lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Litteratura

message: What is the relation between Litteratura and Litterae? --Roland2 21:03, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the etymologic, little. Often people think they need a vide etiam in an article, and search for one that's close.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:03, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :This page has the same interwiki links as page Litterae. --Rolandus 20:29, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Interesting ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:51, 14 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Litteratura vs Litterae
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Usores

message: Shouldn't this page be moved to Vicipaedia:Usores? --Roland2 20:07, 14 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio. --UV 22:39, 20 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: : Done. --Roland2 19:41, 11 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

message: Estne Wikipaedia lingua Graece antiqua?  Si est, responde.
interrogavit Californicus --UV 06:34, 14 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nondum est, vide m:Requests for new languages/Ancient#Attic Greek. Sed petitio creandi vicifontem linguae Graeciae antiquae approbatum est, vide m:Request for new languages/grc et incubator:Test-ws/grc. --UV 06:34, 14 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estne Wikipaedia Graeca Antiqua
Disputatio:Defectio solis

message: * +3 (bona) --Alex1011 08:12, 2 Martii 2007 (UTC)
* +3 (bona) --Marc mage 10:07, 2 Martii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LATINITAS

message: Curiosus sum, ubi invenisti nomen "defectus solis" pro anglico "eclipse". Dubitatem non habeo, modo volo cognoscere. Est pagina bona, at etiam emendationes parvae necesse remanent.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:09, 15 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's 20 years or older, certainly public domain. But if you cite, and have links to online sources, you should be alright. As for the word itself, in modern dictionaries, I have found defectus,us; defectio,nis; and eclipsis,is proper. I will check the OLD later tonight when I stop by the department, to see how these three words are used by classical authors. We should almost certainly have a redirect page, whatever we decide, from Eclipsis solis.
Interea inveni in "Stowasser" vocabularium auctorum classicorum "defectio solis". In "The Loeb Classical Library", Ammianus Marcellinus, inveni in titulum paragraphi "defectus solis". Nescio an hoc titulum de ipso Ammiano est an, quod verisimilius puto, de editoribus modernis. Postremo in "Langenscheidt" ut neologismum vel serum verbum latinum inveni "eclipsis, -is, f solis". 
"Defectus, -us, m" non classicum verbum esse videtur, sed defectio, -nis, f. Alex1011 17:59, 15 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Ok...here's what I found:
For defectio:
* defectiones solis et lunae cognita - Cic.Pis.84
* dicitur perfecta defectio quae stellas quoque ostendit - Sen.Nat.112.1
For defectus:
* musae sidera monstrent, defectus solis varios lunaeque labores - Luc.5.751
* praenuntians horas...solis lunaeque defectuum - Plin.Nat.25.10
* dilutior erit defectus - Amm.Marc. 20.3
For eclipsis (really a greek word ἐκλείψσις):
* eclipsis quando fit cur luna laboret? -Var.Men.231

text: and
** solis eclipsis magis mirantur quam lunae Var.Rhet.Her.3.36
* ad praedicendum eclipsim Hyg.Astr.4.14
Defectus seems to be a poetic preferrence, and eclipsis an archaic and graecophilic choice. Defectio seems to be the classical prose choice. I think we should move to defectio, and make a redirect from eclipsis.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:36, 15 Maii 2006 (UTC)
I moved it. (in the text of Ammianus Marcellinus in this article I found now one "defectus" as noun. I added this above to your list.) For solis I have used small letter spelling because it is not the God Sol but the star sol. (The  declination of eclipsis is also more difficult, I think, for non-Graecists.) Alex1011 09:00, 16 Maii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: eclipse
Disputatio Categoriae:Stipulae theoria musicae

message: Are these two categories redundant?  I see neither is heavily populated -- can they be merged? --Alynna Kasmira 02:03, 16 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I would prefer not, Alynna, there are big plans in the works for the music theory category, and I'd like a special template and special subsection. Stipulae musicae would be more for performers, pieces, instruments, history.--Ioshus 03:46, 1 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, ok, I think i get it now.  Can I then make Stipulae theoria musicae a subcat of Stipulae Musica and list it as such?  --Alynna Kasmira 02:34, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure!--Ioshus (disp) 06:07, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Categoria:Stipulae Musica]]
Disputatio:Poësis

message: The article says: "Elegia, de amoribus et ludibriis narrans": "Elegy, telling about loves and laughingstocks"? Is that right?? THe english and spanish pages all say Elegy is about the meter and/or telling about morning and sad things.--Rafaelgarcia 17:38, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

message: Rafael, cur rederexisti commentarium '"Carmen'" ad '"Poesis'"? Carmen = :en:Song, sed Poesis = :en:Poetry. IacobusAmor 23:17, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita. Solum erravi quod multa carmina quoque sunt poemata, et poemata carmina. Corrigo eam.--Rafaelgarcia 23:53, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirectio
Disputatio:Ernestus Guevara

message: ===patria o muerte===
I have some douts on the sententia "patria o muerte"? Wasn't it something like "Socialismo o muerte"? Alex1011 14:00, 18 Maii 2006 (UTC)
===che===
I also am curious about this che, scilicet "heus" (vide :en:Che (Spanish)). Even if it is derived from heus, is it right to nominalize the particle and decline it? --Ioscius  ∞ 11:31, 16 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Commentationem mutavi ut eum appellet Ernestum, non Heum, et partem scilicet Heus omnino removi. Ciao! Mattie 05:17, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
How about this :ubi album calculum dedit Principe Arbenzi Guzmani novum ordinem politiae instruendum. Where he gave the white pebble (of acquital?) to 'Prince-(president)' Arbenz Guzman for instruction on the new political order? I'm reading the English and Spanish wikis for what was meant. Jondel (disputatio) 11:19, 30 Martii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: doubts

message: I have some douts on the sententia "patria o muerte"? Wasn't it something like "Socialismo o muerte"? Alex1011 14:00, 18 Maii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: patria o muerte

message: I also am curious about this che, scilicet "heus" (vide :en:Che (Spanish)). Even if it is derived from heus, is it right to nominalize the particle and decline it? --Ioscius  ∞ 11:31, 16 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Commentationem mutavi ut eum appellet Ernestum, non Heum, et partem scilicet Heus omnino removi. Ciao! Mattie 05:17, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
How about this :ubi album calculum dedit Principe Arbenzi Guzmani novum ordinem politiae instruendum. Where he gave the white pebble (of acquital?) to 'Prince-(president)' Arbenz Guzman for instruction on the new political order? I'm reading the English and Spanish wikis for what was meant. Jondel (disputatio) 11:19, 30 Martii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: che
Disputatio:Gallaecia (Communitas autonoma)

message: Gallaecia, provincia romana est cuius caput Braccara fuit. — Commentationem pristinam non subscriptam usor sine nomine 81.34.33.64 (disputatio) hora 17:07, die 19 Maii 2006‎ scripsit.
thread_title:  De provincia romana 

message: Campus Stellae falsa ethymologia est. — Commentationem pristinam non subscriptam usor sine nomine 193.147.82.254 (disputatio) hora 10:18, die 12 Aprilis 2007‎ scripsit.
thread_title:  COMPOSTELLA 

message: rectum nomen Bracara Augusta, non Braccara. — Commentationem pristinam non subscriptam usor sine nomine 193.147.82.14 (disputatio) hora 08:47, die 24 Aprilis 2007‎ scripsit.
thread_title:  Bracara Augusta 

message: Brigantium Flavium non A Coruña, sed Betanzos est, quod XX chiliometra abest. Hodierna A Coruña erat Crunia. Id quomodo apparet in documento ab anno MCCVIII, quando ab Alfonso IX rege condita est. Vide <http://www.cronistadebetanzos.com/flavium-brigantium-corresponde-a-betanzos/> et <http://www.galiciaconfidencial.com/noticia/42851-resolto-enigma-nome-coruna-nace-codice-calixtino> [Scripsit 88.9.67.210, utens ignotus.]
thread_title:  Crunia 

message: Ourense in Latino sermone erat Auria. Nomen documentum est, licet ad aurum non refertur. <https://www.laregion.es/articulo/ourense/nombre-ourense-viene-oro-expertos-senalan-origen/202103051208491010927.html>
thread_title:  Auria
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Colores

message: Censeo hanc paginam delendam. Quem ad finem haec pagina nobis servit? --UV 23:41, 20 Maii 2006 (UTC)

message: Commentarius nobis dicit: "Maroon #800000 DarkRed #8B0000 FireBrick #B22222 Red #FF0000 Salmon #FA8072 Tomato #FF6347 Coral #FF7F50 OrangeRed #FF4500 Chocolate #D2691E SandyBrown #F4A460 DarkOrange #FF8C00 Orange #FFA500 DarkGoldenrod #B8860B Goldenrod #DAA520 Gold #FFD700 Olive #808000 Yellow #FFFF00 YellowGreen #9ACD32 GreenYellow #ADFF2F Chartreuse #7FFF00 LawnGreen #7CFC00 Green #008000 Lime #00FF00 LimeGreen #32CD32 SpringGreen. . . ." IacobusAmor 15:14, 7 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How true. Someone seems to have intended it as a guide to the use of the formula . But what use that formula is, I don't know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:38, 7 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Something wrong here
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Compendium

message: Shouldn't this page be moved to Vicipaedia:Compendium? --Roland2 08:54, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought of it as something about shortcuts, therefore Wikipedia:Shortcuts. However, it should probably be moved, yes. Daniel (☎) 12:45, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :I agree, it is about shortcuts. Vicipaedia:Compendium should explain what a shortcut in the context of a Wikipedia is, what a shortcut here is ... just what we have now on Vicipaedia:Compendia ;-) Maybe then an additional page Vicipaedia:Index compendiorum Vicipaediae or later a page Compendium (vici) in the article namespace? For the moment maybe a redirect from Vicipaedia:Compendium to Vicipaedia:Compendia would do it as well. ;-) Or, in my opinion, technically better: A move of Vicipaedia:Compendia to Vicipaedia:Compendium. --Roland2 13:00, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::OK, then. Daniel (☎) 18:46, 25 Maii 2006 (UTC)

message: As far as I know compendium means “abbreviation”, but a shortcut is a compendiaria (via) or a compendiarium (iter) – with both compendiarium,  and compendiaria,  to be read as substantivized adjectives. Would it not make sense to move this page to Vicipaedia:Compendiarium (and, accordingly, {{Compendium}} to )? --Grufo (disputatio) 18:36, 1 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Compendiarium” vel “Compendiaria” in loco “Compendii”?
Disputatio:Nebrasca

message: Movendum ad Nebrasca? Alex1011 17:28, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:02, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)

message: Hae fabulae haud credendae sunt.  Montivagus 03:59, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame; it looked like the writer spent a lot of time on that. And it made the page look full too! -- Secundus Zephyrus 05:00, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Puto hanc fabulam esse valde hilariosam. :D 24.41.90.14 00:18, 17 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: nuper addita

message: Nexus ad Grandis Insulae paginam propono, ne haec nexibus careat. Praetera rogo, an protectio paginae tolli possit.--Schulz-Hameln 06:58, 16 Augusti 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Deprotexi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 16 Augusti 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Propositio
Disputatio Formulae:Invitatio

message: Nice, Rol, good change.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:39, 23 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes vident ... :) --Roland2 22:44, 23 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better ;]--Ioshus Rocchio 22:48, 23 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :... or: it's a wiki. --Roland2 22:57, 23 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Nice flower, Rol, I just noticed it...(:::eyes roll off down the hall:::)...;]--Ioshus Rocchio 18:38, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

text: :Yes, smaller better.--Ioshus Rocchio 12:27, 4 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

message: Iustine, can I ask why you made this change? I read placetne-does it please, placeatne-would it please.--Ioshus (disp) 00:15, 16 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a principle one frequently hears (though I suppose I shoudl track it down in the gramamr books) is that English frequently uses the subjunctive or conditional in polite questions, where Latin would not. "Would you like to come with me?" should be vin' me comitare?, not vellesne? unless you expressly mean "If I were offering, and I'm not, would you like to come with me?" I have certainly been known to violate this rule myself though. But here the subjunctive doesn't look right to me, unless you want to change the phrasing to si placeat tibi.... --Iustinus 00:31, 16 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :The nuance I attempt to convey is aspectual. Does it in english often expresses a progressive aspect. So here, the subjunctive to me expressed the singularity of the instance of becoming a known user. Maybe vin/visne, instead? I would prefer, certainly, the most colloquial construation(did I make that word up?) tolerable, as I think the instance of offering membership warrants not an air of formality.--Ioshus (disp) 01:14, 16 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Well, yes, because in English if you say "Does it please you to become a wikipedian?" it means "Do you enjoy becoming one? Want to do it every day?" In English you need to use a conditional to make it clear that this is an option, not somethign already experienced. I don't think that's really the case in Latin. Remember that the Latin present tense can represent several different English aspects. Should it be changed to vin? Eh, either way is fine with me. --Iustinus 02:44, 16 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

text: :Let's do vin.--Ioshus (disp) 12:16, 16 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  placet/placeat
Disputatio:Cyrillus et Methodius

message: Thanks, Alex! I've been meaning to write this article for months now, saved me the trouble ;]. I think however, the evelopment of the cyrillic alphabet deserves more than the one line treatment it gets here...I took a whole course on Kiril and Mefodius, so I would be glad to add on once you have finished initial edits.--Ioshus Rocchio 13:04, 24 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Multas gratias pro correctionibus!

text: Well, I think of writing separate articles on the Glagolitic (how do you like "abecedarium Glagoliticum" as the Latin name for it?) and Cyrillic alphabets, where more information could be given. -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:25, 24 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Sic, abecedarium Glagoliticum nomen recte est.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:33, 24 Maii 2006 (UTC)

message: using this as a future imperative?
replies: text: I meant this opinion's being possibly obsolete ("praeteritus,a,um" - "прошедший, прошлый" - "past"). But I'm not sure this word is the one to be used in this context. Possibly, "priscus" would be better in this case? -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:25, 24 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, ponimaju...da "priscus" budet luchee.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:42, 24 Maii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  praeterito? 

message: What does "iis" mean, Dimitar?--Ioshus (disp) 17:46, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third person pronoun, dative plural. Dative of possesion essentially. --Iustinus 18:06, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Of course! There are two brothers, not just one! Stultus sum...--Ioshus (disp) 18:08, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  iis?
Disputatio:Lingua Graeca antiqua

message: Wikifons (Wikisource) lingua graeca antiqua incepta est. Annotiationes vestras quaeso ad :meta:Requests_for_new_languages/Ancient#Ancient_Greek_Wikisource addere. :w:en:User talk:Ανδρέας70.52.81.250 14:18, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wicifons in lingua graeca antiqua

message: Quid de dialectis quae anglice 'North-West Greek' appellantur? Hae insunt in tabula, in textu tamen inclusae esse videntur apud dialectos Doricas. Nescio autem quomodo 'North-West Greek' dici potest Latine. --Fabullus 12:39, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: : Profecto recte dicis! Equidem meam secutus sum propriam tabulam ubi Dorica et dialecti Caurinae (ut dixi) sive Borro-lybicae (ut tu) eodem sunt colore notatae. Brevi hoc vitium corrigam, ne tabulae ad rem illustrandam adiunctae textu contradicam. --Neander 01:54, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)

text: Dialecti forsitan Borro-lybicae (ut suggerit nobis pagina de Rosa ventorum)? --Fabullus 14:15, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: : Caurinum adiectivum egomet Borro-lybicae (Boreo-Libycae?) protulerim, quia Caurinus iam a Grattio (aetate Augusti) usu receptus esse videtur. --Neander 01:54, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  North-West Greek
Disputatio:Codex Hammurabi

message: Hi, this image is a suspected copyright violation and may soon be deleted from the Commons:. If your Wikipedia allows fair use, please consider uploading the image locally. Thank you. Commons:User:Jastrow 15:02, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:177px-CodeOfHammurabi.jpg]] 

message: (...) pretiosa victorum praeda (...)
Forma victorum potest esse genetivus pluralis vocabuli victum aut vocabuli victor. Quod vocabulum utuntur in textu rei?  --Christophoro S (disputatio) 22:26, 9 Maii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declinatio
Disputatio:Sibylla

message: Stattloch, sorry I didn't see your disclaimer. Forewarned though, this is not encouraged. Do translating on a special page, maybe on Usor:Stattloch1/Sibylla, or in notepad. There is no need to have content in 4 different languages untranslated in the project namespace.--Ioshus Rocchio 00:53, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC)

message: I see your point, Ioshus, from now on I will be translating in in a text processor. Thanks and greetings.
--Alexis Hellmer 05:26, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intellexi!!!
Disputatio:Abecedarium Latinum

message: Macte, Alexandro! Haec pagina creanda erat diu! Opprtet nobis etiam creare Abecedarium Cyrillicum, Graecum, et alia.--Ioshus Rocchio 06:09, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Paginam de abecedario Graeco scripsi, pagina de abecedario Cyrillico brevi tempore etiam creata erit! -- Alexander Gerascenco 07:53, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abecedarii 

message: Hae litterae "unciales" (hic ostentantae) haud constant abecedario Latino.--123.192.64.184 11:36, 19 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Credo te recte monere; igitur pro tempore tabulam litterarum "uncialium" e pagina removi. Fortasse imago apud Communia exstat? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:24, 19 Novembris 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Anonymus quis hodie tabulam quae sequitur, litteras cursivas monstrantem, inseruit, rubrica "Litterae unciales" subiuncta. Quot homines, tot definitiones. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 16 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litterae unciales
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Victionarium

message: Copied from Usor:Roland2 and edited:
Examples of Vicipaedia- and Victionarium-entries and how we might deal with them.
===Type A===
A "real" Victionary entry, not a "lemma" (= has NO corresponding lemma, as Type B has).
* quamquam ... REDIRECT FOR EACH ENTRY TO THE ONE PAGE ... Vicipaedia:This is a Wiktionary entry
How to deal with it:
# Put  into the page.
# Wait until content (!) has been moved.
# Put template Vicipaedia:This is a Wiktionary entry into the page to "protect" it.
===Type B===
A "real" Wiktionary entry but has a corresponding Wikipedia entry.
* Homogeneus ... REDIRECT TO THE CORRESPONDING PAGE ... Homogeneitas
===Type C===
A stub; looks like a Wiktionary entry because it is so short and has no entries in other Wikipedias.
* Homogeneitas ... Template STIPULA
* Gracilitas ... Template STIPULA
===Type D===
Looks like a Wiktionary entry but has an entry in other Wikipedias.
* Magisterium ... STIPULA + interwiki link
* Os ... STIPULA + interwiki link
* Natatio ... STIPULA + interwiki link
* Honor ... STIPULA + interwiki link
===Conclusio===
We do not need a  for Wiktionary-look-alikes ... in my opinion. --Roland2 17:38, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of entries

message: A "real" Victionary entry, not a "lemma" (= has NO corresponding lemma, as Type B has).
* quamquam ... REDIRECT FOR EACH ENTRY TO THE ONE PAGE ... Vicipaedia:This is a Wiktionary entry
How to deal with it:
# Put  into the page.
# Wait until content (!) has been moved.
# Put template Vicipaedia:This is a Wiktionary entry into the page to "protect" it.
thread_title: Type A

message: A "real" Wiktionary entry but has a corresponding Wikipedia entry.
* Homogeneus ... REDIRECT TO THE CORRESPONDING PAGE ... Homogeneitas
thread_title: Type B

message: A stub; looks like a Wiktionary entry because it is so short and has no entries in other Wikipedias.
* Homogeneitas ... Template STIPULA
* Gracilitas ... Template STIPULA
thread_title: Type C

message: Looks like a Wiktionary entry but has an entry in other Wikipedias.
* Magisterium ... STIPULA + interwiki link
* Os ... STIPULA + interwiki link
* Natatio ... STIPULA + interwiki link
* Honor ... STIPULA + interwiki link
thread_title: Type D

message: We do not need a  for Wiktionary-look-alikes ... in my opinion. --Roland2 17:38, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusio
Disputatio:Sancta Sophia (Constantinopolis)

message: Nonne Sancta Sophia nomen est melius quam Hagia Sophia? Hagia enim graece sanctam latine significat. An false memini? Sinister Petrus 16:31, 31 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Numquam inveni mentionem Hagiae Sophiae in litteratura latina, at in omnibus libris historicis anglice scriptis est Hagia, non Sancta...fortasse possis fontem latine invenire, ut discernamus?--Ioshus Rocchio 17:42, 31 Maii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vide etiam hos fontes pauperes: Hagia Sophia (anglice) dicit ecclesiam a Romanis Sanctam Sophiam nominari.  Basilicam Sanctae Sophiae (italice) invenire possis. Tandem (et minime) Liber Procopii de Aedificiis est hic (eheu! anglice). Si nos versionem latine Procopii, qui graece scripsit, habeamus, hoc fontem optimum facit! Ubi, Procopii, sis?

text: :Meo negotio aliquid cras invenire conabor. Multi libri latine illic est. Cum versionem latine Procopii habeamus, certi erimus. (And I really hope my Latin isn't so bad that you didn't understand what I said.) Sinister Petrus 01:24, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Vere indicas. Movebo, at credo nexus redirectionis opportet remanere.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:32, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio Formulae:Vide etiam

message: Illa pagina francice usus est !!!
Ricardus
I'm sorry, what?--Ioshus Rocchio 15:00, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

message: I have changed this template to the one used in en. The previous template did not work for more than one "see also" link. --Robert.Baruch 17:50, 10 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed to template from en