lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Iarchas

message: Haec mihi videtur omnia a Lexico Universali Hofmanni dempta: vide :s:la:LexUniv:Iarchas. Licet Hofmanno uti, si res utiles praebet, sed (a) debemus fontes nostros aperte citare, (b) si ad verbum citamus, debemus id punctis " " citare. Paginam igitur rescribendam suadeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:13, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:34, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :You caught me in the act! I was in the process of going through Hofmann to see what might be useful, but I decided to stick with the basics; the rest seems to be musings about connections between authors, and his story about the rings seems to be different from the one in the link I gave to Philostratus. I tried to include both; maybe someone can sort it out better. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:40, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sorry to be hasty -- the topic interested me. eep in mind, if starting a page with some text that isn't in proper form yet, you can add the tag  ... or you can forget to do so, of course, as I sometimes do. There's no problem at all :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:10, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Good to know: I had forgotten about that tag. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:14, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I meant to add -- that Hofmann article is a nice find: I wouldn't have expected him to have an article at all, let alone one with so many referecnes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:43, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textus ex Hofmanno mutuatus
Disputatio:Tunna

message: No, these are not dolia.
# To know what dolia are, see :en:Dolium, where there is a nice picture.
# At a quick stab I would say "Cupa" is the usual term in late and medieval Latin for a wooden barrel -- see Du Cange, a far better source than Vilborg.
# For a metal drum, as illustrated, you might try using "orca" perhaps ... see Horca and orca in Du Cange ...
They are all different things ... But, sorry, I haven't time to pursue the terminology right now! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:37, 23 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Pagina Anglica, ab Andrea indicata, tam bonam profert antiquitatis scientiam, quae omitti non debeat. At Vilborg, Pitkäranta ac Cassell's dolium praebent ad rem, quae Suecice tunna, Finnice tynnyri, Anglice barrell appellatur, indicandam; non solum dolium praebent sed etiam cupam et orcam, Cassell's insuper seriam. Equidem nescio quid faciamus. Constat omnia vasa his tribus proprietatum notis definiri describique posse, quae sunt forma, materia, functio. Quas proprietates, quae certe inter se pendent, etiam constat cum temporibus mutari. Itaque, cum apud posteros dolium ad 'barrell' etc referatur, nonne, mutatis quidem materiá et formà, usus et functio ac capacitas plus minus idem remansit? Fortasse oportet scribi commentationem longiorem dolium inscriptam, quae id, quomodo intellectus et usus dolii cum temporibus mutati sint, pertractet? ¶ Apud antiquos permulta vasorum genera erant. Nonne amphora, ampulla, arca, arpa, cadus, calathus, calix, cisterna, congius, culleus, cupa, cyathus, cratera, dolium, hirnea, lagoena, orca, olla, patera, poculum, pyxis, saccus, seria, simpulum, simpuvium, sitella, situla, testa, urceus, urna, et scilicet vas, suam quaeque commentationem requirant? Neander (disputatio) 09:51, 25 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :De hac ultima re pro certo consentio, sed an Cassell et amici sui recte de identitate "dolii" cum tunna, tynnyri et barrel iudicant, valde dubito. Usus differt: dolium enim (cf. Anglice vat) ad vinum gignendum servit (sicut et cupa); vasa autem lignea et metallica, quae in pagina nostra illustrantur et barrels Anglice appellantur, ad conservandum et transportandum (sicut amphorae et cullei sive aevo mediaevali barilli tunnaeque). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:09, 25 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Certe ita est ut dicis. Ex quo hoc elucet: solis lexicis non esse confidendum, ut et ego saepe dixi saepiusque cogitavi. Nesciebam tunnam Latinitate mediaevali testatam esse, neque omnino multum de his rebus scio. Profecto paginà egemus de harum rerum typologià disserenti. Neander (disputatio) 21:51, 25 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Recte dicit Andreas, dolium Romanum suam poscere commentationem (cf. :en:Dolium). Itaque hanc commentationem de receptaculo moderno disserentem ad "tunnam", vocabulum mediaevale, mutavi -- ad tempus quidem, nam nescio, an ad alium titulum mutanda sit. Fortasse "seria" aut "orca"? Neander (disputatio) 07:26, 23 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dolium?
Disputatio:Shabbat

message: This article is slowly and progressively being merged with the Sabbatum article. Your help would be appreciated.Jondel (disputatio) 06:23, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sabbatum

message: Hic articulus paulatim gradatimque immescatur cum Sabbatum. Auxilium vestrum/tuum valde gratum sit.Jondel (disputatio) 06:29, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Scriptoribus
Disputatio:Malaucena

message: Petraca, poeta magnus, in latina hoc oppidum appellavit "Malaucena" (Epistulae familiares 4.1). Per gratiam haec pagina ad "Malaucena" moveatur. 66.31.88.67 22:04, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene invenisti, 66. Paginam movi. Lesgles (disputatio) 04:07, 1 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Petrarca
Disputatio:Aeon

message: I took out these two names because I don't immediately see evidence that these were the names of a god. By all means put them back, but with a source! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:52, 28 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. :) I understand the situation. But I've got a question recently: do we know if he was also called "Aion" in Latin by the Romans, or/and by later people? -- Donatello (disputatio) 22:08, 28 Octobris 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: :Aeon. Ai in Greek was normally transliterated Ae in Latin, and we do it that way just as the Romans did. There is at least one Latin author who regarded Aeon as a god, or maybe rather Aeones as gods. I'll give a citation. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:31, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I see. Thanks. Good that you added a source. -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:47, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  Aevum? Saeculum?
Disputatio:Felis catus anura

message: Manx is not a Latin noun, it's an English adjective (meaning "from the Isle of Man"). The Latin name of the breed seems from Google to be "Felis catus anura", so I suggest moving to that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:22, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:18, 23 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Arca

message: There's no reason that I can see why we should have an article about "big arcae" separate from one about "little arcae". So I made the space "arca" available and I am now moving this page to that name.
I removed some unnecessary linking. We need to link intelligently to the special topics most useful to a reader and relevant to the article -- not to simple, common words like "annus" and "homo".
Since this is a classical word for a long-established concept, I took out the reference to Norstedt and instead I gave a reference to the oldest Latin use of the word -- in Cato's De agri cultura. It's hardly necessary, but I thought it interesting because it also supplies the phrase "arca vestiaria". Such references can usually be found by typing the word in at this page and making it an "exact search". If the search result is difficult to understand, others will be able to help to interpret it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 30 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice picture of Lindberg's chest, by the way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 30 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :I see. Good that you added a references to the name. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 01:39, 2 Novembris 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: ::Fine. It was strange that the title "Arca" was occupied by Noah's Ark. I feel sure this is nearly always known in Latin as "Arca Noë", so I moved it to there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 2 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio Categoriae:Programmatura applicativa

message: "Suadetur ut haec commentatio cum Categoria:Programmata computatralia contribuatur. De quo sententiam tuam, rogamus, profer in pagina disputationis."
replies: text: Programmatura applicativa is application software, with examples catalogued at :en:Category:Application software. It's a distinct and well-established subset of software (programmatura computatralis), with examples catalogued at :en:Software. What would be the reason for mixing examples of these concepts promiscuously? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:56, 31 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: : Thank you, I have now modified the wikidata entries of these two categories accordingly. --UV (disputatio) 21:10, 31 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: ?
Disputatio Formulae:Capsa montis

message: Ita, contribuere oportet. "Infobox mountain" formam pulchriorem offert sed cum multis parametris haud utilibus. Quis habiliter contribuere potest?! 
Yes, they should be merged. "Infobox mountain" is a smarter design but has many unnecessary parameters. But who has the skills to do the merger? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:02, 3 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged them now and introduced a more sensible syntax, although this template can clearly be improved. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 15:50, 3 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribuenda
Disputatio:Mors

message: Mos est noster imagines in paginis ponere, quae ad 1000 Paginas adhibuntur.  Restitui ergo has quae iam in pagina fuerunt;  si quis meliores inveniat, substitue, quaeso! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:28, 6 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De illustrationibus
Disputatio:Styx

message: " it vitae post mortem ire" Quid id dicere voluit?--118.160.25.160 06:48, 9 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Multa praterea corrigenda... Paulum recensui. Valeas.-- Ioscius  ∞ 22:45, 9 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: quaestio
Disputatio:Petrus Calungsod

message: Mos Vicipaediae est generaliter in prima sententia verbo fuit uti, quod de vita subiecti ut de una summa finita agitur. Fuit igitur restitui. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:38, 12 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Neminis nisi Iustini secutus sum institutionem - neque credo utrum tempus esse praeferendum - suntque paginae quibus imperfectum adhibeatur. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 18:34, 13 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Indicium tuum studium excitat. Ego quoque erat in sententias primas utebar, dum admonitiones contrarias legi (Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 10#esse, Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 4#fuit, etc.) Res non lucida videtur, fortasse de differentiis sententiae dependet, e.g. estne prima sententia summarium vitae aut descriptio scaenae vitae (background). Est etiam aspectus historicus; vide . Lesgles (disputatio) 22:32, 13 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

text: Gratias ad te et Neander ago. Pro certo habeas me laborare latine nam caecus interndum erroribus mihi.Jondel (disputatio) 13:06, 13 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuit et erat
Disputatio:Clepsydra (horologium)

message: Donatello, thinking back to the previous discussion, I think this is a good case where adding the genitive form really isn't necessary. Clepsydra is a regular first-declension noun, just like mensa, amica, rosa, etc., which every student of Latin learns how to decline in the first few weeks of instruction. The same goes for 2nd-declension nouns in -us (servus, hortus, etc.). I do think it's useful to indicate irregular or unusual forms, but is there a particular reason you think people would be confused about clepsydra? Of course in the greater scheme of things it doesn't matter too much, and a lot of our articles do include obvious grammatical information. Nonetheless, the consensus in the Taberna seemed to be that it wasn't necessary. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:18, 16 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings Lesgles. Yes, I remember that discussion and I do agree with it. :) I was thinking that clepsydra is a word people aren't so sure how to decline. But if you are sure that it's an easy word to know, like mensa, amica, rosa, etc, then it should be removed. -- Donatello (disputatio) 12:47, 16 Novembris 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: :Well, perhaps its Greek origin will cause some people to hesitate. It's not a big problem for me, so I think it's fine to leave it. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:12, 16 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Okey. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 12:34, 17 Novembris 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  "-ae"
Disputatio Vicipaediae:De nominibus propriis/de

message: # Gibt es Regeln für den Fall des Vorliegens mehrerer lateinischer Varianten eines Ortsnamens? Welche der Varianten wird zum Hauptnamen und Titel des Artikels, so dass die anderen automatisch zu Aliasnamen werden? Ein nettes Beispiel, bei dem die Wahl bereits (irgendwie) auf "Tremonia" gefallen ist, ist Dortmund (alias Dormunda, Dortmunda, Dredmonna, Drodmannia, Drotmanni vicus, Drotmannia, Drutmannia, Throdmannia, Throtmannia, Thrutmana, Thrutmannia, Tramonia, Tremona, Trimonia, Trotmania, Trotmannia, Trudimonia, Trutmania, Trutmannia, Trutmonia, Trutmundi villa, Truttmanni villa). Ein Beispiel, das mich gerade beschäftigt, ist die polnische Stadt Częstochowa - in lateinischsprachigen Quellen bekannt als Czanstochowa, Czanstachowa, Czanstocowa, Czastochova, Czastochowa, Czenstacowa, Zanthocova. Gefühlsmäßig würde ich z.B. Varianten vorziehen, die möglichst nur im Latein verwendete Buchstaben enthalten, so dass ich das V dem W vorziehen würde.
# Nehmen wir an aus einem mittelalterlichen Dorf ist eine Stadt geworden. Der Name der heutigen Stadt gleicht in der Landessprache dem des mittelalterlichen Dorfes oder es ist zumindest eine Kontinuität in der Entwicklung vom Dorf- zum Stadtnamen erkennbar. Spricht nun etwas dagegen, den lateinischen Namen des Dorfes, der an den damaligen Namen in Landessprache angelehnt war, zur Bezeichnung der heutigen Stadt zu verwenden, wenn ein gebräuchlicher lateinischer Name der heutigen Stadt nicht auffindbar ist? -- Ben4Wiki (disputatio) 23:22, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zwei Problemfälle...
Disputatio:Colonizatio Americae Hispanica

message: I think we have agreed that the word order exemplified in "Hispaniae Americarum colonizatio" is nice, but not ideal for article titles. We have certainly agreed (but Iacobus hasn't commented, and may hold an opposing view) that "Americae", as a Latin equivalent of what some call "America" and others "the Americas", isn't used commonly, if at all. Hence my move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 19 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title
Disputatio:Americani

message: The first sentence seems to suggest that "Americani Nativae" [sic] in the United States are not citizens. If that's wrong (I'm no expert!) I think it needs to be altered to remove the implication. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:12, 19 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this be true 

message: "Americanus" est ille qui in America habitet, id est, non tantum in CFA sed etiam in Brazilia sive in Canadia sive in ceteris regionibus Americae.
Fortasse melius sit hanc paginam vocare "populum Civitatium Foederatum Americae".
thread_title:  Americani
Disputatio:Cena

message: Utilis ... sed oportet Latinitatem recensere, nexus in alias paginas addere, antithesin Romano-Americanam elidere: haec enim est encyclopaedia neque Romana neque Civitatum Foederatarum sed mundialis :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:24, 19 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicificanda
Disputatio:Aegae

message: Oportet uti aut normali translitteratione nominis hodierni (scil. Bergina) aut nomine antiquo Graecolatino (scil. Aegae). Ego "Aegae" malo, sed alii fortasse aliter? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 20 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Baptistae

message: Locutionem "Ecclesia Baptistica" apud Vicipaediam tantum reperio. Alibi (Googles ope) perpaucis locis video "Ecclesia Baptista" et "Ecclesia Baptistarum". Nescio an aliud nomen reperiri potest.
I can only find "Ecclesia Baptistica" here on Vicipaedia. I have noted via google a very few instances of "Ecclesia Baptista" and "Ecclesia Baptistarum": maybe there is still another name that I haven't thought of? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:22, 23 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply created the article by pressing the link from the Martin Luthor King Jr. article. On the other hand, maybe we should change the title. I will investigate.

text: Tantum creavi cum impressissem nexus ex re Martinus Lutherus King Jr.. Autem lemma mutemus. Investigabo.Jondel (disputatio) 12:41, 24 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: : Suadeo, ut titulus ad formam q.e. "Baptistae" mutetur. Sub eo titulo possimus et ecclesiam et doctrinam Baptistarum tractare.

text: : Suosittelen, että otsikko muutetaan muotoon "Baptistae". Sen alla voimme käsitellä sekä baptistikirkkoa että heidän oppiaan. :–)  Neander (disputatio) 18:04, 24 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Macte Neander! Concordo.Jondel (disputatio) 13:30, 25 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Consimt şi eu. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 25 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Optime Andrew!Jondel (disputatio) 14:05, 25 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Galaesus

message: It's good to have this page. I took out the link to a Google search: anyone can do a Google search, and if they do it they will find that only a proportion of the finds are relevant: not good enough for us to use :) Instead I added a bibliographical reference borrowed from the Italian wikipedia. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:48, 24 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
I also added some ancient sources, replacing the reference to Norstedt. That book gave us a start, which is great, but it's not the best authority on Italian rivers. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 24 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Okey, I understand. :) Good that you added these ancient sources. Now we just have to add pictures of the river which unfortunately do not exist in Wikimedia Commons. -- Donatello (disputatio) 00:36, 27 Novembris 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  References
Disputatio:Metempsychosis

message: Ave omnibus. Da mihi veniam. Nexus mutare velim in aliis linguis e. g. Anglice ex 'Reincarnation' ad Metempsychosis (in wikipedia Anglice ). Etiam mox creare velim rem 'Reincarnatio'. Quod differt est reincarnatio postulet mortem, metempsychosis non, ante mutatio.Jondel (disputatio) 10:40, 28 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Haec igitur facere oportet. 1. Ab hac pagina i ad paginam Wikidata (via "Nexus recensere"): remove lineam de pagina Latina. 2. Postea i ad paginam ":en:Metempsychosis" et inde ad paginam Wikidata respectivam (via "Edit links"). Adde lineam de pagina Latina "Metempsychosis". OK? Si enim nexus mutare vis, oportet antea paginam e malis nexibus extrahere, postea inter bonos nexus inserere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 28 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ok.Bene. Addam lineam la:metempsychosis in Anglice wikipedia re Reincarnation in wikidata.Crastine faciam. Obiter varias in ipsa re metempsychosis emendabo.Gratias consilio tuo.Jondel (disputatio) 12:00, 28 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nexus seiuncti pro novo re 'Reincarnatio'
Disputatio:Canarienses indigenae

message: "Guanchus" mihi nomen male confectum videtur. An fontem habemus? Horum indigenarum nomen proprium in fontibus Latinis non reperio: sunt simpliciter "nativi" aut "indigenae". Verbum exstat classicum "Canarii", sed hi fuerunt Mauritaniae, non insularum, nativi. Igitur "Canarienses indigenae" propono. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 28 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Istud etiam lemmatei Hispanico "Aborígenes canarios" correspondeat; consentio ego. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:34, 13 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Festum Gratias Agendi

message: Suntne boni fontes harum conversionum in Latinum? Unum in Ephemere inveni: "De qua re ultima septimana denuo Bostoniae agitabatur, die scilicet Supplicationis (Anglice Thanksgiving) peracto", sed puto alii esse debere. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:32, 28 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fontes
Disputatio:Curia municipalis

message: Hanc paginam non conspiciens paginam Buleuterium creavi. Credo vocabulum buleuterium proprie Graecum videri, sed si fons est, quaeso ut addas eum. Ecce textus paginae contribuendus: "Buleuterium administrativum municipii sive communis organum est et ab uno praetore sive praetore urbis, locali administrationi et sessioni plenariae praesidente, et a symbulis formari solet qui, in sessione plenaria congregati, normativam potestatem gradu locali exercent. Sensu lato, quoque ad aedificium ubi praecipua instituti sedes est referri solet." Lesgles (disputatio) 18:48, 29 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  E pagina [[Buleuterium]]
Disputatio:Dorothea Ficquelmont

message: De scriptis eius fere nihil in aliis Vicipaediis reperio nisi de "Diario" quod Francogallice scripserit. Si igitur aliquid Russice scripsit, oportet de hac re addere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 30 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Puto te recte categorias fecisse; fieri potest ut, similiter aliorum mulierum nobilium huius temporis, solum Francogallice scribebat. Sed oculos apertos tenebo. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:25, 2 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scriptor, sed qua lingua utens?
Disputatio:Cura liberorum

message: This article at present discusses two cultures, ancient Rome and what it calls "modern society" (United States, one suspects). OK, but an encyclopedia needs to try to cover a whole definable topic: either the whole world, or maybe one specific culture, but not two random different ones. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 2 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I'm not a fan of the verb title either. Since the content seems to correspond not to feeding or nourishing but to parenting/childrearing, maybe it should be "educatio liberorum/familiaris" (or "cultus"?). Lesgles (disputatio) 17:23, 4 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicificanda