lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:The History Boys (pellicula)

message: I changed 
*   The History Boys   (fere Latine:   Historiae iuvenes)
to
* The History Boys (titulus Anglicus, scilicet Rerum gestarum studiosuli)
Here's why. The Latin translation of the title was misleading if not meaningless (showing how difficult such allusive phrases can be). I originally wrote "Historiae studiosuli" and then I realised that my neat phrase had two completely different meanings (which the English title does not). The extra spaces were a trademark of Helveticus Montanus, who rarely tidied up his text! There was no need for "Latine" because this is the Latin Vicipaedia, readers already know they are reading Latin, no need to rub it in. The reader from another planet might, just possibly, not know that this particular title is in English: that's slightly more useful in context and more relevant, so I said that instead. I then linked Anglice for the sake of the same reader from another planet. "Studiosulus" is not attested before  early 19th century Latin, so far as I know, but it pins down the meaning fairly well and any Latin reader should understand it. Other comments welcome! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 21 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK to me. And yes, unnecessary spacing in lemmata is a trademark. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:20, 21 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De mutatione mea
Disputatio Categoriae:Pelliculae de rebus homosexualibus

message: This is a much better name, and it sets a pattern that we could follow with films/literature/etc. on other themes. Therefore I raise the question: the genitive is understandable, certainly, but is it the best choice? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 21 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If pellicula behaves grammatically like carmen and liber, wouldn't pellicula de be best (or at least better)? For carmen with a genitive, L&S's examples show the genitive referring to the performer or the medium, not the topic: carmen vocum (Ovid), carmen cygnorum (Ovid), citharae liquidum carmen (Lucr.), lyrae carmen (Prop.), Saliorum carmina (Varr.). Similarly with liber, where L&S have in Graecorum libris (Cic.), and with de, dixi in eo libro, quem de rebus rusticis scripsi (Cic.), and perhaps most pertinent of all because it has both de and a genitive, Demetrii liber de concordia (Cic.). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:49, 21 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Also (in case it's relevant), de would be more readily understood by speakers of many modern languages; for example, libro de is perfectly good Spanish. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:33, 21 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Not that I could judge between these two options; they sound both OK to me. But I would add that when I read "pelliculae de" I suddenly want to go on with "rebus" instead of "thematibus". Just on instinct, I can't justify it. Sigur (disputatio) 16:17, 21 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Consentio. "Pelliculae de rebus homosexualibus" vel "Pelliculae de rebus homosexualibus" meliorem latinitatem redoleat, mea quidem sententia. Jeanthorlon (disputatio) 16:25, 21 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Mihi etiam "Pelliculae de rebus homosexualibus" bene sonat. An nomen alterum dare voluisti, Ioanne? Idem nomen bis scripsisti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:33, 22 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De novo nomine
Disputatio Categoriae:Oribatae

message: Nonne melius orbi sive orbati? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:38, 22 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: People who go up mountains :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:28, 22 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Not in any of my dictionaries, or in L&S! Where does it come from? Not ":en:Oribatida," one hopes. ¶ Incidentally, anybody of a mind to complain about a profusion of redlinks in articles in Vicipaedia might want to take a look at that article. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:39, 22 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It's Greek. The category was created by Rolandus, just about the time when you and I arrived here. Can that be 13 years ago? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:09, 22 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Vocem Oribatae probandam esse puto, si vocabulum eam rem exprimens e Graeca lingua depromimus. E. g. apud Sophoclem legimus

text: :::Soph., Philoctetes 955: θῆρ' ὀρειβάτην

text: :::Soph., Oedipus Col. 1055s.: ὀρειβάταν Θησέα (in manuscr. A rec). --Bavarese (disputatio) 13:12, 22 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Oribatae?
Disputatio:Halter

message: Lexicon morganianum dat nobis Halter (secundum Epigrammata Martialis VII.67.5-6) http://neolatinlexicon.org/search/latin?search=weight. Fortasse est pagina movenda?--Xaverius 07:56, 28 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago Rex tremendae majestatis (disputatio)
thread_title: De nomine latino
Disputatio:Parens (discretiva)

message: Hello.  I was considering creating a translation of ":en:parent" (part of the 10 000 pages rally), but then I saw the disambiguation page "Parens" where it is defined as englobing "progenitores".  I could use "genitor", but that has two issues: Contrary to "parens", it has a distinct feminine. And my perception is that it would rather be understood as "biological parent". On the other hand, I have not been able to find "parens" as meaning "ancestor", just mother/father.  Apart from an anonymous (and Rafaelgarcia's merger request), you are the only one who has worked on that page, so allow me to ask whether you are sure of that broad definition, because "parens" could come in handy.  Sigur (disputatio) 17:57, 28 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Parens" is the word you want. Yes, it can have the wider meaning given on the disambiguation page, but as an extension. "Mother/father" is the more basic and usual meaning. Of course, its use for someone who is not a biological parent but, e.g., a stepmother or adoptive father, is also an extension, but a perfectly usual one in Latin, because such non-biological relationships were an everyday feature of Roman law. Move Parens to "Parens (discretiva)" and create the page, I'd say. Best to copy this discussion to that talk page to see who else will comment. Please go ahead and do that! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 28 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion copied from [[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew_Dalby#Parens|here]]:
Disputatio:Lesbos

message: Tacitus scripsit "Petita inde Euboca tramisit Lesbum" (annales, 2.54) et "Lesbo, insula nobili et amoena" (annales, 6.3). Nominativus quoque invenit, e.g. hic:  Sigur (disputatio) 19:16, 1 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis: "Lesbus" exstat! An nominativum "Lesbos" petivisti? Insulae Graecae nominativa "-os" Latinitate classica retinere solent. Vide e.g. dictionarium Lewis & Short, ubi Lesbos (-us) praeponitur. Plura non iam quaesivi nisi quod, si postulas "Lesbos" "insula" "Athenae" apud Google 3710 paginae referuntur, si "Lesbus" "insula" "Athenae" 568 paginae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:53, 1 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Scientiae maiori me dedo. Sigur (disputatio) 20:26, 1 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio/Societas

message: There is an incoherence between these interwiki links: :en:Ratusz links to a page without interwiki links while the French and German entries link to :en:Rathaus which is a redirect to :en:Seat of local government which links to Curia municipalis here. Sigur (disputatio) 20:48, 1 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Item Res Publicae 52 [[:en:Ratusz]] [[:fr:Mairie]] [[:de:Rathaus]]
Disputatio:Consilium terrarum septentrionalium

message: Nunc "Consilium septentrionale." Melius "Consilium Nordicum"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:17, 2 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Mihi bene, sed non inveni. Ac nunc Neander fontem alii nominis invenit. Sigur (disputatio) 06:13, 2 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: De lemmate
Disputatio:Foedus liberalium democratarumque pro Europa

message: They have renamed themselves "Renew Europe Group", and apparently this English name is used on the Parliament's website in all language versions (I checked four of them), contrary to what happens with all other groups. Not sure how this should be reflected.  Sigur (disputatio) 22:23, 2 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's the parliamentary group that is called "Renew Europe Group" and it appears to go beyond ALDE which still exists. A different article one day, I suppose... Sigur (disputatio) 21:14, 4 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Disputatio:Chalifa Salmani filius gentis Chalifae

message: I've given the Arabic name version from Wikidata closest to the lemma, i.e."خليفة بن سلمان آل خليفة" which however would correspond to "Ḫalīfa bin Salmān Āl Ḫalīfa", while the
"خليفة ابن سلمان آل خليفة" corresponding to "Ḫalīfa ibn Salmān Āl Ḫalīfa" only yields nine hits on Google (most of which from Twitter)."Bin" and "ibn" are apparently equivalent in meaning ("bin" being more colloquial), but there are almost half a million hits on Google for"خليفة بن سلمان آل خليفة" (i.e. "Ḫalīfa bin Salmān Āl Ḫalīfa").So, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't move the page. Sigur (disputatio) 20:25, 3 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I mixed up with this page, but they have both basically the same issue. Sigur (disputatio) 20:32, 3 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :I never saw this till now. I thought ibn and bin were both fairly standard in transliterating بن. Bin is possibly commoner in news sources, ibn in academic sources, but I'm not sure; the German wiki uses b. and some other German sources do that too. No strong reason to change? That's what I would probably have said till today. Now, if we may be changing to "filius", the question becomes academic! See Vicipaedia:Taberna. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio:Khaledus Ahmedi filius gentis Chalifae

message: I've given the Arabic name version from Wikidata closest to the lemma, i.e."خالد بن أحمد آل خليفة" which however would correspond to "Ḫalīfa bin Aḥmad Āl Ḫalīfa", while the
"خليفة ابن أحمد آل خليفة" corresponding to "Ḫalīfa ibn Aḥmad Āl Ḫalīfa" only yields nine hits on Google (most of which from Twitter)."Bin" and "ibn" are apparently equivalent in meaning ("bin" being more colloquial), but there are almost half a million hits on Google for"خليفة بن أحمد آل خليفة" (i.e. "Ḫalīfa bin Aḥmad Āl Ḫalīfa").So, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't move the page. Sigur (disputatio) 20:36, 3 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio Formulae:Praesides Commissionis Europaeae

message: Hi, Sigur. I can see no fault in the Latinity of "nominata", so I removed the "dubsig". If you think a different word hits the spot, the best thing to do is to insert your word. I don't see that "proposita" is more accurate, but I won't quibble if you insert it. In parallel articles I can see "nominated, nominada, nominiert" in English, Spanish, German, "proposée" in French, "designata" in Italian. The field is yours. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:29, 4 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, let's quibble a bit. My perception was that "nominata" would be understood as "appointed", but if I have gotten that wrong, then I will need to change it here, because I used it to say that Michel was appointed (contrary to von der Leyen, he was). So, what do you think? Sigur (disputatio) 13:03, 5 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's a matter of context in each appointment, isn't it? "Nominatus" appears correct to me in both cases: we are saying that the person has been named for the job, but hasn't yet taken it up. The level of uncertainty varies. In these navboxes I write "futurus/a" when the appointment appears certain (but for death or revolution) but has not yet taken effect, and I choose a different word when it depends on something not quite predictable. Whichever word one chooses, it is fated to be soon deleted. I write a word and go on to the next topic. Others can improve it. That's Vicipaedia! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:53, 5 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubsig
Disputatio:Thuringia

message: Cur de "senatu" dicitur? In re publica foederata solae urbes hanseaticae terris certis exemptae "senatum" habent, parlamentum autem terrae "Landtag" appellatur (nescio, qua voce Latine vertendum). (Sola libera res publica Bavaria ab anno 1946 duo parlamenta, Landtag dico et senatum, habuerat; senatus autem ab anno 2000 per plebiscitum abrogatus est.) [Ad haec: factionium → factionum]--Bavarese (disputatio) 11:53, 7 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Tam "parlamentum" quam "conventus" pro Landtag scribi possunt. Nescio an fontes habemus huius conversionis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 7 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "legati factionium senatus terrae"?
Disputatio:Martius panis

message: Apud Plinium (Nat. hist. 27.133) smyrnion describentem legimus "radix [...] sucosa". Vox mihi plane falsa esse non videtur. --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:16, 12 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: An quaestionem ponis, mi Bavarese? An dicis Martium panem non sucidum sed sucosum esse? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:28, 12 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hélas, Andrea, experientia doctus Martium panem tam sucidum quam sucosum esse credo itaque alterum pro altero scribere supersederi posse. --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:56, 12 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Nec Cassell's nec Traupman sucosus, -a, -um commendant, quod nomen L&S "post-Aug." appellant. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:55, 12 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Inter res fere spirituales navigamus. Contra post-Augustanitatem verbi q.e. "sucosus" ponere debemus specialitatem verbi q.e. "sucidus".

text: :::#sucidus (very rare: not in Cic.) ante Augustum a Varrone de lana (nuper tonsa, adipe nondum remoto), a Plauto de puella dicitur, atque post Augustum a variis auctoribus de eadem lana. Cf. verbum "sucido -are": cuminum, liquido quodam addito, sucidatur.

text: :::#sucosus (post-Aug.) ad pedem litterarum de pomis et radicibus, insuper de resina et vino (sapidioribus?). A liberto quodam, Petronii persona, homo dives sucosum esse dicitur.

text: :::Si resina et vinum "sucosa" dici possunt, cur non Martius panis? Similitudinem harum rerum, potius quam lanae nuper tonsae, acciperim. Suciditatem puellae, contra sucositatem divitis, haud pensare possum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 13 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martius panis sucidus vel sucosus
Disputatio:Homo Denisovensis

message: The implication of the italicization of Homo denisovaensis is that we have here an accepted zoological name for a species. I hadn't realised that that's the case and it doesn't seem to be reflected across the Wikipedias; that's why I described it as "nomen informale" and didn't italicize it. However, it is Latin -- certainly not French, which is the context I happened to quote it from -- so I don't think that "nomen quasi Latinum" gives the right impression.
The alternative "Homo denisovensis" (which I hadn't encountered) might well be preferable -- good find, anyway -- but, if one of the two is an accepted zoological name, that's surely the one we ought to choose as pagename. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 14 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's italicized in the source, which does, however surround it with so-called scare quotes, so maybe it's not "official" yet, whatever that might mean; one gets the impression that zoologists are more casual about this than botanists, who (according to Stearn) make nothing "official" until it has a published Latin description. Nevertheless, as you suggest, maybe the term should be treated gingerly, with some sort of typographic signal. ¶ The adjective denisovaensis appears to be either quasi Latin or bad Latin (take your pick), as the suffix ensis regularly elides the vowel a, resulting in a long-ago advertised problem with Latin adjectives for Polynesian words, like Samoensis from Samoa and Tongensis from Tonga : Latin seems to assume that the elided a is a grammatical suffix (which can be dispensed with), whereas in Polynesian words, a final a is often, as in Samoa and Tonga, an integral part of a root. ¶ Traupman says the Latin term for 'informal' in the sense of 'unofficial' is privatus and otherwise suggests familiaris and facilis. Cassell's says to render the concept by a phrase and suggests haud sollemni more. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:34, 14 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks for your reply. Yes, I agree, "Denisovensis" is much more acceptable. So let's move to that, and capitalize it (as we do with place-name adjectives which are not part of scientific names) but not italicize it until or unless it is accepted as a scientific name. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:32, 14 Iulii 2019 (UTC)

text: :We have used "informalis" in this sense previously, I believe, and it is the word used in several modern languages, but I have to agree it shouldn't really mean this in Latin! I replaced it with a phrase: alternatively I think "familiaris", among your suggested alternatives, would work well. Feel free to insert this if you think it suits. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:43, 14 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nominibus
Disputatio:Bandar Seri Begawan

message: Adiutum peto, quia mihi non contigit, ut longitudinem geographicam falsam occidentalem in longitudinem veram orientalem corrigerem. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 09:07, 14 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
*Usori ignoto gratias ago. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 12:37, 14 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longitudo '''orientalis'''
Disputatio:Unio iuvenilis

message: Nomen unio iuvenilis ad verbum e theodisco Junge Union versum est (post aliqua improbata). Considerare autem debet, utrum conveniat. Non enim idem est ac aetas iuvenilis vel error iuvenilis, sed unio iuvenum est. --Bavarese (disputatio) 08:29, 19 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen vere probandum?
Disputatio:Epeus

message: UV carissime, cum de personis mythologicis agitur, Vicidata in vicipaedia Latina non inserenda sunt? Certe est? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:21, 19 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nihil pro certo habeas, mi Demetri: nullam enim regulam, capsam creans, ordinavi nisi quod ad "paginas biographicas" spectabam. (Ego sum qui "biographiam" Bacchi anno 2003 apud prelum Musei Britannici divulgari misi!) Confiteor autem: hic apud encyclopaediam nostram homines viventes historicosque praevidebam, qui omnes, sub ratione P31 ("est") apud Vicidata, descriptionem Q5 ("homo sapiens") habent. Hac ratione necnon aliis satis gravibus (P569 "dies natalis", P570 "dies obitus" etc.) Epeus tuus Bacchusque meus ab hominibus historicis et viventibus differunt. Possumus fortasse aliam capsam designare de personis mythologicis (et fictivis?) (et rebus mythologicis?)

text: Sed responsum UV exspecto. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:45, 20 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: : Our current  automatically adds :Categoria:Viri or :Categoria:Mulieres to a page according to the d:Property:P21 information given on wikidata. However, it seems practical to use :Categoria:Viri or :Categoria:Mulieres on articles about real humans only, because this makes automatic checks much easier (e. g.: What articles about humans do we have that lack a category about the year of birth?)

text: : (For articles about fictional or mythological characters, if we need/wish to specify their gender at all, I would suggest not to use :Categoria:Viri or :Categoria:Mulieres but instead (an appropriate subcategory of) :Categoria:Masculi or :Categoria:Feminae.)

text: : In my view, it would be good to have e. g. a  (that does not automatically add :Categoria:Viri or :Categoria:Mulieres), cf. :Categoria:Ideales and its many subcategories. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 12:05, 20 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Gratias ago, intellexi, cur haec non idonea essent. — Formulas Vicidata extrahentes scribere nequeo; si talis fuerit, aliquando utar. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:02, 20 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Mox tempto. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:59, 20 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: De Vicidatis
Disputatio:Masarinae

message: There's no citation supporting the name "Vespa pollinis". On the other hand, the first sentence seems to be dancing around the idea that we are talking about a subfamily "Masarinae", and that is definitely what the taxobox says. If so, our title should be "Masarinae". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:35, 25 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no answer, so I've moved. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 26 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Impetus incendiarius in Kyoto Animation

message: Mihi videtur "impetus/incursio + gen." = "impetus inimici", sed "impetus/incursio in + acc." = "impetus in victimam vel scopum". "Officina" loco studio scribo. An placet? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:13, 28 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita vero. And the current Latin title ("Impetus Institutionis Kyoto Animationis") misses the arson, as seen in other wikis:
replies: text: :Ataque incendiário à Kyoto Animation

text: :Attacco incendiario alla Kyoto Animation

text: :Brandanschlag auf Kyōto Animation

text: :Incendie criminel de Kyoto Animation

text: :Kyoto Animation arson attack

text: I'd suggest: Impetus incendiarius in Kyoto Animation. Suffixis absentibus, it's still obvious that Kyoto Animation is in the accusative. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:20, 28 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Impetus incendiarius in Kyoto Animation factus etiam mihi in animo haerebat. Neander (disputatio) 12:41, 28 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Nonne est factus definitionis pars? "Impetus incendiarius in Kyoto Animation in aedificio Studio 1 appellato Fushimi in vico Kyotensi mane diei 18 Iulii 2019 factus est." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:59, 28 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Ita quidem, si hoc modo commentationem incipere malis. Neander (disputatio) 13:08, 28 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: Mihi temen Impetus incendiarius in Kyoto Animation melior est. Quod actor Impetus totam Kyoto Animation et sedem in urbe Uji detruire volere putatur.--LilyKitty (disputatio) 18:16, 29 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda?
Disputatio:Guido de Maupassant

message: In mythistoricis liber tituli Le Penner Ignor enumeratur: opus dubium nec ulla testificatione firmatum, praeterea anno 1895, ut legimus, scriptum a poeta, qui anno 1893 mortuus est. Notumne est alicui vestrum titulus francicus huius operis? --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:07, 30 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene vidisti! Hoc nomen fictum ab anonymo anno 2006 in Vicipaediam Germanicam additum, etiam in unum librum publicatum irrepsit. Nunc ambas mentiones delevi. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:36, 30 Iulii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Le Penner Ignor (1895) 

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 13. Lipsiae 1908, p. 461 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons recensionis 2020