lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Eduardus O'Hara

message: Andrew, British MPs are kind of your thing, can you help improve this? --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:37, 20 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm not sure they are. I am currently stateless: I don't have a vote in Britain or anywhere else. But I guess I do biographies of a fair few politicians :)

text: At a quick glance, all the major facts are mentioned in the two obituaries and there's nothing controversial. So the "citation needed" tags were not needed! Since the obituaries are main sources for the whole article, I've taken them out of the footnotes where they were dreadfully cited (no dates of publication, no authors, no names of newspapers) and put them in a bibliography with proper details. But of course that all depends on Wikipedians: current footnote 2, citing an article by Allegra Stratton, is fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 20 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

text: "The Perse School". I note your find of the adjective "Persicus".Fons nominis desideratus, sed sicut Academia Liverpoliensis, non dubium est quin nomen Latin exstet. Nona bene academiam libellos edere nomine Lūdī Persicī sive vulgo Perse Latin School Plays. Vide hoc exempium apud Vivarium Novum. "Schola Persica" can be found once on the internet in the required sense, in a Czech text about Latinists with many Latin phrases cited; but the same phrase is also used in two earlier senses, so it would be good to have better confirmation. "Academia" is only rarely used by English schools I think -- more by Scottish. OK, here is "Scholae Persicae (Perse School)". That's enough confirmation, but the parentheses tell us if we didn't already know it that disambiguation will be required. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 20 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: : Excellent work, thank you. The notes were, of course, copied wholesale from the English version of the article, which was why I sloppily left the month names (as well as the word "References") in English. --Iustinus (disputatio) 17:51, 20 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

thread_title:  Nota
Disputatio:Susanna B. Anthony

message: This could use a lot of work I know, but it is a good start I think. Anyone want to help get it up to par? --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:17, 24 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

message: Cur Susana, non Susanna? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:35, 25 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)::
replies: text: Causa istius qui scripsit :/ That's not a good sign is it? --Iustinus (disputatio) 02:38, 25 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Eupraxia

message: Dubito, utrum affirmare liceat Eupraxiam - quam rectius eupraxiam puto scribendam) veram personam mythologicam esse. De Soteros veneratione et cultu novimus aliqua, sed quid de Eupraxiae? --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:01, 30 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythus et eupraxia
Disputatio:Praeses Civitatum Foederatarum Americae

message: Huius paginae status quiescens finiatur, opinor. Simul titulus novus "Civitatum Foederatarum Prases" sive (e pluribus unum) "Civitatibus Foederatis Praeses" propono. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 15:31, 30 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navitas huius paginae necesse est
Disputatio:Liber Psalmorum

message: Cum creare coeperim novas paginas de psalmis, in titulis primis verbis usus sum, ut Andreas hic suaserat. Nunc autem reversus sum ad illam opinionem de utilitate titulorum numericorum. Nam sunt plures psalmi "Miserere," plures "Confitebor tibi," etc., et plura nomina eiusdem psalmi (e.g. "Sicut cervus" et "Quemadmodum cervus"). Nunc quidem propter enumerationes Graecam et Hebraicam tituli numerici quoque possunt esse ambigui, sed quia Iudaei, Protestantes, Catholicique hodierni (in Nova Vulgata) enumerationi Hebraicae favent, censeo nos idem facere posse. Utique redirectiones, paginae discretivae, etc. creandae sunt. Alii quid dicunt? Lesgles (disputatio) 10:42, 10 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Si novas paginas de psalmis creare vis, optime! Ambiguitatem primorum verborum non observavi: ergo si titulos numericos utiliores esse censes, te consuetudinem mutare paginasque iam creatas movere suadeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 10 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulis
Disputatio:Marcus Licinius Crassus (triumvir)

message: VITA, SENTENTIA PRIMA: In sententia principali verba in formis perfecti scripta sunt "favit" et "contulit". Ergo in sententia dependente contemporanea ("dum...") verbum iterum in forma perfecti (i. e. "duxit" et non "ducit") scribere opportet. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 18:04, 11 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: VIde autem Allen & Greenough 556: "Dum, while, regularly takes the Present Indicative to denote continued action in past time ... 'dum haec geruntur, Caesarī nūntiātum est'". Lesgles (disputatio) 16:40, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gildersleeve (#229) idem exemplum habet: Dum haec in colloquio geruntur, Caesari nuntiatum est 'while these things were transacting in the conference, word was brought to Caesar'. (The natural inclination for native English-speakers would be to prefer the imperfect: dum gerebantur, nuntiatum est.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:35, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usus temporum verbi in textu
Disputatio Formulae:Praesidentes Austriae

message: De nomine muneris vide Disputatio:Praeses#"Praesidens rei publicae" Austriae. --UV (disputatio) 21:05, 19 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte mones: verbo "praesidens" in Austria lege et usu recepto debemus et nos uti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:33, 20 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  de nomine muneris 

message: I like the new design but I don't think it serves so well in the navbox function. The only purpose of a navbox (I think) is to provide simple navigation among successive holders of an office or members of a group. Our political navboxes (thanks to the format which you put into effect, UV!) are equally handy at the foot of laptop pages and mobile pages. This new design takes up a lot of space on mobile pages: look for example at Rudolphus Kirchschläger in a narrow window in mobile view: this formula shows a lot of detail not really relevant to Kirchschläger and sends the foreign ministers navbox a long way down the page. My suggestion is that the two designs both have their place and we should, as it were, fork them! What do others think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:33, 20 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that I put too much content into this navbox and that the navbox should just provide simple navigation among successive holders. The reason why I edited this navbox was that I was annoyed by the fact that the navbox, before my edit, showed the interim office holders that preceded Van der Bellen, but did not mention the interim office holders that preceded other presidents. Maybe the best way would be to move the full table to a new article Praesidens rei publicae (Austria), to link this new article from the Titulus of the navbox, and to limit the navbox to the 11 "real" presidents? --UV (disputatio) 21:42, 21 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fine, I agree 100%. Like you, I prefer to omit brief interim office-holders from a navbox. Now that we have a full table clarifying the position of the temporary "presidents" and giving all the exact dates, we can limit the navbox to a simple list of the 11 names.

text: :A separate small point: I have generally been avoiding turning the whole title of a navbox into a link, because my experience is that if that happens a reader is tempted mistakenly to click on it to expand the navbox. At least, I often used to do that myself! So I've preferred to put relevant links of that kind in the body of the navbox, at the foot of the main list, not in the titulus. But I haven't ever yet asked for other opinions about this ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:05, 21 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Good! We could either make the title appear as "Praesidentes rei publicae Austriae" (that way, not the entire title will be a link), or, as you suggest, put the link in the body of the navbox. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:41, 21 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

text: :: I have now created Praesidens rei publicae (Austria), improvements are most welcome! --UV (disputatio) 22:06, 26 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De usu formulae
Disputatio:Lingua Caesariaca

message: :Vide etiam Disputatio:Lingua Sargiensis.

message: Possumus verbo "Jerseiensis" uti (cognatum nominis localis Jerriais), quod verbum de hac insula iam adhibent botanistae e.g. hic. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:24, 20 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine huius linguae
Disputatio Formulae:Systema periodicum

message: I propose this template for deletion because it depends not only on many, many other templates (see Special:Contributions/Yejianfei), but also on three Lua modules ([]). We currently do not have regular contributors on la.wikipedia who know how to maintain Lua modules. However, we will probably not have to deal with Lua modules ourselves in the near future, because plans for a central repository for gadgets, templates and Lua modules are currently in the works. In order to reduce complexity and clutter (and to make transition to the future system of centrally-maintained Lua modules and centrally maintained templates easier), I therefore propose the three Lua modules, Template:Systema periodicum and all the other templates that were added in this context for deletion. I would be happy to see these modules and templates reappear in the future in a centrally-maintained place where all Wikipedias can directly use them, without the need of having to maintain them themselves separately on each Wikipedia. --UV (disputatio) 20:09, 26 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: : central repository for gadgets, templates and Lua modules hasn't finished yet. It is still in the phabricator. In the future, it will be easy to migrate the central module. All of those three templates are equivalent to the English versions. I have added the interlanguage wiki links. They can be migrated at any time. --Yejianfei (disputatio) 00:13, 27 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I don't know what the Lua modules contribute, therefore I can't comment on whether they serve a useful purpose here or not. UV is correct, we don't currently use Lua modules because no one here can maintain them.
replies: text: ::At present this formula is only used on one page. It makes a useful table on that page, but (so far as I can see) it would be too big to place on multiple pages. Therefore I don't know why it needs to be a template: the table could simply be part of the text of the one page (as indeed a similar table was previously). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 27 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I'd suggest keeping for now. It's not broken at the moment, and would add a ton of coding to the page Systema periodicum that would make that page much harder to edit. I can see how it works well enough to keep it going in the short term, and with any luck we'll have a central repository before too, too long. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:10, 27 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: If you directly insert the table into the systema periodicum page without a template, then it will be too hard for most people to edit that page, because it contains too much code. That is why we need to separate it in a template, so as the wiki pages in other languages. --Yejianfei (disputatio) 01:33, 28 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: Barium hyperlink doesn't lead to the real Barium (the element) article, but to a city. One of quite a few mistakes in the template.  Heflamoke (disputatio) 19:21, 12 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barium
Disputatio:Marcus Marulus

message: corrige: Marcus Marulus pro Marcus Marulo! Cf. fontes et libri Marci Maruli; e.g. Franz Posset, Marcus Marulus and the Biblia Latina of 1489, Coloniae 2013 --Triplec85 18:47 feb 27, 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marcus Marulus 

message: De "‎Bibliographia: Haec „Zentralbibliothek“ non „media“ est, sed „centralis“ - bibliotheca cantonalis Solodorensis et bibliotheca municipalis Solodorensis anno 1930 coniuncta sunt." Anglicum 'central' (Theodiscum 'Zentral') Latine = et medius et centralis (Traupman 2007: 489). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:20, 8 Maii 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Medius + centralis
Disputatio:Franciscus von Leydig

message: In capsa homins Vicidatae dies obitus "11 aprilis" mihi erratum esse paret. 
Sicut in omnibus Vicipaediis et in his fontibus extravicipaedianis 13 aprilis invenitur:  et  Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 20:54, 28 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Si vis, Bis-Taurine, correctionem apud Vicidata facere potes, die alternativa deleta, praesertim si fons nullus ibi citatur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:27, 28 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quando mortuus est?
Disputatio:Axius

message: Seems to me the Latin name is "Axius", which also agrees with the modern Greek name, so there's every reason to choose it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:26, 1 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I made the primary lemma Axius but in haste to get these things done by the end of the month didn't get the title in concordance with it. "Axius (flumen)" should probably do, but keep the other riverine Axius (Orontes) in mind. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:19, 1 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Castrum Caninum

message: Da veniam si citius egi, sed oppidum est res principalis, omnibus sub nomine Château-Chinon cognita, sic in tabulis geographicis semper descripta. An melius erit paginam de oppido sub hoc nomine simplici praebere? Fons nominis Latini additionem "(Oppidum)" non suggerit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:13, 7 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ego de hoc nomine non certus eram. "Château-Chinon (Ville)" statum officialem habere videtur (vide :fr:Château-Chinon (Ville)#Toponymie, INSEE, Google Maps), sed non necesse est, ut nos id sequamur. Sed tamen hoc commune a Château-Chinon (Campagne) distinguere oportet. Quid censes de nomine illius communis? Lesgles (disputatio) 10:24, 8 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Recte loqueris. Ars grammatica nominum officialium Francicorum valde a consuetudinibus Latinis differt. Incertus et ego sum ... si propono "Rura Castri Canini", quid dicis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:25, 8 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Pourquoi pas? dico ego. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:52, 8 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Natoli (familia)

message: "'Tvtvum signat iter' verbum scriptum litteris gothicis mediaevalibus." Ubi? Haec verba in tabula non videntur. + "Hoc in sigillo infra tres anuli aurei videri possunt." Ubi? Hi anuli non videntur. Res quae re vera videntur sunt turris, leo, corona, saxa, aqua. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:29, 9 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right to notice this page. The family exists, but the page is built on confusion and is linked to problematic pages on other Wikipedias. I've marked it for deletion, but if anyone wants to rescue it by writing enough real and sourced facts about the topic in Latin, that would be fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 10 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oops. After adding the Augenda formula, I see the author has cut the Delenda formula. Restore it? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:22, 14 Martii 2017 (UTC)

text: The page is potentially adequate now as a stub, well documented apparently, but the main paragraph is not in real Latin and I cannot understand it. The author needs to ask for help, and tell us what he is trying to say in some known language. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 23 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: : Deleted. The account that created this page (sulutil:Aleandro0909) has been globally locked. Some people consider Aleandro0909 to be identical to sulutil:Alec Smithson, another globally locked account. --UV (disputatio) 19:09, 30 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: De tabula
Disputatio:Fridericus Martinelli

message: Miror: primum legens textum mendorum plenum; tum quod neque hominem hoc nomine praeditum nec illa Martinellia, nedum eorum celebritatem, in interrete reperio. Ne in vicipedia italiana quidem. Mihi ullum testimonium indagare non contingit. Fortasse vestrum alicui? --Bavarese (disputatio) 22:01, 9 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Necesse est omnibus paginis Vicipaedicis fons externus fidei dignus, et praesertim paginis de hominibus vivis. Nullo fonte addito, paginae delendae sunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 10 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Macte, amici! Fortasse fraus iocularis fuerit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:39, 10 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::??? Is penem maiorem universo populo Italiae dicit habere = 'He's said to possess a penis bigger than the entire people of Italy'. Which may or may not be notable. Since neither he nor his eponymous festival can apparently be found elsewhere on the internet (as Bavarese points out), one might suggest that these pages be deleted, or at least put into a special folder. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:55, 11 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cui ista, '' F. Martinelli'' dico et ''Martinellia'', nota sunt?
Disputatio Formulae:Fontes biologici

message: (See the previous discussion at Disputatio_Usoris:Lesgles#Cuminum cyminum.) Since at least for of the sources work with animals as well (for another example, see Solifugae), should we chose a more general name? I thought perhaps either "fontes biologici" or "fontes de organismis." Lesgles (disputatio) 19:29, 15 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, good idea. I started with plants and didn't attempt to add animal (not to mention virus) websites, but evidently there is much overlap. Go right ahead!

text: If adding more sources, you might want to think again about the order. Just so that you know, I put the worldwide sources first, and then the regional ones. But I don't cling to this arrangement. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:37, 15 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda
Disputatio:Classificatio internationalis statistica morborum quaestionumque salutis relatarum

message: Classificatio internationalis statistica Anglice = 'statistical international classification', but aren't you trying to say 'international statistical classification'? + quaestionumque salutis relatarum = 'and of reported problems of health'. For relatarum, I think you're trying to say 'related', but that's coniunctarum, cognatarum, finitimarum, propinquarum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:40, 16 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, fortasse Andreas noster Latine, non Anglice, scribere temptavit!

text: Adiectiva Anglica, catená posita, ordinem fixum sequi solent (vide :en:Adjective#Order): ergo locutio tua *'statistical international classification' erronea est, mi Iacobe, nisi fallor. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Probe dixisti—et probe diximus! Locutio 'statistical international classification' falsa est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:42, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)

text: An adjectiva Latina tali ordini obtemperant, haud scio. "Classificatio internationalis statistica" auribus meis satis bene sonat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: : Qui Anglice "international statistical classification" dicit, maiorem cohaerentiam conceptualem verborum "statistical classification" profert, nam in sermone et dictione cohaerentia conceptualis propinquitate lineari exprimi solet. Latine quoque eadem cohaerentia conceptualis conservabitur, si vicinitati verborum statistica et classificatio cautum erit. Itaque ego suadeo scribamus: "classificatio statistica internationalis". ¶ Ceterum censeo titulum nimis longum esse, et quidem valde dubito, an "salutis relatarum" recte dicatur. Quin dicamus simpliciter: "classificatio statistica internationalis morborum". Neander (disputatio) 13:44, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Vobis pro conlationibus vestris gratiam habeo. In quantum ordo ut Neander proponeret melior esset - nescio non obtinebo. Ad tituli longitudinem (inflationem non voluissem): nunc versio ordinis mundi sanitarii ante oculos meos est: nisi enim tota re fallor, et "salum" et "morbum" non coniuncti sunt et profecto salus absentia morborum non est, videor. Quam ob et salus et morborum curam ordinis mundi sanitarii titulus longior defendendus -mea sententia- sit. ICD-10: Codex Z00 = investigatio sine morbo. Quid faciamus? Consilium vestrum libenter exspecto. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 20:32, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Hugo de Nevill

message: Melius forestarius maximus? Confer pontificem maximum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:01, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The best term would be whatever he was called (in Latin) in the thirteenth century, if appropriate MSS (and/or their modern editions) can be found. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:02, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Surely that's what we already have, see footnote 2. The source is dated to 1235, and appears to be written by the king. Or maybe for the king: I wouldn't know how much writing he did, day to day. Maybe he preferred to tweet :)

text: :Oddly enough, if you look at the source cited, and then read the immediately following quotation in the dictionary, it uses the word "capitalis" for a big pontifex in Rome. So medieval "capitalis" might come out (cf. your initial comment) as a synonym of "maximus". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:56, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, I tried to give the medieval version and a classical equivalent. An English synonym of forestarius is wodewardus (woodward). Lesgles (disputatio) 10:34, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::And Henry III may not have been the best king, but no, I think his subjects at least didn't have to put up with any late-night tweeting. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 10:57, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Ne medium ipsum false culpetur, fortasse debemus considerare primum praesidem Civitatum Foederatarum qui per Twitter communicare solebat fuisse Baracum Obama, ac 10,000 fere pipiationum edidit, quarum nulla fuit res tam controversa ut in prima diariorum pagina reprehenderetur. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:24, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 'chief forester' = ''capitalis forestarius''?
Disputatio:Mausilium

message: Si civitas Islamica ab anno 2014 urbem regebat, a quo et quomodo census 2015 habita est? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:12, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene rogas. Nihil fons huius numeri in enwiki datur, itaque numerum ex CIA World Factbook (nescio quam accuratam) inserui. Lesgles (disputatio) 12:19, 18 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census 2015
Disputatio:Schinus terebinthifolia

message: IIRC, we've discussed this plant before, but I'm not seeing the discussion here. Somewhere else? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:35, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Found it: hic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:10, 17 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Ubi?
Disputatio:Commodus

message: Quid est Bellum desertotum? Nonne fuit Bellum desertorum? At hoc sane ignoro. --Nigidiolus (disputatio) 12:18, 22 Martii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita; sine dubio mendum typographicum fuit. Vide Historiam Augustam, vitam Commodi 16.1: "et ante bellum desertorum caelum arsit." Lesgles (disputatio) 12:32, 22 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bellum desertotum"
Disputatio:Ianizari

message: Ianisarii, non Ianizari. — Commentationem pristinam non subscriptam usor 87.6.11.240 (disputatio • conlationes) 23:06, 23 Martii 2017‎ scripsit.
replies: text: Si fontem habes, quaesumus ut eum addas! Turcice autem nec s nec z videmus, sed Yeniçeri, quod /jenitʃeri/ sonat. Lesgles (disputatio) 09:24, 24 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Pycnogonida

message: Iacobe, "10K? Revera?" scripsisti. :en:Sea spider quidem in :meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded reperitur. An censes hoc thema non satis momenti esse, ut in indice sit? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:20, 30 Martii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  10K