lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Rubruquae

message: Si Gulielmus de Rubruquis est, nomen loci originis sui nonne Rubruquae esse debet? Sigur (disputatio) 13:07, 26 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio. Neander (disputatio) 14:04, 26 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :De genere neutro meditavi, sed fontem non habeo. Move! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:19, 26 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Optare debemus. Sed in numero plurali nonne genus femininum frequentius est in toponymia? Utique "Rubruqua(e) sunt..." scribere debemus. Propono notam addere indicantem genus lemmatis incertum esse. Sigur (disputatio) 15:27, 26 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Re vera nescio, neque nominativum per Google reperire possum, sed "Hierosolyma" et "Venta Silurum" procul, "Brugae" et "Bruxellae" proximae sunt! Censeo te recte femininum malere, et rursus "move!" dico. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:12, 26 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  lemma
Disputatio:Zoroastrismus

message: I changed the initial sentence back to how it was because (a) I don't think we have any rule that the pagename has to agree with the first lemma, though of course it most often does, (b) in this case, if putting modern "Zoroastrismus" first, and "religio Zoroastrea" second, it's quite difficult to write a sentence that suits the pair of them, doesn't make false claims, and isn't painfully repetitive. "Olim religio Zoroastrea" wasn't exactly right because we don't know that anyone ever used this phrase: but the phrase is (temporarily) OK for us because it is made up of words from real early Latin sources. "Zoroastrismus" has not been found in a Latin text, but it's (temporarily) OK for us because German authors sometimes invent technical terms of good scientific Latin form, like this one. And all of this will be unnecessary as soon as someone finds a term meaning "the Zoroastrian religion" in a real Latin source! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:59, 6 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemmata
Disputatio:Sucheum

message: "Sucheum" and "Suceu" are both correctly sourced forms, but the former is to be preferred [for Vicipaedia] because it is declinable. "Suceu" was probably not intended to be declinable since the fourth declension is not productive in later Latin. Hence I moved to "Sucheum". I hope no one objects. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 9 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Museum Orceaci

message: :Haec a Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 12 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
Let's nail down the Latin name first? It's hard to believe that Orsay, a village founded in the tenth century (and whose name the Museum bears), wouldn't have a Latin name. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:00, 11 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Pick and choose! Sigur (disputatio) 21:47, 11 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nothing on Vicipaedia, or any of the Wikipedias, is ever nailed down. Currently our choice for the commune is Orceacum.

text: :Hoc museum Francogallice nomen habet non ab oppido, sed a statione ferriviaria, quae nomen suum habuit a via prope marginem fluminis Sequanae, quae via nomen suum a frequentatione scapharum habuit. Nomina musei, stationis, viae, agnomen etiam ministerii Francici viae adiacentis, multo notabili[or]a sunt quam nomen oppidi. Ergo, mea mente, si sine fonte "Museum Orceaci" ponimus (possumus ex eodem fonte a Sigur citato "Museum Urticeti" temptare, i.e. Nettle-bed Museum, Musée de l'Ortière") ludum etymologicum lectoribus nostris inutilem gerimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 12 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The question has been passed on to a friend of a friend, a curator at the Musée du quai Branly (different place, but we can always hope for pertinent connections!), who, however, is on leave until September. More eventually, if anything comes of it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:41, 12 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::That's a great museum too. Maybe your friend will find a Latin name for both of them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:38, 12 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine Latino
Disputatio:Labyrinthus

message: Inspectione paginae "Labyrinthus" wikipediae theodiscae hanc rem (eadem in pagina nostra "adventus") intellegi potest: Labyrinthus Creticus (labyrinthus classicus nostrae paginae) factus e 2.500 candelarum (dicimus candelularum?) (tealights sive Teelichter) in ecclesia Sanctae Crucis, sede centrali meditationis et spiritualitatis Christianae dioeceseos Limburgi, in Bornheim Francofurti ad Moenum." --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:40, 12 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias tibi ago. Si imaginem restituis, bene erit fortasse rubricam longiorem vel pellucidiorem inserere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:26, 13 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Inscius sum, quo modo mutatio vetustior restituatur. Ita quaeso fac ipse. --Bavarese (disputatio) 07:44, 18 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::In pagina "Adventus" eandem inscriptionem emendavi. --Bavarese (disputatio) 08:20, 18 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De ''Fasciculo:HK Advents-Labyrinth" nuper deleto''
Disputatio:Mola pneumatica

message: Ambae istae paginae de eadem re aguntur. Utram delemus? --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:53, 12 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nullo pacto! "Mola pneumatica" = "Wind turbine" et "Ventimola" = "Windmill." Ambae res inter Myriades numerantur et retinenda sunt. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:53, 12 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  mola pneumatica sive ventimola
Disputatio:Homerus (nomen)

message: Words & things occupy different semantic fields. Conventionally, words cited as words get special treatment, either with quotation marks or (as is preferred in North America at least) italics. Thus the recommended typography:
replies: text: Homer is a man.

text: Homer is Homer's name.
Vicipaedia has a collection of articles on personal names, and their lemmata should show this distinction. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:34, 15 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Words as words
Disputatio:Mariazell (sanctuarium)

message: #REDIRECT Disputatio:Mariae Cella (sanctuarium Austriae)

message: Suadeo nominis Latini usum: "Mariae Cella" (Carolus Egger: Lexicon nominum locorum, Romae 1977, p. 195). Versio "Mariacellensis" autem invenitur apud Albertum Sleumer: Kirchenlateinisches Wörterbuch, Limburgi 1926, p. 502. -- Giorno2 (disputatio)
replies: text: Gratias tibi ago - nomen Latinum non vitavi, sed adhuc non inveneram!--Utilo (disputatio) 08:55, 23 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Cur paginae nomen Latinum vitatur?
Disputatio:Mariae Cella (sanctuarium Austriae)

message: Suadeo nominis Latini usum: "Mariae Cella" (Carolus Egger: Lexicon nominum locorum, Romae 1977, p. 195). Versio "Mariacellensis" autem invenitur apud Albertum Sleumer: Kirchenlateinisches Wörterbuch, Limburgi 1926, p. 502. -- Giorno2 (disputatio)
replies: text: Gratias tibi ago - nomen Latinum non vitavi, sed adhuc non inveneram!--Utilo (disputatio) 08:55, 23 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Cur paginae nomen Latinum vitatur?
Disputatio:Aurelius Tišljar

message: Hic dicitur, ut in calendario ecclesiastico Zlatko nomen ad Aurelium adaequetur (ut Cvjetko = Florianus, Srećko = Felix, vide disputationem et fontem, p. 26); Aurei nullos fontes inveni. Etiam duo Zlatko habemus sine versione Latina (1, 2). 
Mutationes non postulo, varia de nominibus Slavicis latinizandis colligo. Haec nomina Serbica et Slovenica rariora sunt, sed cum Croati et Sloveni catholici sint, traditio quaedam latinizationis invenitur. 
Si ipsa vocabula spectamus, aureus est zlatny (adiectivum de vocabulo aurum, zlato), Zlatko similior est Aurelio. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:29, 10 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias tibi multas! Animadvertendum tamen: Habemus utique Sanctum Aureum, immo tres Aureos diversos (tantummodo lingua Theodisca nexus habeo tibi):
* http://www.zeno.org/Heiligenlexikon-1858/A/Aureus,+SS.+(2)
* http://www.zeno.org/Heiligenlexikon-1858/A/Aureus,+S.+(1)
* http://www.zeno.org/Heiligenlexikon-1858/A/Aureus,+S.+(3)

text: De "Aurelio" etiam ego cogitaveram; nisi fallor, syllaba "-ko" deminutivum indicat et "Aureus" - mea opinione - propior est radici auri quam "Aurelius". Ceterum, placeret mihi etiam Aurelius. Si vis, fac mutes! Giorno2 (disputatio)
replies: text: :De Aurelio inveni fontes meliores, quam Vicipaedia ipsa, de Aureo non, ergo movebo. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:09, 11 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Ali Sarhan Shamran

message: We are working hard to translate and fix this page please give us a time to correct everything,thanksAmerussjarbot (disputatio) 12:08, 13 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

message: We are working hard to translate and fix this page please give us a time to correct everything,thanksAmerussjarbot (disputatio) 12:08, 13 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just give us a time 

message: Mos vicipaedianus est commentarios novos in harenariis privatis elaborare donec perfecti sint, non in spatio praecipuo primum ponere. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:22, 13 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Mos vicipaedianus

message: De: "Only latin words remained." No, not so. Plenty of English words remain. Also, some of the Latin words are incorrect: among the fifteen words of "natus apud iraca, Lectus a collegium Medicarum MMXVIII, carmina iraca cantare ad tueri suam identitatem" at least seven are wrong. (Do you know any Latin?) Any why is the only other article on this subject wholly in English but piblished in the Gikuyu-language wikipedia? This is the sort of pattern that might cause the magistrates, if only they weren't asleep, to delete the text altogether. Verb sap! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:03, 22 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraus?

message: Do you folks know what you're doing? The latest change didn't wikify a thing. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:34, 22 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Vicificanda restored
Disputatio:Tulna

message: Dubito, an Catulina Castra sit Tulln, quamquam saepius invenitur. Dictionnaire pour l'intelligence des auteurs classiques (1770) et Historisch-Politisch-Geographischer Atlas der ganzen Welt (1745) affirmant Wolfgangum Lazium nomen "Catulina Castra", quod in vita Didii Iuliani et Severiani invenisset, ad civitatem Tulnensem transtulisse. Necesse est inquirere, utrum aequatio Lazii recta sit necne. Interim nomen "Tulna" sive "civitas Tulnensis" bene attestatum praeferam.--Utilo (disputatio) 21:30, 13 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Lazius nomen "Catulina Castra" in Historia Augusta invenisse videtur, inter cuius auctores habetur quidam Spartianus. Quod ego reperire non possum! Marcus Welser (Welser, Marcus: Opera Historica Et Philologica, Sacra Et Profana. - Nürnberg, 1682) autem scribit in paginis 668-669 Scholiorum in Vitam Sancti Severini: "Cucullis (...): Lazius Catullis; quae mihi lectio vix est ut probari possit ineptis praesertim conjecturis firmata: nam qui sit credibile castra Catulina a Valerio Catulino dicta, quem in has oras unquam venisse nemo serio affirmare queat! Spartianus in Juliano eum a Senatu successorem Severo in Illyricum destinatum qudem ait, sed frustra, quod Severus iam antea captis armis descivisset. Est tamen mirum, quantopere nonnullos qunatumvis absurdae huius generis fabulae delectent. Lazius hodie Tulnam esse arbitratus."--Utilo (disputatio) 21:57, 13 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :addidamentum: Cucullis his diebus est commune nomine "Kuchl" prope Salisburgum.--Utilo (disputatio) 22:00, 13 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Haud tibi relevat fortasse, sed "Aelius Spartianus" aliique, quibus Historia Augusta olim attribui solebat, nomina ficta esse censentur. Id suadent eruditi recentes inter quos Ronaldus Syme. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 14 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Nescivi, Historiam Augustum nondum attigi.--Utilo (disputatio) 16:07, 14 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catulina Castra: Estne revera "Tulln"?
Disputatio:Anonymus Neveleti

message: I added two. The first (of Nevelet's title page) is less relevant, and could well deserve to be replaced by an image from one of the manuscripts or earlier editions. The bibliography, also, is merely a start, recording the one edition I looked at. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:18, 14 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that looks good. BTW, I decided to go with this title rather than enwiki's "Gualterus Anglicus" because of the doubts stated on that page (and in the ARLIMA link), but if anyone wants to investigate and write more on the subject, please do. In the meantime, I'll keep making my way through the missing Latin Library authors. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:43, 14 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :I think you're right. In a similar case I would prefer a title if possible (because the article will be about a book, not a ghostly person) but there really doesn't seem to be a usable title for this text! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:06, 15 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images
Disputatio:Dry martini

message: "The most storied account: In August, 1944, alongside David Bruce of the OSS (the forebear of the CIA), the then-war correspondent [Hwmingway] led dozens of French Resistance fighters into the Paris Ritz to “liberate” it. The hotel manager enthusiastically asked, “Is there anything we can do for you?” “How about 73 dry martinis?” Hemingway replied. To this day the OSS Society commemorates the historic Allied order at its annual dinner". This blog supported by The Georgetowner but not by any earlier source.
If true, the story should appear here because it is a full collection of witness reports of this very occasion. An order for 73 dry martinis does not figure in any, though some dry martinis were consumed in one. In practically all versions such an order could not fit into the context.
So I omit this story. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:14, 21 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De fabula
Disputatio:Veni Sancte Spiritus

message: Haec est sequentia (cf :en:Veni Sancte Spiritus : 
Veni, Sancte Spiritus,
et emitte caelitus
lucis tuae radium.
Veni, pater pauperum,
veni, dator munerum,
veni, lumen cordium.
Consolator optime,
dulcis hospes animae,
dulce refrigerium.
In labore requies,
in aestu temperies,
in fletu solatium.
O lux beatissima,
reple cordis intima
tuorum fidelium.
Sine tuo numine,
nihil est in homine,
nihil est innoxium.
Lava quod est sordidum,
riga quod est aridum,
sana quod est saucium.
Flecte quod est rigidum,
fove quod est frigidum,
rege quod est devium.
Da tuis fidelibus,
in te confidentibus,
sacrum septenarium.
Da virtutis meritum,
da salutis exitum,
da perenne gaudium.
Hic loquitur de prece, non de sequentia...Pippobuono (disputatio) 07:58, 24 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequentia missae pentecostis confunditur cum hac prece
Disputatio:Ebbe Vilborg

message: Si "Ebbe" nominis "Asbjörn" forma diminutiva est, "Asbiornus" multis libris testatur:
* Thormodi Torfaei Historia rerum Norvegicarum, pars III, Hafniae 1711, p. 114  
* Snorrii Sturlae filii Heimskringla = Historia regum Norvegiorum, vol. II, Hauniae 1778, p. 185 
* Pauli Ahnfelt De veteribus Suecorum et Gothorum ... institutis, vol. II,  Lundae 1823, p. 134 
etc. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:31, 27 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Nerva

message: "Dicitur Nervam in exsilium in Chersonesum misisse Clementem Romanum." - Sententiam delevi. Nervam Clementem in Chersonesum misisse legenda saeculi IX. (fide carente) tradit, quae nihil ad vitam Nervae confert.--Utilo (disputatio) 20:57, 28 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nerva et Clemens Romanus
Disputatio:Lacus Malavianus

message: The first footnote attributes this word to "Lexicon Universale Hofmann". Is that simply a slip of the keyboard? The link in the same footnote is to an online source, a lexicon apparently attached to the Ephemeris here, which is not the same thing at all! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 29 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing! I checked the form of the word in the table but didn't notice the misattribution, as I was rushing to finish before midnight (UTC), and I see now that the reference has been in Vicipaedia since 24 October 2011, when 82.198.57.212 added it into the article ""Valles Magni Chasmatis" (where I took it from), so I left it alone. Feel free to fix it whoever may! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:44, 29 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:03, 29 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malavianus 

message: Incidentally, Vicipaedia prefers "Malavia" over "Malavium," presumably because the former has an attestation, but Wiktionary has only the latter (though its statement that the genitive Malavī was in use in Latin even before "the Augustan age" is not a little troubling). Should anything be changed somewhere? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:58, 29 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Victionarium copied a lot of names from Vicipaedia many years ago, before we had made much progress with verifying them. You are welcome to edit Victionarium if you want to -- no one will stop you! Personally, I think life's too short. Last time I looked, it was like the Scots Wikipedia, in that no active editor really knew the language. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:58, 29 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :The Scots wiki? O the horror! the horror! I'll leave it alone then. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:47, 29 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Malawi"
Disputatio:Insula Rubra

message: An nobis licet nomen sine fonte Latine vertere, incertus sum. Aliae "Insulae Rubrae" reperiuntur, e.g. prope Sardiniam, sed de hoc commune in Corsica sito fontem Latinum non repperi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:42, 3 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Corpusculum Leweyi

message: Cum Tretiakoff (1919), unicus fons hic indicatus,  "corpusculum Leweyi" praebeat, quin eo utamur?  Neander (disputatio) 14:19, 6 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Delectum Leweyanum fere forte adhibui, morbus Alzheimerianus sequens. Fontis mihi adhuc incognitae laetus sum. Non dubito, quin titulum in corpusculum Leweyi mutemus. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 07:52, 9 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De appellatione
Disputatio:Alodia Fontan

message: Praenomen Latinum "Elodea" confirmare non potui. Ergo ad Élodie Fontan removi, sed, si fons exstat quo Élodie praenomen Francicum et Elodea Latinum aequantur, sufficiet fontem hic citare motumque iterum facere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:24, 9 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sainte Élodie est Sancta Alodia (soror Nunilonis). Sigur (disputatio) 20:32, 9 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Macte! "A" initiale non temptavi. Exemplum Latinum habemus . Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:12, 10 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De praenomine
Disputatio:Ecclesiae Catholicae Orientales

message: Textus de hac re haud encyclopaedicus, sed fortasse utilis, reperiri potest in historia paginae redirectionis "Orientalium Catholicarum". Nexum hic habes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:52, 21 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textus Latinus vicificandus (si utilis sit)
Disputatio:Chorea Vindobonensis

message: This article, "Chorea Vindobonensis," announces in its very name that it's referring only to the Viennese waltz, but it wrongly links to a different article in the English wikipedia: "Waltz."  One of these articles is in the myriad list, and one is not. Confusion is suspected! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:54, 25 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, difficilis et perplexa est quaestio. Si waltz erit saltatio in gyrum aut tripudium, ad Viennese waltz vertendum saltatio in gyrum Vindobonense aut tripudium Vindbonense excogitanda sunt, quae erunt .  Si ipse de omnibus speciebus choreae scribam, fortasse dixerim chorea Vindobonensis sensu stricto, chorea Vindobonensis lenta, chorea Vindobonensis Peruviana (aut more Peruviano) etc. (quod etiam erit ). — Sed haec pagina non movenda est ad Viennese waltz. Nihil perseverabo; et si valsa in lexicis invenietur, bonum erit. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:19, 25 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma + nexus
Disputatio:Ludovica Dorothea Saxo-Meiningensis

message: Tractatio "Luise Dorothea, Herzogin von Sachsen-Gotha und Altenburg" Alberti Schumann, apud: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, herausgegeben von der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 19 (1884), p. 625–629. Symbola haec relegi potest hic in interreti.
thread_title: Fons primae recensionis
Disputatio:Nathanael Bacon

message: --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 20:07, 27 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

message: Talem rubricam rarius inserimus. Mea mente melius erit honores in contextu vitae hominis explicare. Insuper hoc casu honorem delevi quia Ordo Imperii Britannici non ante annum 1917 institutum est. Si de aevo Nathanaelis Bacon scribimur, regnum "Anglia", non "Britannia" appellari debet; reges et reginae titulum imperatorium non iam vindicaverant. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:19, 14 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :Si Vicipaedia Anglica res veras dicit, Bacon anno 1625, contextu incoronationis regis Caroli I, in Order of the Bath receptus est: cuius nomen Latinum hic reperio . Hoc nomen ergo in textu insero eo loco ubi (sicut nuper tardius observavi!) honos iam recitatus est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 14 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Fontem fidelem rite addidi, anno in "1626" emendato. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 14 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  De rubrica "honorum"
Disputatio:Cultura poculorum campaniformium

message: Vocabulum vasum non bonae Latinitatis esse videtur. Numerus singularis accurate vas, vasis etc. legitur. Fortasse pagina movenda est (nisi forte in sermone archaeologorum aliter inveteravit.).--Bavarese (disputatio) 14:59, 2 Novembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Vasum et in Latinitate classica interdum invenitur, et in medica saepe (1), quamquam vas melius. Sed Iacobus recte lemma correxit: numerus pluralis est, non de vase unico hoc dicitur. Movendum ad nomen cum numero plurali est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:29, 2 Novembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasum aut vas?
Disputatio:Wingolf

message: Mea mente possumus "Vingolfum" temptare sicut mansio deorum , "Wingolfia" sicut asteroides. Si hae exempla reiicimus, licet et "Wingolf" orthographiá Theodisca accipere. "Vingolfum" praefero. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:44, 2 Novembris 2020 (UTC)\
replies: text: Cur non? Wingolf sive Vingólf locum mythologicum exstantem designat itaque non agitur de "nomine proprio in orthographia vernaculari conservando". Si exstat versio Latina eam adhibeamus; Vingolfo approbatio (saltem mea) esto. Giorno2 (disputatio)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio Categoriae:Pelliculae per annos digestae

message: Quid est s in columna prima? EightieS etc.? Num melius i addere (octogesimi etc.)? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:13, 3 Novembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Mutavi. --UV (disputatio) 22:51, 4 Novembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias ago; ipse non intellexi, quae formula mutanda est. — Etiam rogamus, ut aliquando hanc disputationem videas; sine UVbot haec iamdudum movenda difficile est facere. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:02, 5 Novembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: De '''s'''
Disputatio:Tramen vectorium

message: "The verb 'vectare' does mean 'to travel (with a vehicle)'. Connected words are 'vector' & connected adj 'vector-ius', which in other senses are also connected to 'vehere' & 'vehi'. All these words have also synonymical jibber jabbers, making the standards unclear. Note that many La words are also spelled the same. Sometimes don't trust La dictionaries, lack of expl & words." --Donatello
replies: text: Cassell's can usually be trusted: "vectorius, -a, -um (vector), for carrying : navigia, transports, Caes." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:30, 25 Novembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Vectorium,'' nomen adiectivum
Disputatio:Glomerulum (ren)

message: Salvete Vicipaediani et linguistici carissimi,
hodie mihi quaestio vexat: glomus (glomus, glomeris, ...) est neutrum. Sitne diminutivum, mea sententia, glomerulum? Pariter "glomerulus" invenio (ut in lingua Anglica). Errorne? Gratias vobis responsorum tuorum agebam.Andreas Raether (disputatio) 21:11, 30 Novembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glomus -> glomerulum / glomerulus?