lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Valentia

message: I reverted the move to Valentia (urbs). This move may or may not be a good thing, but it needed discussion. There are many incoming links to Valentia, and nearly all of them are to the city. This may be a sign that, to keep things simple, we should allow the city to have the simple headword. Other views? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:55, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I think Valentia should relate directly to the city, and then province, autonomous community and kingdom should be specified from a discretiva.--Xaverius 13:02, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

text: On a second thought, we may want this to be Valentia (Hispania), as there are other Valentia (in Venezuela, and in France, Valence-sur-Rhône)--Xaverius 13:05, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

text: I found the need for the chemical meaning, which is why I thought the move necessary. Everywhere else I've seen here, we put the discretiva at the simple title, so I followed that (and therefore didn't need the head note at the city's page). Pantocrator 14:28, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :In fact we don't always make that choice. It's more like en:wiki: we decide whether one meaning of the word is preeminent or not (and it makes sense to look at the incoming links before deciding finally). In those cases, we put the discretiva page at xxxx (discretiva). Yes, we always aim to add the headnote. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:49, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Always? That's certainly not a policy on English. I suppose I should look at the incoming links, but how many does it take to make that decision? Pantocrator 14:59, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::We're all housekeepers, but there aren't that many of us. If you're ready to change some of the links, and say so, others might be ready to go along with the page move you're suggesting.

text: :::I feel a good aim, in this as in many other Vicipaedia things, is to make decisions that are good for the future, easy to apply, and cause least housework. If we can do all that, how happy we will be! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Now someone else tried to move the page, anonymously and without discussion, but just made a mess, because anonyms can't move pages. I reverted the mess, pro tempore. Personally I have no strong opinion on what this page should be called, but, as explained above, any move will require consideration and discussion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:39, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio Categoriae:Situs ephemeri

message: How does this phrase parse? It's mystifying me! IacobusAmor 02:25, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a little confused about that too last night at 0145 when I moved blogis to blog, but I chalked it up to exhaustion and went to bed. --Ioscius∞ 09:02, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :I must have had a feeling there was an adjective ephemerus. If there isn't, back to square one.

text: :[Later:] Well, there is in Greek. I bet someone's used it in Latin before now, probably Linnaeus or a follower.  'short-lived, living but a day'. So, ephemeral sites. I did it partly because I couldn't believe in 'blogis'. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:58, 11 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yes, it did get pulled into Latin — at least as a substantive in the feminine, where in taxonomy ephemera means "mayfly".  Also the neuter  was apparently a kind of plant mentioned in Pliny.  Given that, the adjectival use that might go in the middle is probably out there somewhere... but it's probably not the best solution. —Mucius Tever 04:46, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well these certainly aren't 'ephemeral sites'. Do we need this category at all? Pantocrator 11:11, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::The idea I had in mind is to categorise sites that may last (as much as others) but their pages or contents are ephemeral. I know nothing of Facebook or chatrooms, but that was my impression of them.

text: ::::If a category empties, it becomes clear that we don't need it at all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:44, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Ephemerus adj. did certainly appear in medieval British Latin, referring to a fever or to various plants and animals. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:36, 20 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::For 'ephemeral', Cassell's tells English-speakers to use unius diei, caducus, and brevis. Traupman says to use brevis (presumably for the general sense) or, when it means 'perishable', caducus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:37, 21 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Situs ephemeri
Disputatio Categoriae:Omnia

message: : Quae sequuntur, fortasse ad disputandum dicta, e pagina removi: Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this page really leads to all the categories. Remember science is under eruditio and computers are informatica under technologia. Ciuitate digestae means 'ordered by country' and notiones well, probably shouldn't exist (and is basically meaningless) - it contains only some pages on plants. Usor:Pantocrator
replies: text: :Why shouldn't this be on the main page, given its use?
replies: text: :Anyway, I emptied the category :Categoria:Notiones. Can you delete it and its subcategories? Pantocrator 13:16, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Headnotes on category pages should be in Latin; aside from that, yours was (I felt) conducting a sort of argument with the categories, hence inviting discussion, hence I moved it here.

text: ::I can delete :Categoria:Notiones etc. in due course (if no one raises an objection). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputatio?
Disputatio Categoriae:Reproductio

message: Conceptually following Wikipedia, this category had been a subset of "Biological processes," which had been a subset of "Biology," but Pantocrator has made it a subset of "Procreation," which becomes a subset of "Biology." (What's the rationale for obliterating the distinction between biology and biological processes?) Following the English terms, "Procreation" will now seem to include articles equivalent to these: "Abortion, Adelphogamy, Allogamy, Alternation of generations, Animal sexual behaviour, Anisogamy, Antral follicle, Apophallation, Arrhenotoky, Artificial reproduction, Artificial insemination, Asexual reproduction, Assisted reproductive technology, Associated reproductive pattern, Assortative mating, Avian incubation," and so on. Many of course do address procreation. IacobusAmor 13:28, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already in 'Procreation', and I have no opinion right now about that. I only removed 'Biological Processes', a category with no other members; and that was done (as mentioned on Disputatio Categoriae:Omnia) to empty 'Categoria:Notiones', which contained only this. Pantocrator 13:33, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Over in Wikipedia, the category "Biological processes" has seven subcategories:
replies: text: ::Cellular processes (5 C, 55 P)

text: ::Evolutionary processes (5 C)

text: ::Immune system process (1 P) M

text: ::Memory processes (74 P)

text: ::Pigmentation (1 C, 4 P)

text: ::Reproduction (15 C, 132 P) V

text: ::Viral life cycle (5 P)

text: :and fifteen pages:
replies: text: ::Biological process

text: ::Assimilation (biology)

text: ::Barker's hypothesis

text: ::Biochemical cascade

text: ::Bioconjugation

text: ::Biotinylation

text: ::Chemosynthesis

text: ::Convergent extension

text: ::Degranulation

text: ::Imbibition

text: ::Immunoglobulin class switching

text: ::Mineralization (biology)

text: ::Photosynthesis

text: ::Radical (chemistry)

text: ::The chemical basis of morphogenesis

text: :Vicipaedia will someday want to have articles on these topics. IacobusAmor 15:29, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That category is already under Biologia where it should belong if it is to exist. Pantocrator 23:54, 12 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
As first created, this category duplicated the already-existing "Procreatio"; hence it has no interwikis. What we lacked was a category "Reproductio humana". For the present I am interwiki-ing this one as "Reproductio humana". Perhaps it should be deleted and re-created under that name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:55, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The cladistics here
Disputatio:61 Danae

message: Secundum en:wiki "It is the lowest-numbered asteroid with diacritical characters in its official name." Ergo 61 Danaë. Sed quo fonte? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:50, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For diacritical characters? Here is an attestation (1797). Here is Introductiones latinae from 1495 stating that Danae is always pronounced with three syllables, although it isn't printed with diacriticals. For the claim that it is the lowest-numbered containing diacritical characters? I suppose one could check the first 60 for their classical orthography. But that would be original research, wouldn't it? Which is a no-no. My own conclusion is that it is the most trivial of trivia, equivalent to saying that Ceres is the first asteroid with a capital letter C in it. I mean, there's trivia and then there's trivia. -- Robert.Baruch 19:22, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :I agree it's a trivial fact! I just wanted an astronomical source for Danaë (with diacritic) as the official name, because then we would add the diacritic in the page title and lemma. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:16, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The previous page in the Handbook of Astronomy might do: Handbook of Astronomy (1867) p. 229; Or this one from 1861, which has the diaresis over the a instead of the e (!): The American Journal of Science and Arts v.31 no.91 p.136; Or this later volume also from 1861 with the diaresis over the conventional e: The American Journal of Science and Arts vol.32 no.94 p.132; and finally from Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (1861) vol.21 no.1 (9 Nov 1860) p.38.
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:64 Angelina

message: Secundum en:wiki "It was named for astronomical station at Marsielle [sic], France set up by Franz Xaver von Zach." Id non intellego quia nomen "Angelina" nihil commune habet cum observatorio Massiliensi (vide paginas historicas). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Angelina, statio astronomica, non erat in observatorio Massiliensi, sed prope ab observatorio Massilliensi: quo vide pro fonte (anno 1875). Estne "Google-Fu" meus magnus? ;) -- Robert.Baruch 19:38, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Macte, Roberte. Nunc reperio et in hac pagina "l'ancien monastère de Notre-Dame-des-Anges, accolé à la montagne de Mimet" et in tabula geographica viarum Francicarum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:38, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Poetovium

message: ===nomen===
Ibi fuimus cum amasia caneque pompas et nugas mirantes frigoremque libenter repelli patientes, cum in animum cura festum Latine describendi ierat. Eo incepto, nomen Poetovio insolitum mihi videtur... Est Celeium (Celje), Labacum (Laibach/Ljubljana). Quin sit urbis nomen huius in -o nec -um terminans, non intelligere confiteor. Petebam parvum googles ope et Poetovium statim inveni. Scitne quis num ratione bona haec commentatio nominata sit, an non?--Ioscius∞ 23:17, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
===kurenti===
Monstra ista in imagine Slovene appellantur Kurenti. Reproduco hic quod lego in dictionario etymologico Sloveno meo:
replies: text: kurent
replies: text: :Verbum rationibus multis explicatur, at consensus non satis habetur. Quidquid id est, non est deus Slavicus. Kurant in nonnullis dialectibus est nomen herois mythologici. Ducitur de Lat. currens, et notum est quoque Germanicis fabulis sub Germanico nomine Laufer (quod valet idem ac currens).
Quid ergo putatis? Videtur esse suasum tertiam declinationem aptissimam esse, sed Currens/Currentis, Current/Currentis, vel Kurent/Kurentis vos doctiores rogo? (kurent/kurentis praefero ego...)
Etiam rogem quis habeat opera de deis Alpinis mythologica? Vel sciat ubi sint? Xaverius mihi dixit nostros Kurentes persimiles esse bestiis Vasconicis Zanpantzarrak. Si eadem monstra idem faciunt Alpibus totis separata, putem aliquid iam de hoc certe scriptum esse. Gratias! 
--Ioscius∞ 23:17, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: res duae

message: Ibi fuimus cum amasia caneque pompas et nugas mirantes frigoremque libenter repelli patientes, cum in animum cura festum Latine describendi ierat. Eo incepto, nomen Poetovio insolitum mihi videtur... Est Celeium (Celje), Labacum (Laibach/Ljubljana). Quin sit urbis nomen huius in -o nec -um terminans, non intelligere confiteor. Petebam parvum googles ope et Poetovium statim inveni. Scitne quis num ratione bona haec commentatio nominata sit, an non?--Ioscius∞ 23:17, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: nomen

message: Monstra ista in imagine Slovene appellantur Kurenti. Reproduco hic quod lego in dictionario etymologico Sloveno meo:
replies: text: kurent
replies: text: :Verbum rationibus multis explicatur, at consensus non satis habetur. Quidquid id est, non est deus Slavicus. Kurant in nonnullis dialectibus est nomen herois mythologici. Ducitur de Lat. currens, et notum est quoque Germanicis fabulis sub Germanico nomine Laufer (quod valet idem ac currens).
Quid ergo putatis? Videtur esse suasum tertiam declinationem aptissimam esse, sed Currens/Currentis, Current/Currentis, vel Kurent/Kurentis vos doctiores rogo? (kurent/kurentis praefero ego...)
Etiam rogem quis habeat opera de deis Alpinis mythologica? Vel sciat ubi sint? Xaverius mihi dixit nostros Kurentes persimiles esse bestiis Vasconicis Zanpantzarrak. Si eadem monstra idem faciunt Alpibus totis separata, putem aliquid iam de hoc certe scriptum esse. Gratias! 
--Ioscius∞ 23:17, 14 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: kurenti
Disputatio:Urbes capitales

message: Pro Capita mundi, melius Capita civitatum vel Capita rerum publicarum vel verba similia? IacobusAmor 13:29, 16 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Capita nationum, dico, secundum Nationes mundi. Pantocrator 00:09, 17 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Cassell's: natio . . . a tribe, race, people, esp. uncivilized." Potius nomen Nationum mundi convertere. IacobusAmor 01:23, 17 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus, lemma
Disputatio:Provincia Reatina

message: RI should not redirect here. If it redirects anywhere, it should be to Rhodensis Insula, its far more widely known expansion. Obviously, it should be a discretiva. IacobusAmor 01:26, 17 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be a discretiva. See Disputatio:Genua (provincia), Disputatio:Parma (provincia), Disputatio:Latina (provincia), and Disputatio:Frusino (provincia). I created a list of two-letter page titles at Vicipaedia:Tituli duarum litterarum – probably, most entries in this list should be not redirects but discretiva pages. --UV 08:41, 17 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :It appears that somebody eager to vaunt Italian lands doesn't know much about the rest of the world, or doesn't care! As a rule, we might expect almost any two-letter abbreviation to have multiple expansions and therefore to be handled best as a disambiguation page. IacobusAmor 14:02, 17 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Vide Disputatio:RI. Paginam discretivam creavi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:11, 17 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RI
Disputatio:Arthurus Inghram Boreman

message: Hic habemus "Inghram". En:wiki habet "Ingram". Lexicon biographicum Congressus habet "Inghram", sed in bibliographia eiusdem paginae videmus "Ingrahram".
Aut "Ingram" aut *"Ingraham" facilius accipio, "Inghram" aut "Ingrarham" difficilius. Sed ubi certitudo reperienda sit, nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:42, 17 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  de orthographia
Disputatio:Moles (unitas)

message: Certe est "Mol (unitas)" necnon "Moles". Mihi videtur "moles" pluralem esse.--Xaverius 09:54, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomen Latinum moles, -is (f.), est singulare, 'a shapeless mass', sed nomen Anglicum mole (et mol) de nomine Theodisco molekulargewicht 'molecular weight' deducitur. IacobusAmor 13:56, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :...et 'molekular-' ipsum a 'molecula', quod est deminutivum nominis 'moles'!   —Mucius Tever 04:43, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Hercle, nesciebam "moleculam" formam cum diminutivo molis esse!--Xaverius 09:17, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Comitatus Dublinensis

message: "Eblanensis", ut credo. Vide e.g. Google: "Eblanensis" 772 paginas, "Eblaniensis" 5. Movenda? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:10, 18 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Etiam melius "Dublinensis": vide fontes plures huius nominis apud Google. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 21 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Candida dubliniensis: here there is a variant form.--Johnsoniensis (disputatio) 11:01, 19 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eblan(i)ensis
Disputatio:Emericus Nagy

message: Creatori salutem!
Ego puterem "Imre" latinizare in "Emericum". Si Emercum ducem (Hung.: Imre herceg) videmus. [ Usor:Martinus567 ]
replies: text: Credo te recte dicere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:56, 19 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latinizationis res
Disputatio:Phalacrina

message: Nisi fallor, Pantocrator, verbum vicus caret forma locativa. Nisi sit verbum nomen urbis, insulae parvae, vel ruri, humi, domi non est forma locativa. (quoque locus ipsissimus caret forma ablativa!!!) --Ioscius∞ 19:06, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then a preposition is required. Pantocrator 19:07, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Non verum est, sed licet melius sit quam in casu locativo. --Ioscius∞ 19:11, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Grammaticum legitur; solum substantiuum stare potest in ablatiuo (locatiui separe) sine praepositione est locus. Pantocrator 19:20, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Denique legisti grammaticum. Macte! Perge legas scripta quoque et multa exempla invenies. Sed mihi minus est quam nihil vico sive in vico, et me confiteor libentius scripsisse in vico, si fuissem ego, qui scripsissem commentationem. Tantum oro ne scribas vici, quod certissime non exstat (puto hoc quoque scriptum esse in grammatico tuo). --Ioscius∞ 19:56, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: vicus
Disputatio:Fictile

message: This should probably be merged with opus fictile. Pantocrator 22:59, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pottery is not the same as ceramics--Xaverius 23:03, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :No, but they're closely related subjects. Given the small amount of information we have, it would make sense to treat them in the same article. Pantocrator 23:45, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Disagree. Two interwiki links, two concepts. Better to work on expanding the two separate articles than merge. --Ioscius∞ 23:49, 21 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::For that same reason we may want to put most of Nuada's pages on Italian villages into Italia. Fictile and figlina well deserve two different entries, and if you feel that they are short, then expand them, add things to it, which would be better than merging, don't you think?--Xaverius 09:41, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: merge with opus fictile

message: Animadverti terram coctam huc directam esse. Equidem dubito, an recte sit factum. Quid dicunt archaeologi nostri? --Neander 02:45, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anglicum pottery secundum Merriam-Webster, esse "clayware," praecipue "earthenware as distinguished on the one hand from porcelain and stoneware and on the other from brick and tile"; clayware esse "articles made of fired clay": ergo, nulla fictilia (pottery) sine argilla (clay). IacobusAmor 03:36, 18 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De terra cocta huc directa
Disputatio:Apple II

message: Pantocrator, what exactly does this mean?
replies: text: etiam series computatorum sequens est. Maxima popularitas omnium 'microcomputers' series habet; facta usque ad 1993.
I get:

text: also it is a following series of computers. Great popularity of all microcomputers has multiple series; the popularity was made up until 1993.
--Ioscius∞ 12:48, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :'Also, it is an ensuing succession of topiarists'. (Putator = 'a pruner'.) Or: 'Also, there is a resulting lineage of trimmers. The biggest fellow-citizenship of all "microcomputers" has successions; until 1993 made. ;) ¶ Popularitas = (1) 'fellow-citizenship'; (2) 'an attempt to please the people, popular behaviour' (Cassell's). IacobusAmor 13:38, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The second sentence is of course, 'the series has the greatest popularity of all microcomputers; and was made up to 1993.'. Series is the subject. Pantocrator 23:32, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::No, it isn't. Maxima popularitas, being nominative, can't be a direct object; the only word in the sentence that can fulfill that function is series. What you've said is that a "popularitas" possesses (multiple) series. IacobusAmor 00:09, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

text: :::And the first sentence? --Ioscius∞ 23:34, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Just what you read it as. I wanted to mention that Apple II had several models; the original was not that still sold into the 1990s. Pantocrator 23:48, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Computatores are people; computatra are machines? IacobusAmor 00:10, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: latinitas
Disputatio:Ioseph Lieberman

message: Vide: iunior duorum Connecticutae legatorum in senatu Civitatum Foederatarum 'the younger of Connecticut's two deputies in the U.S. Senate', but the usual phrasing in American English is "the junior Senator from Connecticut" (nothing about "deputies" and their being "in" the Senate). Also, if you say something like iunior (or the original alteruter), you needn't add a word for 'two', because that's built into the comparative form of the adjective (and such redundancy mars prose). IacobusAmor 13:53, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Formula
Disputatio:Nympha

message: Indicem nympharum hic removi quia (1) mutuatus est e Vicipaedia Anglica, ubi nullus fons citatur (2) in pagina disputationis Anglica editores corroborationem Googlianam minime reperire confitentur (3) Verba cum nexibus rubris sunt nec Graeca nec Latina nec Anglica! Index hic sequitur: Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:56, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Non intelligo, Andrea... elencus etiam manet?--Ioscius∞ 13:10, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

text: Aha. Got it. --Ioscius∞ 13:21, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Aliquas categorias nympharum, bene cognitas, in textu incorporavi; nomina Latinizavi. Sed Musas omnino e pagina delevi quia (si bene memini) sunt deae, minime nymphae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 23 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indicem nympharum removi 

message: * Nymphae terrarum
** Alseides (lucis et convallibus)
** Auloniades (pascuis)
** Hesperides (Nymphae Occidentales, filiae Atlantis)
*** Aegle
*** Arethusa
*** Erytheia (aut Eratheis)
*** Hesperia (aut Hispereia)
** Leimakides (pratis)
*** Minthe (mint)
** Napaeae (vallibus)
** Oreades (montibus, cryptis)
* Nymphae silvarum
** Dryades (arboribus)
*** Hamadryades (roboribus and aliis)
*** Epimeliades (malis)
*** Leuce (albis populis)
*** Meliae (fraxinis)
* Nymphae aquarum ("Ephydriades")
** Helead (uliginibus)
** Maia (uxor Iovis et mater Hermis)
** Naiades (aquis insalariis)
*** Crinaeae (fontibus manufactis)
*** Eleionomae (paludibus)
*** Hyades (imbribus)
*** Limnades (lacibus) 
*** Pegaeae (fontibus naturalibus) 
*** Potameides (fluviis)
*** Corycianae Nymphae (Cavernae Corycianae)
** Nereides (filiae Nerei, Mari Mediterraneo)
** Oceanides (filiae Oceani et Tethys, aquis salariis)
* Aliae Nymphae
** Lampades (infernis)
** Musae
** Nephelae (nubibus)
** Pleiades (filaie Atlantis)
thread_title:  Hodiernae Partitiones et Celebres Nymphae