lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Walworth

message: Dum translates as "while". And, strangely, it switches you to the present tense. So, if you really want to use dum: He died suddenly in 1994 while he leads the Labour party, to which office he has just been promoted in 1992. "Mortuus est subito anno 1994 dum factioni Laboris praesidet, cui officio nuper anno 1992 promotus est." Or something like that, I'm sure others will now improve it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:38, 1 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Praeses Factionis Laboris ex anno 1992 subito anno 1994 mortuus est? (Generally, in Latin and encyclopedias, shortest is best!) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:26, 1 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: : Interdum dum idem valet ac quoad, donec. Itaque hunc locum non mutavi. Neander (disputatio) 16:55, 1 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::De hac re, si olim scivi, oblitus sum! Gratias ago, Neander. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:44, 1 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dum
Disputatio Categoriae:Fictio scientifica

message: Vide id quod hic Disputatio:Scientia ficticia scripsi, s.v.p. Pro tempore hanc novam categoriam sicut Anglicam "Science in fiction" adnectavi. An recte feci nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:22, 4 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Dominus Ioannes

message: Very useful page. I query the name for a mere practical reason: I think we'll certainly need a category for this semi-fictional gentleman, and it's best to agree on the name before creating it. In many other languages the Spanish form "Don Juan" is retained, but not all. What should we do? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:30, 4 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We reasoned that, since Spanish & Italian don reflects Latin dominus, and since Juan = Giovanni = Ioannes, the combination Dominus Ioannes would be apt. Indeed, googling tells us that lots of people have been called Dominus Ioannes, including the late pope, Dominus Ioannes Paulus Pp. II. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:38, 5 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine
Disputatio:Onulfus Altimontensis

message: Doing a quick google search, nearly all the web search hits I found come from Wikimedia projects, mostly by User:Witger. Are there any independent, reliable sources that confirm the assertions contained in this article? --UV (disputatio) 13:28, 8 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question. At a quick glance one of the texts attributed to Onulfus on Vicifons exists elsewhere (here and here). But I haven't yet confirmed the attribution to Onulfus. I'll look further. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 8 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :No, I'm mistaken. The phrase I happened to look for is present on thise two pages; the surrounding Latin text is similar but not identical. Still looking. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:43, 8 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
Formulam "Non stipula" imposui quia titulus "Onulfus Altimontensis" nondum a citatione fideli corroboratur. Oportet nexum externum et fidelem de auctore seu de operibus eius inserere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:46, 8 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fontes?
Disputatio:Petrus Lellouche

message: Hi! Sorry, I don't speak latin. Why is this guy called "Petrus" and not Pierre here? -- seth (disputatio) 16:48, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is traditional, in writing Latin, to use the Latin version of a person's first name. "Petrus" is the Latin version of the French name "Pierre". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:55, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :See, for example, Gulielmus Shakesperius and Baracus Obama. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:11, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :: What about Elizabeth? :-)  Neander (disputatio) 17:29, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Didn't she command us to call her Elizabeth in Latin, and don't we obey the royal command? ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:31, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::More than that, she wrote (or her amanuenses wrote) her name as "Elizabeth" in Latin contexts, most visibly in coin legends ("Elizabeth Dei gratia regina" etc.). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 29 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen Pierre est?
Disputatio:Miss Marple

message: Neander, you changed the link from mythistoria facinorosa to Romancium criminale, but you forgot to change it in the other forty-one articles where it appears. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:32, 12 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do attestations of either term exist? One suspects that mythistoria facinorosa might be an example of Vicipaediaese, though Cassell's does have facinorosus 'wicked, criminal', with citations to vir and vita from Cicero and Livy; but criminalis, -e is lacking. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:32, 12 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: : I changed the link because I found romancium criminale in Tuomo Pekkanen & Reijo Pitkäranta (2006) Lexicon hodiernae Latinitatis Finno-Latino-Finnicum (s.v. Rikosromaani). At least, it's an extra-Vicipaedian attestation. Maybe Donatello can find a better word in Vilborg's lexicon (s.v. Kriminalroman). Neander (disputatio) 10:45, 12 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mythistoria facinorosa

message: Here's another question. Is "partes agit" the ideal term when the subject is not an actor but a character who appears in a series of stories? If it isn't, what would be a better term? I can't think of many ancient parallels, but we have e.g. Odysseus and Menelaus who appear both in the Iliad and in the Odyssey. Would we say that Odysseus "partes agit" in the two epics?
And of course there are characters who appear in more than one play in a trilogy: that would be another ancient parallel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:47, 12 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you're right, Andrew. I canceled my lapsus cogitandi. That's the best I can do for now. Neander (disputatio) 10:56, 12 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partes agit
Disputatio:Collegium Wolfson (Cantabrigia)

message: We have no confirmation of the name "Collegium Wolfsonianum" so we are being conservative and moving it to "Collegium Wolfson". If "Wolfsonianum" is the official form, please provide a link or citation. Thanks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:36, 12 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Disputatio:Thesis doctoralis

message: Thesis "est longa atque ardua poena": hahahaha. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:37, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lectoribus, fortasse? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oculos perspicaces habetis. iocum mox delebo!--Xaverius 15:32, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Poena
Disputatio:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

message: Note: it should actually be "Amicitia", not "Amicita". Can someone please move this?Ibidus (disputatio) 20:48, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

message: Is this article becoming junk? You don't need to list every fan stuff.
thread_title:  Ridiculous 

message: Wow, this article really sucks. I'ma fix it up... to the best of my ability, of course. One problem I'm having is the character names. Most foreign translation Wiki pages simply use the English names, but since Latin is so highly inflected, it's gonna be hard to fit them into writing.
Using the Russian page (because Russian is another major IE language that has full noun inflection) as an example, I can see a rather strange precedent: some of the words in character names are translated ("Twilight", "Sparkle", "Rainbow"), but some aren't (the rest), and (it being Cyrillic, perhaps not the best example) phonetically transcribed instead. Confusingly, one is actually a mix of both ("Rainbow" translated, "Dash" transcribed).
replies: text: Can't you likewise use the original (English) names or is this desired(to not use English)?Jondel (disputatio) 04:05, 7 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh my... 

message: I rewrote the fandom section, improved mane 6 sectin and added something to the villains section. I'll probably add some more tomorrow :P Feel free to improve/correct/edit
62.245.100.121 18:08, 12 Novembris 2012 (UTC) matt
replies: text: I'm going to change the latinitas macro to -1, I think it's fairly decent now (I still didn't rewrite "Other pony" section). Someone please re-check it for mistakes.
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Greetings. I've moved from "My Little Pony: Amicitia Magia Est" to "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic". I believe we cannot blend English and Latin in names of movies and tv-programs, nor give it a Latin name unless we have a source. But I have written a Latin name to this article after the English name.
Donatello (disputatio) 23:25, 19 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  New name 

message: Since the title is now correctly given in English (our usual custom), there's no question of a Latin source for it.  There are internal links.  The page is hardly flawless, but it is certainly of suitable magnitude to be called "stipula" or even "actual page," so I've removed the non-stipula formula.  I have not taken the time to clean up the Latin or to fish around in Commons for an illustration:  I'm not claiming this is a good page, just that it only needs some kinds of corrections, not others.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:27, 23 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Inter desideria est hoc: "Nexus extra-Vicipaedianus . . . qui . . . rem ipsam satis corroboret." Ubi est nexus extravicipaedianus qui rem ipsam confirmat? :o IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:10, 23 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :There was none, but it was quicker to find one than to prolong this discussion. I have just done both things, so I know :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:30, 23 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed non-stipula flag
Disputatio:MacBook Pro

message: Hi Felix, how are your? Err, why do you keep putting Lorem Pro on the MacBook Pro page?
Salve Felix, ut vales? Cur pones "Lorem Pro" in rem "MacBook Pro"?Jondel (disputatio) 05:34, 22 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, I have noticed this before! "Lorem" is the first word of a well-known piece of meaningless text that printers use as an example. I guess Felix must think it's a Latin word. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 22 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lorem Pro
Disputatio:Spectator (theatrum)

message: Vocabulum Anglicum audience 'audience',Constat omnia verba vel vocabula ex duabus partibus constare, quarum altera "significans" et altera "significatum" dicitur. Hic, ut solitum est, significans inclinatis litteris scribitur, 'significatum' autem inter virgulas simplices ponitur.  etsi formaliter verbo Latino audientia respondeat, ab hoc satis differt structurà significativà; id est: audience = audientia, sed 'audience' ≠ 'audientia'. Audientia enim 'animi attentionem' significat, ut facile videmus ex locutione facere audientiam quae fere idem valet ac 'facere silentium (ad audiendum aptum)'. ¶ In hac re potius Vicipaedias Italianam (spettatore) et Hispanicam (espectador) observandas esse puto quam Vicipaediam Anglicam. Itaque titulum q.e. "Spectator" praefero titulo q.e. "Audientia". ¶ Quodsi vocabulum collectivum praeferimus, auditorium, quod auditorum / spectatorum circulum eorumque locum significat, videtur verbum iustum esse. Imagines quattuor in hac pagina positae hanc rem videntur indicare: sicut multitudo & locus auditorum unà imagine capi potest, ita auditiorio multitudo & locus auditorum / spectatorum uno verbo comprehenditur. ¶ Iam imaginum textum mutavi. Mox, nisi gravi quadam contra argumentatione evictus ero, alias quoque locutiones eadem ratione mutabo. Neander (disputatio) 19:35, 24 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Audience ('a group of listeners') = audientia apud Wiktionary. (I found a better source before drafting the text, but it's not turning up now!) However, since the attested classical senses of audientia don't include 'a group of listeners' and the attested classical terms are auditores, audientes, and spectatores, those should be fine, except that audience theory treats them as an abstract collective—which runs counter to the concreteness of spectatores &c. Maybe, for that reason, auditorium would be OK, sed apud multa wiki, audience (homines) ≠ auditorium (locus), et duobus commentariis distinctis egemus, ultroque Auditorium Rymani et Macky Auditorium, &c. iam habemus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:08, 24 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :As I know you already realise, Wiktionary is unsafe. :wikt:en:User:Caladon claims middling familiarity with Latin, but we don't know why Caladon added those definitions to the page or what source, if any, he/she used. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 25 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
Rescripsi a spectatore profectus, nam puto auditorium fortasse parum generale esse, quippe quod praecipue consessum in loco parietibus clauso factum significet. Si quid omisi quod omitti non licet, quin addatur. Neander (disputatio) 21:03, 25 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

thread_title: Notae
Disputatio:Index rerum urbanis studiis

message: I'm not certain whether we have the material for a Vicipaedia article here yet. Should we merge this into Urbs, or develop it further? Anyway, I'll put in a link from Urbs and I've added categories. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:23, 29 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I translated this from the English wiki as requested. I could transfer the fons from there. What would be needed material/contents? --Jondel (disputatio) 10:10, 29 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oh, I see, I wasn't aware of any request! I'm sure you made a good start, Jondel. We don't have many lists of articles, and this one is as yet very short (naturally, because it's new). If list-articles remain short for years and years, what sometimes happens is that they get marked "Non stipula" and are deleted, but there's lots of time before that might happen. Maybe the user who requested it plans to add more? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:23, 29 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::This is the page. The 'years and years' is really plenty enough time.--Jondel (disputatio) 07:06, 1 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?
Disputatio:Locus uliginosus

message: Si fontem habes pro novis verbis, amice anonyme, aut in textibus Latinis aut alibi, oportet citare in nota subiuncta. Si verbum tu primus in linguam Latinam convertis, oportet rem non celare sed aperte proclamare: potes formula  uti; potes insuper fontes tuos in aliis linguis indicare. Si eas res aperte facis, utile erit aliis usoribus et probabile erit nos verbum tuum accipere! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:42, 29 Iunii 2012 (UTC) 
If you have a source in Latin or in another language for your new words, O anonymous friend, you should cite the source in a footnote. If you are the first to use this word in Latin, you shouldn't hide the fact but instead say so openly: you can use the formula ) and you can indicate where you found the word used in another language. If you do these things openly, it's more helpful to other users and it's more likely that your new word will be accepted on Vicipaedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:42, 29 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nimirum Romani antiqui a Graeco suae aetatis verba mutuati sunt, quia hi omnibus fere artibus illos superabant. Sed tempora mutata sunt. Non iam est, cur antiquarum memoriarum gratià verba a Neograeca mutuemur. Adde, quod verba Latina non desunt huic rei respondentia, sicut umidum (Curtius Rufus 8.4.13;Tacitus Ann. 1.61) sive (sensu collectivo) umida, -orum  (Plin. Nat. 24.104). Neander (disputatio) 16:28, 29 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  De verbis novis Graecolatinis
Disputatio:Principium rationis sufficientis

message: De: nihil est sine ratione, quod causalitas fieri potest = 'nothing lacks a reason, because causality can happen'. What? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:14, 2 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Volui significare "nothing happens without reason, and the principle is considered having relation with causality." ergo rescribam e.g, ut "nihil sine ratione fit. Et hoc principium relationem cum causalitate putatur." --LilyKitty (disputatio) 14:39, 3 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Significatio?
Disputatio:Iter transtemporale

message: refer vocabulum graecum
he doxe tes doxes ten doxen te doxe hinc paradoxa -ae f
replies: text: Non Graece, sed Latine scribimus. Verbum Latinum paradoxum est. Vide e.g. haec, ubi 'paradoxa' solum plurale verbi 'paradoxum' esse dicitur, aut haec, ubi solum 'paradoxon' invenitur. Mattie (disputatio) 02:58, 4 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  paradoxa f ex graeco sermone
Disputatio:Asimo

message: Re: http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asimo&diff=2064567&oldid=2064566 It'll work, but I believe it's against our policy. Even if it wasn't (isn't?), it's redundant. Mattie (disputatio) 16:51, 4 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't know that. I'll remove it. Donatello (disputatio) 16:55, 4 Iulii 2012 (UTC).
replies: text: :Thanks. :-) Mattie (disputatio) 16:56, 4 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vide etiam
Disputatio:Quintus Horatius Flaccus

message: I know the identification of "Horace" in the fresco is debated, but if the Cambridge Companion to Horace put him on the cover, that's good enough for me;  I tried to phrase the caption suitably tentatively.  (And of course it can't be an actual portrait of our poet anyway!) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:50, 5 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raphael's Parnassus 

message: Quam pulchra illustratio carminis in Lugduno Bataviorum!  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:28, 28 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustratio
Disputatio:Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur

message: Legens in isto brocardo obligatio pacta non ademplenda est miror, quid verbum ademplere (?) significet. Mihi quidem notum non est. Doctiorem me quaeso reddatis. -- Bavarese (disputatio) 01:09, 6 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur
Disputatio:Sulphur

message: "Verba sulfur est rarum erratum in scripto Latino; est aberratio origine in Anglica."
Num est verum? Saeculo XIX, chemici Anglici scribebant "Acidum sulphuricum" ; sed chemici Germanici scribebant "Acidum sulfuricum" ! Burzuchius (disputatio) 17:14, 7 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ego quoque hanc sententiam dubito. Lewis et Short in lexico scribunt "sulfur (in MSS. also sulphur and sulpur)". Vide etiam en:Sulfur#Spelling_and_etymology. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:47, 11 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ainsworth's (saec. 18): "sulphur vel sulfur." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:22, 11 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

text: :White's (1938): "sulfur (-phur)." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:22, 11 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

text: :Cassell's (1968): "sulfur (sulpur)." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:22, 11 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

text: :Traupman (2007): "sulp(h)ur or sulfur." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:22, 11 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Oxford Latin Dictionary (2012) dixit: sulpur ~uris neut. Also sulphur (sometimes written sulfur). Ad tempus notam orthographicam fortasse erroneam removi. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:41, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthographia
Disputatio:Arithmetica

message: Nescio an formula "Roma antiqua" hac in pagina esse debeat, quod pagina de arithmetica sensu latiore dicit, non tantum de arithmetica Romana, etiamsi titulus "Arithmetica" est in tabula quam formula facit.  Fortasse debemus paginam scribere de arithmetica (vel generaliter de mathematica) Romana.  Quid censent alii?
Eodem tempore, omne quod pagina Mille Paginarum longior facit bonum est! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:22, 9 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  De arithmetica apud Romanos 

message: Dixi "probatio per novem" et "probatio per undecim," verba linguarum romanarum sequens -- non "novem eicere"!  Sed fontem nullam habeo.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:04, 22 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "casting out 9s"
Disputatio:Systema digitale

message: Rationes abaci et Claviaturaeque possunt dici systema digitalis. 
Impulsi ipsi sunt 5 volti vis per morem industriam hodie
Teutonius (disputatio) 09:03, 10 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

message: Ex wikipedia Anglice quam dicere velim:
The systems of an abacus and a keyboard can be said to be digital systems.
Quam interpreto sicut:
Systemates Systemata abaci et plectrologiique possunt dici systema digitalis systemata digitalia. Non includamus: Impulsi ipsi sunt 5 volti vis per morem industriam hodie.Jondel (disputatio) 23:48, 10 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationes abaci et Claviaturaeque possunt dici systema digitalis.
Disputatio:Emerita (Yucatania)

message: How is it possible that one man, Eleazar García Sánchez, is simultaneously the mayor of Emerita in civitate Iucatania and the mayor of Pasuca Sotoensis in civitate Hidalgo? Also: the original texts of both articles said he was a schoolmistress (magistra) or a female superintendent, but that can't have been right, unless he's even more amazing than one imagines. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 09:24, 18 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He managed it because this article and three others were created (by Marrovi) by copy-pasting, without any reference to a higher truth. The source citation was wrong as well.

text: Poor Eleazar has probably died of exhaustion after running around his four cities for five years, so I have deleted him from all the pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:13, 31 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The amazing Eleazar García Sánchez
Disputatio:Provincia Gaditana

message: Nonne melius "Gaditana"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:30, 18 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nemine contradicente, nunc movi. Si erravi, dic s.v.p. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:45, 6 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Superheros

message: Salve!
Contra autem pro commentationis nomine Anglico superhero, appelletur Latine 'superheros'? In lexico meo hero est 'heros' (genus masculinum). In genetivo 'heroes' est (API: he'ro:es]). Sed superhero non est, sed superheros bene fungit. Quid putatis?
Donatello (disputatio) 16:44, 18 Iulii 2012 (UTC).
replies: text: Velim praestare ut verbum Anglicum. Vide "Jedi". Iam omnis sapimus originem Latinis Graecisque. Iam scripsi "Vocabulum inlatum est Anglice in 1916.[1]" ut dicere  verbum anglicum esse. Nam mutes si digno tibi videatur. Jondel (disputatio) 23:47, 18 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine commentationis 

message: * imdb.com/title/tt0044231/
Morenowmore (disputatio) 00:01, 6 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Legendary, Immortal Superman George Bessolo Reeves, the Adventures of Superman 1951-1958!!!
Disputatio:Spider-Man

message: Salve! Nomen pro dolor falsum est. Spider-man est Spider-Man, cum littera magna in man. Aliquis ut nomen mutare potest?
Donatello (disputatio) 14:36, 19 Iulii 2012 (UTC).
replies: text: Me paenitet. Eram negligens.Jondel (disputatio) 00:27, 20 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine 

message: Re: "sit 'magnam curam' contra autem 'magna cura'?" Non ita, Donatello, quia 'magna cura' est phrasis subiectum. Nescio autem, an 'cura' re vera sit verbum iustum ad 'responsibility' Latine dicendum; equidem phrasin quasi "with great power come great worries" legerem. Mattie (disputatio) 15:25, 19 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Intelligo. Gratias tibi. :)
replies: text: :Donatello (disputatio) 15:42, 19 Iulii 2012 (UTC).
Ita. Iste translatia erat per google translate vel quidam rem. Dontuseurrealname (disputatio) 02:44, 17 Novembris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Nom. vs. Acc.
Disputatio:O fons Bandusiae, splendidior vitro

message: Paginam movi ut titulus cum versu primo congruat, sed redirectio a titulo anteriori manet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:05, 21 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibi gratias ago.  Sum tiro vero. Andreamac
replies: text: :Omnia bene stant. Gratus es apud nos -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:19, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movi