lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:'O sole mio

message: Apostrophe in articulo Neapolitano 'o (< lo < illo < ille) necessaria videtur (vide :nap:'O sole mio). Quaene in titulo restituenda est? Lesgles (disputatio) 04:47, 17 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fons, quem in pagina nostra citamus, apostropham non dat. Vicipaedia, etiamsi in lingua Neapolitana scribitur, non est fons fidelis. An sit auctoritas orthographiae Neapolitanae nescio. Tibi oportet, dico ego, fontem fidelem orthographiae quam proponis citare :)  ... quo citato, per me  move! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:25, 17 Maii 2015 (UTC)

text: Addo (sed iam scis) etymologiam nihil probare. Articulus Lusitanicus o, a eundem originem habet et sine apostropha scribitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 17 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Similiter in lingua Samoana, particula ʻo recte scripta usitatissme o scribitur. Inter alias res, locutio O sole mio Samoanice significat 'Oh, puer, erra!' et 'Oh, amice, vagare!' :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:23, 17 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Inventio iucunda! Fontem apostrophae propono hunc anni 1901, nescio an prima editio est. De auctoritatibus orthographicis nihil scio, sed hic liber satis fidelis videtur. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:14, 17 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Optime! fontem 1901 valde amo! Cita et move!

text: :::... Iam movi ego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:16, 18 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'O sole mio
Disputatio:Conventio Kanagawa

message: The English article on this is very confused. The main confusion carried over to us so far is the date. If the treaty was ratified in 1855 it cannot have been used in 1854. The explanation might be that Perry thought he had a treaty when he hadn't, or that he was using some earlier document and not the treaty of 1855, and maybe these explanations come to the same thing, but, whatever is true, our article (like the English article) needs a different title or a different first paragraph. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:04, 17 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I' ll check the Japanese then.--Jondel (disputatio) 15:11, 17 Maii 2015 (UTC)
Convention of Kanagawa or Treaty of Kanagawa is short for Convention of Peace and Amity between the United States of America and the Empire of Japan
In 1853 President Filmore ordered Perry to demand for the openning of trade. Perry attempted to demand but left. In 1854, Feb 13,  he enterred Edo bay,Tokyo bay and set up camp.Apparently negotiations were ongoing but this not mentioned. The treaty was then bound and sealed on March 31, 1854.--Jondel (disputatio) 15:36, 17 Maii 2015 (UTC)

text: ... and (according to the image caption) ratified in 1855? That could make sense. Thanks for checking. If that's the case, I'd say the inroductory paragraph of an article about the treaty needs to say when it was agreed, when it was ratified, and what its effect was; then we can go on to the exciting things that happened on the way there! Maybe we should rewrite the English article at the same time ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:51, 17 Maii 2015 (UTC)
-Treaty is 'bound' means agreed to right? Like ancient times many Japanese still use 'seal contracts like signing.
-I will work on the ratification info later.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:29, 17 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non stipula; scientia prava
Disputatio:Martha Washington

message: Washingtonius with its masculine ending seems a bit strange to me, but perhaps I am overreacting. Unfortunately, Glass's Life of George Washington seems to call her only uxor and vidua Custis. This brings up the general question of how our norms work with the names of spouses. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:31, 18 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a rare problem: it can only happen to us when one spouse is notable enough to have been fully named in Latin sources, and the other not as notable as that, but still notable enough to have an article.

text: If we don't have a source for "Martha Washingtonius", we have to change it, because (a) it's ungrammatical: Latin personal names don't work this way, (b) our strict rule is only to acccept a modern Latinized surname for the person to whom a reliable source has applied it. OK, if we change it, we change to "Martha Washington". Now, curiously, one of our early Latin sources for her husband's name makes it "Washington -is" -- so we could decide to change him to match. I just throw that in as a thought. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:16, 18 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :In Russian—not that it's really relevant—the rule is that if a foreign name looks like a second declension noun (ends in a consonant), it declines in the masculine but is indeclinable in the feminine. So George is is nom. Dzhordzh Vashington, gen. Dzhordzha Vashingtona, but Martha is nom. Marta Vashington, gen. Marty Vashington. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:54, 18 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washingtonius, Washingtonia, Washington
Disputatio:Africa meridiana

message: Nisi fontem habemus pro "... austrina", an oportet ad "Africa meridionalis" movere? Fontem huius nominis cito. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:00, 18 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, austrina was suggested by Neander. Meridionalis is postclassical, presumably formed out of meridianus in imitation of septentrionalis. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:36, 18 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :You're right, and we have recently preferred "meridianus -a -um" as being more classical. Well, I have now just found "Africa meridiana" in early modern Latin in the index to  (type "Africa meridiana" into the search box: but that volume seems to be purely an index, I haven't even started looking for the text yet). How would you feel about a move to "Africa meridiana"?

text: :I'll page Neander.

text: :NB: hic de regione loquimur. Nomen iam distinctum civitatis hodiernae habemus, Africa Australis sive "Res publica Africae australis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 19 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Profecto iucundum est, Iacobe, si me uti vis auctore! Equidem non memini me umquam de "Africa austrina" locutum esse. Itaque, nisi loco & tempore indicato dictum tuum confirmare poteris, quam severissime negabo me fontem esse istius nominis. Cave, ne ipse istud nomen finxeris. Neander (disputatio) 10:07, 19 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Recte mones, amice! Fons fuit noster Andreas. Lege hic: Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 18#South Africa vs. Southern Africa. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:44, 19 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Vivat acribia philologica! :–) Neander (disputatio) 12:09, 19 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Optime! Meipso igitur nunc "Africa meridiana" proponente, fonte denuo reperto, an quis abnuit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:44, 19 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Alibi argumentum prolatum est, quod "meridianus" non aptissimus est ad locos describendos in hemisphaerio australi, ubi sol meridianus ad boream iacet. Quod autem, si boni fontes "Africae meridianae" sunt, fortasse non est maximi momenti. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:04, 20 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Admitto, sed hoc casu (a) fontes (boni quamquam ab Europaeanis scripti) "meridiana" et "meridionalis" habent (b) utile est regionem modo simplici a civitate distinguere (ob eandem rationem "austrina" olim proposita est, fonte eo tempore carente). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:37, 20 Maii 2015 (UTC)
De austrina, N.B.: Aethiopsestis austrina in Zimbabua et Africa Australi, ac Pisulia austrina in Tanzania et Africa Australi invenitur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:23, 20 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Interfecti

message: Quomodo differunt inter se categoriae interfectorum et necatorum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:07, 19 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nostra categorizatione "interfecti" sunt ad mortem ullo modo coacti; "necati" sunt insidiis vel crimine interfecti. Aliae subcategoriae huius categoriae illos homines enumerant, qui sine crimine interfecti sunt. Anglice interfecti sunt "killed"; necati sunt "murdered". An aliam terminologiam Latinam proponere vis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 19 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Non, sed Thomas a Becket martyr ut videtur "necatus," non "interfectus" est, sed vide: Categoria:Martyres > Categoria:Interfecti, non > Categoria:Necati. Similiter multi martyres. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:43, 19 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Quidam martyres supplicio rite damnati sunt; alii crimine necati. Si paginam de martyri crimine necato legis, bene erit categoriam "Necati" addere -- id quod, te monente, nuper in pagina Thomae Becket feci. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 19 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Interfecti + Necati
Disputatio:Michael Gove

message: That's an amusing one, but we'll have to change it, I think. It probably means "into criminality" or "into a criminal act". It wouldn't be fair on Michael Gove to make that assumption: some Lord Chancellors have managed to function within the law. Indeed, according to a very reliable source, they "embody the law". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:46, 23 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the succession box, in which those words appeared, with a navigation box, so the issue ceases to arise :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 23 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In crimen"
Disputatio:Matrimonium hominum eiusdem sexus

message: Locutionem "Matrimonium aequum" e prima sententia removi quia haec est alia res, mea mente, i.e. matrimonium quo duo participes aequalitatem habent. An recte censui? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:05, 24 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's not "gay marriage" either (despite myriad headlines), because it requires no confession of sexual orientation. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:25, 24 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matrimonium aequum
Disputatio:Ed Asner

message: Secundum nostrum commentarium, natus est Kansiopoli Kansiae. Sic alibi legimus
replies: text: apud de: "Edward Asner (eigentlich Yitzhak Edward Asner, auch Ed Asner; * 15. November 1929 in Kansas City, Kansas)"

text: apud fr: "Edward Asner est un acteur et producteur américain, né le 15 novembre 1929 à Kansas City, dans le Kansas."

text: apud pl: "Yitzak Edward Asner (ur. 15 listopada 1929 w Kansas w stanie Kansas, USA)"
Sed etiam legimus

text: apud en: "Asner was born on November 15, 1929 in Kansas City, Missouri."

text: apud es: "Nacimiento Bandera de los Estados Unidos Kansas City, Misuri, Estados Unidos"

text: apud pt: "Edward "Ed" Asner (Kansas City (Missouri), 15 de novembro de 1929)"

text: apud ru: "Эдвард Аснер (англ. Edward Asner; род. 15 ноября 1929, Канзас-Сити, Миссури, США)"
Confirmat autem New York Times, acta diurna maximi momenti, civitatem fuisse Missuriam (http://www.nytimes.com/movies/person/2608/Ed-Asner/biography). Ergo, textum mutabimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:44, 24 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Textum mutavimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:49, 24 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualis Kansiopolis?
Disputatio:Henricus III (rex Francorum)

message: "Imago constituitur tribus coronis quae significant regnum Franciae et Poloniae atque inscriptio quae explicat tertiam coronam "Manet ultima caelo"." Quae imago? Ubi est imago? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:06, 25 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removi
Disputatio:Rabatum

message: Propono paginam ad "Rabatum" movere. "Oppidum Novum" est nomen etymologice optimum, sed "Rabatum" cum nominibus hodiernis consonat et utilius erit quando de urbe principali civitatis Maroci loqui volumus. An quis disputat? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:34, 28 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Mihi placet, praesertim quia nexus inter urbem antiquam et hodiernam incertus videtur. Indicia aliquantum contradictoria invenio de hoc Oppido Novo et de Sala, quae iuxtá sita fuisse dicitur. Certe multum explicandum est. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:45, 30 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias tibi ago. Movi. Nomen alterum "Oppidum Novum" non delevi, quia Hofmannus id nomen Rabato dat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:41, 31 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda
Disputatio:Serraculum

message: Haec non est pagina encyclopaedica sed lemma lexicale. Aut de seraglio, aut de alia re debet disserere. Insuper fons hic citatus non demonstrat verbum Latinum "serraculum" idem significare atque seraglio (nescio an re vera verbum hanc significationem habuit necne). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 31 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Delenda?
Disputatio:Calligraphia Georgiana

message: A youtube film in Georgian is not reasonable as our only source. We have to have a source that one or two Vicipaedians can understand and can judge to be reliable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 31 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I added one more; probably not the best source, but it's in English and Russian. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:52, 1 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks! When Latin isn't available, English and Russian will do nicely, I'd say :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:14, 1 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source
Disputatio:Corazón Aquino

message: Disputationem in pagina encyclopaedica celatam hic deposui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:14, 4 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Benigno Aquino coniuge occiso fuit prima praeses Philippinarum femina.
Somewhat misleading: under the constitution, spouses didn't automatically succeed to office (as the sentence implies).   
 
Jondel : ok. I corrected this intending to say: Her husband was Benigno Aquino   whose death incited a revolution against Marcos. Immediately after she became  the first femaile president through elections.hope this is correct.  --Jondel 04:11, 2 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
Mortua est cancro colorectali. In Suetonius, Claudies dies "veneno," not "ob venenum"; so unless there's proof that an idiom with "ob" is preferable to the ablative of means, I'm changing it here
God! You should write a dictionary about idiomatic usage maybe limited to the first 1000 most used words. I have a hard time finding idiomatic usage at Whitaker's, Collins or Turenberg's. [Removed false attribution. This certainly wasn't me speaking. I never use any of those sources. No idea what Turenberg's is. -- Andrew]
replies: text: Jesus! Awesome idea!! But there are so many idiomatic dictionaries and and what about the internet?(as )  AAAAND I still am not sure about my latin. HMMMMMMM. I do work as an interpreter which makes me feel the need for idiomatic usage but that's for Japanese.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:14, 5 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the compliment.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:15, 5 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
oops. I see it was copied from the hidden text at the article. ok.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:37, 5 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textus celatus
Disputatio:Congelatorium

message: Hic commentarius fortasse in commentarium Armarium frigidarium confundi debet. (Formulam nescimus.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:20, 6 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nihilominus, hic habemus duas res: instrumentum quod "cools" (refrigerat, ergo frigidarium) et instrumentum quod "freezes" (congelat, ergo congelatorium). Contra quod multi vici dicunt, "a thing that cools something" non est "a thing that freezes something." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:20, 6 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Verbis recentissimis tuis consentio! Frigidarium et congelatorium inter se differunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 6 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentarius duplex
Disputatio Categoriae:Musea Germanica

message: Is this category correctly named? It would seem to include the Busch–Reisinger Museum, founded under the name of the Germanic Museum, dedicated to treating art exclusively from the German-speaking countries of Europe, and located in Cambridge, Massachusetts—but the other entries (and the categories of which this is a subcategory) imply that the category is for museums located only in Germany. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:12, 6 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Rima (poësis)

message: An possumus brevius? (Extremorum verborum similis sonitus mihi dicit, e.g., extrema regis Georgii V verba "Bugger Bognor.")Mi paenitet: si en:wiki vera dicit, non fuerunt extrema regis verba :) Consonatio? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 18 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Extremorum verborum similis sonitus" mihi videtur non definiendum (lemma) esse sed definiens; velut: [X]definiendum est [extremorum verborum similis sonitus]definiens, ubi X = homoeoteleuton vel rima (apud Pitkäranta). Neander (disputatio) 17:54, 18 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Recte dicite; hunc titulum ad tempus optavi, nam melius non inveneram. De hoc usu extremi, cf. in extrema oratione, i.e. "in extrema parte orationis", non "in ultima oratione". Ut Neander autem dicit, verum lemma non est. Differentia inter homoeoteleuton et rhyme non mihi clara videtur; vide e.g. opiniones in :fr:Homéotéleute#Rime et homéotéleute, itaque censeo non bonum eos miscere. Fortasse rima est optima, dummodo discretionem ab antiqua vocabuli significatione ("hiatus") facimus. (Bugger rhyme!) Lesgles (disputatio) 18:28, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Verbum "rima" laete accipio si in textu Latino (etiam recente) reperitur. Nunquam vidi ...

text: ::OK, OK, iam repperi apud auctorem Constantino Nigra, qui anno 1869 de carminibus Latinis saec. IV et V scripsit. Textum habetis pag. xxxi (magnificare oportet!). "Assonantia finalis vel rima ... primum occurrit in hymnis Latinis ecclesiae mediolanensis ..." Quo lecto, possumus (mea mente) aut "assonantia finalis" aut "rima" eligere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:50, 12 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Vide etiam DMLBS, "rima": "1392 fecerunt quandam ~am in Anglicis verbis ‥ que ‥ ~a sequitur in hec verba: in the contre herd was we / that in our soken schrewes shuld be / with al for to bake AncIndict 116 m. 11." Et "rimare, rimiare". Definitio "rhyme" reperitur etiam in concidentia, consonantia, euphonia, sed haec omnia ambigua sunt. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:21, 12 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Spes (hymnus nationalis Israëlis)

message: I moved to the straight Hebrew title because this is our normal rule for writings whose title has not been translated by a reliable source. The redirect remains, of course.
Our other rule is that the full text of a work shouldn't be included in the article: full texts are for Wikisource. If we are quoting, it should be clear to the reader why we are quoting.
It's not clear to me whether there is any copyright issue about the text itself or about the Latin translation, whose source needs to be stated. If it is by a Wikipedian, we can say that. Do we know? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, the infelicities of Noster Spes and due milium and Liber Popolus in noster patria suggest it's by a wikipedian, perhaps the unnamed one who created the article. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:07, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Blush ... Thanks for pointing that out. I corrected the first sentence but didn't read the translation. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:42, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Our rule has now changed: for pagenames in foreign scripts we now substitute the best Latin translation we can. That seems to be "spes", which requires disambiguation, so I'll make a suitable move. Better suggestions welcome of course. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 16 Octobris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melioranda
Disputatio:Omana

message: Mihi videtur hoc nomen usque adhuc nullo Vicipaediano interfuit! Historici, nisi fallor, locum ab Omanis (2. decl. pl.) antiquis differre censent, sed nomen idem esse, propter migrationem populi translatum. Fontem "Omaniae" non reperio. Ergo movere volo ad "Omana (civitas)". An quis disputare velit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fonte citato, movere non iam necesse est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:57, 24 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :An anonymous editor concealed a remark in English in the page. I copy it here: "the adjective oman[i]ensis could come from Oman (indeclinable), Omanus, Omana or Omanum, thus the adjective does not attest any substantive; and Oman Omana and Omanum (accusative) can be found in New Latin texts and might mean Oman in English." That is true, but, as I said above in Latin, we already had a citation for "Omania": I have now slightly rearranged the footnotes to make the fact clearer. Citations for "Oman Omana and Omanum" would still be welcome: given such citations, anyone could propose moving the page. The use of English is fine on talk pages :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 7 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Tetrapharmacus

message: "hoc lemma in linguam Latinam converti oportere censeo. haec, quae dicitur, Latinitas horribilis lectu est." Haec verba anonymus ad caput paginae affixit (nihil autem correxit). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:16, 25 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placitum anonymum
Disputatio:Achraf Baznani

message: Achraf Baznani is being persistently spammed across the Wikipedias. To keep an article about him here we will want sufficient Latin text, containing accurate information, and reliable sources showing his notability. IMDb is not a reliable source, but since it tells us that he produced (and wrote and directed) one short film in 2007, and that's all, and the star was a member of his family, I think it shows that in film terms Achraf Baznani is not notable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:30, 25 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delenda?
Disputatio:Ioannes Baptista

message: Why on earth cite four sources, three of them in modern Greek and one in English, against the claim that many people call this fellow "Sanctus Ioannes Baptista"? 1. Modern Greek and English sources do not prove anything about a Latin name unless they quote it in Latin. 2. It is not controversial that he is called Saint John the Baptist: surely no one disagrees that he is called that? At most we could handily add one source giving the name in in Latin. To add four sources, not in Latin, in a footnote against the Latin name "Sanctus Ioannes Baptista" is just useless.
But we ought to cite at least one reliable source for the information on the page. As we do for any page.
I'm not much of a religion freak, but it seems to me that some good information on this topic is found in St Matthew's Gospel. It also seems to me that a well-known Latin version of that text exists.
So, thinking about it, I am going to remove all those three Greek references. I am going to add a reference to Matthew, with a link to the online Vulgate edition. That means that anyone reading our article will see that there is a source -- readable in Latin -- about John the Baptist, confirming what we say and giving more details than we currently do. That will help some readers of this article. And that's the first thing we need to do: if there is a good and obvious source, cite the good and obvious source. 
While doing this I noticed that the English footnote reference, one of the four, had been designed by somebody (on some other Wikipedia I expect) to show the date at which John the Baptist is thought to have been executed. That's actually useful, so I have added the date to our text and tried to bring the reference closer to bibliographical perfection. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:04, 25 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I've put some Greek back in -- his name in Greek and the earliest sources for it. Question: am I inconsistent? Answers on a postcard to this address ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:26, 25 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thinking about it