lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Iosue (persona Biblica)

message: I moved to Iosue (persona Biblica) because I thought "Iosue (Biblia)" wasn't quite clear -- it could have meant the book or the person. I hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 29 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!--Jondel (disputatio) 04:36, 31 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Cladna

message: Aut "est urbs Cechiae." (genitivum), aut "est urbs in Cechia sita." (ablativum). Non possumus duas locutiones miscere. Hic locativo non utimur; locativum enim de urbibus etc. adhibetur sed minime de regionibus.
Eurasiam removi, et si "in systemate Solari" reperio, id etiam removebo :) nam si quis "Ubi est Cechia?" quaerit, paginam de Cechia legere potest. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 29 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Intellego. Gratias ago. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 03:15, 30 Martii 2014 (UTC).
thread_title:  de collocatione
Disputatio:NGC 6543

message: An verba "et in structura una nebularum progressivarum eorum scimus" ad Anglica "Structurally, it is one of the most complex nebulae known" spectant? Tales locutiones difficiliter ab Anglico sermone in Latino redduntur. Proponere possum "Inter nebulas multiplicissimas nobis cognitas ordinatur". Verbum "structurally" non verto quia in significatione complexity/multiplicitatis iam comprehenditur, sed, si volumus,  "quo ad structuram pertinet" addere possumus. ... Sed sine dubio alius quis versionem meam meliorare potest! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:38, 30 Martii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Verbum "progressivus" pro anglicae complex vitiose esse necesse est. "Progressivus" in "technologia progressiva", advanced technology, adhiberi potest. Ita "inter nebulas multiplicissimas nobis cognitas ordinatur" melius est. -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:12, 30 Martii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: :Optime, Donatello. Gratias ago ob responsum -- atque propter paginam valde utilem a te creatam! Nisi alius quis versionem meliorem proponit, mutabo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:22, 30 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De textu Latinizando
Disputatio:Latinitas medii aevi

message: "Latina mediaevalis" locutio rara aut absens in fontibus videtur, quoniam "media Latinitas" crebrius reperitur, et in titulis lexicorum Du Cange et Niermeyer. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:49, 3 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda ad "Media Latinitas"
Disputatio:Panama

message: O editor huius paginae sine nomine!  Mos nostrum est descriptionem veram cum omni imagine mittere, etiamsi non in pagina videtur:  fit attributum "alt=" in elemento HTML "<img>", ut usores caeci descriptionem imaginis audiant.  Hac in pagina plures imagines formulam {{imago sine descriptione}} praebent (praecipue in sectione cuius titulus est Urbes cum maximo numero incolarum), aliae nihil habent (ut imagines in tabula Florae et faunae).  Dum paginam, iam tam bonam, auges et corregis, quaeso, imagines describe.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:26, 3 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De imaginibus et descriptionibus
Disputatio:Hermannus Göring

message: Nescio num eius nomen "Hermann" umquam ab aliis in linguam Latinam translatum sit. Si non, opinor esse melius "Arminius" nomen, quod Romani iddem nomen ita transtulerunt. inquit M. Caecilius, ecce disputatio 02:45, 4 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "Hermannus"?
Disputatio Categoriae:Dentes

message: By our usual guideline this would be "Categoria:Dentes" (plural for categories). Would that change be OK by you, Jondel? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:09, 4 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes by all means , (sorry). I wasn't sure when I saw 'Apparatus digestibus something'(single)  at its own category.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:47, 4 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, yes, but there is only one digestive system (for each life form). There can be more than one tooth :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 4 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Let us move it then. --Jondel (disputatio) 01:52, 6 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
Err is there a fast way to move or do you have to go to each article and recategorize?--Jondel (disputatio) 04:15, 7 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)

text: We do, yes. You can get a bot to do it, but for 4 pages there's no point. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:46, 7 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :I've done it now.

text: :You are right that it wasn't clear why ":Categoria:Apparatus digestorius" should be singular. But I think it makes sense, so I have added a mention of this at Vicipaedia:De categoriis. I used the example :Categoria:Cor: that's a similar case where we only have one each. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:48, 7 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thanks! I will try to study the De categoriis.Multo adiuvas!--Jondel (disputatio) 02:10, 8 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Tributum ex reditibus

message: Nescio ubi nomen melius reperire possumus. Fortasse "Vectigal in reditum" aut "in proventús" aut ... ? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:31, 5 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse Vectigal reditui impositum ~ Vectigal ex reditu exactum ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:34, 5 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: : Fontes extravicipaedianas attuli. Tributum et vectical, quamquam paene synonyma sunt, inter se paulum differunt: tributum ex censu confertur, vectigal autem tributum indirectum est, sicut vectigal venditionum (sales tax). Neander (disputatio) 08:04, 6 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Coloratenses Fontes

message: Two things: (1) Fons is singular, Springs plural; (2) 'springs' is sometimes aquae (pl.). Do we have a source for the Latin lemma? IacobusAmor 15:52, 16 Maii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Catholic Hierarchy has "Diocesis Coloratensium Fontium", so I moved the page to that. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:26, 5 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's a good source and a good move, except that (Latin word order varying so beautifully in phrases of different structure) that source can't prescribe a word order for us. From "Dioecesis Coloratensium Fontium" you can equally well derive "Fontes Coloratenses", and that's the order we would usually prefer. Quid dicis, mi Lesgles? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 5 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::You're right, and I hesitated about that. And here is an equally Catholic source for noun + adjective. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:53, 5 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma: Fons Coloratensis (Anglice: ''Colorado Springs'')
Disputatio:Nova Sericae et Indiae

message: Analogiam 瀛涯胜览, Евгений Онегин, etc. cogito. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:20, 5 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis. Movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 6 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda ad أخبار الصين والهند ?
Disputatio:Cavum dentis

message: Fortasse caries dentis morbus, cavitas dentis effectus est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:34, 7 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio, et exemplum aliarum Vicipaediarum suggerit "caries" ut lemma principale. Lesgles (disputatio) 02:44, 9 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio et lemma
Disputatio:Alexander Thomas Augusta

message: I changed Aethiops to Nigricolor. "Aethiops" is not a good choice because its other and more obvious meaning is "Ethiopian". It's true that it has been used in the vaguer sense "black person", but I think the reader may not understand whether we are using it in the vaguer or the more specific sense. "Nigricolor" is better because this is its first and only meaning. (Other terms might be better still, I leave that to others.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:00, 9 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Andrew.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:04, 9 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De colore cutis
Disputatio:Hibernia Septentrionalis

message: I took this out as alternative, because (although it's true that Ulster is often used as shorthand in  English for Northern Ireland) the two are not coterminous, and we now have a separate article Ultonia.  Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:41, 10 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine "Ultonia" 

message: Alios titulos sub "Vide etiam" removi et in textum commentationis inserui, secundum consuetudines Vicipaediae. Id facere non possum de Colluctatione Hibernica Meridionali quia nescio quid sit! Quid est? Si hic relevat, oportet potius in textu inserere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:29, 10 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vide etiam
Disputatio:Vicus Iconis Virginis (Barium)

message: Nonne vocabulum icon flectitur hoc modo: icon, iconis etc? - Bavarese (disputatio) 10:41, 13 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita vero flectitur. Fortasse est forma mediaevalis; fontem petivi. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:44, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Equidem ego solam hanc flexionem novi. Sed in toponymo res fortasse aliter se habet. - Bavarese (disputatio) 21:07, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... iconae ..?.
Disputatio:Langley (Columbia Britannica)

message: De Latinitate vide Disputatio:Hudson (Dacota Meridionalis).
Anglice video municipality, i.e. "municipium"; Francogallice video ville, i.e. "urbs". Cur igitur "commune" ? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:09, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: De municipality latine "commune" esse credebam quia commentatione anglica municipality ad latina "commune" ducit. At "municipium" illud adhiberi est. Gratias ago. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 19:48, 15 Aprilis 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: :A, bene, intellego. Pro certo "commune" possibile est, sed "municipium" fortasse ad terminum technicum Canadianum vertendum utilius? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 16 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notae
Disputatio:Pax (Bolivia)

message: Nomina "Paxia" et "Pacispolis" causa Latinitatis reicere volens, repperi "Pax" tout court apud Hofmannum et verbum adiectivum "Pacensis" apud Catholic Hierarchy. Vide notas meas in pagina ipsa. Propono igitur titulum paginae Pax (Bolivia) aut Pax (urbs Boliviae). Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:56, 17 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Serena Williams

message: "Una lustrix feminina super 35 milliones dollariorum pretio vincere est."Women's Tennis Career Prize Money Leaders - 2012 Updates in commentariis interretialibus Tennisphilia. 
Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:11, 19 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quae in commentatione scripsisti rectissima duco. :) Mattie (disputatio) 17:03, 19 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non intellego
Disputatio:Pollex

message: An necesse est hanc paginam discretivam retinere? Significatio sola huius verbi, quae nobis utilis sit, est "pollex (anatomia)", nisi fallor. Re vera mensura "Uncia (mensura longitudinis) appellatur, non  "pollex". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 21 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Pollex non erit utilis? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:27, 21 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Erit! Gratias ago Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:41, 21 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delenda
Disputatio:Achaia

message: I always thought it was Achaea too, but Lewis and Short have only "Ăchāia or (in poets) Ăchāĭa (quadrisyl.)", and the OED says this, under "Achaean": "classical Latin Achaeus of or connected with Achaea, Greek, Grecian and its etymon ancient Greek Ἀχαιός < Ἀχαία (classical Latin Achāia, in post-classical Latin also Achaea (12th cent., rare)". Movenda? Lesgles (disputatio) 16:19, 21 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And the same question, I suppose, for all the Achaeae at Achaea (discretiva). Lesgles (disputatio) 16:20, 21 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quodam genere papilionum excluso? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:53, 21 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::A, ita, papiliones non vidi. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:08, 21 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I think it will take an admin to do it, since there is already a page at Achaia. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:26, 13 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Achaia
Disputatio:Tipperaria

message: Oppidum Tipperary in Celtica Hibernica lingua est Tiobraid Árann, quod significat "puteus [hominis nominati] Āra", et nomen Archaeohibernicum eius tempore Iulii Caesaris fuisset Tibradius Ārantis vel similiter. Anthony Appleyard (disputatio) 22:12, 22 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sed quomodo Iulio Caesari Tipperaria interest, o amice?

text: Nisi fons habetis eius nominis, in pagina non nobis licet inserere. Nomina Latina e fontibus fidelibus extrahimus; non fingimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 23 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen Latinum
Disputatio Categoriae:Burkina Faso

message: Publicationes Vaticanae nomen  "Burkina Faso" sine mutatione in textu Latino habentur (e.g. hic). Locutio plena significationem habet in lingua huius civitatis; igitur (pace Davide Morgan) haud licet dividere. Propter has rationes "Categoria:Burkina Faso" suadeo. Paginam de civitate iam movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:02, 30 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Pelliculae per civitates digestae

message: This category, like many, is a blunt instrument. Categories are needed for where a film was set, where it was shot, and where it was made (manufactured, published from). For example, South Pacific (1958) was set in a generic Oceania (though the French of the song "Dites-moi" may suggest Polynésie Française or Nouvelle Calédonie), shot in Hawai'i and Spain (with special landscapes filmed in Fiji), and made in Hollywood. Moana was set and shot in Samoa, but it was made in Hollywood. Numerous documentaries were set and shot in countries far from the places where they were made. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:02, 1 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ultimately" (to paraphrase Geoffrey Keynes) we're all dead. Are those categories needed now? If yes, there is then a second question. It's a complex structure that you're proposing, so, are you able to take the time not just to start it but to apply it to the film articles we have? If the answer is yes again, then I'll be keen to see the results! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 1 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Too blunt, ultimately
Disputatio:Simona de Beauvoir

message: Nunc nomen libri Alter Sexus habemus, quod non credo esse rationem Simonae de Beauvoir. Nomen enim Francogallicum est Le deuxième sexe, non L'autre sexe.
Aut Secundus Sexus praefero aut (id quod maxime diligo) Sequior Sexus. Nam, sit verbum "sequior" non prius inventum quam ab L. Apuleio, at in eius libro est:
replies: text: sumpta veste muliebri florida, in sinus flaccidos abundante, mitellaque textili contecto capite, calceis feminis albis illis et tenuibus inductus et et in sequiorem sexum incertatus atque absconditus, asello spicas ordeacias gerenti residens per medias acies infesti militis transabivi. Nam mulierem putantes asinariam concedebant liberos abitus, quippe cum mihi etiam tunc depiles genae levi pueritia splendicarent. (Ex Luci Apulei Metamorphosen Libro VII)
Planum est "sequiorem sexum" feminas valere, et verbum "sequior", quod "tenuior" aut "imbecillior" significat, propius rationi Simonae de Beauvoir adest quam cetera. Itaque nomen libri ita, aut etiam De Sexu Sequiore esse oportet. inquit M. Caecilius, ecce disputatio 11:41, 2 Maii 2014 (UTC)

text: Regula nostra, in hac pagina omissa, est titulum operum litterariorum semper linguá originali dare nisi versionem Latinam iam exstantem in fonte fideli reperimus.  Nexum igitur Le deuxième sexe praebere debemus. Quo dicto, pro certo necesse est versionem Latinam ad usum lectorum nostrorum addere. Bene repperisti locutionem "sequior sexus" apud Apuleium. Per me uti oportet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:05, 2 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Intellego. Spero ut librum in linguam Latinam translaturus aliquis sit. inquit M. Caecilius, ecce disputatio 13:04, 2 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen Libri
Disputatio:Additio

message: Hoc scriptum'st.
         Lege: quinque et septem sunt duodecim
         Scribe (recenti more): 5 + 7 = 12
Nonne melius dicitur:
         Legitur: quinque et septem sunt duodecim
         Scribitur (recenti more): 5 + 7 = 12
Sinister Petrus (disputatio) 22:02, 2 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis; sententias emendavi. Si placet, adde plus! Lesgles (disputatio) 23:03, 2 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Num melius…

message: In paginae exemplo subauditur signum + legi et, quod naturalius videtur. Pagina 4 autem libri, qui datus est ut fons commentationis, legitur: «Hoc signum + significat plus», neque, nisi erro, alibi dicitur et. Num hac appellatione uti possumus et Latine? --Anedia (disputatio) 12:14, 24 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In Oxford English Dictionary dicitur, "The prepositional use (sense A. 1), from which all the other English uses developed, did not exist in Latin of any period. It probably originated in the commercial language of the Middle Ages (see discussion at minus prep., n., adv., and adj.). The signs + and − occur for the first time in print in J. Widmann Behende vnd Hubsche Rechenung auff allen Kauffmanschafft (1489), a treatise on commercial arithmetic; but while Widmann refers to the latter as minus, the former is said to stand for mer (i.e. mehr): ‘was − ist, das ist minus, und das + ist das mer’." Nunc in mathematica hodierna aliquando necesse est locutionibus recentioribus uti. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:44, 24 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hui sententiae ultimae consentio. Usus vocis plus, etsi Latinitati haud optime congruit, mihi necesse videtur cum tractare velimus de mathematica hodierna. Istius igitur mentionem aliquam facere oportet. — Anedia (disputatio) 17:35, 25 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signum additionis quomodo legere oporteat
Disputatio:Oppidulum

message: An oportet significationes e linguis hodiernis in verbum Latinitatis mediaevalis importare? Incertus sum[, sed admitto hoc verbum utile fore ad village de vacances et alias tales res denominandas]. Insuper sententia quam in textu sublineavi aegre intellegitur nisi quis verba Francogallica (quas nunc in notam subiunctam inserui) legat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 3 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio ego, et certe sunt meliores conversiones rei Wikidata "village": vicus, pagus, oppidula, etc. Lesgles (disputatio) 02:23, 8 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :"Oppidulum" selegi, verbum rarius usitatum, sed sine ambiguitate. De usibus verbi "vicus" vide illam paginam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:33, 16 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  De significatione e Larousse addita
Disputatio:Mons

message: Mihi solum vocabulum montana, -orum notum est siginificans regiones in montibus sitae. Fonti praebito crederem. - Bavarese (disputatio) 08:36, 5 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita quidem, vocabulum vulgare/mediaevale est. Censeo in prima sententia id non utile esse, sed notam secundo paragrapho addidi. Lesgles (disputatio) 02:47, 8 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  montanea? 

message: In prima parte indicis solum iuga reliqui et cacumina unica in secundam partem transtuli; sed mihi illa secunda pars omnino superflua et delenda videtur (nam cacumina altissima iam supra enumerata sunt).Vel non delebitur, donec aliquid melius hic suppositum erit. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 00:48, 3 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Index
Disputatio:Harpastum Americanum

message: Like many other modern sports, American football lacks a latin vocabulary. It is here that it should be built in accordance with Latin custom. Nearly every sport has a similar list; should Vicipaedia have a set of articles for them (with its own category)? Alternatively or additionally, each of these terms could have its own article. Translating by the use of calques is often unwise, but slangy idioms might lend themselves to that practice.
replies: text: Lusores:

text: Quarterback - iactor, dux (?)

text: Running Back - portator

text: Wide Receiver - captator

text: Lineman

text: Linebacker

text: Corner

text: Safety

text: Coach - exercitator, dux —70.192.193.171‎
replies: text: :Traupmanii Dictionarium ait: coach (trainer) = exercitor (non exercitator). Pro variis nominibus in line- conditis, habemus linearis, et pro linesman (a lineman discrepante), Traupmanius offert iudex linearius [sic]. 71.163.63.215 03:44, 17 Maii 2014 (UTC)
*Not all quarterbacks throw.  The terms come from the wing formation - the quarterback was originally a quarter of the way back behind the line, the halfback was halfway behind the line, and the fullback was all the way in the back.  Is there a masculine word for back?  All I could find was the neuter tergum.  Quartumtergum (quarterback), Solidumtergum (fullback), Dimidiatumtergum (halfback) aka Cursoriumtergum (runningback) aka ???? (tailback).  (I can't find a good word for tail.) --B (disputatio) 12:31, 16 Augusti 2018 (UTC)

text: Tergum is the noun 'back'; what you describe is the adverb, for which Latin has retro, but maybe compounds built on post would work (see adjectives posterus, posterior, postremus, posticus). Maybe Morgan's list has already settled this question? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:16, 16 Augusti 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: TERMINI TECHNICI
Disputatio:Heo Chohui

message: I will rewrite the text this afternoon. I already cleaned up the categories. Notice that for many years now we have had a template to mark the language of external links -- we should use it. I'll put that in there now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 21 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the text. The grammatical cases, etc., in the text needed revising. Note also that the word "Gallery" needed changing to "Pinacotheca" -- this is a very obvious thing, but if someone is judging whether a page is in real Latin or not, they notice things like this and it looks bad!

text: OK, Jondel, what don't you understand? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:08, 21 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :I have, for the present, deleted the pinacotheca. I did not understand the captions, and you can't translate what you don't understand.

text: :I put the "cognomina" in a footnote. I don't mind what goes where, but the first sentence should not contain too many names, and it should be clear to the reader how these names are useful. If this lady has a name in three script forms and then two different cognomina, and we want to tell the reader about all of this, we have to explain why it is interesting. Or, if the names aren't as interesting as her poems, we have to write a bit about the poems and omit some of the names. That's what I think, anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:11, 21 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrigenda
Disputatio:Heo Gyun

message: I didn't understand the word "factisoso" so I have deleted it.
About the external links: it is fine to include external links in any language if relevant, but if there are three or four in the same language, and the description of all of them is identical, no one will understand why they are there. I suggest explaining what these links are about (biography? text of works? criticism? or what?) Otherwise, some other Wikipedian may well think that they are spam, and delete them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:41, 21 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrigenda
Disputatio:Charlotte's Web

message: It seems this book may in fact have an offical Latin title, see http://www.amazon.com/Tela-Charlottae-Charlottes-Latin-Edition/dp/0060264012, http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Tela-Charlottae-Fabula-E-B-White-1991-Hardcover-/1992369, and http://www.paperbackswap.com/Tela-Charlottae-Charlottes-E-B-White/book/0060264012/. 68.42.60.10 23:20, 22 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement "Charlotte's Web (Anglice; scilicet Latine Tela Charlottae) est fabula ab E. B. White anno 1952 scripta" should say "Charlotte's Web (Anglice; scilicet Latine Tela Charlottae) est liber ab E. B. White anno 1952 scripta". It's a book, not a story. Although the Amazon sources call it a fabula, but it's really a novel for children. 2602:306:83A9:3D00:985A:756F:7C3C:F1A4 18:54, 31 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin title