lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Ferrumen

message: This page is currently contradictory because it is using Vitruvius' definition of caementum (= 'rubble') but it is being used to mean 'cement' (i.e., any substance that solidifies and binds construction material together'). So 'cement' is the building opposite to caementa. There is also that Vitruvius always uses it in plural (off the top of my head -- need to double check), so I don't know if we can have caementa and caementum as two different entries?--Xaverius 07:53, 23 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: (see please Usor:Xaverius/building)--Xaverius 08:28, 23 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Cassell's: 'cement' (= 'glue') = gluten et ferrumen (Plin.). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:36, 23 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)

text: :Traupman: 'cement' (= 'concrete') = ferrumen. Sed etiam 'concrete' = concretum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:36, 23 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ferrumen seems to be as good as concretum but without the added misleading sense of caementa=rubble to me (?)--Xaverius 14:21, 23 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient ''caementa'' vs modern ''cement''
Disputatio:Bellum popularium Castellanorum

message: "Popularum" nihil dicit, nisi fallor. Aut "Bellum populare (n. sg.) ..." aut "... populorum (gen. pl.) Castellanorum"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:39, 24 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fons nomen non dat bello sed ad comuneros (vel communiarii?), quos vocat "populares". --Xaverius 13:01, 24 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)

text: Fortasse sit popularium necnon popularum et permaxime erravi?--Xaverius 13:10, 24 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Comunero: Ad Castellae Populares factiones pertinens (1844)--Xaverius 13:16, 24 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)

text: :Bellum "Communitatum" (1977)--Xaverius 13:18, 24 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ergo lemmati Bellum communitatum favere debemus, non? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:59, 24 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)

text: ::"Bellum popularium Castellanorum" mihi ad mentem non venit. Ita possumus, aut fortasse "Bellum popularium Castellanarum factionum". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:46, 24 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Fons saeculi XVI nos dat 'populares castellani', tum XIX 'popularis factio'. Nullus est fons pro 'communitates' usque ad XX. Fortase sit simplicior Bellum communitatum [Castellae], etiamsi non fuit nomen proprium aetatis? --Xaverius 08:11, 25 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Nobis ergo, fontem saec. XVI sequentibus, licet "Bellum popularium Castellanorum" scribere sicut tu a principio (-i- omisso) voluisti. Fontem saec. XVI, minime saec. XX, praefero ego, sed alii fortasse aliter. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 25 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Nobis tum placet Bellum popularium Castellanorum et "Bellum popularium Castellanorum [fons] vel Bellum Communitatum [fons] ..."?--Xaverius 13:32, 25 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Anularius

message: "Quia anulario medici ut patientes unguinibus ungerent utebantur." haec sententia nihil significat; minime nihil quod ego intellegere possum. [Onomacritos, 03:04, 9 Maii 2018]
replies: text: Anglice: 'because doctors made use of the ring finger to besmear patients with ointments'? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:14, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Quaestio
Disputatio:The Rendezvous (Memphis)

message: This doesn't look like a restaurant, and without further information it's therefore unsuitable as an illustration here. Was it even taken inside The Rendezvous? The summarium says it was taken at "Central BBQ, Memphis, TN." Is that the same place? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:07, 10 Maii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographema
Disputatio:Petrus Handke

message: Quibus testibus nisi Petrum Handke affirmamus commotum esse operibus scriptorum rationem absurditatis sequentium? Neque illam sectam sequitur neque ullas scripsit operas. --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:50, 17 Maii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  absurditas?
Disputatio:Vocalis anterior

message: Macte, gratias tibi ago! Nomina in formulam addere incipiam. Nunc paucas quaestiones habeo. Consistentiae causa, cur non "clausa" et "semiclausa"? Et si "anterior" hic utimur, suntne mutandae Vocalis postica alta rotundata et Vocalis postica alta non rotundata ad "Vocalis posterior..."? Lesgles (disputatio) 07:29, 2 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Artatam clausae praetuli, quia clausam in errorem inducere putavi, nam cum vocalem anteriorem (sicut [i]) pronuntiamus, lingua ad palatum appropinquat, non quidem meatum vocis claudit. Quid tibi videtur? Pro artata vero angustam scribere potuissem. Alioqui exemplum vicipaediae Italianae plus minus observavi. ¶ Etiam vocalis posterior apud Pekkanen & Pitkäranta confirmatur. Ergo mutanda sunt. Neander (disputatio) 22:14, 2 Iunii 2018 (UTC)

text: De terminologia etiam nunc dubito. In vocalibus describendis maximi ponderis esse videtur gradus laxitatis meatùs vocis. Laxitas vero ex altitudine dorsi linguae dependet, nam ita magnitudo 'columnae aeris' in meatu vocis motu linguae variatur. Utique de forma meatùs vocis apte describenda agitur. Cum [i] pronuntiamus, aer per angustum vel art(at)um meatum expedite procedit. Cum [a] appellamus, de laxa vocali agi videtur. Neander (disputatio) 18:21, 3 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hmm, equidem non satis de hac re scio. De laxitate paratus sum tibi credere, sed estne methodus clara omnium harum secundum hoc criterion nominandarum? Ad tempus formulam illam in paginas iam creatas inserui. Obiter animadverti in tabula ipsius IPA minores vocalium categorias (near, etc.) non nominari. Lesgles (disputatio) 10:06, 10 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nominibus
Disputatio:Gulielmus Harveus

message: In opere suo de Exercitatione Anatomica de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus et in praefatione et in dedicatione nomen Harvei Latinum legitur. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 22:22, 16 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene repperisti! Paginam igitur movere tibi licet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 17 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvey sive Harveus
Disputatio:Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi

message: Episode VII is "The Force Awakens." Why do you think it should be translated as "Novissimi Iedi"? Jondel had translated it as "Numinis Ressurrectionem," a phrase that, despite its errors, is much more plausible for "the force awakens." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:17, 21 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
I think the last 'I' in VII was forgotten and indeed it should be VIII. I tend to copy and paste eg make shift with Latin . Let me makke some corrections.My apologies.--Jondel (disputatio) 05:30, 21 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: De episodio VII
Disputatio Categoriae:Magistri officinarum

message: Quod Anglice significat magistri officinarum? Fortasse 'workshop teachers'? 'factory superintendents'? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:16, 25 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter, I suppose. But it seems to have been intended to correspond to businesspeople, entrepreneurs. If that's a good use for it, we might try moving it to "Negotiatores". I have more than once looked for that category and not found it. Here it is, it seems. Nice find :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:13, 25 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, if "businesspeople" is the concept in question, then Negotiatores would seem apt! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:11, 25 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus
Disputatio:Statio polaris australis Vostok

message: Delendum est (sero hoc articulum inveni) Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:34, 27 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte, redirectum fiat. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 08:04, 29 Iunii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderatoribus
Disputatio:Fanum Sancti Georgii (Pedemontium)

message: Erat quaedam "idée fixe" prioris sedulae Vicipaedianae Nuadae, ut locos, quarum nomina in lingua Italica cum adiectivo "santo" composita sunt, sua sponte "fana ..." intitulavisset. Sicut alicubi etiam hic fontes aptos non praesentavit. Ergo tituli nonnullorum communium Italiae corrigendi erunt.
Quis vestrum aliquem indicem novit, in quo nomina Latina minorum oppidorum Italiae inveniri possunt Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 21:53, 1 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen Latinum incertum
Disputatio:Dioecesis Augustana Vindelicorum

message: Saluk, hodie dicebas "fluvius Lechus Licus est," sed notam Hofmannianam non mutavisti. Re vera? Hofmann ipse dicit fluvium esse Licum? Me paenitet rem confirmare non possum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:07, 2 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lechus, Licus
Disputatio:Amaro Pargo

message: Pro Amaro Rodríguez Felipe cur non (exempli gratia) Amarus Roderici filius Philippus? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:00, 3 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Si "Amarus" sit praenomen Latinum vel nomen sancti cuiusdam Latinum, si Rodríguez sit patronymicum huius hominis, si Philippus sit praenomen (neque cognomen) huius hominis, recte moneres. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:45, 3 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Maximus Liebermann

message: Noster pictor theodisce solo nomine Max nominatur. Quod nomen abbreviatio solita nominis Maximilianus est. Nisi fons nominis Maximus Liebermann reperitur, haec pagina nonne ad "Maximilianus Liebermann" movenda est? --Bavarese (disputatio) 18:24, 7 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita, puto te recte arbitrari. Lesgles (disputatio) 07:26, 9 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praenomen "maximus"?
Disputatio:Acidum adipatum

message: Incertus sum an unctoacidum nomen rectum sit, sed proximitas cum aminoacido illecebrose mihi visus est. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 20:50, 8 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unctoacidumne? 

message: Apologies for writing in English. I noticed that the image for carbon numbering is wrong, and the text is probably wrong too. In the omega-notation, the carbons are numbered "ω", "ω−1", "ω−2", etc.  That is, "ω−1" is the next-to-last carbon, not the last one. See :File:Fatty acid carbon numbering.png for the correct image, and  for the correct explanation. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (disputatio) 03:14, 1 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, Jorge; I already made first corrections. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 21:42, 1 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong image/definition of omega-numbering
Disputatio:The Godfather (pellicula)

message: I've seen on Wiktionary that godfather was "patrīnus" in Vulgar Latin. I don't speak any Latin at all so I'm not the right to ask this. Nor do I know what kind of Latin that is used on this Vicipædia.
replies: text: Of course you are allowed to ask this and you are quite right! Patronus means Patron and Patrinus means Godfather. One can find this Latin word for example in article 793 of the Codex Iuris Canonici from 1917 of the Catholic Church. Thank you for the hint! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 00:09, 14 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't speak Latin, but isn't godfather "patrīnus"?
Disputatio:Machinula coffearia

message: ? Andreas Raether (disputatio) 08:10, 14 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse "liquatorium" nomen classicum? Fortasse "charta liquatoria" seu "charta colatoria"?

text: "Colatorium" nomen mediaevale = "colum"; "colatorius -a -um" et "liquatorius -a um" adiectiva confeci ego. Cf. Colum (3) apud Du Cange, Colatorium et liquatorium apud Logeion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 14 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias, Andrew. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 09:33, 15 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Pro "kaffe filtrieren" in Wörterbuch der Brüder Grimm (editionis anno 1860 factae) reperio "durch einen groben sack oder löschpapier laufen lassen" "colare";

text: ::FILTRIERHUT "pileus colatorius" (hodie fortasse pro "Filtertrichter")

text: ::FILTRIERSACK "sacculus colatorius"(hodie fortasse pro "Filtertüte")

text: ::Mirar, nisi pharmacofactores talia acuratius sciant.--Bavarese (disputatio) 13:39, 25 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quaero verbum ...
Disputatio Formulae:Capsa annuntiationis

message: Feedback wanted on improvements to Ambox templates on mobile web
Hey all,
The Readers web team is working on improving how article message templates appear on the mobile web. We are focusing on templates that use this template. Right now these templates appear when you tap the gray link under the article title, making it difficult for readers and editors to know whether there are any important issues with the article they are reading. We're trying to make these message templates more visible by displaying their description on the top of the article. We hope this will increase awareness of these issues for readers and editors alike. 
We would like to encourage template editors to add the type and issue parameters to your templates (if they're not already there). The type parameter will allow us to visually distinguish the severity of the issue and use the icon associated with that particular template type. The issue parameter will allow us to display only the summary of the issue on the main page. You may then tap on the issue to see details.  This will prevent the issues from taking up too much space on the page and distracting from the rest of the content.  
We have a project page describing what will be improved. If you have feedback on these changes we'd like to hear from you on the talk page.
 
 CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 09:18, 19 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact these templates appear in full, in their normal place, in Vicipaedia's mobile view. So we need do nothing, except possibly abridge some longer messages so that they don't take up the whole of a mobile screen. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:41, 19 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback wanted on improvements to Ambox templates on mobile web 

message: Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web
Hello,
In a few weeks the Readers web team will be changing how some templates look on the mobile web site. We will make these templates more noticeable when viewing the article. We ask for your help in updating any templates that don't look correct.
What kind of templates? Specifically templates that notify readers and contributors about issues with the content of an article – the text and information in the article. Examples like Template:Unreferenced or Template:More citations needed. Right now these notifications are hidden behind a link under the title of an article. We will format templates like these (mostly those that use Template:Ambox or message box templates in general) to show a short summary under the page title. You can tap on the "Learn more" link to get more information.
For template editors we have some recommendations on how to make templates that are mobile-friendly and also further documentation on our work so far.
If you have questions about formatting templates for mobile, please leave a note on the project talk page or file a task in Phabricator and we will help you.
 CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 13 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web
Disputatio:Designatio linguae

message: I'd have thought Designatio linguae, the current lemma, to mean something more like 'language planning', with the Latin equivalent of Sprachreform, language reform, reforma linguistica, and so forth being more like Correctio linguistica or emendatio linguistica. The definitions of designatio in Traupman are 'specification, layout; appointment; election', and in Casell's 'a marking out, designation, mention . . . appointment to an office'. If the lemma is to remain as it stands, what will be the aptest lemma for the article on language planning? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:07, 23 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fontes "emendationis linguae" repperi et citavi: ergo "Emendatio linguae" seu "linguarum" propono. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:09, 23 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Circulus Traunstein

message: Ut legimus in www.altoetting.de/cms/stadtgeschichte.phtml, huius oppidi prima mentio facta est anno 748: "villa publica Autingas". A saeculo 13 Alt- et Neuötting discerni solent. Ergo, ut mihi videtur, nostris temporibus latine de Vetere et Novo Autingas dicimus. - Quod attinet ad Mühldorf: Nomen latinum egoquidem non novi. Sed, ut iam scripsi, in regionibus medio aevo oberdeutsch dicentium, bene deliberandum est, an nomina cum suffixo -dorf latine syllaba -dorp afficienda sint, nisi ita tradita sunt. Nam in Germania superiore per Lautverschiebung iam tempore Karolingorum et prius e -dorp non legitur. Cf. Gerhard Köbler, Taschenbuch des althochdeutschen Sprachschatzes. ISBN 3-8252-1823-6. = UTB 1823. Pag. 53: "dorf Weiler, Dorf, Hof, Gut, Landgut, Stadtviertel". --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:56, 26 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Haud nobis licet verba creare. Verbum "Muhldorpiensis" extra Vicipaediam non reperio. Locutionem "synodus muhldorfiensis anno 1553" reperio: si ad hoc oppidum relevant, responsum habemus! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:09, 26 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altötting etc. 

message: Quid (in capsa) significat hoc verbum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:30, 26 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonne cepisti? Te in incertitudine vagante, errorem corrigo ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:57, 26 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Interreatialis"?
Disputatio:A Clockwork Orange (pellicula)

message: I'll begin in English but will translate into Latin if preferred. I altered the reference because a work of general relevance to the article is better placed in a bibliography section. The text seemed to me uncontroversial, so no footnotes needed yet ... but if I'm wrong about that, the footnote would need to cite specific pages of the supporting work (a footnote citation of a whole book wouldn't usually be helpful). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 1 Augusti 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De citationibus
Disputatio:Hemicrania

message: Heri situm http://www.stetoskop.info/mkb.php ibi capitulum capitis dolorum quaerens vidi. Codicis G43 "migraena" scribitur. Etiam "hemicrania" hodie cum malo raro hemicraniae paroxysmalis (sive en:Hemicrania continua) nectitur. Ergo mutationem et differentiationem inter migraenam (ICD-10:G43) et hemicraniam continuam (G44.8) propono. Praeterea nexus cum vicimedia corrigendus erit. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 09:40, 12 Augusti 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Vocabula eundem originem habent et a recentioribus interdum synonyma esse censentur . Certe autem nobis licet, ICD-10 sequentes, differentiam quam proponis efficere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:25, 13 Augusti 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hemicrania et migraena
Disputatio:Görres-Gymnasium

message: Rogatum est, "Nonne verbo studere Dativus adiungendus est?" Sic, verbum studere dativo saepe adiungitur. Sed vide:
replies: text: Discipuli musicae atque philosophiae naturali valde student.

text: The students study music and natural philosophy intensely.

text: Discipuli musicae atque philosophiae naturalis valde student.

text: The students of music and natural philosophy study intensely.
Ambae locutiones quoddam POV exhibere videntur. Minus valde historiae, litteris, picturae student? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:43, 17 Augusti 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quis respondere potest? ... "Sedulius" loco "valde" posui. Nescio quo sensu litterae Graecae et Latinae "exceptae" sint: ergo sententiam iuxta intellectum meum paulo rescripsi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 18 Augusti 2018 (UTC)
"exceptis litteris" eodem modo uti conatus sum, quo Cicero (de oratore,1,38) utitur, cum scribit "videor exceptis, Crasse, vobis duobus eloquentissimos audisse Ti. et C. Sempronios" et, ut puto (vide hanc translationem: http://www.gottwein.de/Lat/CicDeOrat/de_orat01de.php), dicere vult: "Sempronii sunt, si vos duos praetereo, eloquentissimi." Haud secus ego dicere volui discipulos maxime, si litterae Graecae ac Latinae praetereuntur, musicae et philosophiae student, quod nunc quidem parum perspicuum esse intellego. Ausonius apud confluentes (disputatio)
replies: text: ::O citationem appositissimam! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:18, 20 Augusti 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Studere
Disputatio:Vicecomes

message: Traupman's a great guy, but not much of a source on medieval titles. I can't see any evidence for this "geraifa". Can anyone help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:14, 5 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: From Blaise's Lexicon latinitatis medii aevi:
replies: text: :grafio (graffio, garafio, gravio), 1. juge: Dipl. 8-e s. (M. 96, c. 1524 C); (peut être défenseur d'une église) adjuvante grafione qui defensor ecclesiae est, Capit. Car.-M. (M. 97, c. 123 B) - || sheriff (Angl.) - 2. comte (dès le 8-e s.): ... judices, duces nempe et grafiones, Lib. pont. (Duch. I, p. 496); cum ducibus et graphionibus, Chron. Divion. c. 779 B.

text: But the DMLBS defines grafio differently:
replies: text: :grafio [Frk., cf. MLLM; cf. AS gerefa] official, reeve. 743 ut ‥ unusquisque episcopus in sua parrochia sollicitudinem adhibeat, adjuvante gravione qui defensor ecclesiae est Ep. Bonif. 56; †821 (12c) nec princeps nec graphio hanc lenitatem mutare audeat CS 366; hujus pacem et justitiam fedis gravionum improbitatibus et malis utinam necessitatibus sine pretio subrogamus (Quad.) GAS 534; ne malorum inpunitas aut gravionum pravitas ‥ miseros laceratione conficiant (Leg. Hen. 7. 2) ib. 553; greva Leg. Angl. Lond. 11. (5) (v. heretochius).

text: So I think grafio, geraifa, etc. is a reeve, but scirevus (or more commonly vicecomes) is a shire-reeve or sheriff. Lesgles (disputatio) 13:27, 6 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, I see now. Latin "Grafio" etc. is a version of German Graf = "comes". There was once an English word grave with the same meaning. And DMBLS as you quote it gives gerefa as Anglo-Saxon: surely geraifa is simply a variant of that, not Latin but Anglo-Saxon. That all fits together. So "geraifa" should redirect, if anywhere, to comes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:47, 6 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geraifa
Disputatio:Marina Silva

message: "Pythia, sacerdos Apollonis in Oraculo Delphorum, victoriam suam vaticinata est."—Revera? Fons? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:01, 7 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. The world and time being as we know they are, it would have been even better to delete the text :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:34, 7 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, I didn't know. Maybe the candidate or her supporters have made this claim (people will believe anything, as in the case last year in which a man shot up a pizza parlor because he believed Hillary Clinton was running a pedophile ring out of its [nonexistent] basement), so all that needed to be done was to say they asseruerunt and then go into oratio obliqua. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:56, 7 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Verba nuper inscripta
Disputatio:Sadbre

message: Genus declinatioque traditi nominis urbis ignoti sunt. Itaque elegi ambo. Genus: neutrum (sicut apud magnum numerum nominum Latinorum urbium e.g. Berolinum et - casu - sicut apud genus nominis Polonice urbis). Declinatio: tertia in qua genetivus pluralis terminatur in -ium (sicut "mare", ergo nom./voc./acc.: Sadbre, gen.: Sadbris, dat./abl./loc.: Sadbrī). --Ben4Wiki (disputatio) 15:06, 13 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genus et declinatio
Disputatio:Phaseolus vulgaris

message: Need to verify whether these are P. vulgaris or another: Fernando Colon. Oviedo book 7 ch. 18 ([vol. 1 p. 285]), Monardes 1574 f. 27v. Cf. Clusius Exoticorum pp. 335-337. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 14 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early references
Disputatio:Elephantus

message: Elephantus nomen apud antiquos usitatius esse videtur, et quia hic non de genere agitur, sed de nomine communi, propono ut pagina ad Elephantus moveatur. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:57, 15 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: (Multo ante mota est.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:11, 22 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda
Disputatio:Rainerius Arnold

message: Motionem paginae ad "Rainerius Arnold" propono. Rainer in auribus meis minime Latine sonat. Vide etiam paginas "Rainerius Maria Rilke" et "Rainerius Maria Woelki"!. Quid vos censetis? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 21:38, 17 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita est. Nolite oblivisci Rainerio  principi Monoecensi. Etiam Sanctum Rainerium habemus. Movebo. Sigur (disputatio) 20:32, 28 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Rainer --> Rainerius