apud Google et mirare! Etiam "Proelio Catalaunico," locutionem a Mommsen ipso adhibitam! IacobusAmor 12:50, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Fortasse ego solummodo video in Pugna Catalaunica (sine in campis) Pugnam Catalaunicam.--Xaverius 13:13, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

text: :::(Fons pro "clades Catalaunicae"  ab Alex nostro est de pugna cum Catalaunis, necnon cum Hunnis. Ob hanc rem censeo idoneum nomen paginae cum in campis esse)--Xaverius 14:28, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine

message: De alia pugna Catalaunica anni 274:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_des_champs_Catalauniques
"The battle where Tetricus' army was defeated" --Alex1011 14:18, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Puto pugnam anni 451 clariorem quam illam anni 274 esse. Forsan necesse est nobis paginas Pugna Catalaunica (274) et Pugna Catalaunica (discretiva) creare? Ita pagina Pugna Catalaunica (451) ad Pugnam Catalaunicam redirectio sit.--Xaverius 14:28, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita vicipaedia Francica fecit . Sed adhuc caremus pagina quae pugnam anni 274 describit. Alex1011 15:15, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Antequam tertia pugna Catalaunica erumpitur (!), possumus inter duas nectare si formulá utimur ; igitur fortasse paginam discretivam creare non necesse est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:23, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  clades Catalaunicae
Disputatio:Architectura von Neumann

message: I just want to point out that I was about to use this as a reference for the basic definition of the von Neumann architecture, when I noticed that the diagram at the bottom of the page included a somewhat unconventional architectural structure which interfaces to the I/O unit. --Robert.Baruch 19:59, 10 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notae
Disputatio:It's a Long Way to Tipperary

message: Recte verba e libro repetimus, sed me paenitet titulum erroneum lectoribus praebere. Quomodo hic oportet facere? Sicut orthographiam mediaevalem interdum corrigimus, fortasse et hic titulus in "Longa est via ad Tipperarium" mutandus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 12 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficile quia nescimus an deliberate est falsum. In texto errorem indicamus. Confer etiam Unaussprechlichen Kulten, et hic titulum non est rectus - sed attestatus. Alex1011 14:26, 12 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, but it's wrong to talk about the original song, the composer, etc., under a title which is incorrect Latin. The song is in good English, so the incorrect Latin phrase can't be an accurate translation. The most that belongs under this incorrect Latin title is a mention of the printed phrase, because this is how it was printed. The song and its history should go under "It's a long way to Tipperary" or, if someone wants to argue for this, maybe "Longa est via ad Tipperarium". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:42, 25 Iunii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I restructured the article. I agree that it should probably stay under the English title, and we shouldn't give too much prominence to a joke in a children's book. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:26, 28 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latinitas tituli
Disputatio:Centum libri Saeculi XX a lectoribus diarii Le Monde electi

message: This page was translated from the corresponding page in English, which in turn had been translated from French.
Varlaam 17:14, 12 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, very good idea, and nicely done. Coats of arms are not languages, however, so we need a different symbol (or no symbol at all) for Latin. We would usually surround a Latin translation with "" and not italicise it (since this is our home language, and the translation is not a bibliographical title). That would probably mark it off sufficiently: OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:04, 12 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Translator's note