lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Susa (Tunesia)

message: Ah, OK, Susa, -ae. Alibi te significare verbum Susae esse vocem pluralem (ergo "Susa sunt") legeram. Sicut Anglice dicimus, "Meum malum"! IacobusAmor 14:56, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Susa (-orum n. aut rarius -ae f.) est antiqua urbs Persidis. Susa (-ae f.) est nomen hodiernum et neolatinum urbis antiquae Hadrumeti: de qua re vide nunc Susa (pagina redirectionis). --Fabullus 15:01, 15 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Susa
Disputatio:Brasiliopolis

message: Care 190.20.102.127, usor ignote, ubi est fons? IacobusAmor 18:11, 16 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''sive Brasilopolis''

message: UV, quid significat hoc verbum arcanum? Pluralis vocis caput est capita. Secundum Cassell's, capitales sunt res quae "[imperil] a man's life"; ergo verbum capital, is, n., 'a capital crime'. IacobusAmor 23:27, 28 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We currently have :Categoria:Capitales. I suspect that this is the adjective capitalis, -e and that the intended meaning is *urbes capitales for "capital cities – cities that are the capital of some country/region/territory/administrative division". Should we move this category to a better title? --UV 23:44, 28 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: : Moved to a better title per Vicipaedia:Taberna#Capital cities. --UV 22:51, 17 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Categoria:Capitales

message: Cum nonnulla scripta pontificia in notis allegata dictioni "Brasiliopolis" faveant et situs Catholicae Hierarchiae, unus fons adductus "Brasiliapolis" favens, mendosus sit quod ad Latinitatem adtinet, nonne est de titulo huius commentationis iterum consulendum? Ego voci Brasiliopolis faveo. MARCVS (disputatio) 07:29, 17 Martii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ego quoque. Usque adhuc nullum fontem habuimus nisi Morgan (fontem egregium sed "privatum"). Sed nunc, fontibus fidelibus a te repertis, consentio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 17 Martii 2013 (UTC)
Ipse moveam? MARCVS (disputatio) 09:29, 17 Martii 2013 (UTC)

text: Ita, Marce, move. Potes insuper (si vis) novam categoriam creare, sicut antiquam, et paginas subcategoriasque respectivas in hanc novam categoriam inserere. Si id facis, ego postea antiquam categoriam delebo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 17 Martii 2013 (UTC)
Non possum paginam movere: nomen electum est invalidum, ut legitur. MARCVS (disputatio) 10:06, 17 Martii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Bene. Fortasse possum ego, potestati magistrali usus. Tempto. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:11, 17 Martii 2013 (UTC)
Optime. MARCVS (disputatio) 10:12, 17 Martii 2013 (UTC)
Inveni nomen Brasiliapolis in bulla Quandoquidem nullum, Papae Ioannis XXIII. Si quis voluerit ipsam bullam legere, inspiciat notam, quam inserui in articulum.Urbanus Ferrarius (disputatio) 14:19, 17 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estne re vera nomen "Brasiliapolis" praeferendum?
Disputatio:Camino (Escrivá)

message: Puto Iter meliorem esse conversionem tituli Camino quam Limes, quoniam ipse Sanctus Iosephmaria illam preferrebat. Exempli gratia, iter iuridicum convertebat camino jurídico cum de historia iuridica Operis Dei loquebatur.

message: "Camino" is the original title of the book. "Iter" seems to be its best translation. Anyway, as the book hasn't been translated into Latin (as of 2008), I think it's better to title the article "Camino" rather than "Iter" (even though I started it as "Iter", cf. historia).
(Sorry, I didn't look at historia when wrote this. No, Iacobe, the book hasn't been translated into Latin. I'm afraid of undoing your change.
replies: text: Never fear! If the forty-three (or whatever) languages into which it's been translated don't include Latin, that seems like a curious omission, no? ¶ So then I'll change it back. IacobusAmor 17:23, 18 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Maybe because it's intended for personal prayer, and usually people prays in their mother tounge... No, wait, it's translated to Esperanto. Yes, it's curious.
thread_title:  Camino vel Iter
Disputatio:Elephantine

message: I always have a problem with "Nubia" because that name is Medieval: Classical sources ALWAYS refer to it as Aethiopia. The problem is that Aethiopia details the modern country, which is an entirely different amphora of garum! Generally I am happy to use Medieval or Modern terms just to make things clear, but it seems a bit perverse to refer to an ancient nation by its medieval name so as not to confuse it with a modern country. I mention this only because there are references to both Nubii & Aethiopia in this article (I deigned to say Nubiorum because we're talking about the modern Ethnic designation), both of which Iacobus has just linked to their respective placenames. Here's what I'm thinking: Aethiopia should link to Aethiopia (antiqua) (which I've used elsewhere a few times), and Nubiorum maybe Nubii (since, the only reason I mentioned that name was the coninued use as an ethnic term!) Nubii is of course plural, but thus far I have considered plural titles ok for the sorts of words that are regularly found under their plural form in Latin dictionaries, and ethnics are certainly one of these! So anyone want to object to this modification or argue with me? --Iustinus 18:55, 19 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How/where does Meroe fit into this scheme? IacobusAmor 20:45, 19 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Meroe was the Nubian capital from about the -3rd to +4th centuries. During this period the political entity in question is often called "The Meroitic Empire." Before that (from about the mid -8th to the rise of Meroe), the capital was Napata (Latin Napata, Nepata, Nabata). After that Nubia was annexed by the Axumite empire (which is generally considered part of what we NOW call Ethiopia).

text: :Now the Romans would generally just say Aethiopia, irrespecive of period, but here I think it's fair to make the same sort of distinctions we do for Persia's various historical empires (in antiquity he Median, Achaemenid, Parthian/Arsacid, and Sassanid empires.) --Iustinus 21:12, 19 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: That area south of Egypt
Disputatio:Bellum de successione Hispanica

message: Nomen attestatum anno 1869 est Bellum Successionis Hispanicae. Vide: http://books.google.com/books?id=X3EDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=bellum+successionis+hispanicae&source=bl&ots=-keT_6U3yx&sig=A9FOJjZRj1R1vy3rxvX1_A_IvsY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result. IacobusAmor 14:35, 21 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ut iam dixi in Taberna, uti genitivo non decet. Nescio quis fuit huius libri scriptor sed, ut mihi videtur, quicumque tam anno 1869 quam hodie "Successionis Hispanicae" verba scripsit ad designandum bellum quod de jure succedendi ad thronum Hispanicum gestum est haud dubie erravit.ThbdGrrd 15:30, 21 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::De: "uti genitivo non decet."—Hoc negant Lewis & Short, et Cassell's. IacobusAmor 18:53, 21 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

text: :Potes dicere cur "Bellum Centum Annorum" sic tantum non sirvet? Cur "Bellum libertatis" esse invalidum? Quas leges de latinitate hoc nomen frangit?

text: :Minime de eo intellego quod apud Lewis and Short ad bella appellanda exhibentur usus  + genetivi, + adiectivum, et multarum praepositionum et casorum, etc., Verumtamen inveniri potest nec "Bellum de..." nec "Bellum successionis" et genetivus solus cum nomine hominis vel populi adhibetur. Nomen autem attestatum "Bellum Centum annorum" et "Bellum Successionis" iam habemus, et dictum "Bellum de libertate" nulla fons habet extra Vicipaedianas Paginas nominis "Bellum de libertate Italiana (sic)  --Rafaelgarcia 18:09, 21 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Nota quod "Italiana" debet fore "Italica"; Italiana sola ad linguam italianam hodiernam refert.--Rafaelgarcia 18:13, 21 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen "Bellum de successione Hispanica" est falsum?
Disputatio:Magnitudo apparens

message: What language is "apparanta"? The nearest Latin would be "Magnitudo apparens", I think, though whether that is an ideal Latin title for this page I leave to astronomers to decide. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search for magnitudo aperta with reference to stars turns up a phrase in Pliny, but I haven't seen enough of the context to tell if 'apparent magnitude' is what he means by it. IacobusAmor 14:11, 7 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:The Day After Tomorrow

message: I'm against making up translated titles, but, if we want the Latin for "The day after tomorrow", I think it's "Tertius dies", isn't it? Or maybe better "Tertio die" as an adverbial phrase? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:46, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Words provides the following:
replies: text: :perendinus, perendina, perendinum  ADJ    [XXXDX]

text: :after tomorrow; [perendino die => the day after tomorrow];

text: Also:
replies: text: :perendie  ADV    [XXXEC]

text: :day after tomorrow;

text: So Perendino die ="On the day after tomorrow" or "Perendinus dies = "The day after tomorrow" seems to be the right translation.

text: --Rafaelgarcia 18:52, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, much better. I had a suspicion there was a precise word, but I couldn't find it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:44, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Paragoia

message: In ancient maps, Palawan is indicated as Paragoa, most probably by the Portuguess before the'official' discovery of the Philippines by the Spaniards. I believe they meant it as a stop over from the Moluccas to Goa India ( 'para Goa' ). I' still searching sources.--Jondel 23:18, 24 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragoa

message: I apologize. It should be Paragoia not Paragoa.Typo mistake.--Jondel 00:36, 25 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's attested, Vicipaedia should probably recognize it ("Palawan, olim Paragoia"), but don't give up too soon: if the island is a diocese of the Roman Catholic Church, it should have a Latin name already in use, which may or may not have the form of Palawan or Paragoia. IacobusAmor 01:28, 25 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I can't find latin sources for that(Added:) from the Catholic Church . I tried searching in the Vatican sources.--Jondel 01:33, 25 Novembris 2008 (UTC)

text: :I'm going to try searching again Vatican sources. They might mention dioceses but I doubt they will give a full latin description.--Jondel 01:37, 25 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I once found a Vatican source that, if I remember correctly, listed all the dioceses with their Latin names, but I've lost the URL. IacobusAmor 02:07, 25 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::That is encouraging since we now know that solution indeed exists. I 'll use the keywords: diocese latin names. --Jondel 02:15, 25 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: I found this. Let me work on this tommorrow. Great coaching Iacobus! Is this correct latin?: Crastine optimus tempus est facere omnis!! :D  --Jondel 02:22, 25 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragoia

message: Hi. I just want to say that I don't have a preference for what the name should be. But since the only sources indicate Paragoia, Calamines or Puloamum, I selected the most appropriate for the name of the article. It should probably be Palawan. --Jondel 01:33, 25 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jonel, I found the following: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dpupr.html

text: which may be helpful, it suggests the latin name: Palavan or perhaps Palavana--Rafaelgarcia 02:37, 25 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ok. Thanks for your help Rafael. I see Palavanensis. I hope we can finalize this to Palavan or Palavana. I have to go now. Please feel free to make the move/renaming. If not I promise to work on this tommorrow. I will be mentioning the old names.--Jondel 02:47, 25 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Palawan or Paragoia
Disputatio:Suniefredus

message: I guess from the category that the one who died in 693 was Suniefredus, so I moved the parenthesis: was that correct? But the phrase "dum Egica" is obscure to me. Does it mean "during Egica's reign"? That would be "Egica regnante" or "Egica rege". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:44, 26 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit
Disputatio:Ioannes Blasius de Aviz

message: Xaveri, cur forma Iohannes uteris (non forma Ioannes)? IacobusAmor 03:23, 29 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide Disputatio:Iohannes de Zumárraga. --UV 19:04, 29 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ioannes, Iohannes
Disputatio:Nova Victoria

message: Although it was suspected, recent publications, and specially ever since the excavations under the cathedral (and as comunicated in this set of conferences) Liuvigild's Victoriacum is not located underneath modern Vitoria. Should we move this page to Nova Victoria (saying Nova Victoria (saepe et male "Victoriacum" est ...) and make out of Victoriacum a page with the new available archaeological information? what do you all think?--Xaverius 20:36, 29 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Victoriacum non Vitoria-Gasteiz est
Disputatio:Ibn al-Waḥšīya

message: Is it allowed to use diacritics in transliterated proper names? Of course I would prefer such solution, because ISO transliteration schemes often rely just on diacritics and its omission makes no sense; also, we keep diacritics in surnames written originally in the Latin alphabet. But unfortunately, our norm is different, so I propose to move this page to Ibn al-Wasiya; otherwise I'd propose to move Victor Iuscenco to Victor Juščenko. --Gabriel Svoboda 05:45, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! In a similar case, Gamahiriyya, it was decided to use diacritics throughout the article (Ǧamāhīrīyya), but leave them out in the article's name, to facilitate searching. --Fabullus 07:32, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, you are both right. I had mis-remembered the discussion. In fact it doesn't matter that much if one remembers to make a redirect from the non-diacritic form: the redirect then facilitates searching. But the rule is as you state it, so I will move the pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:40, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::They were right at the time, but Vicipaedia changes. It is now easier to search for names with diacritics, so we no longer delete the diacritics from pagenames. I'll move the page again. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 18 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

message: No Latin translation of  Ibn al-Waḥšiyyah seem to turn up on WorldCat, but as en claims that Kircher read him, maybe we should check there for a Latin name. --Iustinus 09:32, 15 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attestation
Disputatio:Andreas (apostolus)

message: Is the entire text of the life quoted (without attribution) from a prior source? It already appears in several places on the net! IacobusAmor 04:12, 3 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you know the answer to your question: yes it is. This is disturbing, as it may apply to some other pages contributed by the same anonymous child ... The immediate question, though, would be: is it copyright? To pursue that, we need to know where else you have found it. So, please cite a source! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 3 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
Care 200.181.80.44, usor ignote, scripsisti tutemet hanc vitam? Invenitur omnis textus in libro anno 1891 edito: http://books.google.com/books?id=-eYTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA292&lpg=PA292&dq=bethsaidae+natus+cum+audisset&source=bl&ots=hjefADFRap&sig=U7iGQ6FTkGz74499ATNtZppWAcw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result. Certe tu es senissimus! IacobusAmor 03:30, 5 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

text: Gratias, Iacobe. Igitur minime copyvio. Sed et minime npov: debemus rescribere ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 5 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vita
Disputatio:Statius de Sá

message: Repperi "Statius Saa" in titulo, "Statius de Sala" in lemmate, "Estácio de Sá" in nexibus interviciis ... Pro tempore, pono "Statius de Sá" secundum regulam nostram: sed, sine dubio, exstat fons de nomine vero Latino huius conditoris. Debemus igitur fontem reperire et citare, nomen verum Latinum addere in paginam, et paginam movere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 3 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Est Estácio Latine Statius vel Eustatius (vel raro Eustacius)? IacobusAmor 14:28, 3 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :De hac re opinionem editoris nostri, licet anonymi, sequor. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:43, 10 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Gulielmus Budaeus

message: Printed editions that I can find online show Budaeus' first name to have been generally spelt "Guillielmus" or "Guilielmus" during his lifetime, e.g. here and here. CriticusFortuitus 14:22, 3 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Yes, we probably ought to change to one of those two forms: but which? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:25, 3 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, tomus 3. Lipsiae 1905, p. 564 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mense Novembri 2020
Disputatio:Nicolaus Copernicus

message: Noster Mathiasrex verbum Borussus ad verbum Polonus hic mutavit, dicens "Borussia erat pars Regni Poloniae vivante Copernice." Immo, Copernicus, ut videtur, fuit et Borussus et Polonus; nobis dicit en: "Toruń [ubi Copernicus natus est], situated on the Vistula River, was part of Royal Prussia, a region of the Kingdom of Poland." IacobusAmor 11:48, 4 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Polonus"? Nicolaus Copernicus Tornaeus Borussus(!) Mathematicus fuit. --Matthead 21:44, 3 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ethnics are a waste of time, especially in Vicipaedia. Describe him as he described himself, and cite whenever necessary. "Torinensis", for example. Categories are geographical, not ethnic: they can overlap: use all that may apply.

text: :It would be useful if someone could cite the earliest source for the Polish form of his name. Since his Latin name is by far the best known internationally, there is no need for any other names to appear in the infobox. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:23, 23 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :: It's funny that despite the numerous variants of the name(s) of the astronomer and his family that are recorded in old documents (Koppernic, Coppernik, Niclos Koppirnig lapidum fractor, Koppernick, Koppirnick, Laurentius Koppirnik, finally the father, Niclos Koppernick, Niclas Koppernigk), neither "Mikołaj Kopernik" (as used by Poles) nor "Nikolaus Kopernikus" (of frequent use in German and other languages) are among them, as these variants have been coined centuries after his death. Dozens of signatures by the astronomer's own hand are preserved, in German and Latin letters, in Latin documents of his Chapters, and in notes in the books owned by him (including in Greek). :s:de:Nicolaus_Coppernicus_aus_Thorn_über_die_Kreisbewegungen_der_Weltkörper/Vorwort#Orthographie has a list compiled by Curtze in 1879. The astromomer mainly signed as „Nicolaus Coppernic“ throughout his life, and in 1509 published „... Nicolai coppernici epistola“, but at an age of over 60 years, he apparently gave in to bishop Danticus' use of a single p in his name. Rheticus had this name printed in Danzig and Nuremberg. Thus, "Copernicvs" or "Copernicus" was used to refer to him. According to Google Book search, a Dutch author introduced the variant "Kopernicus" in 1660, shortly before Dutchman :nl:Jacob Lescaille pioneered the form "Kopernikus" in 1662. The first use of the shortened form  "Kopernik" seems to have occurred in 1717, with Dutchmen, Germans and Scandinavians using this short form before the first Polish language use appears in 1788, as "Mikołay Kopernik". The first mention as "Mikołaj Kopernik" proper seems to be from 1810.--Matthead 18:59, 23 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "astronomus Borussus" ---> "astronomus 
Polonus
"
Disputatio:Persis

message: Nexus intervici indicant hanc paginam tantum provinciam Iranicam Fars notare, non totam civitatem Iranicam. Aliquis tamen huic paginae  indices urbium, regionum, fluminum, lacum etc. addidit, quos transferre velim ad Iraniae paginam. Quomodo hoc faciam ita ut non violem leges vicipaediae? --Fabullus 16:21, 4 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte mones: multa in hac pagina ad Iraniam sensu lato relevant. Igitur potes delere quantum vis et in Iraniam pastare: potes in paginam disputationis Iraniae brevissime dicere id quod fecisti. Ita, ut credo, res satis nota erit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:09, 4 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Indices geographici Iranici ab Usore 83.131.15.40 hora 22:46 die 5 Septembri 2007 facti nunc ad paginam Iraniae tranlati sunt. --Fabullus 18:39, 4 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indices geographici ad pagina Iraniae transferendi
Disputatio:Irania

message: Indices geographicos Iranicos ab Usore 83.131.15.40 hora 22:46 die 5 Septembri 2007 factos e pagina Persidis huc transtuli. --Fabullus 18:34, 4 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indices geographici 

message: Exscusate me, nomen civitatis huius vel "status"  reddendum esset nonne "Aria"? Italice "Iran" est quasi "terra degli Ariani". Nomen populi huius erat Arii, ergo sicut lego in lexico Graeco ad Italicum "GI" Franci Montanari, Theophrastus peripateticus (IV-III) in liber De historia plantarum appellat terram illam Ariam. Legitur in lexico meo: " ´Αρία -ας, η Aria, moderno Iran THPHR. HP. 4.4.12 ecc "--78.12.38.78 11:24, 1 Iunii 2012 (UTC) Povero parer mio: Irania sa di "pezzotto", mentre c'è una fonte antica con un nome antico. Valete!
replies: text: Quaestionem bene intellego. Eis qui Latine scribere discunt utile est interdum nomina antiqua proponere quae nominibus hodiernis repraesentant: e.g. Gallia = France, Aria = Iran. Sed eis qui encyclopaediam scribunt tam de rebus antiquis quam de hodiernis, difficultates ita creantur; Gallia enim habet nec easdem fines quas Francia, nec eosdem populos, nec idem gubernium. Taliter etiam de Aria: errorem enim facit ille qui dicit "Teheranum est (seu Rhagae sunt) caput Ariae", quia Aria, sicut ab antiquis geographis describitur, Teheranum (seu Rhagas) excludit. Nobis igitur utile est si civitates hodiernae nomina alia habent quam antiquae: possumus creare paginas et de Aria et de Irania, sine ambiguitate. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:57, 1 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Proprie autem si cui nomini antiquo respondet Irān nostrae aetatis, non est Aria (Lingua Persica Vetere Haraiva-) sed Ariana potius (Persice *Āryana-, Avestane Airiiana-). Verum est antiquos nonnummquam haec nomina confundisse, at ex origine sunt omnino diversa. Argumentum pro Ariana in loco Iraniae istius haud malum est, praesertim quia ex etymologia sunt eadem. Distinguimus, exempli gratia, inter Galliam et Franciam, sed non inter Hispaniam et Españam. --Iustinus (disputatio) 02:25, 1 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio Formulae:Charta locatrix

message: :Haec e pagina disputationis usoris NordNordWest copiavi.
Salve NordNordWest, te quaeso, quo modo formulas chartae locatricium utamur?--Xaverius 16:25, 5 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think maybe I can tell you that! Go to . Then go to Nexus ad paginam and click, for example, on Hulla. Open the edit window and you will see what parameters are wanted and how they have been filled in: it requires Filename of map (e.g. Regni Britanniarum), Name of town, Latitude and longitude in degrees and minutes, Whether name is to appear right or left of the dot, Size of map on page (e.g. 250), Position of map on page (e.g. right), and Caption at foot of map. For any existing Charta locatrix, that's all you have to do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:04, 5 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chartae locatrices