lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Lingua Batava

message: Neerlandensis, non Nederlandensis? -Branddobbe 09:14 nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
et Lingua Belgica? [-- 193.190.210.124]
No sé mucho de latín pero creo que neerlansis es un poco, germánico --Jeneme 19:02, 2 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Multo melius est dicere Lingua Neerlandica quam lingua Batava. Lingua Batava sive Batavica est lingua veterum Batavorum. Lingua Neerlandica est lingua communis Flamingorum et Neerlandorum.--Bruxellensis 17:06, 15 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Fontem habes qui dixit unum nomen melius quam aliud esse?  Lewis & Short, qui semper dicunt quando adiectivum indicat linguam, non dicunt "Batavam" indicare ullam linguam antiquitus, nec habent "Batavicam".  Ad usum hodiernum... apud Libros Googles "lingua neerlandica" adest sed multo rarius quam "lingua Batava". —Mucius Tever 04:49, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Cum Bruxellense consentio: lingua Batava debet esse lingua Batavorum antiquorum; sed consensum non habemus, multique re vera "lingua Batava" in linguam hodiernam cognominandam usurpantur. Igitur formulam "Movenda" retraho. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 21 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

message: http://taalunieversum.org/taal/nederlands/ nos dicet ‘Latijn’, qui ‘lingua Latina’ in lingua Batava significat, in lingua Latina ‘lingua Nederlandiae’ appellandum esse! Twistenbeek 12:40, 4 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lingua Nederlandiae 

message: Nonne hoc fit omnibus in linguis? Hispan-i-ca, Dan-i-ca, Angl-i-ca, German-i-ca, Batav-i-ca? Ego hoc saltem putabam. Nondum autem ad fontes redii. Artaynte (disputatio) 21:34, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Adiectivum q.e. Batavicus, quamquam certe, si rationem grammaticam respicias, formari potest, non videtur testatum esse apud antiquos auctores, qui plerumque de Batavis sive Batavorum gente loquuntur. Adiectivum q.e. Batavus admodum, ut mihi videtur, rarum est, sed apud poetas, sicut Martialem (Epigr. 8.33.20 Et mutat Latias spuma Batava comas), legitur. Quod at tuam attinet quaestionem, nihil certi respondere possum. Ipse quidem "linguam Sanscriticam" praefero "linguae Sanscritae", plus minus de ea quam dixisti causa. Neander (disputatio) 22:03, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonne potius dicendum est "Lingua Batavica"?
Disputatio:Ratio propositionum

message: In capito mensam veritatam 1, 2, 3, 4, ...  scribat.  1, 2, 3, 4, numaralii arabicae sunt.  Romani I, II, III, IV, ... scribabant.  Quaere, scribabant populii medievalis?--Prandium Tavernae 09:38 nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Column 5 est → ?
Column 12 est ¬→ ?  In latina scribet 'nec'?  In lingua anglicorum non verbum facilum habet.
replies: text: Non habeo me pro certo omnia quae interrogaveris bene intellexisse, sed haec nihilominus respondam:

text: *Rarissime numeralibus romanis utimur hic. Modo conventio nostro est... cum Auxilium pro editione (anglice) eorum usum non prohibeat.

text: *Fortasse est p→q... nescio autem locutionem solitam in hanc rem apud scriptores recentiores latinos.

text: *Hm, equidem nomen nec proposui quod p nec q bene hoc eventus describet (15, contra, est nec p nec q quod est aliud). -Iustinus 21:11 nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

message: Just to reiterate what I said above, in Latin, on 2004:
*p nec q = "p and not q"
*nec p nec q = "neither p nor q"
It may be confusing, but that's how nec works ;) --Iustinus 01:06, 19 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nec
Disputatio:10

message: For standardisation, this article should refer only to the year 10 A.D. (with link - like the "decem" that it already has - to any other sorts of "10").  Currently that's not clear. Format for [[2000]] could perhaps be adapted, once we find a consensus on how to describe B.C. decades and centuries etc. Other small numbers need the same clarification. [[Usor:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 09:50 nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

message: CalRis25 13:14 nov 18, 2004 (UTC): We've had that before. The canonical way concerning names of articles about years is given in the Wikipedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine) article. Of course, this is not the one hundred per-cent dead-sure, ideal, sacrosanct and perfect and correct way, but a decision had to be made. So please don't renew the discussion on how to properly indicate years. 
As far as the distinction between number-articles and year articles are concerned, see the uppermost bit of Disputatio Usoris:CalRis25/Temp 2.
replies: text: Most of us who care about such things (including CalRis25, I think) seem to have moved past "the uppermost bit of Disputatio Usoris:CalRis25/Temp 2" now - see Disputatio_Wikipedia:Auxilium_pro_editione_%28anglice%29 - unless the "latine" (which I have not examined in detail) has changed it again but without anyone making the "anglice" match it. I am sorry if the main point of my nov 18 comment (the first sentence) was missed because the second sentence contained a "query" (which was very soon answered elsewhere and which would not even have been raised if someone had pointed me in the right direction a few weeks earlier). Now please ignore my second "nov 18" sentence above, except for the first seven words.

text: So - the article called "10" is talking about the year 10 AD but may link to "decem" etc. OK?

text: And "476" has a more up-to-date version of what may become a template. Vivant imperatores!

text: Robin Patterson 01:16 dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

message: (Non multo latine scribeo; apologiae!! (studens 1954-1959))
Click "decem" and you see this:
"10
"(Redirectum de Decem)
"Pro numero, vide s.v. decem"
We therefore (as I would probably have seen while composing my November and December messages if I had not blindly trusted previous editors) have a circular linkage and an unfortunately misleading first sentence. 
Semble, nobody yet thinks the number "Decem" is worth being the subject of an article. A pity, because it is (as "X") a not insignificant part of the structure of Latin numeration and a month name and is the base of the "Arabic" numeral system. Vide :en:10_%28number%29, exempli gratia, which someone could translate into a useful "Decem" article.
I may edit "Decem" (though I would be pleased if someone else beat me to it) to convert the redirect into a mere reference link and write a little "stipular" text in the hope that someone else can greatly expand it along the suggested translation line. 
Robin Patterson 00:14 ian 19, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nexus circulare
Disputatio:Alexander Magnus

message: Haec pagina adhuc inanis est.  Mox apparebit articulus de Alexandro Magno.
Linguam Latinam male scio, ergo magnum articulum de Alexandro Magno scribere non potui. Si linguam Latinam potius scis, scribe potium articulum, quaeso! --Alexander Gerascenco 16:47 iun 21, 2005 (UTC)

message: Avete. Recensui hanc paginam emendando ac amplificando, praecipue in sectione "Indoles et familia" appellata. Sed, opere facto, vidi titulum non esse idoneum: eum reverti igitur in "Indoles et de Alexandro dicta" quia citationes sine auctoribus certis (praeter hanc a Strabone dictam) addidi. Praetera scripsi nonnullas sententias de natura Alexandri quas in libellis meis inveni. Si hoc non placet, quaeso, in pagina disputationis mea proponite novas aut diversas rationes. Valete, Vicipaediani!--Alexander Gelsumis 18:05, 4 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indoles et familia
Disputatio:Pechinum

message: Where have you seen this form attested? I've only seen Pechinum and Pequinum (maybe also Pekinum). Granted, Pecinum is a logical form, because some people will pronounce it /k/ (without aspiration), and some will pronounce it /tS/, just as the Chinese themselves use both pronunciations. Nevertheless, inasmuch as there are traditional forms of this name, I think we should go with them. --Iustinus 128.135.24.116 18:19 nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide pecinensis, non pechinensis, in binominibus Antiphrisson pecinensis, Brassica pecinensis, Cypselus pecinensis, Eutolmus pecinensis, Philadelphus pecinensis, Pithecanthropus pecinensis, Sinanthropus pecinensis, Tyto pecinensis. Nomen adiectivum pecinensis significat nomen substantivum esse Pecinum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:42, 24 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Vide etiam "Liu Xiaobo, oppositor Sinensis, Asloae absens praemio pacis Nobeliano donatus est, neglecta Pecinensis regiminis ira" in  Ephemeride. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:12, 24 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)

text: :Utile erit "Pecinum" in textu aliquo reperire, amice, si possumus; forma "Pechinum" enim iam e textu bono Latino citatur, et "Pekinum" e lexicis. (An "Xuntienum" re vera inter nomina primae nostrae sententiae litteris atris exponere oportet, haud scio!) Pecinum pro certo ibi promovendum est si citationem reperimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 24 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Si apud Google quaerimus, reperimus:

text: ::*'"Pechinum" urbs Sinarum' x 50

text: ::*'"Pekinum" urbs Sinarum' x 50

text: ::*'"Pecinum" urbs Sinarum' x 12

text: ::Unde ratio paginae movendae non emerget, mea mente. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:06, 7 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Pecinum
Disputatio:Suebi

message: Eiei, wenn das die Schwaben wüssten, was hier steht ...
replies: text: Nisi fallor, hic ait: "Hui, si id sint Suebi, quid hic stat?".... Fortasse recte nos monet necesse esse aliquid addere.

message: [[Isidorus|Isidori]] ''Historia Gothorum'' dixit '''Suevi''' non '''Suebi'''. Credo optime novam paginam [[Suevi]]--[[Usor:Medievalista|Medievalista]] 00:04, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

message: the link to suebi language is wrong!, it points to current shwaben  dialect of German, not to Suebi language!
replies: text: Maybe Mediaevalista's point above indicates why. Perhaps this should be Suevi and the language Lingua Suevica...--Ioshus (disp) 20:37, 8 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :according to English wikipedia, these Suevi or Suebi are all of the same tribe but lived in time at different places and are now scattered around Europe. According German wikipedia there are doubts whether the German tribe marching as "Suevi" to Spain has something to do with the other Suabians. They say, at the most, they might descent from the Danuvian Suabes (which makes me wonder, because this is an off area for marching to Spain). Perhaps I missed something. --Alex1011 12:05, 24 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lingua suebica
Disputatio:1

message: Most of what is in this article should be on the page "unus", in accordance with discussions over the last few months that resulted in a decision that a plain arabic number would stand for a year (anno Domini if standing alone, and BC if followed by "a.C.n.", eg 44 a.C.n.) whereas any article that was talking about other aspects of a number would spell its name out.
Vide: Usor:CalRis25/Temp 2, Wikipedia:Auxilium pro editione (anglice)
Unless some authoritative-seeming person objects in the next few weeks, there will be more standardisation along those lines by some of us who care about such things. Vivat Imperator! Robin Patterson 11:35 dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

message: :en:Axum et :en:Buddhism/:en:Timeline of Buddhism non 1 anno ipso danunt pro his eventis.  Fortasse  hae solum in paginam saeculi vel decennii ponendum est. —Myces Tiberinus 23:20 ian 11, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mihi igitur videtur. Adnuo. -Iustinus
thread_title:  Axumis et Buddismus 

message: The only extra country listed is China.  It looks like they have more not just by continent divisions (which is less useful in 1 than, say, 2005, where we have much more comprehensive information) because they link to dynasty lists and reign dates (some of them dubious — compare the birth/death and reign dates listed in en:Emperor Ai of Han).  —Myces Tiberinus 00:40 feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  marginally more countries
Disputatio:Aemilia et Romania

message: Does the recommendation about "Æ" and similar characters apply only to text? If it should apply also to article names, we should move this article "Æmilia et Romania" to "Emilia et Romania". At present it is rather prominent as the only word of its kind at the end of the last batch of "AllPages". Robin Patterson 21:18 dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO it applies more to titles than to text, but the article should be moved to Aemilia et Romania (i.e. not Emilia) --Iustinus 00:16 dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen paginae
Disputatio:Ioannes F. Kennedy

message: Why did the Bush's last name was translated as "Boscus" and Kennedy not ? (it means "ugly head" in Celtic). :-) 193.231.116.73 19:28 ian 2, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I would have recommended not translating Bush either. --Iustinus 20:39 ian 2, 2005 (UTC)

message: Quo in modo dicere "assassinated" debemus?
Malo dicere "necatus." "Interfectus" mihi monstrare ambiguitatem videtur. Sinister Petrus 13:18, 12 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Propono occisus, nam interfectus revera omnes mortes significat, necatus autem ad bestias interfectas alludit. usor:Bohmhammel 22.52, 17 Kal. Quinct. 2006
replies: text: Nonne trucidare verbum optimum?--Ioshus Rocchio 22:02, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

text: Etiam. W.B. 23.40 17 Kal.
thread_title:  Necatus an interfectus? 

message: What's "Eius idealem patrimonium secutus est frater Robertus Franciscus Kennedy" trying to say?—'[JFK's] brother RFK pursued his [RFK's] ideal paternal estate'? Changing eius to suum may give us '[JFK's] brother RFK pursued his [JFK's] ideal paternal estate', but that still doesn't make full sense, at least to me. I suppose patrimonium is to be taken as 'patrimony, heritage', but what's ideal about it? And wouldn't the usual Latin order put frater second?—Robertus Franciscus Kennedy frater. Maybe my little gray cells are getting sleepy. IacobusAmor 01:22, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Eius idealem patrimonium'' = ? 

message: Argh, here we go again:
20:35, 1 Martii 2007 Massimo Macconi (Disputatio | conlationes | obstruere) movit Disputatio:Iohannes F. Kennedy ad Disputatio:Ioannes F. Kennedy praeter redirectionem (Latine Ioannes non Iohannes) 
No, Latine vel Ioannes vel Iohannes. This has come up so many times that I really need to write a page on it. --Iustinus 20:42, 1 Martii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ioannes vs. Iohannes
Disputatio:Israël (discretiva)

message: I made a separate page for Israel (civitas) a while back, so I've moved the country data chart over there. Perhaps I was wrong to do it this way though: maybe Israel should be about the country, and the other meanings should be moved to Israel (discretiva)? --Iustinus 19:07 ian 18, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to d:Q801, the only other languages that don't use plain "Israel" for the modern state are Ladino (Medinat Israel), Navajo (Ízrel Bikéyah), Waloon (Israyel (estat)), and Kalmyk (Изралмудин Орн), though I might have missed one or two. I would suggest moving this page to Israël (discretiva) and current Israel (civitas) to Israël. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:53, 29 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, we get a lot of unwanted links to the discretiva page. Let's simplify as you suggest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:36, 29 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Feci. Lesgles (disputatio) 13:18, 2 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

message: Aentinianus has changed the redirect to take readers to Israel (nomen) instead of Israël (discretiva). This change effectively wipes Israel—the country—off the map, at least for potential readers unaware of the nicety of the diaeresis. Is that a good idea? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:54, 26 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect in question was Israel. Yes, well spotted. The editor concerned appears to be devoted exclusively to forenames, so the edit was perhaps thoughtless rather than political. Anyway, I have reverted it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:29, 27 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Forma commentationum de singulis annis

message: [copied from user's discussion subpage)
CalRis25 13:07 nov 18, 2004 (UTC): Hi Robin, your template seems good to me. Personally, I'm against articles about decades, however (and I'm not sure about milleniums either). Do you really believe that we will ever fill those with content? I do not. I added sections for events, birth, death dates as those seem to compose most of the content of year-articles in the English version, e.g. [en:1999]]. The year list should only comprise 3 years before and after because we need the extra space for years a.C.n..
Anyway, once we've decided on a template, it should be stored in a page of its own (any idea regarding its name?) and we create links to it from the Auxilium-pages. Once a template is ready, we shouldn't create lots of empty articles which are pretty annoying when using the pagina fortuita-feature and also prevent determining quickly what is still lacking. A page shouldn't be created before it is also filled with content.

message: What about having the links to other years, etc, in a table at top right, as on 2006, instead of dominating the whole top of the page? 
Robin Patterson 02:37 ian 19, 2005 (UTC)
Now finally copied the 2006 table to 2005 with a slight improvement and invited comment.  
On the above comment that "The year list should only comprise 3 years before and after because we need the extra space for years a.C.n.":
# the 3-row system allows for several years before and after; but 
# the "a. C. n." complication may limit it more than what I have for 2005, so I'll do some more testing before trying to set it in stone.
Someone I respect greatly but whose name I forget recently added links to a few nearby years on one of the early year pages (in saeculum 1, I think). Once I get organised I can improve on that while giving the same sort of thing to other early years.
Robin Patterson 06:45 aug 8, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tabula

message: I think there's scope for "decade" pages used judiciously when there is more than a line or two of content for them. Useful for summary of any notable event that covered several years.
Millennia similarly.
Robin Patterson 06:45 aug 8, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decades

message: I rather like the order of headings I have for 476 because births and deaths are events. (I know one of our language experts prefers "Mortui", so I'm happy to stick to that actual word. There are at least two alternatives to clean up, eg 1997 has Nati and Mortua.)
thread_title: Standard headings for year pages

message: I'm a bit ignorant about the use of templates. I hope we can have one to take the tedious work out of creating new year pages or improving old ones, but I'd like more idea of how it might work. And can it include standard headings as well as a links table?
Robin Patterson 06:45 aug 8, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template
Disputatio:Austria

message: Salve, qui haec scripsit.
Articulum cum legerem tuum, errorum duo animadverti, qui sunt: Primum verbum "flumen" neutrius est generis, sequitur ut "flumen maximuM" sit! Secundo, si scribis: "Nationes Unionis Europaeae Austria interest.", false scripsisti, quia verbum "interesse" dativi casum imperat. Spero ut haec non frustra dicerem. 
Vale. (19:20, 19 Ianuarii 2005 80.108.211.133)
Salve,
"Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube" non sententia nationis est, sed sententia Caesari Maximiliani erat!
enim sententia nationis est: "Austria est imperare orbi universo"
thread_title: Flumen maximum et "interesse"
Disputatio:Numerus

message: Caput "Quantitas"? - "Quotiens"? Robin Patterson 06:23 ian 25, 2005 (UTC)
giorno

message: Dubito, an "quid dixerit Isidorus" huc pertineat. (1) De nominibus singularum cifrarum agit, non de numeri etymologia (praeter quod falso dicit numerum a nummo esse). (2) Quippe cum haec symbola non fabuletur sed res serias tractet, nonne meliores fontes afferre debeamus? --Neander 20:57, 15 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentior. Fortasse Isidori nugae melius placeant in symbola nomina numeralia, ubi initium iucundum faciant, a quo gravius rem tractare possimus? --Ioscius  ∞ 21:23, 15 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: : . . . sive in symbola Numeri Romani? --Neander 22:02, 15 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Nomina numeralia mihi videtur aptius locus esse, nam de vocabulis tractant, numeri Romani autem de signis/symbolis. Quid putas, mi Neander? --Ioscius  ∞ 08:24, 16 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Ni fallor, nomina numeralia ad omnes mundi linguas pertinebit (in aliis quidem Vicipaediis ita esse videtur), cum Isidorus de Romanis tantum loquatur. Sed mea non magni refert. (Ceterum censeo Isidorum apud nostram Vicipaediam nimio in honore haberi. Medium aevum iam praeteriit.  :–)  ) --Neander 10:41, 16 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Veniam des mihi diu non respondenti. Consentio Isidorum rebus in scholasticis hodiernis fidem non facere. Initium autem interdum dat quo res gravius tractari possit sicut, mea quidem sententia, hic. Quoque monstrat unde historiae radices tua methodus historico-comparativa acceperit =] Quidquid id est, suasum est eum in numeris Romanis habere. -- Ioscius  ∞ 17:30, 28 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De etymologia 

message: Titulus prior ("Numeri Mayorum indorum de America meridionali.") mihi 'mediaevālior' vel potius Rōmānicior vīsus est. in "Numeri Mayorum Indorum Americae meridionalis " mūtāvī ("Indī" est nōmen gentis).
Obiter vōs quaerō num liceat in pāginīs "rērum" logitūdinēs indicāre (ut ego hāc in disputātiōne faciō)? Nam gaudeam scrībēns: 
"Numerī Māyōrum Indōrum Americae merīdiōnālis" :-) 
Cum enim nōn saepe audiāmus verba Latīna, quōmodō fīat, ut vōcālīs longās discāmus?
217.252.114.16 00:15, 19 Iunii 2011 (UTC)ŪĒLN
thread_title:  Dē Māyōrum numerīs - imāginam dīcō, quae in dextrā superiōre parte huius pāginae vidētur
Disputatio:Ursus maritimus

message: #Do you have a precident for ursus maritimus or did you invent it?
#What do you intend by pellis ursi blanca? I'm guessing "the bear's pelt is white"... but whatever your intended phrasing, the word for white is albus -a -um.
#I have been led to believe that "bear" defaults to the feminine in Latin. That is to say, if you know the bear is male, you say ursus. Otherwise you say ursa.
--Iustinus 19:11 ian 25, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ursus maritimus is the taxonomic/binomial name,according to en:polar bear.  —Myces Tiberinus 03:10 ian 26, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oh, duh!

message: Should "Lost" be translated into Latin or left English? And if Latin, what word should be used?
replies: text: VP:TNP doesn't cover this exactly, but given that it's a work originally in English, it should remain in English (until such time as they translate it into Latin...)  —Mucius Tever 01:33, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I don't watch the show, but gather that the characters are stranded on a tropical island. The poor bear! Was it "lost" too? IacobusAmor 04:02, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::If I understand right, the invisible monster guarding the hatch turned out to be a polar bear. --Iustinus 04:07, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Invisible monster?! Good lord, what bit of television wonder have I been missing? Tropical islands, invisible monsters, polar bears, OH MY!--Ioshus (disp) 04:10, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::The polar bear was actually there because some sort of zoological experiment was conducted on the island before the people got stranded there. I think they shot the polar bear though. Poor guy...
replies: text: :::::Whoah, my mistake... the things you miss when you edit wikipedia the same amount of hours a day that the average american spends watching tv =] --Ioshus (disp) 04:20, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Lost''

message: In "ego nihilominus exspectare nolim dum ursus maritimus an fame laboret annon mihi patefaciat!" quis est ego? IacobusAmor 21:22, 14 Maii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ego?

message: Haec pars, si "ad ursos universe spectat," nonne in paginam Ursus vel etiam Ursidae movenda est? Lesgles (disputatio) 18:25, 18 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pars de "locis"