lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Singularis (musica)

message: This phonodiscus singularis melodiae apparently = 'a one-tune record', but almost all single vinyl records have two sides, each with one tune, so they're really "two-tune records," and if memory serves, one side may contain music that consists of two tunes, and that raises the total to three. Wikipedia confirms my memory: "Despite being referred to as a single, singles can include up to as many as three tracks on them." So Vilborg's phrase, which reads more like a definition than a term, seems at least slightly off the mark. Maybe a one-word noun, like solum or unicum (scil. carmen), would be apter? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:24, 4 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If Vilborg offers the single word "singularis", you're right about the illogicality of the term but it corresponds precisely with the English and French, so it seems quixotic to reject it. OK, then, if we accept that, since we don't crowd initial sentences with synonyms, we have no justification for making a second lemma out of the descriptive phrase; so we could relegate it to a footnote or even (if we believe it's just a definition) delete it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:42, 4 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: : I only corrected the misinformation initially given and left the article as it is. Instead of "singularis", Vilborg has only "phonodiscus singuaris melodiae" which doesn't work as a lemma; rather, it looks like being a (poor) definition. Neander (disputatio) 20:34, 4 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ah, thanks for clarifying. Then Iacobus is right and we should indeed try to find a solution. "Unicum" is attractive. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:56, 4 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine Vilborgiano
Disputatio:Georgius Sand

message: Salvete. Quidni praenomen "Georgia"? [Scripsit FabSylvanus hora 11:15 diei 6 Martii 2016.]
replies: text: Res difficilis est! Sed illa ipsa praenomen masculinum adsumpsit. Haud licet nobis aliter decernere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:12, 6 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nomen Francice et Anglice est George, non Georgine/Georgina, ergo mea sententia Latine Georgius scribendum. Domina Dudevant nomen manifeste masculinum elegit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:56, 6 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgius/Georgia

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, tomus 17. Lipsiae 1909, p. 536-538 (in interreti hic)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mense Ianuario 2020
Disputatio:Et tu Brute

message: De rogatione "nonne punctum interrogationis est pars necessaria locutionis?" For the record: some critics hold that the sentence is a statement (about Brutus's future), rather than a question. Punctuating it with a question mark forecloses that interpretation. Also, readers ignorant of Greek are going to think that the Greek question mark is a semicolon. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:08, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The point about the ambiguity is important, I think. When the source texts were written no such punctuation was in use, so inserting it is bound to reflect a later interpretation.

text: I made and added an image of the Shakespeare line from the first folio, which does have a question mark. Since I was editing the page, I also removed the Greek question mark, but if others conclude it should go back in, that's fine by me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :That makes two of us who have removed it. (Anyone want to make it three?) Surely Shakespeare's is the prevailing interpretation in Western culture, but it's not the only one possible. Anyway, we don't put periods (full stops) after lemmata that are statements, so why should we deploy question marks and exclamation points, especially when they're editorial additions to the original texts? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Editores, quorum opiniones magni facere soleo, puncto interrogationis uti videntur. (Quo dicto confiteor me ipsum semper credidisse, Caesarem haec verba potius exclamasse quam interrogasse.) Itaque mea sententia anceps est. Per me sine ullo puncto sit. Neander (disputatio) 13:58, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Perhaps the present solution is best then, with no punctuation in the lemma but question marks in the quotes (as in the modern editions)? If someone wants to write something about the different interpretations, that would be useful as well. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:58, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::You're quite right, the quoted texts have it, and that's because they are copied from editions which have it. Yes, it will be better still when we say something about the question/exclamation issue in our text, but I don't have time even to look for sources right now! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:19, 11 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Question mark?
Disputatio Formulae:Photomontage

message: I am doubtful whether we want this, for three (!) reasons
# It requires Lua, which is not implemented on this wiki. See 2
# We shouldn't implement Lua if I am right in thinking that mobile view (used by an ever increasing number of readers) does not handle Lua. But I'd be happy to hear that I am wrong about this
# Montages without detailed captions are not suited to an encyclopaedia. Illustrations in encyclopedias are only useful if the reader is told what they illustrate.
Well, that's my view ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 12 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: With which someone else completely agrees (except for the Lua part, which is a mystery here, and long may it so remain). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:36, 12 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: : I have deleted the module (and the currently-unused template that went with it) for several reasons: The immediate reason was that the module was copied here (apparently from en.wikipedia) without proper attribution. Further reasons are the doubtful suitability of photomontages for an encyclopedia (see the arguments given above), the similarity to the <gallery> tag, the fact that currently none of the permanent contributors on la.wikipedia are sufficiently familiar with Lua, the resulting fear of unmaintained modules, and the hope that soon it will be possible to store Lua modules not on individual wikipedias such as la.wikipedia, but in one central place (like commons for images), see e. g. meta:Community Tech/Central repository for gadgets, templates and Lua modules. --UV (disputatio) 21:21, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De utilitate huius moduli
Disputatio:Phaenomenon

message: The infinitive of 'to become' seems apt to mean phenomenon, as in ' quod multa in terris fieri caeloque tuentur, ' ,--because they observe many 'changing things/phenomena' on the earth and in the sky--.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:23, 12 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Fieri
Disputatio:Ioanna Joplin

message: Paululum demiror, o Giorno2, unde nomen Janis cognoveris nomini Ioannae congruere. Potesne testimonium afferre? Neander (disputatio) 15:09, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Janis fortasse = Janice, quod = "a feminine given name, an extended version of Jane. Jane is one of the feminine forms of John in English" (Janice). Nonne Jane = Ioanna? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:22, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hmm, schema tuum a propositione "Janis fortasse = Janice" incipit. Fortasse, sed quomodo scire possumus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:08, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Maxime quidem refert quod nondum quisquam extra vicipaediam recta aut falsa etymologia usus associationem "Janis = Ioanna" facere ausus est. Nonne fingendi interdictio (praesertim in titulis) valet? Neander (disputatio) 17:49, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Oxford Dictionary of First Names dicit de Janis "Variant spelling of Janice"; de Janice "Derivative of Jane, with the addition of the suffix -ice, abstracted from girls' names such as Candice and Bernice"; de Jane "Originally a feminine form of John, from the Old French form Je(h)anne". Puto igitur etymologiam claram esse, sed tamen de aequivalentia nominum dubito. Suffixum "-ice" fortasse novum nomen creat, dissimile, exempli gratia, suffixo "-y" (Johnny = John = Io(h)annes), quod faciliter in quodlibet nomen imponi potest, novum nomen non creans. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:23, 16 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Feminae 1000

message: If this list is seeking the 3000 most important (known) women who have ever lived, it should probably include the women listed among  the 10,000 most important topics in all the world—a flawed list, of course, but still the epitome of collective wikipedian wisdom. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:41, 16 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Many are already included, I think. By all means add any that are omitted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 16 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Who's in, who's out
Disputatio:Bonum-Pretium

message: Andrew ha fatto una domanda sulla latinità, perché "de bono-pretium" sembra sgrammaticato. Ora vedo che si tratta di una fusione di due comuni: "Pieve di Bono" e "Prezzo", allora "Plebs de Bono-Pretium" sarebbe giusto. Tuttavia, nella fonte dato trovo che "Pieve di Bono" si chiama "Bonum" senza "pieve". Propongo dunque "Bonum-Pretium". Un'altra cosa: anche in articolo italiano ci sono poche informazioni su questo villaggio. Penso che ci sia poca necessità di mantenere queste sezioni che rimarranno per sempre vuote. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:09, 18 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nominibus
Disputatio:Genus (grammatica)

message: Mota ex Disputatio:Genus (grammatica Latina):
Mea sententia, hoc diagraphema delendum est sexu non regenti genus (confer theodiscam vocem Weib generis neutri et significationis femina)
Acsacal (disputatio) 14:52, 5 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Etiam in lingua Theodisca genus grammatica saepe cum "genere naturali" congruet, sed non semper, ut recte dicis. Imaginem, quia lectorem decipere potest et quia insuper Anglice scripta est, abstuli. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:29, 25 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagraphema generum
Disputatio:Casus (descensus)

message: Isn't 'lapsus' more associated with slipping and 'slip of the tongue(lapsus +linguae)'? The word 'descensus' is provided to clarify that the meaning is falling 'down'.An electrician can fall if his cables break without the electrician slipping.--Jondel (disputatio) 15:22, 20 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right after all, Jondel! Both words have a lot of meanings, and certainly the choice isn't easy. Let's see if anyone else has a thought. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:09, 20 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :It is good that you investigate this issues. I would very much appreciate other's opinions and would want it move if there is a better choice. I sort of target a hypothetical 'native Latin language speaker' and try to think of what his first choice would be.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:40, 21 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::According to Cassell's, lapsus is from labor = 'glide, slide, fall down, slip', while casus is from cado = 'fall'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:05, 21 Martii 2016 (UTC)
Thank  you for your research into this issue Iacobus.--Jondel (disputatio) 05:44, 23 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lapsus
Disputatio:Ault

message: Vargenau "movit paginam Ault (Samara) ad Ault (Pas d'homonymie)." Sed vide (ex en):
*Ault, Colorado
*Ault, Northern Ireland
*Ault Hucknall, a small village in Derbyshire, England
*Ault Park (Ontario), Ontario, Canada
*Ault, Somme, France
Et hic vide alias res venturas: Ault. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:30, 25 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis: quando paginas habemus de Ault (Coloratum) sive et Ault (Hibernia Septentrionalis) discernere nobis necesse erit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:35, 25 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Pas d'homonymie?
Disputatio:Ventus

message: Nescio quare haec pagina "non stipula" sit.  Summarium mutationis dicit "Source?" sed verbum "ventus" sane latinum est, apud Ciceronem et Caesarem inventum.  Quid ergo scribendum est?  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:28, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Commentarius fonte definitionis nostra aetate scripto caret. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:57, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: : Pro mea parte formulas q.s. "Vicificanda" et "Scientia dubia" addidi, quod paretymologias Isidoreas garrulitate puerili miscet. Neander (disputatio) 15:16, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ha! Ego fontem convenientem (quamvis Anglicum) addidi. Pagina nunc stipula est, etiamsi vicificanda et scientiá dubiá! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:22, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Anne, to be clear, I think the current "rules" for stipulae require an external source either for the Latin word (especially important for non-classical vocabulary), or for the subject itself. This article may technically qualify because of the classical sources and text copied from Isidore, but it wasn't obvious. I agree that the Isidorean material needs to be dealt with; maybe it can be reduced to a section on "antiquae notiones" or something like that. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:01, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::That's it. One might say "a page of this length could stand on its own with no citations" but Neander's judgment (with which I agree!) shows that even a page of this length may be of low usefulness to a reader. A handy, helpful external link makes it that much more useful in a trice.

text: ::::So I'd say Iacobus was quite right to mark it "Non stipula". In fact it wasn't so easy to find an obviously useful link to add. I usually find something good on de:wiki or fr:wiki. Nothing in this case. So I had to fall back on en:wiki, and even there not a lot.

text: ::::Rewriting would of course improve the page massively, but that takes longer than adding a link. The link I provided might help the rewriter, who knows? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 30 Martii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::OK, I've added the definition from en; magna ex parte may or may not be right for 'on a large scale', but others can fix that. It wasn't absolutely uncertain where the adaptation from Isidore began, but I've made a quick guess. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:38, 30 Martii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Fons
Disputatio:Communicatio interculturalis

message: Quid est addendum ut haec commentatio stipula fiat? An nexus externus? Adiuvate, nescio qualis nexus mihi sit adiciendus (qui verisimiliter in lingua alia atque commentationis lingua scriptus erit)! Hoc scio: de Communicatione Interculturali cursus exstare in studiorum universitatibus (et Paedagogiam Interculturalem esse in talibus cursibus disciplinam, saltem in Italia). MARCVS (disputatio) 05:45, 4 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita, fontem externum utilem linguá quávis scriptum adde, e.g. sub == Bibliographia == aut == Nexus externi ==. Quo facto, mi amice, statim formulam  remove! Latinistae multilingues esse solent; ergo nullo modo necesse est (etsi bonum sit) fontem Latine scriptum reperire. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 4 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
Dum meo solo computatrulo telephonico, vel telephono computatrali, utor, difficilius est mihi textus seligere et glutinare, quod facere oportet ad nexus adiciendos. Id faciam igitur (nisi quis id prius fecerit) cum primum amplius computatrum commode adhibere potero. MARCVS (disputatio) 23:52, 4 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
Disputatio:Ars unculo texendi

message: Unco textura? Revera? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:08, 4 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
Rectus es, quod "ullus omnino" significat "unculus" verbum. 
Wiki user wiki (disputatio) 14:14, 12 Martii 2018 (UTC)
Sine! Origo "unculus" verbi notata est hac [] in pagina esse ex Lexicone hodiernae Latinitatis Finno-Latino-Finnico ab Societate Litterarum Finnicarum anno bis miliagesimo sexto edito. Wiki user wiki (disputatio) 21:57, 20 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Alfredus Brehm

message: Quid significat "Renthendorf/Circulus"? "Renthendorf aut Circulus" legi videtur, sed Renthendorf revera non est unus ex circulis Germanicis? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:35, 8 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Signum rerum alternatarum ("/")
Disputatio:Filum

message: Identidem adhiberi videtur verbum sitio inter nexus externos, quod Anglice significat 'I'm thirsty'. Fortasse verbum desideratum est situs. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:25, 9 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias tibi ago o Iacobo, consilio tuo. Surrogemus cum 'situs' adeo.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:32, 9 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sitio?!
Disputatio:Compilatio Panamensis

message: Traupman: litore distans. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:42, 9 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias ago pro dictione, Iacobe! Cum quidem etiam in aliis linguis terminus Anglicus in usu technico esse videtur, mihi quoque visum est de hac via non declinare. Sed alias quoque opiniones patior. Neander (disputatio) 14:01, 9 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Wikipaedia explanat: "While the term originates from the Channel Islands being "offshore" from the United Kingdom, and while most offshore banks are located in island nations to this day, the term is used figuratively to refer to any bank used for these advantages, regardless of location. Thus, "offshore banks" include Swiss banks and those of other landlocked nations such as Luxembourg and Andorra." Ergo, locutio mera metaphora esse videtur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:17, 9 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Francogallice dicitur :fr:Banque extraterritoriale, itaque fortasse "extraterritorialis", vocabulum quod in Latinitate recenti iuridicaque reperitur et quod facile intellegi potest. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:51, 9 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Assentior tibi, Lesgles. Effectus metaphoricus in verbo offshore positus est. An dictio litore distans eandem metaphoram continere possit sine priore historia discursiva Latine habita, dubium est. Neander (disputatio) 17:36, 9 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: De ''offshore''
Disputatio:Transcriptio phonetica

message: Ratio tabulae "exemplorum" (exemplis non datis) haud scio. Nexus omnes erant rubri, IPA excepto quod iam in textu commemoratur. Nomina nuda mihi nihil dicunt. Ergo delevi, sed, si quis restituere velit, veris exemplis sive explicationibus additis, optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:39, 29 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Exempla"
Disputatio:Quadrum crystallorum liquidorum

message: Quadrum? In computatione, monitorium (Traupman 2007: 597) Anglice = 'monitor'. Vide etiam nostro commentario de monitorio. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:07, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 'TV or computer screen' (vocabulum Anglicum) est quadrum visificum (Traupman 2007: 649). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:30, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :@IacobusAmor Monitorius, -a, -um is an attested Classical Latin word that means either "of the warner" or "warning" (adj.), since monitor means "warner". See Sen. Q. N. 2, 39, 2; id. ib. 2, 49, 1 cited by Lewis&Short, fulmen monitorium ("a warning lightning"). If Vicipaedia decides to adopt monitorium for English "monitor" it must do so knowing that in Classical Latin it already means "warning" / "of the warner". Quadrum ("frame") is often used for English "monitor" and is a more neutral word --Grufo (disputatio) 00:35, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Apertura (musica)

message: Quamquam Fr. ouverture ad formam q.e. apertura reduci potest, nonne aliquantulum audax est hoc uti vocabulo, quod apud Vitruvium idem valet ac foramen? Habemus vocabulum q.e. praecentio, et quidem apud ipsum  Ciceronem, quae ad musicam refertur, etsi apud antiquos sacris aut proelio praemitti solebat. Quid censetis? Neander (disputatio) 09:58, 10 Maii 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cassell's (1968) et Traupman (2007) nobis suadent overture, vocabulum Anglicum, in musica Latine esse exordium. Cassell's Anglice subscribit "beginning, prelude" (prelude autem certe est nostrum praeludium). Praecentionem Cassell's sic Anglice definit: "a musical prelude, a singing before a sacrifice," quam significationem Cassell's Ciceroni quidem tribuit. In musicologia, "overture" et "prelude" aliquantum inter se discrepant. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:26, 10 Maii 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  De appellatione
Disputatio:Systema coordinatarum caelestium

message: System → Systema. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:19, 10 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ach, gratias tibo ago. Scripturam correxi et categorias addidi. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 03:12, 11 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ne te crucia. Menda typographica fiunt! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:57, 11 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Odysseas Elytes

message: Is there a reliable source (I don't mean Wikidata) that his name from birth was "Odysseas"? It seems unlikely: the classical spelling would have been official until long after that date, and whether the common modern Greek pronunciation would even have been known in autonomous Ottoman Crete would be an interesting question! Notice, too, that the English edition cited in the bibliography calls him "Odysseus". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 24 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points; I suppose he would have gotten a katharevousa name at birth, though it would be nice to have a source. I went ahead and changed that part back. The question of the lemma seems more complicated to me: I thought it was better to base our transliteration on the modern Greek name he used (at least later in life), rather than on English or ancient Greek. Of course, maybe he should be classical Latin Ulixes, which wouldn't really be more different from translating James as Iacobus, etc. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:31, 24 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's a tiny issue (we will never have articles about many modern people called Odysseus) but, although one may favour demotic in the context of modern Greek culture, one has to admit that we Vicipaedians ourselves, having Cicero as our model, are katharevousa Latinists! In the case of praenomina known in Latin tradition we usually convert to a Latin form (preferring, if there are options, the option that is closest to the native form). I said to myself, when I encountered this page before, that this is a relevant case and that those options are Ulixes and Odysseus. However, I admit, now that I'm put on the spot, I can't immediately show that the form "Odysseus" is ever used in Latin. If it isn't, I guess I would prefer the transliterated "Odysseas" to the Procrustean "Ulixes" :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:08, 25 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::OK, well my opinion is not very strong either way. Here's a source of "Odysseus" in modern Latin, so if you'd like to change it back, please do! Lesgles (disputatio) 15:56, 25 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::It's curious how inconsistent they are in other languages. You can find on Google, in Spanish, the list "Constantino Kavafis, Yorgos Seferis, Yanis Ritsos y Odiseo Elytis". Now why do numbers 1 and 4 have their forenames converted to Spanish, when numbers 2 and 3 don't?

text: :::I don't feel strongly either. Let's see if anyone else comments. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:49, 25 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fons praenominis?
Disputatio:Chaco (provincia)

message: The name of the Apostolic Vicariate of Chaco Paraguayo is Apostolicus Vicariatus Ciachensis in Paraquaria Natione. Just to take into account. --Gulielmus (disputatio) 01:20, 28 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think this discretiva should be deleted, because none of the names in it are sourced and none of the pages exist except Chaco (provincia). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:43, 28 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputatio paginae deletae "Tzacum (discretiva)"
Disputatio:Stadium Olympicum Berolinense

message: Usor 77.6.13.233 dicit "removing cross wiki spam." Fair enough, but by doing that, you've made the article a non stipula, eligible for deletion. To save it, add a source? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:40, 28 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Crosswiki spam