lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Bibliotheca Alexandrina

message: Imaginem mythistoricam bibliothecae removi; tabulam Alexandriae antiquae substitui. Verba "Aeque institutum est bibliothecam, seu cuius partes ..." non intellego. An fontem nominis "Bibliotheca Regia Alexandrina" habemus? Pro tempore hoc nomen removi, sed possumus reinserere! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 8 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retractavi 

message: Christiani fanatici? Partem delevi, quoniam est una inter multas coniecturas ...--Utilo (disputatio) 15:45, 26 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christiani fanatici?
Disputatio:Le tour du monde en quatre-vingts jours

message: It was a journey, hence I added the category: "Itinera ficta". I think to create categories for all the places they stopped would be silly, so I took the following out: 
Categoria:Aegyptus ficta
Categoria:Civitates Foederatae fictae
Categoria:Francia ficta
Categoria:Franciscopolis ficta
Categoria:Hongcongum fictum
Categoria:Iaponia ficta
Categoria:India ficta
Categoria:Liverpolium fictum
Categoria:Novum Eboracum fictum
Categoria:Sinae fictae
Categoria:Urbs Novum Eboracum fictum
Categoria:Italia ficta
 Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:10, 9 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not silly in English, and many are not silly in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Swedish, Portuguese, Turkish, etc. Why are they silly in Latin? IacobusAmor 14:10, 9 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going too far?
Disputatio:Playboy

message: "Iuvenis voluptarius" mi placet! Sed nisi quidam versionem tituli Latinam iam publicavit, titulo nostro nomen Anglicum Playboy adhibendum censeo (vide Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis#Libri et arte facta. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 11 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis, quamquam doleo versionem Latinam non iam esse ... Adhuc redirectionem a "playboy (periodicum)" feci. Et mea sententia pagina moveri potest. Sed hoc facto "categoria:Photogenica puella Iuvenis Voluptarii" eodem modo novum nomen accipere debet.--Schulz-Hameln 12:49, 27 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita! gratias tibi ago et statim moveo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 27 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Ioannes Houseman

message: Andrew, in changing the category, you've apparently made him a director, but Wikipedia says he was a producer—an office that the text of our article (neither written nor edited by yours truly!), and hence the original category, called a "pellicularum factor." Whatever the Latin vocabulary, a distinction between these offices must be made, as it's a matter of contract and has nonnegligible consequences relating to advertising, billing, salaries, royalities, awards, etc. IacobusAmor 17:02, 15 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Director, producer
Disputatio:Narcissus

message: + Need a categoria "Genera ex ... appellata" where the dots represent a mythical character. We already have such cats for homines and dei. See the "Species ex homines appellatae" which I inserted pro tem when the species epithet was of a mythological character. Surely there are quite a few of these---at levels of species, genera, and even families (see Amaryllidaceae!) -- [IacobusAmor, ni fallor]
replies: text: I'm sure we do need such a category, but this case is not one of those (I think). Linnaeus named the genus after the ancient name of a flower, not after a mythological character. And when you go back to the ancient name, who is to say whether the flower name, or the name of the mythological character, came first? It's like asking whether the name of a planet (e.g. Mars) or the name of the god came first. It's not clear to me that the question makes sense or that either answer could have a reliable source ...

text: I saw your adding of a category at Consolida ajacis, which was fine by me. Ajax may well have been a real person. There can at present be no reliable source for or against, pending the discovery of his name in a contemporary clay tablet :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 17 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentum e [[Narcissus serotinus]] removi
Disputatio:Declaratio Arbroathis

message: An "Declaratio Arbroathis"? Id quidam inseruit, sed sine fonte. Documentum ipsum nomen "Abirbrothoci" (cas. loc.) habet, sed de "declaratione" aut "propositu" nihil video. An fontes habemus? Oportet citare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 05:38, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
Salve Andrew. Legebam hoc
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/medieval.html
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/arbroath.html
Non possum loquitur/scribere bene Latinam mihi disperet. Seamusalba 12:18, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Except that the title may have been imposed by a modern editor, and may thus not be an attestation from the document itself. IacobusAmor 12:24, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
Nomen oppidi hodie  in lingua Gadelica Obar Bhrothaig est. Fortasse nomen in Latina a nomino Gadelico sit. Seamusalba 12:32, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

text: Right, then. The document itself carries no title, though it does contain the place name in the form "Abirbrothoc" (not "Arbroath"; and not declined, as I mistakenly said above). The simplest way is to follow "The Latin Library": they are good people, though modern, and they have provided a full title which is what we need. Whether they got it from some intermediate Latin edition, or made it up, I don't know. For the moment, let's follow their lead. Any other citations welcome. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
If there is a text that mentions the document in Latin from the period, that would be a good source. At one time, Arbroath was known as Aber Brothock in Middle English/Early Scots and the Gaelic name is similair  so who knows. Seamusalba 20:43, 19 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Sinus Adenensis

message: Fortasse hoc nomen stat apud Hofmannum, sed in pagina hic necta () non video. Nexum igitur removi pro tempore; "Fontes desiderati" impono. S.t.p. seu paginam bonam adnecta, seu et citationem verbalem adde. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:46, 26 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomen melius fortasse alicubi latet sed pro tempore, fonte reperto, "Sinus Adenensis" misi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:29, 31 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Albani

message: Est re vera civitas singularis Arberesca? In Wikipedia Italica nihil de tali civitate lego; ibi autem categoriam habent, nomine plurali, :it:Categoria:Paesi Arbëreshë. Igitur nomen proposui "Pagi Arbëreshë"; aut possumus "Pagi Albanorum Italiae". Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:46, 27 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Haec categoria a "Civitas Arberesca" ad "Civitates Arberescae" mota est, sed ratio nominis Latini nescitur. Igitur pro tempore deleo et in categoriam "Albani" contribuo. Licet autem, si necesse sit, novam categoriam :Categoria:Pagi Albanorum creare, sicut Italiane iam exstat :it:Categoria:Paesi Arbëreshë. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:51, 27 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Matrix (mathematica)

message: "Cum matricibus saepenumero est computandum instar numerorum naturalium."=? "Something with matrices again and again is to be computed like natural numbers"?--173.208.45.218 02:24, 30 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

message: I'd be interested in knowing whether there are any translations of concepts such as eigenvector, eigenvalue, eigenfunction and so on in Latin? --BiT 08:43, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see you around again! You'd better ask Rafael, he's our main scientist/mathematician around here...--Xaverius 10:12, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :As far as I know, there are not even Latin translations for "matrix" and "vector", because these neolatinisms were created already for vernacular languages. Eigen is sometimes given as "characteristic" or is/was given in English as "proper" or "own". So one could say in Latin either "Eigenvalor" or "valor characteristicus" or "valor proprius". --Alex1011 10:57, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Eigen*
Disputatio:Conectrum

message: Conectrum (-i) est paulum instrumentum ad plures apparatus electronicos aut electricos conectendos ductu.. I'd favor vel here, because you can also connect an electric to an electronic device (think of a controller PCB for an electrical device like a lamp). )The aut in Latin is an either-or.) -andy 77.190.58.128 03:40, 3 Maii 2011 (UTC)
1) Loquere latine (anglica lingua non est centrum mundi);
2) Sed "aut" in lingua latina est - in primis - coniuntio disiunctiva. Exemplum: " Aut hoc aut illud " (Cic.), " Verum aut falsum " (Cic.), et cetera. Vocabulum "vel" potest esse et disiunctivum (Exe.: "oppdum vel urbs", Cic. Rep. 1,41) et coniunctio (...praecipue !) , exemplum: "terris vel undis", Verg. Aen. 12, 803; "per me vel stertas licet", Cic. Ac. 2, 93 . ...sed si tu praefers verbum "VEL", mutare sustituendo tibi licet. Vuott - 9 Iunii 2011
thread_title:  ''aut'' vs. ''vel''
Disputatio:Lexingtonia Saeptum (Terra Mariae)

message: There's another Park in Maryland called Lexington Park, which is not a Park attached to anything, but a Park named after the USS Lexington, which in turn is named after Lexington, Mass (Lexingtonia). Would this be Lexingtonia Saeptum or Saeptum Lexingtoniae? Saeptum Lexingtoniense? --Robert.Baruch 13:56, 3 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the above, because, according to Wikipedia, the entity in Maryland is not a park named "Lexington": it's a community (a "census-designated place") named "Lexington Park." Your suggestions, however, might work for the baseball stadium once known as Lexington Park, though campus or stadium could be a better gloss of that kind of park. IacobusAmor 14:48, 3 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hmm, well, Lexington Park started out as a federal housing project during World War II, for civilian employees of the nearby Patuxent Naval Air Station. The land was bought and the houses built by the Federal Government using funds provided by the 1940 Lanham Act (not the 1946 trademark one, but the 1940 emergency housing one). So based on this, it seems reasonable that the Park in Lexington Park is a park in the sense of "an area of land set aside", just as the park in trailer park means "an area of land set aside for trailers"? And so, saeptum? --Robert.Baruch 16:09, 3 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Cercis

message: I took out the following unlabelled links because it wastes readers' time to link to a pdf file without saying what it is, and I didn't want to take the risk myself (in a bit of a hurry today). Anyone who fancies could check them and reinstate them on the page if they are useful. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:19, 4 Maii 2011 (UTC) 
* 
*
thread_title:  Nexus pdf
Disputatio:Legatio Italiana puellarum ducum et puerorum exploratorum Europae

message: (EN) Maybe it must be changed "gunnae-pantes" and "pantes" (divided skirt and trousers) in the uniforms' section
(IT) Forse bisognerebbe cambiare i termini "gunnae-pantes" e "pantes" (pantagonna/gonna-pantalone e pantaloni) nella sezione delle uniformi. El Trabo 19:06, 8 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology
Disputatio:Supremum

message: Pro realum, lege realium ? IacobusAmor 14:28, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Grr. Thanks for the correction -- another grammatical hole in my head filled. --Robert.Baruch 15:09, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hey, that's what Vicipaedia is for! Third-declension adjectives of two endings (e.g., facilis, facile) almost always make gen. pl. in -ium. Gildersleeve (#79) says the only exceptions in classical prose are Titiensum and familiarum. Another of their tricky characteristics is that acc. pl. is often -is (rather than -es). IacobusAmor 15:23, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Btw, realis doesn't seem classical (it's not in Cassell's), and the classical word for the idea of 'real', according to Cassell's, is verus, sincerus, solidus, germanus ; but presumably realis is a verbum mathematicae proprium? IacobusAmor 15:27, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I got it from Numerus realis, which does list an attestation. Medieval, of course. --Robert.Baruch 20:17, 11 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "pro subcopiis numerorum realum"
Disputatio:Discriminatio

message: Discriminatio Latinitate classica fortasse est distinctio ? IacobusAmor 12:21, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Distinctio melior Latinitate classica sentio, sed usu moderna de exclusione sociali, discriminatio uti.--LilyKitty 09:58, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :FYI: modernus Latinitate classica ut videtur est recens, novus, huius aetatis, et hodiernus. IacobusAmor 10:18, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Fons? --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 10:23, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Cassell's. Modernus (si recte meminimus) est nomen mediaevale. IacobusAmor 11:27, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Gratias. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 12:03, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)

text: :Sensus hodiernus huius verbi Anglici "discrimination" (sensus quidem "employment, sexual, racial discrimination") fortasse non existebat cum Cassell's circa 1900 scribatur, sed in hoc sensu hodierno nomen hic Latine et Anglice adhibetur. Distinguere quidem necessarium est ad discriminandum, sed distinctio quaedam existit inter discriminare et distinguere. Fons Latinus existit pro 'discriminatio' in hoc sensu: Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis Vaticanum loco citato apud Morgan, et quoque alii loci ibi datur.--123.192.69.44 13:20, 30 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Nobis est editio quinta, anno 1968 edita. "Discriminate" Anglice huius aetatis tantum est distinctiones animadvertere. IacobusAmor 01:49, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)
Ego subiectum novum crevi, id est «Forma discriminationis» et aliquis scriptionem grammaticam correctare conatur, dixitque mihi multos errores esse. Cum hoc, potesne mihi dicere ubi problema grammatica est nam confusus sum.  Dannyfelle (disputatio) 15:34, 14 Novembris 2021 (UTC)

text: E.g., "Discriminatio religiosa cum aliquis alios homines differenter tractet vel pendat propter quid facit vel quid credat." = 'Religious discriminating when someone because of what does he do? or what might he believe? might treat or weigh other men [somehow]'. (Differenter ut videtur non est vocabulum Latinitatis classicae; vide praecipue aliter et hic fortasse minus utiliter diverse et varie.) Sententia praeterea est falsa, quia non omnes res gestae (quas facit) et opiniones (quas credit) ad religionem pertinent. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:29, 14 Novembris 2021 (UTC)
Tibi gratias, Iacobe Amor. Figere conabor.  Dannyfelle (disputatio) 03:38, 15 Novembris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Nemo illegitimus

message: Secundum Cassell's, illegalis non est verbum, et pro Anglico 'illegal' nobis est scribere quod contra leges fit. Aliter fortasse etiam non legitimus. IacobusAmor 12:29, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma

message: Rather than collegium, I think a better word is motus(movement e.g. rally's etc ) ?--Jondel 04:19, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: collegium an motus?
Disputatio:Tunicata

message: I was about to create a category for the author, and noticed that on other wikis this author is credited with the name "Tunicata", not "Urochordata". Is our claim correct against the others? Maybe that could be verified. Thanks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All science is dubious, in the sense that interpretations and their applications change. Many taxinomical names are in dispute. In general, one should of course prefer whatever determination the English wiki has made, but the Spanish wiki sometimes has useful additional taxinomic data. IacobusAmor 13:45, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, as we are often reminded on the founder's authority, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". I generally trust ITIS until I find something better. ITIS says that the valid name is Tunicata Lamarck, 1816 (incidentally the German wiki agrees); and that a synonym (invalid) is Urochordata. ITIS does not give an authority for Urochordata, but Google sources suggest Urochordata Balfour, 1881. So I'd be inclined to move to Tunicata, of course with a redirect from Urochordata. Would you disapprove? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:03, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ask the creator of the page, anonymous editor 189.192.14.243. Isn't that the guy from Guadalajara? Maybe his facts are as shaky as his grammar. He attributes the name Urochordata to Giribet et al. 2000, but that's the source that Wikipedia cites as the authority for the name Tunicata. Curious! IacobusAmor 19:55, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ah, I didn't notice that! I recognised your handiwork, evidently transforming his original. OK, unless any other information appears, I'll move the page and cite ITIS. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:34, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientia dubia
Disputatio:Cité de l'espace

message: Maybe I don't read enough modern Latin, but I never encountered "spatium" used in the sense in which it's used in this article. The museum seems to be about space exploration, is that right? Well, that's "space" in English all right, but what is the Latin word for it? If it really is "spatium", my "L-1" should be removed, but it would be nice to have a citation. Our current category name for space travel is "Itinera caelestia", but that's not necessarily perfect either. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:44, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps an attestation of this spatium in scientific writing of the 17th or 18th century, or some other word altogether in the classics, will be found. English 'space' reflects Latin spatium, and the OED's ninth definition of 'space' is "a certain stretch, extent, or area of ground, surface, sky, etc.; an expanse." You might enjoy Spatium exterius. IacobusAmor 14:00, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantics?
Disputatio Categoriae:Scriptores librorum puerilium

message: Why are authors to be ranked by their children?! IacobusAmor 22:55, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just ridiculous. I think this category is just not useful.--Xaverius 23:48, 18 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :I understand that in intention it meant the same as our current "Scriptores librorum puerilium". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:24, 19 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion moved from "Categoria:Auctores liberis"
Disputatio:Lingua Hindi-Urdu

message: Quomodo categoriae Linguae Indicae et Linguae Indiae inter se discrepant? IacobusAmor 14:09, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Linguae Indicae sunt subfamilia, a nonnullis "linguae Indo-Aryanae" nuncupata (categorizatio "genetica" [ita appellata] linguarum). Linguae Indiae sunt eae linguae quae in India adhibentur (categorizatio geographica). Oportet fortasse haec ad caput paginarum categoricarum explicare :/

text: Si recte iudico, "Indo-Aryana" vetustior est inter appellationes a lumporibus-et-splittoribus usitatas, "Indica" autem novellior. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hahaha. OK. ;) IacobusAmor 14:22, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Inter linguas Indiae sunt etiam linguae non Indicae, sicut lingua Tamil et aliae linguae e familia Dravidianarum linguarum.  Est ergo bonum duas categorias habere, ut censeo.  A. Mahoney 14:29, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ita, recte dicis. Distinctionem nunc ad caput paginarum categoricarum exscripsi (et nexus intervici adhuc omissos addidi). Gratias ago ambobus! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Indica ~ Indica

message: Quid censetis? Pleraeque aliae editiones versiones "Hindustani" utuntur, et quidem est fons pro "lingua Hindustanica", sed nullus, ut videtur, pro "Hindi-Urdu". Lesgles (disputatio) 23:36, 28 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. You might like to check whether those other-language articles are all talking about the same thing. Notice the extreme brevity and warning template on the article in Hindi about this, for example. I believe (open to correction, as always!) that Hindustani, a term used by the British imperial administration for the colourless language they wanted to favour, is not currently used by linguists except when talking about that historical period. In other words, to say that Hindi and Urdu are one language is already touchy (though true in some ways), but to call that one language Hindustani is to be downright imperialist.

text: For full disclosure, I was a consultant on the language names for the Bloomsbury/Encarta English dictionary. The copy-editors rewrote the "Hindustani" entry, over my head, so that it would contain the same comforting fifty-year-old claims that rival dictionaries also contained. That taught me a lesson :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:03, 1 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Good point; I suppose i jumped over some controversy, and this looks like something that the other Wikipedias (and Wikidata) need to work out. One common problem for Vicipaedia seems to be that the attested forms of words often reflect outdated perspectives. It would be nice to find a Latin form for "Urdu", but I haven't found one, so I agree that it makes sense to stick to this neutral, though un-Latin form. (And too bad about Bloomsbury!) Lesgles (disputatio) 16:21, 1 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda ad "linguam Hindustanicam"
Disputatio:Selandia

message: This page should be merged with Zelandia. IacobusAmor 19:13, 22 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As to whether the Latin names are well chosen, I haven't checked; but better not merge, because they are different places! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:20, 22 Maii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :By golly, that's right! ;) IacobusAmor 22:44, 22 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Disputatio Categoriae:Calendarium Iudaicum

message: Hanc categoriam "Calendarium Iudaicum", minime "Hebraicum", appellavi quia (si recte distinguo) est potius calendarium Iudaeorum et religioni Iudaicae haerentium, minus lingua Hebraica loquentium. In aliis quibusdam Vicipaediis (sed non Anglice) eadem decernuntur. Sed, si erravi, dic mihi! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:32, 24 Maii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Automatum monetale

message: I'll need to look up my fontes but I've always heard argenteum automatarium ant the like. Shouldn't automatum monetale mean a "mint machine" rather than a "bank machine"? --Iustinus 00:23, 25 Maii 2011 (UTC)
Praeterea nexus ad "Glossarium neolatinum Latino-Germanicum" ducens visus est non iam fungi. 162.78.70.161 17:15, 26 Maii 2016 (UTC)

message: Where'd the name "automatum monetale" come from? It sounds super made up. We could do better. Temerarius (disputatio) 17:06, 11 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name