lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio Categoriae:Via

message: Cur Via, non Viae ? IacobusAmor 21:27, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I've never felt like moving this one, because I quite like the idea that there is only one road, of which all these are mere segments. As Bilbo Baggins put it, "The road goes ever on and on". But, OK, "Viae" would be our normal choice :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:35, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :I will now create "Viae", using it for the special purpose I mentioned on the Taberna. In the long run (but before we're all dead) it may be appropriate to merge it with this category, or to rename this: for the moment, it'll be separate. OK I hope? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:54, 10 Maii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Srinivasa Aiyangar Ramanujan

message: I think "Aiyangar", not "Aaiyangar"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: uh, I have to leave this internet cafe now. Its easy to check the English version which I will do now.--Jondel 13:51, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

text: Youre right, good catch! I have to leave now.--Jondel 13:53, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, so I moved it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:53, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Great!--Jondel 11:45, 12 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Your spelling seems to be a possible one -- two of the other-language wikis spell the name the same way. Anyway, I think this is OK too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:55, 12 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Yikes, I noticed mistakes, spelling and others.--Jondel 12:05, 12 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Labor coacticius

message: Per me, "labor per vim" vim physicalem implicat. Fortasse "Labor coactú" (seu aliquid etiam melius!) praeferendum est? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Labor coactu susceptus aut (fortasse potius) labor coactus. Neander 14:46, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Laete accipio "Labor coactus". Et tu, Kitty? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:04, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Labor coactus was the first thought when editing the text this morning, but then a glance at examples in the almighty Cassell's suggested (perhaps falsely, on too quick a reading before enough coffee had been imbibed) that cogere 'to bring/drive/draw to one point' tends to be applied to people, not to concepts, so the lemma was left intact. The pattern that leaps out of the examples is aliquem ad aliquid cogere, or here, hominem ad laborem cogere, and therefore homines ad laborem coacti : the thing that's compelled is the humans, not the labor. (Also, given the basic gloss, one might worry that labor coactus might imply something more like 'restricted labor' or 'collected labor' than 'forced labor'.) Certainly, though (one now sees), lac coactum is 'curdled milk', so there's our opportunity, as we can readily make the leap from a thing like lac to a concept like labor. IacobusAmor 15:25, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Laborem coactum sine ullo scrupulo deprompsi ex lexico Pitkäranta. Puto quidem Iacobum omnino recte de verbo q.e. cogo construendo iudicare. Pitkäranta etiam alteram locutionem praebet, q.e. opera serva (quae apud Plautum legitur: servam operam, linguam liberam erus iussit med habere; Persa 280a). Fortasse opera serva aut labor servus? Neander 17:03, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Cum opera serva silentio (incredulo?) recepta esse videatur, paulisper consedi ad deliberandum, quomodo ipse, lexicorum auctoritate dimissa, hanc rem Latine dicam. Labor coacticius mihi venit in mentem. Dein Thesaurum consului et ecce: apud Cassianum inter alios hoc verbum legitur ("virtus coacticia*; "lacrimae coacticiae"; "ministeria coacticia"). Quin igitur labor coacticius. Neander 18:34, 13 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: Titulum in laborem coacticium mutavi, quem utique credo meliorem esse. Neander 15:23, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Credo et ego. "Opera serva" non laudavi quia oportet laborem coacticium (sensu latiori) a labore servili (i.e. hominum qui servi sunt) distinguere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Bardus

message: I am not sure how relevant Categoria:Aretalogi is, but it's not a million miles away so I noted it on the page for the time being.
Maybe Categoria:Vates is closer. I've substituted that one now.
Habebamus etiam, sine contentu, categoriam "Poesis Hibernica". Nescio an utilis erit, sed pro tempore in pagina inserui. Si hanc "regionem scientiae" evolvimus, possumus et tales categorias pro arte poetica in aliis linguis creare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 12 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nexus
Disputatio:Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus

message: *P. S. Allen, redactor Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, 12 vol. (Oxonii, 1906–1958)
*Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto, 1976- ), fundata in editionem Alleni, cum parvum numerum additiones et emendationes
Selectio hominum autorum epistolarum ad Erasmum: 
*Hadrianus VI papa
*Henricus Afinius (Hendrik van den Eynde)
*Georgius Agricola
*Henricus Cornelius Agrippa
*Albertus de Brandenburgo
*Faustus Andrelinus
*Gulielmus Blount, Baro Mountjoydiscipulus Erasmi, qui vocavit euminter nobiles doctissimus.
*Gulielmus Budaeus
*Henricus Bovillus	
*Gulielmus Burbank
*Henricus Byers
*Laurentius Campeggius
*Ioannes Claymond
*Ioannes Colet
*Martinus Dorp
*Wolfgangus Fabricius Capito
*Ioannes Roffensis (Anglice: John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester)
*Ricardus Foxe
*Fridericus III (dux Saxoniae)
*Georgius dux Saxoniae
*Damianus a Goes
*Gulielmus Grocyn	
*Henricus VIII (rex Angliae)
*Ulricus Huttenus
*Iustus Ionas
*Gulielmus Latimer
*Edwardus Lee
*Leo X papa
*Thomas Linacre
*Martinus Lips
*Thomas Lupset
*Martinus Luther
*Aldus Manutius
*Philippus Melanchthon	
*Thomas Morus
*Petrus Mosellanus
*Ioannes Oecolampadius
*Ricardus Pace
*Ioannes Reuchlin
*Beatus Rhenanus
*Petrus Thaborita
*Cuthbertus Tunstall
*Polydorus Vergilius
*Ioannes Ludovicus Vives
*Gulielmus Warham
*Thomas Wolseius
--Felix Folio Secundus 08:14, 13 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Opus epistolarum
Disputatio:Regna Cambrica

message: Quae Cambrice "Teyrnas X" (scilicet Regnum X) appellantur, "Regnum X" nominavi, ut exspectandum erat. Ergo:
replies: text: :cy:Teyrnas Gwynedd → Regnum Gwynedd
Quae autem Cambrice solum "X" appellantur (e.g. :cy:Seisyllwg(1)) etiam "Regnum X" appellavi (videlicet Regnum Seisyllwg et cetera), constantiae causa, et quo utiliora sint ad declinandum. Sed nulla alia Vicipaedia sic facit; idcirco prius scire velim an consentiatis quam commentationes incipiam! Mattie 03:20, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
(1) De quo prima phrasis, satis apte, est "Roedd Seisyllwg yn deyrnas yn ne-orllewin Cymru," scilicet "Seisyllwg erat regnum in meridionali occidenti Cambriae positum." Mattie

text: Per me nihil obstat, si utile esse censes; oportet autem redirectionem creare a nomine simpliciori.

text: Notandum est nomina Latina horum regnorum interdum exstare. Ego in tabula geographica "Britain in the Dark Ages" reperio (fontes primarii sunt fortasse Annales Cambriae etc.?) unde cito:

text: * Gwynedd > Venedotia

text: * Ceredigion > Coriticiana Regio

text: * Dyfed > Demetia

text: * Powys > Povois

text: Sed pro aliis, e.g. Seisyllwg, nullum nomen Latinum datur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias ob nomina Latina... nulla egomet inveneram. In Annalibus Cambriae quaeram cum tempus habebo. Sed de nomine Coriticianae Regionis haereo, quod constantiae causa "Regnum Coriticianum" praeoptaverim. Fonti constantiaeve haerere debeamus? Mattie 16:58, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ha! Si "Coriticiana Regio" quaeris apud googlianos, dubia magna videbis ... Mihi videtur in una tantum vita Sancti hoc nomen occurrere (cuius Sancti, nescio) ... fortasse evitare oportet. Sed Venedotiam, Demetiam (et fortasse Povois) adhibendas censeo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:16, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Sed quo modo his nominibus utar? "Regnum Venedotiae, seu brevius Venedotia"? Et "Povois" adiectivum est substantivumve? Google nihil mihi dat, tu igitur meus solus es fons. Mattie 00:27, 19 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Teyrnas
Disputatio:Trimurtis

message: Well, that sucks, doesn't it? Replacing Sivus with Trimurtis will cost us 0.03 points in the intervici standings, as it replaces a 18,900-character article with a 2108-character one. (The critical threshold where we're losing those points is 10,000.) Also, it lowers the mean length of the 1000 articles, which is already lower than ideal. :( Let's hope they don't remove Cultura, which greatly raises the mean and remains the biggest article on that topic in all of Vicilandia! IacobusAmor 11:50, 17 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  But we get the 3/90ths back on Abecedarium Cyrillicum, which is back up to size -- it dipped below 10k last month when I put in the mouse-over image-descriptions for all those archaic letter forms.  And I'm still plugging away at Theoria copiarum, which should pick up another 5/90ths when it's done (it's over 10K now and will definitely pass 30K).  A. Mahoney 19:22, 22 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacement in the 1000 pages
Disputatio:Puer mirabilis

message: Both are grammatical, but "The proper ending of the Acc. Pl., -īs (archaic, -eīs), is found frequently in  the classical period along with the later termination -ēs, which suppants -īs wholly in the early empire" (Gildersleeve 57.5). Similarly, the ablative of clāssis in -ī (as opposed to -e) is "found . . . not unfrequently" (57.2).  IacobusAmor 13:12, 20 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're more knowledgible on this. I'm just following the entry for 'classify' in the mini Oxford Latin dictionary. --Jondel 10:38, 21 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Acc. pl.: classis--->classes

message: ::Prodigium puerile aut Puer prodigius?--Xaverius 10:32, 5 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Mihi videtur Puer prodigius melius.Jondel (disputatio) 10:54, 5 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Let's wait a bit before moving this, in case anyone has any objections.--Xaverius 12:19, 5 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{Movenda|Puer prodigius}}</nowiki>

message: Notice that Latin prodigium has most of the time a negative tone in it: 'something unnatural'. There's no such adjective as "prodigius". The adjective corresponding to prodigium is prodigiosus, but it's generally not used of human beings (except for gods), only of phenomena and other thingies. Both Reijo Pitkäranta, Lexicon Finnico-Latino-Finnicum (Helsinki: WSOY, 2001) and Ebbe Vilborg, Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok. Andra upplagan. (Norstedts akademiska förlag, Stockholm, 2009) provide puer/puella mirabilis. Cum fontes habeamus, opus non est fingendo. Neander (disputatio) 16:48, 5 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{Movenda|Puer mirabilis}}</nowiki>
Disputatio:Periodus Calida Mediaevalis

message: Cassell's nobis docet 'period' Latine esse tempus vel spatium temporis vel tempestas ("formal, somewhat archaic") vel aetas ("often = — of life"). ¶ Vicipaedia verbo mediaevalis centies quinquagies sexies, medioaevalis (cum O) ter utitur. IacobusAmor 23:48, 23 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Igitur tum mutabo. Tempus calidum Mediaevale et Tempus frigidum Aetatis Obscuae sunt ita meliores?--Xaverius 09:52, 24 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Leonillus Gualterius Rothschild

message: I merged the new longer article into the existing short one. I don't have strong views on the most suitable pagename, or on the best Latin form of "Lionel"!
There is a comment on the talk page of the English page, from which ours is (partly?) translated, noting that it depends heavily on a single article from Haaretz. I see that our page still has ten references to that source, and it is odd for a 19th century biography to depend heavily on a single early 21st century newspaper article. We ought maybe to look for better sources? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:27, 28 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On the "plagiarism problem."—The English text has changed a great deal since a typist at computer 115.129.4.205 asserted that interpretation: it then had 7484 bytes; after deletions & additions, it now has 11 290: it's more than 50% percent bigger. IacobusAmor 11:27, 28 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :I guess it's fine. I've added the article to the bibliography, anyway, to ensure it's fully credited. It's a very interesting piece (yours I mean, but his too). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 28 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name; plagiarism problem?
Disputatio:Contentio Arabo-Israëlitica

message: An melius "Contentio inter Arabes et Israelitas"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 30 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An "Contentio Arabo-Israelitica"? ¶ Ceterum, cum constet his in rebus multas esse veritates, suadeo, ut versio Vicipaediae Anglicae quam exactissime in Latinam convertatur — simpliciter quod severae moderationi subiecta omnes partes audire conari videtur. Neander 12:25, 30 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Uter novus titulus mihi placet;  nescio quem melior sit, sed video "Israelita" melius esse quam "Israelanus"!
Recte dicis, Neandre, de multis veritatibus Medii Orientis.  Minime experta sum politicae vel historiae huius regionis.  Paginam scribam (ut fortasse videtur) ut omnes illas 1000 Paginas denuo haberemus, sperans aliquem eam supplere, emendare, perficere -- aut nunc aut serius.  Multi editores hic sunt, ut opinor, qui de his rebus plura sciant quam ego.  A. Mahoney 20:31, 4 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Ornithoptera alexandrae

message: Ornithoptera alexandrae (Anglice Queen Alexandra's birdwing) est ... Cur nomen Anglicum damus? Mattie 00:55, 1 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: English

message: Pro "Speciei distributio geographica est silvae Provinciae Oro in Papua Nova Guinea orientali" nunc habemus "Haec species nusquam nisi in silvis Provinciae Oro in Papua Nova Guinea orientali sitis habitare videtur." Sic, expeditius et melius! sed scito locutionem distributionem geographicam in biologia esse terminum technicum (verbum artis proprium), Anglice 'distribution' (Stearn, Botanical Latin, 1983, p. 417) et 'geographical area' (ibid., p. 434); et simile area geographica Anglice = 'range' (ibid., p. 496). IacobusAmor 14:27, 6 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cum ne Vicipaedia Anglica quidem hoc termino technico uteretur in hoc loco, ausus sum eum hic et nunc omittere. Neander 15:02, 6 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Expeditius—et melius!

message: Kart78, ais "Nulla Vicipaediae Latinae pagina huc annectitur." Quomodo non annectitur? Vide Ornithoptera. IacobusAmor 20:13, 10 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Usorem hunc obstruxi, quia hanc denuntiationem plurimas in paginas false imposuit, alias ex paginas false removit. --UV 20:53, 10 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{Pagina non annexa}}</nowiki>, denuntiatio quam Kart78 in paginam imposuit
Disputatio:Uxor

message: Plurimi nexus iw ad matrimonium pertinere videntur. Neander 12:59, 4 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias ago. Correxi.

text: Nuper autem observavi te paginam contribuendam suasisse: qua ratione? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 4 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

message: "Suadetur ut haec commentatio cum Coniugium contribuatur." Wait! In what way is :en:Wife synonymous with :en:Marriage law? Clearly different topics are involved here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:04, 26 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Contribuenda?
Disputatio:Acronicta

message: Kart78, ais "Nulla Vicipaediae Latinae pagina huc annectitur." Quomodo non annectitur? Vide Acronicta. IacobusAmor 20:11, 10 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Usorem hunc obstruxi, quia hanc denuntiationem plurimas in paginas false imposuit, alias ex paginas false removit. --UV 22:19, 10 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{Pagina non annexa}}</nowiki>, denuntiatio quam Kart78 in paginam imposuit
Disputatio:Arthurus Tatum

message: Machines haven't learned to write Latin yet. If anyone wants to work on the long non-Latin text that was added here, no problem -- it is in the history and can be restored. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:33, 15 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That machines can't write Latin is exactly why I thought that's what this was.  It looks like the output of Google's translator tool, which goes word by word, ignoring cases and other such refinements, and leaves the English word in place if it can't find a Latin equivalent.  So it looks like somebody took the text from :en:Art Tatum, ran it through something Google-ish or Babel-fishy, tweaked a bit (putting in roman numerals for years, for example), and declared victory.  I was timid about simply throwing that mess all away, but, you're right, it's in the history if anybody cares (but starting over and translating by hand would obviously work better);  I will be bolder next time!  A. Mahoney 12:57, 16 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, I believe you were right that that is what it was. I feel sure that starting again from the beginning gives a better result than trying to convert a machine-translated "Latin" text. But sometimes people are so enthusiastic about a subject or a personality that they just know it has to be fully covered on all Wikipedias -- and they may honestly believe that Google translator works. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 16 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machine translation?
Disputatio:Magister civium superior

message: Haec pagina definitionem tantum praebet locutionis quam scriptores Latini nesciunt. Contribuenda igitur? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:11, 15 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Contribui. Definitio nunc invenitur in pagina Magister civium. --UV (disputatio) 21:09, 6 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utilis?
Disputatio:Progressus durabilis

message: "Devolutio durabilis est devolutio vel civilizatio quae praesentes populi opes naturales uteri pro iuribus populi futuri est cum minima pollutione."—Anglice videtur haec sententia significare "A lasting degeneration [spinoff, rolling down, falling] is a degeneration or a civilization that a people's present natural resources of a womb in favor of the rights of a future people is with the smallest defilement." IacobusAmor 17:15, 15 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita quidem! :–) Profecto multa corrigenda sunt, sed titulus et lemma quam citissime mutanda sunt, ne extravicipaedianis Latine callentibus ridiculi videamur. Fauste evenit quod fontem extravicipaedianum habemus huius termini aliquantulum arcani: progressus durabilis (Pekkanen & Pitkäranta). Itaque non esse videtur, quin titulum mutemur. Neander (disputatio) 15:29, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
Optime, emendationis gratias tibi ago.Jondel (disputatio) 02:30, 9 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma et definitio

message: Writing " et ... -que " to mean " et ... et " seemed odd to me. I happen to have Cassell's Latin Dictionary handy, and indeed I see there: " et ... -que:  rare, but found in Cicero." Toddcs (disputatio) 23:54, 19 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Both for themselves and for those who come later", emphasizing "both". Is that it? I think it's good (I'm glad if Cicero thought so too). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 20 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... ut et ipsis posterisque ..."
Disputatio:Cafeum nocturnum (van Gogh)

message: Caupona cafearia nocturna 'Nocturnal coffee tavern', 'Coffee inn of the night' : fortasse melius simplicius Cafearium noctu vel Cafearium nocte vel Cafearium de nocte ? IacobusAmor 14:37, 16 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: De locutione "caupona cafearia" haud scio, amice: secutus sum paginam nostram caupona cafearia; ibi potius, si volumus, disputandum est ... Sed re vera fuit café de nuit ("taberna nocturna"): vide e.g. paginam Anglicam cum explicationibus ibi datis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 16 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: : Pitkäranta et tabernam cafeariam et cafeum praebet. Itaque Cafeum nocturnum commendo. Adverbialia (sicut "noctu", "nocte") nominibus attribui non solent. Neander 15:06, 16 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Fortasse adverbalia nomini hic non attributura sunt, quia verbum celatur: cafeum noctu (visum). IacobusAmor 15:36, 16 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Gratias ago ambobus! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:50, 16 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

text: Can you help with "watercolour paints" by any chance? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:53, 16 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Digramma

message: How would you say digraph in Latin? As in, CH is one of Welsh's eight digraphs. Mattie 02:13, 17 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a possible Greek word but doesn't exist in classical Greek. And there's no modern Greek Wikipedia article on this subject.

text: Latin is always ready to adopt scientific/technical Greek words. So the question is, what would the Greek termination/declension be? The word δίγραμμα exists in modern Greek -- you can Google it -- but whether it has this meaning among others I am not sure. So my initial suggestion is digramma (neut. 3 decl.; genitive digrammatis, plural digrammata. What will others say? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:59, 17 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

text: I think I have now confirmed that this word has this precise sense in modern Greek. See the article :el:Προφορά της κλασικής Αρχαίας Ελληνικής γλώσσας, in which the following clause appears: "επειδή το μακρό κλειστό [o:] αποδιδόταν από το δίγραμμα ου", meaning (if I mistake not, Watson) since the long closed [o:] was rendered by the digraph "ου". So ... I stick with my suggestion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:05, 17 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sounds good. Thank you! I'll draft us an article matching :en:Digraph (orthography) to document "digramma" as the Latin term. Mattie 17:16, 17 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Digraph
Disputatio Categoriae:Ruthenia

message: Si oportet nexus intervicios mutare, rationem explica s.t.p. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:45, 19 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the anonymous user speaks English, so I'll begin in English. Our article Ruthenia, which is the principal article for this category, seems to correspond with the English article :en:Ruthenia, which is the principal article for the category :en:Category:Rus'. And the interwiki links for the categories all agreed with that.

text: For that reason, a change of interwiki links, without making any change to the relevant article, seems to need explanation. By all means go ahead, O anonyme, and explain. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:20, 19 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :There is no :en:Category:Rus' in English wikipedia now. --91.202.129.142 12:57, 19 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sorry, I meant :en:Category:Rus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 19 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qua ratione?
Disputatio Categoriae:Locutores Interlinguae

message: Usque adhuc paginas locutorum linguarum singularum non incepimus. Mihi videtur fortasse inutile; lingua aliqua loqui haud per se notabile est, sed opera in hac lingua scribere vel creare (cf. e.g. :Categoria:Auctores Catalani). Igitur suadeo hanc categoriam aut in Auctores Interlinguae mutare, si idoneam sit, aut delendam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 21 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio. --UV 21:11, 21 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  De serie categoriarum "locutorum" nondum incepta
Disputatio:Hypatia

message: Professor Maria Dzielska in libro suo (Hypatia of Alexandria, Harvard University Press, 2005) concludit Hypatiam in anno ~ 355 (non 370!) natam esse. Comparetis Vicipaediam Anglicam et Theodiscam. Salutat -- 147.142.186.54 19:52, 22 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias agimus -- iam emendavi sicut suadisti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:20, 24 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Id iam conspexeram. Etiam honorabili magistro Dalbio gratias agimus. / Salutat -- 147.142.186.54 17:05, 26 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annus natalis