lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Mark Twain

message: Marcus is out... this was not elected as the cognomen Mark, rather it was from stemboat terminology, as is noted even in our article!! If you want to latinize it, it would be more "Nota Twain"... I vote either (my preference) Samuel Clemens, or back to Mark Twain... Marcus is way overlatinizing... --Ioscius (disp) 15:05, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :For the record: "you" here may be the mysterious 65.101.226.224, who set up the article and may or may not still be with us. IacobusAmor 16:35, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I correct myself: the originator of Marcus here was Harrissimo. IacobusAmor 16:38, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)

text: Ita se res habet. Egomet praefero "Mark Twain" quia ille hoc nomine cognotus est et ipse hoc nomen elegit. Declinandi causa utamur Marki vel Marci (pro genetivo) si necesse sit. --Alex1011 15:20, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vidi paucissimis temporibus necessitudinem declinandi... Saepius possunt sententiae scribi modo quo sensus patet omnibus, at, si necesse sit, Marki praefero.--Ioscius (disp) 15:42, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Et noli praeterea oblivisci Marky Mark, Marci Wahlberg agnomen! IacobusAmor 16:35, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)

text: Haud certus sum num argumentum hoc nostra referat. Utique, sanissime, Clemens nomen calami Mark Twain elegit de termino technico nautico, attamen nihilominus eam appellationem non adhibuisset nisi gratia verborum lusus cum Marco praenomine.

text: Obiter noto versionem Latinam exstare cuiusdam Domini Twain fabulae quod anno 1996 praemium Bowdoin accepit compositionum latinarum a studentibus baccalaureandis (anglice "undergraduates"). Fortasse is textus nobis est petendus. --Iustinus 16:00, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine

message: I made the categories sort under "M", not under "T", on the grounds that this pseudonym is a phrase and not a normal name (see above). But I don't feel sure what's best. If others think that he should be alphabetized as "Twain, Mark", then just revert me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 23 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Library of Congress (http://catalog.loc.gov) gives his surname as Twain and his forename as Mark. IacobusAmor 12:21, 23 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Defaultsort
Disputatio:Kinshasa

message: Salve. Hoc est prima modificatio mihi vicipaediae. Sed, ut certe vides, non bene latine loquor, et praefero aliquem modificationem mihi corrigere:
replies: text: "Anno 1929, designata est caputem coloniae pro Boma. Jure facta est urbs anno 1941, quia, anteam, non jam erat urbs, sed, francogallice, "district urbain". Anno 1957, prima universita Africae Meridianae condita est Urbe Leopoldi, et honoris universitae Lovaniensis appellata "Lovanium". Hodie, Kinshasa urbs maxima Africae Meridianae est, et 8.000.000 incolae sunt hac urbe. "
Certe sum melior potest esse, sed ego non possum corrigere.
Gratias tibi si respondas.
Julianus
thread_title:  Ad corrigendum modificationes meae
Disputatio:Budovicium

message: Turris nigra (Bohemice "Černá věž") nome officiale huius aedificii est, quare, credo, cum T magno scribendum. --Ctibi 21:46, 14 Martii 2008 (UTC)

message: si est nomen officiale turris, puto hoc magnum argumentum esse, ergo Turris Nigra--Massimo Macconi 21:55, 14 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  naturaliter
Disputatio:Bambi

message: Hi,I made this pagina because Bambi is such uno awesome Disney masterpeice et deserves to be written in Latina!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I was inspired by the Rex Leo article) If my Latina is incorrect, plese forgive me because I'm doing II (two, as spelled in Italiana, meaning 'the') best that I can, because I based this on the Italiano, Francais, et Espanol that I know as I don't know alota Latina. P.S.I saw the notice. At first,I thought, "How will I know what they're saying?!" then saw II(the)English show et clicked on that.I hope that someone will help me expand this pagina!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
replies: text: The notice will stay. This is a Latin wikipedia, not a mixed-Romance-pidgin one. If you want to write in 'Italiano', 'Francais' or 'Espanol', go to their language versions of wikipedia. If you want to learn Latin, there's a good wikibook which can help you do so. Harrissimo 20:27, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!P.S.The mixed Romance thing was my best attempt at Latina.I knew that it was likely to be incorrect.I was so surprised,though,at the fact not only they kept the artice, but they responded to it and gave me great advice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I also noticed that they put it into REAL LATINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

message: We need one. Anyone know Latina that can put a plot section?68.220.180.163 00:19, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)
I want a plot section too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 65.0.181.64 23:54, 4 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: I have improved it, ALOT, using the Catalian interwiki link. Also added the  and 
  tags. 65.0.181.64 00:53, 5 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't allow non-Latin text. So as not to delete the page, I have restored the Latin introduction and hidden the rest. Nothing is deleted, and it's still possible to work on the text if anyone wants to. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:50, 21 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved
Disputatio:Volta (unitas)

message: Rafael, gonna need your help on this one... potential difference? conductor? --Ioscius (disp) 15:55, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Electrical potential = potential difference = tensio electrica; conductor = conductor vel conductrum.--Rafaelgarcia 16:03, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: terms for the electrophysica guy
Disputatio:Lusiadae

message: Exstant nonnullae Lusiadarum versiones Latinae. --Iustinus 02:33, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)

message: Herders Conversations-Lexikon. Friburgi Brisgoviae 1854, tomus 1, p. 770 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mense Martio 2024
Disputatio:Firdusius

message: Somewhere I have a quote by Thomas Hyde about the Shahname. Don't know if I can still track it down though. --Iustinus 08:24, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)

message: What is the query about his name? It surely isn't in doubt that he had this name and that it is commonly used.
If it is the spelling, the transliteration of Persian is a controversial thing. The simple solution is to use the DMG Arabic transliteration, as used on the German Wikipedia (which also gives "Firdausī" here). Whether that is the best solution, someone else might say :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 3 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about the u; I was expecting w or v, but I don't know Persian. Since it's used in an official transliteration, I stand corrected! Lesgles (disputatio) 17:18, 3 Martii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :The Latin name "Firdusius" appears at Liber regum. Why not here, I don't know. I can verify "Firdusius" so I'll move the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:50, 26 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Quillajaceae

message: Are we allowed to move to the lemma, Quillaiaceae? Harrissimo 20:46, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: Hmm. Botanical Latinists use j, so we have to make clear (at least in the infobox and in the text) that the correct botanical form has a j. I don't know if we've established a rule for what our lemma should be in such cases. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:11, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I normally use j when citing the scientific binomial name, but not in article titles or lemmas. Of course I have often argued for treating biological names as "foreign" even though they're mostly Latin or at least pseudo-classical. I always italicize them and do my best to keep them in the nominative: part of their purpose is to be international, and therefore I try to keep them as recognizable to non-Latin-speakers as possible, so to my mind j's are fine in that context. But when I "borrow" a scientific name, I normally make it comply with our rules (so quillajaceae > quillaiaceae), and with the norms of classical Latin (Deinonychus > dinonychus, Ankylosaurus > ancylosaurus. But then what to do with things like Kentrosaurus vs. Centrosaurus?) --Iustinus 23:07, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::For the record: I agree with all that, and we should keep Centrosauros distinct from Kentrosaurus. IacobusAmor 23:25, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Given that they're pronounced the same in Latin, even if we keep the spelling we should probably add some sort of distinguishing adjective. We have a ton of cases where we need to do that anyway, given how used and reused Latin terms are. --Iustinus 23:31, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)

message: Justinus is right, it is not good deal to latinized twice --Penarc 03:20, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  j or i
Disputatio:Gedanum

message: Usor ignotus in commentario scripserat: "Nomen rectum est GEDANUM. Gedania est nomen societatis pro corpora exercitanda (sport club)" IacobusAmor 12:27, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Idem usor nexus intervici duo removit, et additionem pessime scriptam ad  fecit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:23, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen rectum
Disputatio:Antigone (Sophocles)

message: Sophclis recte Sophoclis? IacobusAmor 00:36, 23 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it is late at night over here! I have just moved the page to Antigone Sophoclis Leigh (disp) 01:49, 23 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Wernherus von Braun

message: Hmmm, isn't Wernher equivalent to Warnerius/Garnerius/Irnirius (and possibly some other Latin forms I can't think of)? --Iustinus 08:29, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest "Wernherus" as attested in the name "Wernherus Teschenmacher". Sigur (disputatio) 15:43, 20 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Praenomen

message: Actually, now I'm seeing this: Do we have a policy on particles like "von"? Because here it's "Wernerus von Braun", not "Wernerus de Braun", but we have "Ursula de Leyen" and not "Ursula von der Leyen".  That's not very consistent... Sigur (disputatio) 15:49, 20 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See Iustinus's thoughts about this question. Obviously when there is a reliable Latin source, we can use that (not sure if the link on Ursula de Leyen counts). My instinct would just be to use von, but what do others think? Lesgles (disputatio) 17:59, 20 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :In relation to Iustinus's thoughts, I note that Ursula von der Leyen definitely did not live in the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, while according to his approach - if she had lived in those days - the name should be Ursula Leyensis (not that I'm advocating that version). Sigur (disputatio) 18:42, 20 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen gentilicium
Disputatio:Petrus Álvares Cabral

message: Nullum fontem habebamus pro "Petrus Alvaresius Cabralius"; igitur movi pro tempore ad "Petrus Álvares Cabral". Si exstat forma Latina melior, rogo Lusitanistis ut corrigeant. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alvaresii nominis fontes:  et  (Franciscus Alvaresius)
thread_title: Nomen

message: (My apologies for this message being in English) The vandal General Tojo is spamming Wikipedia by removing references and adding his books as the only reference. The books are nothing more than reprints of out of copyright sources, with spelling errors from the title page on forward (For example it is James McClymont, not MacClymont, and Gaspar Correia, not Correa, and Charles Edwards Lester, not Charles Lester Edwards). This article is one of his targets, please watch for removal of valid references and adding of the spam references by new users or IP's. The books spammed so far are: 
* Magellan (2008) by Francis Guillemard (died 1933), Antonio Pigafetta (died 1534), Francisco Albo (contemporary of Magellan), Gaspar Correa (contemporary of Magellan), Keith Bridgeman (Editor) and Tahira Arsham (Editor); ISBN 978-1906421007
* Amerigo Vespucci (2009) by Charles Lester Edwards (died 1890), Amerigo Vespucci (died 1512), Keith Bridgeman (Editor) and Tahira Arsham (Editor); ISBN 978-1906421021
* Pedro Cabral (2009) by James Roxburgh MacClymont (out of copyright author), William Brooks Greenlee (edited around 1939), Pero Vaz de Caminha (died 1500), Keith Bridgeman (Editor), and Tahira Arsham (Editor);ISBN 978-1906421014
Please watch for removal of valid references and replacement with spam, and revert accordingly. As for the identity of the spammer and vandal General Tojo:
*Keith Bridgeman, London is the editor of all the books spammed by General Tojo
*Keith Bridgeman, London is the owner of the publishing house publishing the books spammed by General Tojo
*Keith Bridgeman, London is the owner of some Parkinson's disease patents spammed by General Tojo on Wikipedia for quite a few years now
*Keith Bridgeman, London is also the owner of the web page advertising both the Parkinson stuff and the books spammed by General Tojo.
For details see :en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo. PS: If a new editor is removing this message, it is most likely Keith Bridgeman. Please revert. -- Chris 73 15:14, 4 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Book Spam warning
Disputatio:Spectroscopia absorptionis

message: Amice ignote: in altera commentarii sententia, prius subiectum, Spectroscopia absorptionis, praestans in mente manet; ergo, in "Fundatio eius," verbum eius non ad Spectroscopia absorptionis refert: ad quod refert? Etiam, verba quae mutavisti nunc sunt modo subiunctivo: cur non modo indicativo? IacobusAmor 11:36, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ait commentarium: "A explanat absorptionem, cum e tabellarium absorptionis, c concentrationem molecularum, et d diametrum ampullae nominent." Anglice: "A makes the absorbing clear, when e might name the letter-carrier of absorbing, c the encentering of molecules, and d the diameter of a flask." ??? Does Vicipaedia have a glossary of accepted Late Latin scientific terms? IacobusAmor 12:14, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Variae res
Disputatio:Liber (litterae)

message: Oportetne scribere etymologiam verbi " liber" in articulo si iam est in pagina discretiva ? --Marc mage 22:48, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio aliquid oportet describere, quia sensus hic tractatus provenit ex sensu antiquo. Credo nunc eam forsitan meliorem feci...--Rafaelgarcia 23:01, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)

message: Quia recensio abrogatus est, hic monstrare cupio, quid in occulis meis vitium est: "Liber notissimus est sacra Christianorum Biblia, quae de creatione Terrae et de exordio vitae narrant." Verbum "Biblia" singular esse debet. Sed itaque verbum secundum quoque singular esse debet. Solum una Biblia, quae res narrat <--- singular. Estne? -89.14.44.226 alias Joru
replies: text: Immo: hae biblia sacra sunt fere septuaginta libri sacri. Dixit Clemens Papa VIII die 9 Novembris 1592: "Cum sacrorum Bibliorum Vulgatae editionis textus summis laboribus ac vigiliis restitutus. . . ."  IacobusAmor 18:37, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Tibi Gratias. Estne sententia bona "Collectio notissima librorum sunt Christianorum Biblia" aut "Libri notissimi sunt ~" -89.14.44.226 alias Joru
replies: text: ::Biblia hoc sensu est nomen plurale sensu singulari. Quamobrem possumus bene scribere biblia sunt liber aut liber est biblia sine vitio. Lingua Latina sinit tales res, e.g. arma = plural sed sensum singularem capit. Hic oportet memorare quod quidam liber potest intus continere multos libros, sed tamen liber singulus dicitur.--Rafaelgarcia 19:01, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Biblia"
Disputatio:Tennesia

message: Apud Vicipaediam, utimur systemate unitatium internationali, ut scala Celsii nec ea illius Fahrenheit uti oporteat.--Rafaelgarcia 01:37, 28 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Igiturne necesse est mihi omnes temperaturas Fahrenheit removere? Bene, faciam. Gratias.--Antodav 04:50, 28 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Necesse est convertere temperaturas in Tabula ad Celseium. FOrsitan iam conversa est in alia Wikipedia?--Rafaelgarcia 05:54, 28 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Nescio si tabula temperaturis iam ad Celseium conversis in alia Wikipedia exsistat, at temperaturas in hac tabula iam converti. Spero ut iam omnes rei aerumnae solutae sint.--Antodav 07:02, 28 Martii 2008 (UTC)

message: Cur est nomen Tennēsia? (Animadverte litteram vocalem ē.) Melius puto nomen esse Tennĕssia. IacobusAmor 11:17, 28 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Civitatis nomen
Disputatio:Bella Rosarum

message: There may be some useful names in this text. "Edwardus Plantagenista" is there. I can also see "inter familias Lancastriae et Eboraci", and also alternative forms "familia Lancastrensis" and "familia Eboracensis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:27, 28 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful names

message: Alex fontem dubium citat; et re vera nescio si debemus hoc nomine uti. De nomine Anglico en:wiki haec dicit: "The term came into common use in the nineteenth century, after the publication of Anne of Geierstein by Sir Walter Scott. Scott based the name on a fictional scene in William Shakespeare's play Henry VI Part 1, where the opposing sides pick their different-coloured roses at the Temple Church." Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 00:09, 29 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bella Rosarum

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 8. Lipsiae 1907, p. 394-395 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mense Maio 2020

message: Fontem Latinitatis Renascentis repperi, qui hoc modo appellationem dat: "Hoc bellum civile ... dicitur factio albae et rubrae rosae ... e scutis ducum Eboracensium et Lancastrensium ..." (vide notam subiunctam primam). An accipimus hunc usum verbi singularis "factionis" (= motus/tumultus civilis)? Si consentimus, titulum factio albae et rubrae rosae propono. Si non placet, ex aliis fontibus ibidem citatis possumus pluraliter scribere Factiones rosarum albae et rubrae ... quia, hoc casu, pagina de factionibus est pagina de tumultibus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:47, 21 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide Rosenkriege. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:47, 21 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Bene repperisti, Iacobe, sed linea "Rosenkriege, m pl bella rosarum, n pl [VPL: Bella Rosarum (07.12.2016)] {bella civilia Anglica saeculo XV}" verba "VPL" continet; i.e. fons fuit Vicipaedia Latina. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:56, 21 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De novo, de titulo
Disputatio:Londinium (urbs Romana)

message: I think this is the first such article we have -- how nice that it is for a city on the very edge of the (Roman) world!
I wonder whether, since it's setting a precedent, a better title might be Londinium (urbs Romana). I don't think it makes any odds in this case, but, e.g. for Roma or Lutetia, we might want (a) the Roman city, (b) the Roman goddess, (c) the modern city. So then we'd have Lutetia (urbs Romana), Lutetia (dea Romana), Lutetia. What do you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 29 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a very good proposal.--Rafaelgarcia 10:21, 29 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :I thought to connect a "neutrum" with a "neutrum", but Londinium urbs Romana is, of course, also correct, so no objections from me. --Alex1011 11:11, 29 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, I see what you mean. I think that our usual practice is, if the two words are in a grammatical relationship with one another, not to use the parentheses (and this is different from de:wiki, for example, which seems to use parentheses in a rather different way, as does German technical prose).

text: ::So that would give Londinium Romanum, and nothing wrong with that heading that I can see. But, again, Lutetia Romana wouldn't do (because it might mean the goddess or the city), and Roma Romana wouldn't do (because it doesn't disambiguate: Rome is always Roman), and Ad Confluentes Romanos wouldn't do. That's what set me thinking about precedents, and the best form to use for all our future articles about Roman cities -- of which this is the first! It seemed to me that ... (urbs Romana) would do for all those cases.

text: ::Since there are no objections, I'll move it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:37, 29 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus
Disputatio:D.C. United

message: I still worry about this Campus Columbianus. For 'district', Cassell's gives ager, regio, terra, and Ainsworth's gives juridictionis fines. For 'canton', Cassell's gives pagus, which I've used for Samoan administrative districts. In the place known as the District of Columbia, the thing that's obviously the Campus is the Mall: that is, to an old Roman, revived & new in town, the patch of land that would most closely resemble the Campus would surely be the Mall. What's the justification for Campus Columbianus? Would it be better to keep the initials (D.C.) and accept the medieval Latin term districtus? IacobusAmor 15:39, 30 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we can!  -- Ioscius (disp) 15:54, 30 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ooh! ooh! Macte, Iosci! Vide etiam ibi has duas attestationes: Georgiopolis 'Georgetown' et Marilandia 'Maryland'. IacobusAmor 16:13, 30 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Etiam vidi Marylandiam et (quam praefero) Terram Mariae.--Ioscius (disp) 16:18, 30 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: C. C.
Disputatio Categoriae:Urbes Turciae

message: I would like to suggest to UV's bot that it renames this category to :Categoria:Urbes Turciae to correspond with all our other cities-in-countries categories (see, for many examples, the subcategories of :Categoria:Urbes Asiae and :Categoria:Urbes Europaeae).
I suspect the grammar police have a preference for Urbes Turcicae. However, in my view, the distinction is essential between "Cities in/of Turkey" (which they all are) and "Turkish cities" (which some of the historical ones never were). The same distinction has to be kept in mind in many other countries too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:07, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen mutare?
Disputatio:La Bamba

message: Parece que la palabra Veracruzana es español:
replies: text: http://books.google.com/books?id=fjVgynR84FAC&pg=RA2-PA441&lpg=RA2-PA441&dq=veracrucana&source=web&ots=svuM5faN2U&sig=_tPUMU6a5IMaPM5pUQQqJUq20Rk&hl=en

text: y http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:sm7lp7inLJAJ:www.yelp.com/biz/taqueria-veracruzana-philadelphia+veracruzana&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
y Veracrucana est negotii nomen in Crawfordsville in Indiana:

text: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:-KDTqtRKlgcJ:crawfordsville.indiana-services.com/food-dining/grocery-stores/+veracrucana&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us&ie=UTF-8,
sed Veracruzensis est nomen rectum Latinum:

text: Acacia veracruzensis http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1cZz60LLfGUJ:www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx%3Fflora_id%3D5%26taxon_id%3D250063351+veracruzensis&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

text: Neozygina veracruzensis http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bWe47mlELCQJ:ctap.inhs.uiuc.edu/dmitriev/taxahelp.asp%3Fhc%3D18018%26key%3DErythroneura%26lng%3DEn+veracruzensis&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

text: Parapycnoderes veracruzensis http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bsk72vk_oM4J:research.amnh.org/pbi/catalog/references.php%3Fid%3D15545+veracruzensis&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

text: Prenolepis imparis veracruzensis http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:fOSBlIL6oXoJ:www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt%3Fsearch_topic%3DTSN%26search_value%3D588381+veracruzensis&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
&c., &c., &c. IacobusAmor 12:05, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Veracrucana, Veracruzana, Veracruzensis
Disputatio Categoriae:Abecedarium

message: Nonnulli Vicipaediani volunt nomine Litterae ... pro literature uti. Necesse enim nobis erit hanc categoriam primo (cum Litterae Graecae, Litterae Latinae, Litterae Nordicae) ad :Categoria:Abecedarium (vel sim.) movere. Quid cogitant alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cassell's dicit Anglicum 'literature' esse Latinum litterae, -arum et litterarum monumenta. IacobusAmor 12:59, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen categoriae