lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Index actuum legiferorum Unionis Europaeae

message: De qua voce forma legisferorum deducitur? --Bavarese (disputatio) 11:31, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you say it, I think it should be legifer, not legisfer. Or did you have something else in mind? Sigur (disputatio) 11:48, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Why not just lex (so here: index legum)? Isn't that what a "law-bearing act" is? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:40, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I can definitely live with lex, but I was trying to be cautions: Law/loi/Gesetz was in the aborted Constitutional Treaty; it was part of the symbolism that was abandoned. Now they have legislative acts and procedures (officially!) but (officially) no laws. So, I'm not sure we should do this, but if there is a consensus, I'll be happy with lex. Sigur (disputatio) 15:19, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)
I'm already taking out the s; it's definitely wrong. Open to further suggestions. Sigur (disputatio) 20:17, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  legisferorum?
Disputatio:Gundisalvus Pérez

message: Quo anno Perez mortuus est? Textum et Capsa se contradicunt. Ceterum capsa non integriter Latine versum est. Quomodo faciam nescio. Nec accentu in cognomine Pérez utendum est? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:56, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Demetrius rem fortasse curavit?

text: Non de hac pagina sed generaliter respondeo ego: Vicidata (sicut omnes inceptus Vicimediorum) non est "fons fidei dignus", sed saepissime res veras dicit! 1. Si verba Latina apud Vicidata videre volumus (et cur non?) ubi usque adhuc Anglica legimus, nos apud Vicidata verba Latina inserere possumus. 2. Quando data nostra a data Vicidatorum differunt, possumus aut (si re vera falsa sunt) data nostra corrigere aut (si probabilia sunt) fontem extravicipaedianum citare. Hoc casu possumus insuper Vicidata corrigere! Sed ipsa dissonantia potest lectoribus utilis esse, si res fontibus aliis aliter datur. Hoc est, cur verba "res apud Vicidata repertae" ad caput capsae videntur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:22, 13 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: : Gratias tibi, Andrea, ago, qui mihi rem "generaliter" et idealiter explicavisti. Semper bonum et iucundum est tecum disputari. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 00:07, 15 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Annus obitus
Disputatio:Eevee

message: Latinitatem re vera dubiam et corrigendam esse puto. Sed materiam ignosco. Quis adiuvet? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 00:07, 13 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Latinitas

message: Apud nostrum commentarium de Pokémon legimus "Pokémon . . . est universum fictum a Satoshi Tajiri formatore ludorum electronicorum anno 1996 creatum." Sed definitio huius commentarii de Eevee dicit "Eevee . . . est Pokémon." Ergo, Eevee est  "universum fictum a Satoshi Tajiri formatore ludorum electronicorum anno 1996 creatum." Quod manifeste falsum est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:00, 13 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio falsa
Disputatio:Orycteropus afer

message: Quid sunt Prycteropodidae? --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:17, 13 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Mendum typographicum! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:26, 13 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, non vidi. --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:42, 13 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prycteropodidae
Disputatio:La dolce vita

message: Quo modo tractanda est ista pagina per decennium "in progressu", nequaquam autem progrediens? (Ego quidem eam perficere non scio.) --Bavarese (disputatio) 17:19, 16 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Argumentum", sicet hodie legimus, mihi inutile videtur. Possumus aut omnino delere, aut centum fere verbis novum argumentum brevissimum inserere. Quo facto, paginam non inter pessimas habebimus ... Tu quid censes, mi Bavarese? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 17 Martii 2019 (UTC)

text: Addo quod, mea mente, lingua Latina methodum optimam et simplicem nobis praebet ad res enarrandas quae in nostro mundo vero nunquam acciderunt (e.g. res fabularum et pellicularum). Tales res, secundum regulas generales Vicipaediorum, aliquo modo distinguere debemus. De accusativo + infinitivo loquor. Sed aliis fortasse aliter videtur ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 17 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in progressu"
Disputatio:Catillus iactabilis

message: Lemma est Catillus iactabilis, sed titulus est Catullus iactabilis, et rem movere nobis non licet. Quid est? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:45, 17 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be a nicer way, but now it's in the right place (just lost the history). Sigur (disputatio) 21:22, 17 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Losing the history isn't allowed: it contravenes our CC license. If the move cannot be done without a substantive deletion -- a purely technical problem -- it's necessary to ask a magistratus to perform the move. I'll revert the copy-and-paste and do the move properly. If you made any edits after the move, they'll have to be done again. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 18 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I have done that now, and I don't think there were any subsequent edits. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 18 Martii 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the inconvenience. You know what they say about the road to hell and good intentions... Sigur (disputatio) 15:07, 18 Martii 2019 (UTC)

text: It's OK, no problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:02, 18 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus

message: " ... quae volat per aerem, cum lusores eam manu torquant et ad caelum iaciant". Nonne de actione iterum ac saepius repetita agitur? Ita puto pro "torqueant" et "iaciant" melius, insuper observata consecutione temporum, "torserunt et ... iecerunt" dicendum esse. Quid putant alii? --Bavarese (disputatio) 17:06, 18 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita. Iterativo utamur. Neander (disputatio) 16:58, 20 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  cum causale aut iterativum?
Disputatio:Nervus cutaneus femoris lateralis

message: femoralis aut femoris? --UV (disputatio) 22:41, 18 Martii 2019 (UTC)
femoris - gratias, UV, tibi. Mutabo. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 18:48, 19 Martii 2019 (UTC)
Nunc correxi Andreas Raether (disputatio) 18:56, 19 Martii 2019 (UTC)
Tibi gratias! --UV (disputatio) 20:33, 19 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  de lemmate
Disputatio:Brody Stevens

message: Usor:Praxidicae marked this for speedy deletion. I'm not sure why, so I have asked for clarification. It's an ultra-short page, but it seems accurate. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:16, 25 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Andrew, I responded on my talk page on enwiki to your original question. Cheers! Praxidicae (disputatio) 15:18, 25 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks for the reply, Praxidicae. We'll wait and see. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:28, 25 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::What's wrong with it? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:26, 25 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete?
Disputatio Categoriae:Comoedi stantes

message: Melius "Comoedi statarii"? Or should that phrase be reserved for the actors in a particular genre of ancient comedy? (Does Vicipaedia plan to be having numerous articles about them?) The noun plural statarii were 'actors in a refined type of comedy' (Traupman), and stataria was the name of their genre, 'refined comedy' (Traupman). (Cassell's has similar definitions.) Stand-up comedians do literally stand up most of the time. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:35, 25 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You know Vicipaedia's plans as well as anyone else :) This term was your invention, back in April 2012: here's the diff. You left the link and the category red. Evidently I saw some potential in it: I created the category for you in September 2013. But feel free to move it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:51, 25 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus: "Comoedi stantes"
Disputatio:Asexualitas

message: The lemma is doubtful.  I haven't found any Latin source on the internet not somehow linked to Wikipedia for asexualitas.  What you can find seems to be either Hungarian or Indonesian.  The closest one comes to Latin is a Czech medical online glossary which indicates asexualitas with a genitive -atis, but that is as close as it gets.
The most logical form (analogy with homophylophilia and diphylophilia) would be aphylophilia, but that's untraceable in the web.  I've found one αφυλοφιλία, but even that is in scare quotes (here, p. 27) - merely proof that one more person on the planet has made the same analogy as I have.
On the other hand, asexualitas can indeed linguistically be justified a bit better than homosexualitas, because it can be logically derived from sexualitas with an alpha privative.
My suggestion would be to indicate both asexualitas and aphylophilia and to qualify both by a convertimus. Sigur (disputatio) 22:04, 28 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Or take a different tack altogether, as with, say, inopia libidinis (though that may have more the feel of a definition than of a lemma). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:44, 29 Martii 2019 (UTC)
I actually like that approach. But I think that we should still offer both asexualitas and aphylophilia. When understood as a lack of sexual orientation, asexualitas seems adequate, and if understood  as a form of sexual orientation, aphylophilia seems best. So, what about this:
Asexualitas sive inopia libidinis est si quis non ad sexualitatem adtrahitur vel est parvum vel absens studium vel desiderium usus sexualis.[footnotes] Asexualitatem interpretemur sicut absentiam propensionis sexualis aut quidem aliquem modum propensionis sexualis similiter ac heterophylophilia, homophylophilia atque diphylophilia, in quo casu analogice aphylophilia dici potest.
I wouldn't even be against inversing the order and moving the page to inopia libidinis, but I would personally only do this if we hear more support for it. Sigur (disputatio) 20:22, 29 Martii 2019 (UTC)

text: It may be worth comparing :wikt:en:anaphrodisia. There is a Wikipedia article about it in a few languages, e.g. :fr:Anaphrodisie, but not in English. It's a well-formed Graecolatin scientific term, "aphrodisia" being the classical Greek word for sexual activity. I'm not sure how much overlap of meaning there is. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:42, 29 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Tempting. But judging by the other Wiki articles, this is a medical term (for what is considered a medical condition), and both the Spanish and the Dutch article distinguish it from asexuality by the existence or not of distress caused to the person by it (and in Spanish, they say that that distinction is made in DSM-5). Sigur (disputatio) 20:52, 29 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio:Dementia

message: Nuper Sabia, Fayosse et al. (2018) consumptionem alcoholi moderatam periculum dementiae diminuere proponunt. Verumtamen fontem nondum incluendam esse, rear, donec alii nuntii divulgentur. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 11:00, 31 Martii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcoholismus et dementia 

thread_title:  Nota
Disputatio:Signum viale

message: Aliud vocabulum classicum est viarius, -a, -um. Etiam commentarium de cibo viario Mexicano habemus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:26, 31 Martii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just trusted my favorite online dictionary, but I have no preference in this regard. Sigur (disputatio) 09:49, 1 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma: "Signum viale"
Disputatio:Dies mundialis syndromae Downii

message: Fontes exstare "syndroma -atis" et "syndroma -ae" bene scio. Arti grammaticae obtemperantes, nonne praeferimus "syndroma -ae"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 1 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Etiam ego "syndroma,-ae" praefero (praesertim cum "syndroma,-atis" olim ex inscientia parta esse videatur), sed hic omnia mutare nolui. Si mutare malis, gaudebo. Neander (disputatio) 21:14, 1 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonne "syndromae Downii"?
Disputatio:Teen Wolf

message: IMHO, these synopses work better in the (historical) present tense than in the perfect; thus the synopses of movies, plays, operas, books, and other narrative structures. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:23, 3 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm never sure which one to go for - but I'll try to change them in the next few days into the present, if it works better.--Xaverius 15:42, 3 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Let's see what others say. Certainly the present tense is standard for narrative synopses of literary, theatrical, and cinematic productions in English—and then Gildersleeve says: "The Present Tense is used [in Latin] far more frequently than in English, as a lively representation of the past (Historical Present)" (#229). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:40, 3 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I’ve tried it in the historical present, so we can see if it reads more easily now. It can always be changed if it does not work—Xaverius 17:01, 3 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Historiae narratae
Disputatio:T2 (currus electricus nostalgicus Constantinopolitanus)

message: Commodum duas catenas nexus esse inveni: haecce (cum tr:...) velut altera en:Istanbul nostalgic tramways. Quomodo hae duae coniunguntur? Nonne "interviciter" faciendum? Andreas Raether (disputatio) 13:05, 11 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikidatae duae catenae nexus sunt: en:Istanbul nostalgic tramways & haecce
Disputatio:Brumarius

message: I got two of the month names in Latin. I can't find "Vendemiarius" in quite this sense, but since it is a real Latin word, already meaning "harvest festival", I tsuggest we might allow ourselves to use it too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:15, 15 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case: I found germinalis, florifer, messifer and fructifer  here (not the others). Sigur (disputatio) 19:04, 15 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin names
Disputatio:Uvea et Futuna

message: Any reason why the lemma shouldn't be Uvea et Futuna? The Latin lemma for the French one Wallis (île) is Uvea as well.  This seems incoherent... Sigur (disputatio) 19:23, 16 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because it's the formal name of the entity in French (without the hyphens)? Uvea should be OK though. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:02, 16 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's a bit surprising that the French official name continues to be "Wallis-et-Futuna", but the French article says that the relevant island name is souvent partiellement francisé en Uvéa. I can't see any political reason not to change this, and Uvea looks fine in Latin.

text: :The apostrophes hyphens (noted by Iacobus) are very French and very un-Latin. We always eliminate them in transferring names to Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:57, 17 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Enumeratio frugum per locos diversitatis digestarum

message: Nonne frux generis feminini est? --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:35, 18 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Est! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 18 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De genere grammaticali frugum
Disputatio:Saxum Genesis

message: Equidem eligere verba "feldspatum" et "anorthositam" mihi placet; ipse autem reor orthographiam anorthita magis quam anorthites melius valere. Graecum certe est verbum, sed putarem Romanos declinationem primam et non quintam electuros esse si verbum Latine converterent... elegantius vel naturalius mihi videtur. Ita enim meditatur meum iecur! 
De nomine quoque Davide aut Davido pauce putabam - ambas orthographias in scripturis classicis vidi. Neutra me movet sed opinor eam in pluribus locis mutandam non esse; ambae rationalabiliter valent. --Denwego (disputatio) 23:50, 19 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Salve, Denwego. De "anorthosites/anorthosita": non de quinta declinatione, sed de prima e Graeca Latinizata, meditabam. Qua electá, aut -a aut -es casu nominativo singulari scribere possumus (rem pauci momenti esse censeo). Mihi videtur tales formas, ad suffixum Anglicum etc. "-ite" congruentes, iam hic in nonnullis paginis de mineralibus scriptas esse, talesque formas Latinas recentiores apud Google saepe repertas.

text: Credo "David" rarius declinatione secunda, multo crebrius tertia, scriptum fuisse. Si locutiones "rege Davide" et "rege Davido" verbatim apud Google quaeris, differentiam statim videbis. Tam nominibus Biblicis, quam designationibus geologicis, Google saepe utile est!

text: Paginam tuam laudo et inter "paginas cottidianas" nostras mox promovere volo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 20 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: : Haec decora mihi videntur - iterum gratias! --Denwego (disputatio) 15:23, 20 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verba geologica et appellativa
Disputatio:Naturalis historia (Plinius)

message: Hanc rem ex enumeratione, mihi data a bibliothecaria municipali Comensi, conficere volui. Exemplaria aliarum bibliothecarum addere coepi. Textum paginae, adhuc exiguum, augebo, sed an conspectus editionum hic retinere aut in pagina separata mittere oportet, haud iam scio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:45, 22 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De conspectu editionum antiquiorum
Disputatio:Schola Superior Polytechnica Foederalis Turicensis

message: This is difficult. The French and German names for these institutions convert differently into Latin: this one's primary name seems to be German, while the Lausanne one's primary name seems to be French. But they are certainly parallel, so from which language do we convert? My proposal (if we have no Latin source) is to make up a simple Latin name, which might be "universitas technica ..." or "schola polytechnica ..." depending which language we start from. Already, when devising categories, I chose "schola polytechnica" in both cases, but I have no preference really. Any views? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 22 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :A nonnegligible number of polytechnic entities are likely to be instituta, rather than schools or universities, or at least to have been founded as such before they realized higher academic ambitions. See, for example, the Massachusettense Institutum Technologiae, still formally an institute, though a university in all but name. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:18, 22 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)

text: The one in Zurich seems in 1868 to have been the Schola polytechnica Heluetiorum and in 1894 the Schola polytechnica Turicensis. Diplomas from the nineteenth century might be in Latin, providing the correct name. Can any be found? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:18, 22 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :When I added the note I didn't notice the name of the sister institution. I also just saw this in the English article: "It is locally still known as Polytechnikum, or simply as Poly, derived from the original name eidgenössische polytechnische Schule,[10] which translates to 'federal polytechnic school.'" That may be reason enough to make polytechnica possible. Lesgles (disputatio) 02:22, 23 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I could retrospectively claim that I saw one of those attestations that Iacobus found at the time when I created the categories, but I don't think it would be true. I think I was taking a stab in the dark. However, both of you are now providing evidence in different ways that "Schola polytechnica Turicensis/Lausannensis" would be a reasonable choice.

text: ::I should add that the older German form "Polytechnikum" might imply an underlying neuter, e.g. "institutum", which is indeed a possibility as Iacobus says ... However, in this Swiss context there doesn't seem to be any definite evidence for "Institut(um)". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:26, 23 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Poëta laureatus

message: Vox laureare, hac in pagina adhibita, tracta esse ab adiectivo laureatus (proinde quasi sit participium perfecti passivum, exemplo coronatus a coronare) mihi videtur. Suntne testimonia vocis laureare in lingua classica? --Bavarese (disputatio) 07:45, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Vale mi Bavarensis, libenter quaestioni tuae respondebo. Verbum "laureatus" apud Ciceronem invenitur, e.g. in "Murena", 88 atque in Att. 7, 10, 1 alibique.  Tamen non extat verbum "laureare". Laureatus igitur omnino non participium perfectum est sed simplex adiectivum derivatum a verbo "laurea". Multa adiectiva eiusdem formae sunt : sicut "rosatus" (non extat verbum "rosare"), ""rostratus" (non extat verbum "rostrare"), "capillatus" (non extat verbum "capillare") etc... Exoptans hoc tibi utilitati fore, ago tibi infinitas gratias. Vale.--217.136.73.87 08:51, 27 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  laureare?
Disputatio:Harpastum Rugbeiense

message: Morgan gives Rugbiensis as an adjective (Lexicon Morganianum, s.v. Rugby) -- have I missed a discussion where we decided on the extra -e-? Should we make Rugbeiense the redirect to Rugbiense? --Xaverius 14:57, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludus ex schola appellatur, et carmen scholae est "Floreat Rugbeia." Alumni sunt sodales sodalitatis Old Rugbeian nuncupatae. Et tum hanc rem habemus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:04, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :And in the Gentleman's Magazine of 1788, we see a reference to an alumnus Scholae Rugbeiensis. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:08, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That's that sorted then!--Xaverius 16:15, 25 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: -biense vel -beiense?
Disputatio:Oppugnatio Bibractis

message: We want articles like this. The image is a good choice. Mainly, we need text, not infoboxes whose summaries always look childish! So the words "Victoria Romana, Helvetii Victi" (see what I mean? no offence!) need to be converted into a real sentence (or, preferably, more than one sentence) and put in the text. Once that's done, the infobox adds nothing and might disappear.
The notes will appear under "Notae" if the formula <references /> is inserted at that point. No need to duplicate them.
A reference accurately pointing to the relevant page in Perseus could be added to each note, or to a section == Nexus externi == at the end, whichever seems best. The == Bibliographia == would be the place to list secondary sources i.e. recent scholarship, books or articles. These can be in any language: Latinists are multilingual! 
Thanks for the article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 27 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid comments 

message: "Proelium Bibractis" nihil contra se habet nisi quod fontem huius locutionis usque adhuc non repperimus. Repperi "oppugnatio Bibractis" (re vera "de obpugnatione Bibractis") hic pagina v. Alii quid? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 27 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In Caesaris primo belli Gallici libro nihil legimus de oppugnatione illius oppidi, velut de machinis ad muros adactis, de moenibus superatis, de urbe oppugata, de incolis victis. Immo legimus de pugna prope Bibracte acriter pugnata. Prope Bibracte: quia Caesar (BG 1.22s.) primo hostes e summo iugo montis aggredi constituerat, tum mutato consilio eos in summo monte iam collocatos incursaturus erat, hi autem re vera Romanis inopinantibus castra iam moverant. De Bibracte oppugnando res ergo non agebatur. Sed quia Caesar "a Bibracte [...] non amplius milibus passuum XVIII aberat", Caesar "Bibracte ire contendit", ut ibi exercitui frumentum metiretur. Tunc autem hostes milites Caesaris "insequi ac lacessere coeperunt", qua re "copias suas Caesar in proximum collem subduxit", e quo "loco superiore" "cohortatus suos proelium commisit". Tum "ancipiti proelio diu acriterque pugnatum est", hostes se receperunt, Romani castris potiti sunt. De Bibracte: legimus nihil a BG 1.23 usque ad BG 7.55.  Hoc proelio - fortuito prope Bibracte commisso - bellum Helvetiorum confectum (1.30.1) erat. Cur ergo de oppugnatione Bibractis scribendum sit? --Bavarese (disputatio) 13:09, 5 Maii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Petrus Mayhew (actor)

message: A typical formula from Vicipaedia's older and briefer biographies, and true in a way -- as usual -- but in what way? it's those details that make even a short biography a bit more interesting, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:07, 3 Maii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anglo-Americanus"