lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Battersea

message: I suggest that :File:Vauxhall - Nine Elms - Battersea - Pimlico at night.jpg should be removed from this page or recaptioned. It is not representative or evocative of Battersea, with perhaps the exception of the power station. It is mainly of the Thames at Vauxhall, and the shorelines of Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Pimlico ... Vauxhall's St. George's Wharf Tower and its Thames Clippers pier ... with a tiny bit of the periphery of Battersea in the distance. It is in my view not an appropiate lead image for Battersea. It has been removed from :en:Battersea. --Tagishsimon (disputatio) 11:39, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt someone here copied it from there. You're free to substitute a more suitable image. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:03, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks. I'd prefer to leave it to someone familiar with the language of this wikipedia. The image works well on Vauxhall if you have such a page - :en:Vauxhall. --Tagishsimon (disputatio) 16:45, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Image used is not Battersea
Disputatio:Linguae Imperii Romani

message: ; Latina proprietas qualis romanitatis fuit.:Latin (remained=>)was a marker of "Romanness".--Jondel (disputatio) 12:26, 18 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Latina index Romanitatis [diu] mansit? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:38, 18 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Optime, Iacobus !!Dictum factum.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:07, 18 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

message: Quod est molestia cum hoc verbo?--Jondel (disputatio) 06:56, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mark it dubsig, but its basic meaning is "turning or wheeling rapidly". It was once used by Cicero of a person who was bubbling over with words ("quádam praecipiti celeritate dicendi") -- that is the implication of "voluble" in English, too, I guess. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK Andrew, thank you.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:58, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::As an adjective describing someone's speech, "volubilis" is a criticism; more neutral perhaps is "currens" (Cicero used this). To apply it to a person (cf. modern English He is fluent) you might say "Graece facile loquitur", "Graece currenter loquitur" he speaks Greek easily/fluently. And possibly someone else will have a better idea ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Fons caretur?--Jondel (disputatio) 06:57, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

text: Iam sunt fontes satis multi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  volubiles
Disputatio Formulae:Praenomina Romana

message: Is there a need to keep separate pages for the abbreviations, or should they be redirects? Lesgles (disputatio) 15:59, 20 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They could be redirects (or discretiva pages if appropriate). This formula could be adjusted so that the abbreviations point directly to the main page, e.g. M.. I'd have no objection to that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:59, 20 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :What do you think of the current format? I copied the list from :en:Praenomen#Latin praenomina. If you think the two row format is better, I can also try making that. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:30, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I think that for a foot-of-page navbox the row format is convenient and it's probably better not to vary it. We perhaps achieve a more professional look that way. I think, too, that navboxes should aim to give quick links to the source of information (the page) and in that context it makes sense to have (1) a list of abbreviations plus (2) a list of full spellings, both rapid-access. Go to the page to find out more. But you may well disagree!

text: ::I just checked, though, that the four-column layout works with mobile view. Yes, it does. This is important, because in mobile view navboxes are currently the only category-type navigation available. Poor old en:wiki has neither categories nor navboxes in mobile view.

text: ::The number of very rare names (= names that I had never heard of :=) is a surprise! The hard work seems to have been done by P Aculeius on en:wiki, and it looks solidly based. The handiest source that I can see is the article by Chase, which he often cites. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 2 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::OK, I redid the row format with the new names; I do agree that the compact look is better. I did point the abbreviations to the main page, as you suggested (since I think few people are really interested in the abbreviations per se).  I also changed "abbreviationes" to the classical "notae."

text: :::This version of the navbox also works in mobile view, for me at least, although it does get hidden under the last section, whether Bibliographia or Nexus externi.

text: :::Chase does seem like a pretty good source; it would probably be good to include him in all the pages. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:48, 2 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::"Notae" is the proper term, as you say. Looks good. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 2 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviationes
Disputatio:Villa Blasii

message: Nomen Latinum "Blasendorfium" (iuxta Theodiscum) hic repperi. Fontem certum "villa Blasii = Blaj" nondum repperi (sed certe multi fontes sunt, quos adhuc non perlegi!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:48, 20 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In pagina interretiali scholae huius oppidi haec legi: 
 In 1313, fiul lui Herbord, Blasius, a devenit stapan al mosiei respective. Denumirea Blajului provine de la numele acestui Blasius. De-a lungul timpului, Blajul a fost mentionat in limba latina ca "villa Blasii", iar mai apoi - in traducere maghiara - ca "Balázsfalva" (satul lui Blasiu), respectiv in germana sub forma "Blasendorf".

text: Ita Villa Blasii mihi nomen Latinum esse videtur.Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 05:40, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Bene, gratias tibi ago propter fontem repertum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen Latinum
Disputatio:Septimontium

message: Locutionem Traditur urbem conditam esse in Traditur urbs condita fuisse mutavimus, quia "Bradley's Arnold" Latin Prose Composition #44 nos monet: "For 'There is a tradition that Homer was blind,' we may say either Traditur Homerus caecus fuisse, or Tradunt Homerum caecum fuisse, but not Traditur Homerum caecum fuisse." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:17, 23 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Verba tua Traditur urbs condita fuisse recte scribuntur. An verba Traditur urbem conditam esse errorem contineant, nescio. Cicero enim interdum sicut tu Bradleiusque, interdum aliter scripsit: Galbam, Africanum, Laelium doctos fuisse traditum est; ... ut Isocratem dixisse traditum est. (Sed tempore perfecto "traditum est", non praesente "traditur", hic usus est.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:06, 23 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita Gildersleeve distinctionem facit inter tempora simplicia et composita, quamquam quod ad aliqua verba attinet una aut altera constructionem praeferenda est; vide "remarks." Lesgles (disputatio) 17:51, 23 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Traditur''
Disputatio:Thymus (glandula)

message: Originem vocbauli nunc datam dubito, quia apud Liddell et Scott invenio θύμος 'warty excrescence; the thymus gland', qui non idem est ac θυμός 'soul, spirit'. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:10, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymologia
Disputatio:Jiequandao

message: No source is cited for the name "Jeet Kune Do". There is currently no external source at all, so the page risks deletion, but assuming an external source will be added, why call the page "Jeet Kune Do" when the Chinese name for this Chinese activity is "Jiequandao"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:57, 27 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

message: Not a big deal, but :Formula:Titulus italicus isn't working here. Anyone know why? Lesgles (disputatio) 22:11, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it's still not working. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:24, 10 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :It doesn't work above a certain length. I don't remember if I ever quite knew why. It isn't something I can fix, I know that. I continue to use it for long titles, on the assumption that one day it will work. This, I think, marks me as an optimist. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 11 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :: quoddam mutandum est, ut Titulus italicus longa nomina teneat, sed hoc mihi nimis difficile est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:46, 11 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Gratias tibi, Demetri! Documentationem formulae addidi, vide Formula:Titulus italicus. --UV (disputatio) 16:03, 11 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus italicus
Disputatio:Tribus (anthropologia)

message: Donatello, the default size of images in Vicipaedia is 250px; the code doesn't need to be cluttered up with a marking of 250px if the desired outcome is 250px. I therefore deleted your coding of 260px, but now you're restored it. Is there a reason that you think 260px looks better than 250px? If so, why not go higher, up to, say, 300px or 350px. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:32, 2 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, Iacobe -- there is no need to specify a size scarcely different from the standard -- but there's another point too. I understand that for accessibility (accommodating to users' equipment with varying screen sizes) it is better to avoid using an absolute px size and preferable to use a proportional size with the help of |upright=|. As follows: if the standard width is wanted, add nothing, as Iacobus says. If a width larger than the standard is wanted, use |upright=1.25| or |upright=1.5| (or, very rarely, even a higher number). The 1.5 means "default width plus one half".

text: UV, my original source on this, may now chip in and tell me I'm out of date ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

text: Exactly, nothing has changed. In general, it is preferable not to specify an absolute size in pixels, but instead just to say |thumb| – that way, users who prefer to see pictures larger can specify so in their preferences, as can users who prefer to see pictures smaller. |thumb|upright| is the method of choice for tall images (to prevent that they take too much vertical screen space). |thumb|upright=number| can be used either for extremely tall images (use a number smaller than 1) or for images that, for exceptional reasons, should be shown wider than the other images (use a number larger than 1). --14:32, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of images
Disputatio:Insidiae Constantinopoli die 28 Iunii 2016 factae

message: Mihi videtur tales res gestas sine vexillis narrare oportet. De utilitatem "reactionum" dubito: cur praesides Argentinae, Civitatum Foederatarum, Russiae selegimus? Sed alii Vicipaediani fortasse aliter censent.
Addere autem debeo, paginas nuper apud nos creatas de rebus recentissimis valde utiles esse! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:46, 5 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De vexillis etc.
Disputatio:Ostunium

message: Res mirabilis: nominum formarum silva, ac silvarum istarum duplicatio, sed paene nihil de urbe ipsa. Lector panem rogat sed lapidem recipit. Insuper: conlatores vere desudaverunt in fontibus colligendis, qui quidem praestigiae esse videntur, nam illis firma fides non est facienda. Exemplum: Forma Ostunium tribus fontibus confirmari videtur. (1) F. Sacco, Dizionario geografico-istorico-fisico; omnes tomos lustravi, sed formam non repperi; (2) Nomi d'Italia — fortasse, probare non potui; (3) Catholic Hierarchy: Ostunensis, quae forma, si diligentia utimur, ad formam q.e. Ostunum referri videtur. Re vera, optimus fons est Ciro Santoro: "Ostuni: etimologia del nome." Aliis fontibus vix opus est — nisi forte putamus commentationem Ostunii ideo scriptam esse, ut omnia lexica, quae umquam mentionem urbis fecerint, enumerentur. Censeo omnes fontes — excepta commentatione a Ciro Santoro scripta — delendos esse, nec nominum formarum duplicatione opus esse. Neander (disputatio) 08:14, 6 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fac sicut melius tibi videtur; pagina enim minime usque adhuc normis nostris consonat. Catholic Hierarchy utile est de adiectivis citare, non de nominibus substantivis. Apud fontem unum, scilicet Alessio, haec verba repperi: "Ostuni (Hostineum, Astuneum, Ostuneum) potrebbe essere un locativo di Histonium dell' Abruzzo, forse fondazione illirica." (Alessio, "Appunti di toponomastica pugliese" p. 184) Ibi igitur tria nomina referuntur quae formam Latinam habent. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:09, 6 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De testimoniis eorumque fide & necessitate
Disputatio:Historia Franciae

message: "Historia Francogallica" non est error, sed "Historia Franciae" proponitur hac ratione: Verbo "Francogallica" apud Vicipaediam de lingua (in Francia et alibi adhibita) uti solemus, non de civitate; verbo "Francia" de civitate utimur ("Gallia" enim apud nos de provinciis antiquis tantum intellegitur); haec pagina de illa regione, quae hodie ad civitatem Franciae pertinet, disserit, neque de regione olim Gallia appellata, neque de regione ubi Francogallice loquuntur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 28 Maii 2020 (UTC)
Recte mones! Quamvis in hac pagina exaranda olim nomine "Francogallica" uti ratus sim ea ratione, ne forte cum historia gentis Germanicae Francorum confundatur, tamen causis a te oblatis tibi assentior paginamque movendam esse censeo! Autokrator (disputatio)
thread_title:  An movenda?
Disputatio:Typhon Haiyan

message: Jondel, a few questions:
* "mortifer omnibus Philippinis" means "deadly to all of the Philippines"; is that what you meant?
-- The deadliest typhon ever to occur in the Philippines. Thank you for pointing this out--Jondel (disputatio) 02:22, 10 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
* "spatio aliquot centenorum chiliometrorum ex oriente": "in a space of a few hundred kilometers from the east" the way you changed it, it is incorrect. It originated a few 100 km east of Pohnpei, in Micronesia, but a few thousand km east of the Philippines. The clause also now lacks a verb. Lesgles (disputatio) 01:46, 10 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. I restored this and am reexamining it. I hope it is ok.--Jondel (disputatio) 02:22, 10 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Looks good! :) Lesgles (disputatio) 18:38, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De sententia
Disputatio:Belfastum

message: Salvete! Num quis enarrare potest, de qua fabula vel re gesta vel quo opere scripto ea sententia (quae est sententia Belfasti) sit deprompta? (Pro in coniunctione cum accusativo tarda latinitate continetur; e.g. pro salutem suam in CIL 6,81.) Estne fortasse versio psalmi 116,12? --Bavarese (disputatio) 11:43, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Est fortasse error, mi Bavarese: imago enim insignis a Wikimediano quodam creata est. Alibi, de sententia Belfastiana quaerentes, verba "Pro tanto ..." et "Pro tando ..." [sic] reperire possumus. Fontem fidei dignum nondum inveni. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hic fons in pagina Communium praebetur, in quo nonnulla exempla credibilia habent "Pro tanto quid retribuamus". Lesgles (disputatio) 18:02, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro tanta quid retribuamus
Disputatio:Morganis

message: No source was cited for "Fada Morganna" and Google didn't look promising, so instead I added the Latin names given in the English article and I also checked Draco Normannicus which is cited there. This produced two sources for "Morganis" and one source each for two other names. I moved to Morganis, but a better Latin name may yet be decided on :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Daemon

message: I just added daemonium as a variant. This requires more investigation, but as one piece of evidence, δαιμόνιον appears 60 times in the New Testament, compared to 5 times for δαίμων. The Vulgate translation also seems to prefer daemonium. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:38, 15 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daemon/daemonium
Disputatio:Mare Sinense Australe

message: Fortasse melius «Meridionale» quam «Australe» hoc mare nuncupari opus est, quia id linguis Romanicis (exempli gratia Hispanice et Italice) Meridional/Meridionale nuncupatur.
--Spurius Minucius (disputatio) 20:00, 19 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Mare Sinense Meridionale
Disputatio:Jabba the Hutt

message: <Jabba pupa et suos gubernatores> et sui gubernatores.--157.92.122.11 20:33, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Correxi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:22, 22 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: erroneus declinationis cassus
Disputatio:Leonardus Sciascia

message: Nonne imago, quam videmus hac in pagina, non est imago poetae ipsius, sed imago statuae in honorem eius Rahalmuti collocatae? Suntne, qui certiores nos queant facere? --Bavarese (disputatio) 11:08, 23 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  de imagine poetae
Disputatio:Sancta Nympha

message: Auxilium peto. In fontibus citatis nomen "Fanum Sanctae Nymphae" reperire nequeo. In Italiapedia repperi nomen Italianum "Santa Ninfa", quod quidem non requisivi, nam cognoscere volui, num lemma "Fanum Sanctae Nymphae" re vera fonte confirmaretur. Fortasse non satis peritus sum fontibus adhibendis? Itaque conlatores rogo, ut mihi accuratiorem locum monstrent, ubi "Fanum Sanctae Nymphae" legatur. Neander (disputatio) 17:51, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :In lingua latina omnia toponyma cum nomine sanctorum Fanum praefixus debeant habere.--Nuada (disputatio) 12:40, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Minime "debeant". Latinistae aliqui ita scripserunt, multi autem aliter. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Assentio. Nusquam, in nullis Medii Aevi chartis vel libris latine scriptis, fanum sancta/sanctus ad quaecumque loca designanda invenitur ! ThbdGrrd (disputatio) 08:27, 17 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Multos habemus urbium Italicarum titulos, qui ad specimen "Fanum sancti/sanctae X" facta (vel ficta) sunt. Si constat hoc exemplum nullis fontibus extravicipaedianis confirmari posse, "non fingendi" prohibitio hic neglecta esse videtur. Neander (disputatio) 13:51, 17 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Nuada, de fonte a te citato quaesivi. Nec "Fanum Sanctae Nymphae" nec "Sanctam Nympham" repperi. Reperisne tu? Neander (disputatio) 14:43, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De fontibus
Disputatio:Concursus ferroviarius Andriae-Corati die 12 Iulii 2016

message: In mappa ferriviae repraesentata hac in pagina nullum video flexum, sed rectam viam. --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:15, 28 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
* Imagines in Vicipaedia Italica videndae flexum levem monstrant. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 06:03, 31 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  concursio in flexu? 

message: Imaginem de Vicipaedia italica trahere conavi, sed non contigit. Adiutum vestrum peto. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 06:03, 31 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Id non possumus nisi quis imaginem in Communia inserit. Hoc casu ut videtur (vide :it:File:Incidente ferroviario Andria-Corato (Vigili del Fuoco).jpg) non licet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:49, 31 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

text: Aliam imaginem addidi, sed non de situ concursus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:04, 31 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quis me adiuvabit in imaginem novam inserendo?
Disputatio Formulae:NexInt

message: Nexus interni erratum est! Vide etiam formula iusta!--Nuada (disputatio) 16:51, 30 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Alii hanc, alii illam formulam malunt.  Qui in Taberna nuper disputabant paene omnes verba "nexus interni" praetulerunt, quae similia sunt verba "nexus externi."  Debuimus eligere;  hanc formam eligimus.  Nescio an "gadget" creari possit, ut lectores formas varias videant -- egomet certe talem rem facere nequeo.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:26, 30 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quidam ibi opinati sunt verba "Vide etiam" enumerationem in casu accusativo necessitare ... aliis dissentientibus. Verba "Nexus interni" hanc difficultatem non praebent: ergo simplicius applicantur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:10, 31 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Velim addere:  "Vide etiam" videtur partem paginae quae semper manebit, id quod non volumus.  "Nexus interni" autem magis manifeste tibicen est;  malumus nexus in pagina mittere.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:49, 31 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

message: The usage of this template as it currently is doesn't allow for the possibility of its specific "section" editing. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 00:29, 8 Octobris 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :This quirk has never been a bother to me. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:08, 8 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

text: That's true. It can be edited by opening the preceding section for editing, or by opening the whole page. But if you can make it possible to open the NexInt section alone for editing, that would be perfect. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:35, 8 Octobris 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :@Andrew Dalby, I'll give it a try. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 22:28, 8 Octobris 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ::@Andrew Dalby, the closest I could do was this (press Edit to see the code) which let you have an edit possibility BUT if you pressed it it gave you the option to edit the template itself, not the part where it was used. (As described here.) I returned it to the original form. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 22:51, 8 Octobris 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Thank you for experimenting with this, @Klein Muçi. That was bad luck. I agree, it was better to return the template to its original form. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:48, 9 Octobris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No edit section possibility
Disputatio:Utilitarismus

message: Commentarius affirmat: "Apud scriptores Anglophonos interdum utilitarianismus, sicut Ad. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Fundamentalis: Ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis, Hodiernis moribus accommodata: de Vera Religione, de Ecclesia Christi, de Fontibus theologicis (Baltimorae, 1896), 35–36: 'declarat utilitarianismum esse systema non solum immorale, sed etiam prorsus inefficax.'"—Sed ecce! Tanqueray fuit scriptor Francicus, non Anglicus, et in Francia praecipue habitabat: "Adolphe Tanquerey, né le 1er mai 1854 à Blainville-sur-Mer, mort le 21 février 1932 à Aix-en-Provence, est un prêtre catholique sulpicien français, professeur de droit canonique et de théologie dogmatique, auteur de travaux de spiritualité." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:58, 2 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Scilicet ex Baltimora et lemmatis forma apud Francophonos parum usitata Anglophonismum istum coniectavi. Gratias pro correctione! Neander (disputatio) 21:04, 2 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: De lemmate
Disputatio:Maria Cassatt

message: According to the text of en:wiki, she wasn't really: women weren't yet admitted. Instead she took lessons privately from Gérôme, who was a teacher at the Ecole. We should possibly have a separate category for people who were informally linked to the Ecole in that way? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:14, 23 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni Scholae Bellarum Artium (Lutetia)
Disputatio:Deductio coloniae Martiae

message: I don't think this title quite works in Latin. "Martia colonia" (English a/the Martian colony) is possible, and I'm sure there are other possibilities too, but as for "Deductio coloniam Martis" I'd say that "Deductio" isn't a verb and can't have an object in the accusative, and "Martis" means "of Mars", not "to Mars" or "on Mars". The closest I'd go, without claiming it's the best answer, is "Deductio coloniae Martiae" the founding of a Martian colony. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:34, 7 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted  Andrew, thanks. I think it is a good lemma("Deductio coloniae Martiae" ) and may change it so in its  final form.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:21, 7 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Dictum factum motum.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:53, 13 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus