lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Ptolemaeus II (rex Aegypti)

message: Verba retraxi "ne sanguinem Macedonum misceret cum Aegyptis" quia (nisi fallor) hoc non explicat matrimonium incestuosum: fuerunt aliae Macedones necnon Graecae. Insuper idem Ptolemaeus habebat amasiam Aegyptiam Didymam, cum qua intermiscebat gena et, si ita loquimur, sanguinem. Si igitur fontem habemus huius explicationis, oportet citare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:46, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Addidi citationem Pausaniae qui alias rationes praefert, nescio an veras. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:02, 13 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De matrimonio cum sorore
Disputatio:Declaratio et propositum Vindobonae

message: Cur ad agendum? Verbum propositum ipsum significat 'plan of action'. IacobusAmor 11:28, 21 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Paginam transnominavi. Mattie 01:40, 12 Februarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Propositum ad agendum
Disputatio:Taequondo

message: Fortasse locutionem noniam intellegamus: artem inermem corpus denfendendum Anglice = 'an unarmed art, a body to "denfend"', sed artem inermis corporis defendendi = 'the art of defending an unarmed body'. Utra locutio magis nobis placet? IacobusAmor 04:57, 24 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Non. Videre potes modum meum mutavisse ex 'denfendum' ad 'defendum'. Mutabo ita dicis. Denuo gratias.--Jondel 05:44, 24 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "artem inermem corpus denfendendum"

message: ;In Artes athleticas expandit et pars Olympicae ludis est, prima exemplo ostentu? in ludis Seuli anno 1988.: Taekwondo expanded into atheletics and is part of the Olympic games, first appearing as  exhibition(ablative absolute) in the Seoul games 1988. 
--Jondel 08:12, 24 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ostentu?
Disputatio:Textus (biologia)

message: Gewebe = tela
Gewebte(s) = textum

message: Estne movendum ad TextusDe Textus Langenscheidt Pocket Latin Dictionary pagina 465 Tissue- Textus. ?--Jondel (disputatio) 13:04, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Etiam Tissue -Textum p.555 Oxford Latin Mini Dictionary.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:30, 12 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

text: The move suggestion was correct: I have now confirmed "Textus" from a Latin medical dictionary, cited on the page. I'll move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 4 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
Babae!--Jondel (disputatio) 14:44, 4 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Textus
Disputatio:Adenoviridae

message: Viri sunt homines. Secundum commentarium Virus, forma pluralis hic desiderata est vira : "Virus (-i, n.; pl., vira)." IacobusAmor 05:14, 25 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stultus sum. :/ --Robert.Baruch 14:25, 25 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Viri
Disputatio:Mensurae Romanae

message: According to the policy on use of Roman numerals, shouldn't we change the table to use arabic numerals? So pars XVI pedis -> pars 16ª pedis? --Robert.Baruch 17:07, 26 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numeri Romani 

message: Anglice, gallice et italice, in Vicipaedia, forma "centuria" usa est. Recte : "centurium" aut "centuria" ? Inde, "centuria" rectum verbum est.LombardBeige 09:19, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias agimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Centuria" aut "centurium"
Disputatio:Tunicula

message: Estne fons pro verbo T-tunica? In investigatione Googlica nihil videtur. Saltim pro t-shirt Morgan colobium dat. Mattie 06:46, 27 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Colobium mihi videtur aptius tank top. -- Ioscius  ∞ 17:51, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Per Traupman, tunicula.--123.192.64.184 12:13, 27 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

text: Two Romance language, Spanish and Portuguese, have T-shirt as camiseta < L. camisia... --Robert.Baruch 01:28, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Strangely enough, camiseta in Portugues is a loan from Spanish. The Spanish word is actually a diminutive for shirt (ccamisa), using the Catalan dmiminutive suffix (camisa + -eta). In Cataln itself, T-shirt is camisola. I still think that tunicula should be used, as it is the referenced form (also used by Henricus Barbatus)--Xaverius 10:45, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It does bring up the question: what is the right translation for "shirt"; it seems tunica = undergarment/tunic/shirt/t-shirt is the genus of which species we have: camisia = linen shirt/nightgown, camisium = alb/shirt, colobium = undershirt/short-sleeve undergarment, tunicula = t-shirt,...--208.43.160.10 13:06, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Vide commentarios Tunicula flava, Tunicula maculata, Tunicula viridis, etc. IacobusAmor 13:42, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Giving the same name to jersey and t-shirt isn't a bad idea, I think, so we should match the articles' names. If we don't go with tunicula, we should change these articles too... If. :P Mattie 17:26, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Tunicula. I think we are all in agreement :) --Robert.Baruch 02:29, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine
Disputatio:Vulpes macrotis

message: Gratias tibi ago, Iacobe, ob conrectiones tuas! Verbum adspectus autem quartae declinationi est: cur "ob adspectus (adspectús) suos" mutavisti ad "ob adspectos"? Mattie 17:51, 27 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse quod satis coffeum matutinam nondum biberam! IacobusAmor 18:44, 27 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 'ob adspectos'
Disputatio:Steampunk

message: Vide etiam moda. --Robert.Baruch 01:16, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historia modae 

message: I was trying to translate genre. I figured that science fiction would be the genre (of literature), but I don't think there are genres of science fiction -- only subgenres, since science fiction is itself a genre. Anyway, that was my reasoning, faulty or not :) --Robert.Baruch 01:16, 28 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varietas, subvarietas
Disputatio:Territorialismus Iudaeus

message: --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 14:11, 29 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

message: Qui hanc paginam nuper ad "Territorialismus Iudaeum" movit "Territorialismus Iudaeorum" fortasse dicere voluit. An removenda? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:17, 12 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Iosephus Nicolaus Laurenti

message: Why doesn't the title of his major book, Josephi Nicolai Laurenti Austriaci Viennensis Specimen Medicum (1768), make the nominative of his surname Laurent(i)us ? IacobusAmor 10:52, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pass ... The name as we have it here seems to be widely accepted, though what the contemporary authority for it is, I don't know.

text: I changed "in the Western world" (whatever that would have meant in the 18th century) to "in European writing", not specifically aiming to include Russia or exclude America but for the specific reason that this is how de:wiki expresses it, and de:wiki seems to have been the main source from which the other wikis were translated. In any case I'd like to know the reason why such a phrase is included at all: did descriptions of cave-dwelling species already exist in non-European or non-Western literature? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

text: --

text: Contributions to the History of Herpetology (digitized versions of the relevant pages here ) asserts it is 'Laurenti'.  There are apparently two versions of his work, and:
replies: text: :"The name "Laurenti" appears on the title pages of both, but it has been disputed whether this form is both genitive and nominative.  At the end of the preface in the thesis version (only), the name is given in what is believed to be the Latin nominative: Josephus Nicolaus Laurenti.  Unfortunately, in the 1966 reprint of the thesis version of Laurenti's book, the final i in his name has been omitted.  On inquiry to the Archives of the University of Vienna, Kurt Mühlberger, the University Archivist, has determined that Laurenti himself consistently used the spelling "Laurenti" in all of his university records and that it is, in fact, the nominative form."

text: There's also an image of what is presumably his autograph, which reads 'Josephus Nicolaus Laurenti'. —Mucius Tever 03:17, 5 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Daniel Keenan Savage

message: I thought the way to delete a redirect would be to delete the redirect, but in case that doesn't work, an administrator will figure out what to do. The lemma in Wikipedia is Daniel Keenan Savage, which, not least since Savage is a native speaker of English, might prove dispositive. (Not to mention that the last sentence of the first paragraph depends on knowledge of Savage's middle name.) An alternate possibility is his pen name, Dan Savage. So noster Pantocrator redirected the article to a third (and never or seldom seen) option, Daniel Savage, and that's what needs undoing. IacobusAmor
replies: text: Because that's the normal way we refer to people's names. Middle names are not put in titles without a good reason to, and there seems none here (true, that sentence you mention refers to it, but it's clear without previously knowing it). Pantocrator 04:43, 1 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Tell it to Gaius Caesar and all the other Romans whose "middle name" isn't omitted. (OK, OK, so Julius is a different kind of "middle name," though it's in the middle of his name; so tell it to the English Wikipedia, where the lemma is Daniel Keenan Savage.) IacobusAmor 13:25, 1 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ?
Disputatio Categoriae:Vestimenta Polynesia

message: Strictly speaking, Polynesia isn't a nationality; but one doubts that a putative category "Vestimenta Samoae" would have many more than two additional entries (likely additions are the headdress known as tuiga and the skirt known as  'ie toga). Perhaps this category can suffice until more articles for Polynesian vestments have been created and their variety can be estimated. IacobusAmor 13:28, 30 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Dominicus Oxomensis

message: I took out that he was "born Domingo de Guzmán Garcés" because that's extremely doubtful. The name "de Guzmán" is first given to him in the 15th century and might or might not be true; where the "Garcés" comes from I don't know, but it must be even later. The Spanish article on Dominic is very unreliable (I think). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:53, 1 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Disputatio:Index Archiepiscoporum et Patriarcharum Constantinopolitanorum

message: ... quia indicem nominum Latine scriptum repperi (vide bibliographiam). Sed, si alii continuare volunt, gaudeo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:40, 2 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paginam incepi ...
Disputatio Categoriae:SIDA

message: Pro tempore "SIDA" selegi quia
# Volui nomen breve imponere
# SCDI est fortasse neologismus
# Multi in multis linguis intellegunt SIDA
# SIDA consonat cum nomine iam exstante Latino.
Si male feci, possumus delere et novo nomine recreare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:16, 8 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Anticorpus

message: Fuerunt duae paginae, una titulo "Immunogenetica" sed lemmate "Anticorpus", altera titulo "Anticorpus" sed lemmate "Anticorpora"! Textum amborum hic posui: debemus contribuere, et fortasse novam paginam scribere quae re vera titulum "Immunogenetica" mereat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:29, 8 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributio
Disputatio:Bertrandus Russell

message: ;Unus ex conditoribus analyticae philosophicae habetur in numero cum prodecessoribus Gottfredo Frege et L:Considered as one of the founders of a. p. along with predecessors in the same ranking as G and L. 
What is wrong with prodecessoribus?--Jondel 07:19, 11 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
amabo te vide : http://athirdway.com/glossa/?s=praedecessor --Jondel 08:10, 11 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Te non intellegimus. AE non est O, et PRAE non est PRO. IacobusAmor 12:00, 11 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sic ita. Non prodecessoribus sed prAEdecessoribus.--Jondel 08:00, 12 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago.

text: exoptatus.(welcome)
thread_title: cum prodecessoribus

message: fanaticus (not only pertaining to temples, enthusiastic, inspired by the gods), adversus bellum.
ok?--Jondel 07:53, 11 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fanaticus Anglice = 'inspired by a god, enthusiastic, frenzied'. IacobusAmor 12:00, 11 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quid opinaris de 'concitor'? Potius sit?--Jondel 08:00, 12 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: activist against war
Disputatio:Patricius Peyton

message: Cur? Vacuus est--Jondel 11:00, 19 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Da veniam Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:34, 19 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :What's the phrase 'universal priests' (presbyteri catholici) supposed to mean? Priests who are catholic in their tastes & sensibilities? They love both Beethoven & Green Day? Both Michelangelo & Pollock? Both claret & chianti? Both fascism & communism? IacobusAmor 13:58, 19 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::'Catholic' originally was supposed to refer to 'universal' Christianity. Even in early Christianity, fierce debates were going on between the different Christian schools/factions, like today's Protestant -Catholic rivalry. The 'Catholic group' was supposed to be the united coalition of these groups.Today of course, it refers to the Institution based at the Vatican.--Jondel 11:19, 20 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::That's why it has to be capitalized: lowercasing it (as the prior comment indicated) makes the priests universal, not representatives of a nonuniversal entity, the Roman branch of Christianity. IacobusAmor 14:52, 20 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

text: :::That's a nice name for it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 20 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Presbyteri catholici vs Presbyteri Catholici
Disputatio:Yot

message: Please add to Yot legitimate interwikis: 
replies: text: w:it:Jod
83.30.47.4 11:06, 21 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
scripsit Usor:83.30.47.4 in pagina disputationis mea (). --UV 19:53, 21 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki
Disputatio Categoriae:Francomurarii

message: Quid significat hoc nomen arcanum? et cur non adsunt nexus ex aliis vicipaediis? IacobusAmor 15:05, 23 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In Vicipaedia Anglica categoria talis Category:Freemasons non exstat: vide s.v.p. notam ad caput categoriae :en:Category:Freemasonry: "Please do not add this category to biographical articles. Consensus has determined that it is overcategorization, and that as most people tagged with this category are not known primarily for their contributions to Freemasonry, it is usually inappropriate. Instead, see: :en:List of Freemasons." Vide et disputationem categoriae delendae: :en:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 10#Freemasons. Categoria similis apud Vicipaediam Francogallicam deleta est (imprime :fr:Catégorie:Franc-maçon).
replies: text: ::Certe categoria francogallica Franc-maçon deleta est sed ei substituta est :fr:Catégorie:Personnalité de la franc-maçonnerie--Bruxellensis 13:43, 27 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Recte mones. Id non vidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:55, 27 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

text: Credo et apud nos talem categoriam molestam fore. Si quis vult, potest indicem sodalium huius societatis elaborare -- cum citationibus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:46, 23 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :liberi murorum structores, liberi caementarii, murarii (F.K. Kraft: Deutsch-Lateinisches Lexikon). Happy Holidays --Chris1981 17:04, 24 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Verbum francomurarius invenitur in libro Antonii Bacci, Lexicon vocabulorum quae difficilius Latine redduntur (Romae, 1963), p. 337: "francomurarius", etiam invenitur verbum "masso", videsis: Albert Blaise, Lexicon Latinitatis medii aevi praesertim ad res ecclesiasticas investigandas pertinens (Turnhout: Brepols, 1975), p. 571: "masso- onis". --Bruxellensis 12:43, 27 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

text: :Haec categoria invenitur in quasi omnibus Wikipediis et cum attinet ad homines saeculorum praeteritorum utile est ad "historiam idearum" discendarum ("Histoire des idées") igitur est cuiusdam momenti.--Bruxellensis 10:45, 27 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Si liceat sint categoriae ut Episcopaliani, Baptistae et eiusdem farinae, cur censuram in categoriam Francomurariorum exercere?--Bruxellensis 12:39, 27 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Nescio ubi censuram reperis, mi Bruxellensis: in verbis Iacobi, qui fontem nominis voluit videre (si eum recte intellego) et iam, tibi gratus, videt? aut in meis, qui indicem sodalium huius societatis praefero, citationibus munitum?

text: :::Ego ad eas solas res, quas Vicipaediani (nam pauci sumus) sine nimia difficultate continuere possunt et sine controversiis, categorias coercere praefero. Et de episcopalianis et de francomurariis dubitavi. Sed, te et Iacobo eas categorias implere volentibus, facite et salvete! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 28 Decembris 2010 (UTC)

text: :Maxime gaudeo, mi Dalby, quod categoriam retinere voluisti, est enim ut puto haud inutile aliquid. verbum "censura" nimis fortis erat de qua re da mihi veniam ignosceque mihi. Vale optume.
thread_title: Francomurarii
Disputatio Categoriae:Operae pastorales

message: Hmm. Should categories relating to (the concept of) opera be singular or plural? Most concepts expressed in discrete entities have plural categories, but some do not; for example :Categoria:Opera seria, which is singular in the other Roman-alphabet wikis: :da:Kategori:Opera seria, :en:Category:Opera seria, :nn:Kategori:Opera seria. And of course the categories named for biological genera, and for individual persons, are singular. IacobusAmor 14:13, 24 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This problem is the reason why I was longing for you to start these categories and didn't dare do it myself. We have a general preference for plural if the plural makes sense; but really I think you should decide and others will follow. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 24 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Singular or plural?
Disputatio Categoriae:Genera operarum

message: The supercategory "Categoria:Opera" is wrong, I know, because we are using that term as the plural of "Opus" and therefore in a far more general sense. But what is the supercategory at the head of all Opera and Operas going to be? Not "Theatrum lyricum" I guess: so what, then? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:31, 24 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a special problem for Vicipaedia, because opera is the plural of opus, but then the genre has come to be considered a singular concept, as if opera, -ae. (One would like to see some attestations here.) English has both Category:Opera, a subcategory of Performing arts | Vocal music | Theatrical genres | Western classical music styles | Theatrical music genres, with subcategories Opera competitions (6 P), Opera composers ,1516 P), Opera critics (43 P), Opera by nationality (6 C, 15 P), and so on, and Category:Operas, a subcategory of Compositions by musical form | Opera, with subcategories Operas by genre (37C), Operas by language (43C), One-act operas (197 P), Operas for television (9P), and so on. Perhaps when we list operas by their subgenre, we should use plural forms (e.g., :Categoria:Operae pastorales and :Categoria:Operae seriae instead of :Categoria:Opera seria‡), but when we're dealing with the concept itself, we should use singular forms—maybe something like :Categoria:Opera (theatrum) to distinguish it from :Categoria:Opera, which presumably refers merely to "works"? ¶ OK, must run: time for sweeping & laundering & shopping & baking, quod Christi Natalis nobis minatur. IacobusAmor 15:04, 24 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :‡However, Wikipeda lists 75 opere serie (or should we be thoroughly English and say opera serias?) under the category Opera seria. IacobusAmor 15:04, 24 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong link
Disputatio Categoriae:Monotypica piscum genera

message: Piscium? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 26 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. (But I have to go now. Till tomorrow!) IacobusAmor 16:17, 26 Decembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?
Disputatio:Sesonchis

message: Hmmm, I doubt there will be much call to link to any of these Egyptian name pages I've been creating. In fact, it's probably better that they not be linked to, rather than more specific pages. I guess that means I should make them all disambiguation pages. Of course some of them (e.g. this one) have more information on them than that. So which is the lesser evil: a disambiguation page with extra information, or an orphaned article? --Iustinus 03:06, 8 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as there is also a disambiguation page, they can never be orphan articles. Technically. And then there'll always be need for a list of kings, so they will always be linked from that. I feel it's better to have the articles, even if there is very little information. That way, too, each king gets his proper categories, and there's plenty of space for references. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 8 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :To clarify, I am talking about pages like Sesonchis and Osorthon, which do not deal with specific kings, but the names themselves. They are fundamentally just disambiguation pages, my only reservation is that in many cases they contain more information than just the list of people with that name. This page, Sesonchis is a perfect example, because of the fairly long section on how the name was pronounced. --Iustinus 17:13, 8 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Well, this page contains far, far more than would appear on any disambiguation page. So, it's not a disambiguation page, it's a substantive page about the name. OK, don't panic, what would link to it? Answer: (a) any page on which anyone with this name is discussed or could be discussed (including Historia fabulosa Alexandri Magni) and (b) a list of Egyptian proper names (possibly part of Lingua Aegyptia, possibly a separate list). Does that help? :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:13, 8 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well, ideally at least we would hope that (a) would lead to the appropriate article rather than this one. But I suppose in practice that's never going to happen on a wiki of this size, so I guess you're making sense. --Iustinus 23:59, 8 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Agreed, (a) will lead to that article if/when it exists. And that article will lead to this one. Meanwhile it seemed legitimate (and, just possibly, useful) to cut out the middle man. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagina non annexa
Disputatio:Fabales

message: Iacobus, anyone, could you just fill out the info below? I think I can fix the rest and others like it.--Jondel 13:50, 8 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
<nowiki>{{Taxobox 
|name = Fabales
| image = Securidaca longipedunculata MS 4773.JPG
| image_alt = 
| image_caption = 
| regnum = [[Plant]]ae
| divisio = 
| classis = 
| ordo = Fabales
| familia = [[familia (taxinomia)|Familiae]]
| genus = 
| species = 
| binomial = 
| binomial_authority = [[Eduardus Ffrench Bromhead|Bromhead]]
}}</nowiki>
thread_title: Fill out
Disputatio:Cornubia

message: Cornubia (Anglice: Cornwall, Cornubice: Kernow)
{| border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"	
{| border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"

message: Capsam hic moveo pro tempore quia paginas de comitatibus Anglicis retracto; inter comitatus geographicos, sollemnes et administrativos distinguo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 9 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retraho pro tempore 

message: Noster 151.34.85.83, editor ignotus, Cornwallia in Cornvallia mutavit, retinens attributionem, sed vocabulum in operis titulo (in capsa florida in laeva parte inferiori) manifesto est CORNWALLIA, non CORNVALLIA. Cornvallia autem forma verisimilis manet; itaque retinetur, cum nota FD ref. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:24, 1 Octobris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Locus falsus