lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Cathedralis Rothomagensis (Monet)

message: Nunc: "Rouen Ecclesia (Anglice: Rouen Cathedral) est series picturarum inner annos 1892 et 1893 Normannia a Claudio Monet composita." Revera? Monet linguam Anglicam malebat?! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:10, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio titulum authenticum operum. Titulum Gallicum invenire conatus sum, sed non inveni. Cupisne titulum Latinum aut Anglicum paginae? Imperator (disputatio)
replies: text: :Cur Anglicum? Si nullus titulus a pictore ipso datur, nobis licet titulum Latinum per translationem creare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:25, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio
Disputatio:Claudius Monet

message: M890709, you changed the link so instead of referring to the painting ([[Ecclesia Cathedralis Rothomagensis (Monet)]]), it referred to the cathedral ([[Cathedralis Rothomagensis]]). One day, Vicipaedia will have articles on both things. So I changed it back. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:47, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Imprecise linking
Disputatio:Fortalexia

message: Anonymus quidam "Fortaliciam" suadebat, fonte Morganatico adducto. Qui fons pauci ponderis est, nisi fallor, fontibus pluribus rite divulgatis nunc repertis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 22 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Civitates Brasiliae

message: Brasilianae subdivisiones primariae multis fontibus Latinis nominantur, sed titulis variis: olim "praefecturae", hodie interdum "civitates", omnibus aevis "provinciae". "Provincias" praefero ego, titulum saepius fortasse in contextu Brasiliano adhibitum, eodem sensu iam apud Romanis communiter usitatum, sed quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 22 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Rota dentata

message: Rota dentata perperam est hic nominata, nam haec res, quoad ego scio, Latine non "rota dentata" appellatur, sed "tympanum dentatum", confer Vitruvii lib. X. [Scripsit aliquis, 37.249.114.228 appellatus.]
replies: text: Hanc commentatiunculam ad Disputatio:Rota dentata moveo ubi sine dubio utilis erit. Hic respondetis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:33, 23 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rota dentata
Disputatio:Stemma genealogicum

message: We might find a Latin term attested somewhere, and this may yet be it, but according to Google "Arbor familiaris" has been used in a different sense, "tree that is endemic/common" in a particular region. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 25 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly "arbor gentilis". Note the title of a 1702 publication in this list .

text: ... though that expression has been used in another sense also, "pagan tree", "tree which was the object of pre-Christian worship". "lucos et arbores gentiles" is a medieval phrase cited from Cosmas Pragensis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:34, 25 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Stemma gentile vel potius stemma? Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 14:39, 25 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Recte, mi Marce! iam apud Senecam, Suetonium, etc.! Fortasse melius binis verbis "stemma gentile"? "Stemma" enim varios sensus habet. Id propono ad interim ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:57, 25 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
Stemma gentile vel stemma genealogicum ː nam si hanc locutionem Latinam capsae Guglianae (enːGoogle) investigationis inscripseris multa responsa tibi occurrent ̴̴̴̴
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Fetura

message: If there is a Latin word for this concept, and encyclopedic facts can be sourced on the subject, then there would be the making of an article. But "fetura" does not have the meaning given to it here -- rather the contrary -- so it would be a bad starting point: we have a mere dictionary definition (not a Vicipaedia article) which is, moreover, false. I would delete this and await something better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:59, 25 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that now. If anyone wants it back, explain here. An article based on the real meaning of Fetura will be welcome. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:05, 25 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Macte. According to glosses in Cassell's and Traupman, fetura and/or fetus might be considered likely candidates for 'brood' or 'generation' (in the zoological sense). Does zoology have any equivalent to Stearn's Botanical Latin? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:13, 25 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delenda?
Disputatio:Pronuntiatio Aschenatum Hebraica

message: What's the reason for this redirect? Unless I'm mistaken, :en:Ashkenazi Hebrew is not the same as Yiddish. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 25 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for this oversight. Be aware however of this statement at the askenazi page and a similar one at the Yiddish page:"The traditional diaspora language of Ashkenazi Jews is Yiddish. "  ---Jondel (disputatio) 14:07, 25 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, indeed, but it's not a kind of Hebrew -- that was the issue for me.

text: :OK, so if this is to be an article, that's great. I don't think we have a source for "Ascenazicus -a um". The only Latin form I managed to find was the noun plural "Aschenates". We could make a title from that, "Lingua Hebraica Aschenatum" (genitive plural) or "Pronuntiatus Hebraicus Aschenatum" or something of that kind. Or, of course, someone else may be luckier than me at finding other Latin forms of Ashkenazi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:01, 25 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::"Lingua Hebraica Aschenatum" works fine for me. I will eventually move it there. It would indeed be great if someone could fine a more accurate title.--Jondel (disputatio) 23:57, 25 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Obviously, the spelling Aschenates comes from a German source where Gomer's son is spelled Aschenaz. In Latin Bible, however, one of Gomer's sons is Ascenez (Genesis 10:3; Ieremias 51:27). How to deal with this discrepancy? ¶ In my opinion, Pronuntiatio Ascenatum or Dialectus Ascenatum sounds more accurate, because ideally (leaving out political passions) in order for something to be considered a language, a whole system consisting of syntactic, morphological, phonological, lexical subsystems is required. Neander (disputatio) 07:07, 26 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::For 'pronunciation', Cassell's tells English-speakers to use "appellatio, locutio ; sometimes simply vox or (vocis) sonus" ; Traupman, however, authorizes nothing but pronuntiatio. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:48, 26 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I find other sources for "Aschenates", "Aschenatibus" etc. Admitting that this spelling may not be ideal, I think it has a reasonably wide use. It does not rely solely on German; compare the  spelling in older English sources of the parent name, Ashchenez. Hence, for the present, reading the discussion above, I propose "Pronuntiatio Aschenatum Hebraica". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:13, 29 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much Andrew, Neander and Iacobus for your contributions!  --Jondel (disputatio) 05:30, 2 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirectio?
Disputatio:Men of Harlech

message: The old geographical dictionaries say "Harlecum" . I don't find any examples of "Harlechum".
As to the pagename, however, we normally call a written work by its original name unless a Latin translation has been published. So I think this should be Men of Harlech (I gather the Welsh version came later). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:56, 28 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I Found Harlechi in reference to a Jo. Daviesius in Præfatione ad Grammaticam Britannicum Edit. Lond. Ano D. 1621. q[u]i et mortem obijt Harlechi Mense Maij 1644. But yes, we may as well move it to the English title.--Xaverius 16:17, 30 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks for your reply, Xaveri. As for "Harlechum -i", given that there is a source for that spelling, no problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:42, 1 Octobris 2018 (UTC)

text: I was wrong to say above that the Welsh version came later. The song seems to have appeared bilingually in the first 1794 edition, but to have existed as a traditional song in Welsh earlier. However, assuming no Latin version has been published, it's reasonable for us to take a title from the first publication ... which allows us to retain "Men of Harlech" if we want. The song is commonly known under this name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 9 Iunii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Marrella splendens

message: This
replies: text: 
appears to be an obsolete version of a taxobox. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:35, 29 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
I tried to fix it but there is red text appearing over the picture. I have never used a taxobox before. 
 Imperator (disputatio)

text: It's not an obsolete version, but there were big errors in the data. I think they were induced by the cramped format, and perhaps by the inexperience to which Imperator candidly admits! It's correct now, I hope. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:03, 12 Septembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxobox
Disputatio:Sine ephippio (actus sexualis)

message: It occured to me that posticus is an adjective. Perhaps the title should be nudum tergum? I don't know how to change the title.  Amator irrumationis (disputatio)
replies: text: Have you looked for attestations online? Since the sexual sense is an extension of the ordinary term for riding without a saddle, Sine ephippio might be just as apt. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:09, 30 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :The English word literally refers to a horse's back, so the literal translation is "dorsum" rather than "tergum". But translating the English compound, originally adverbial (in riding bareback), by a Latin noun + adjective in the nominative (e.g. "dorsum nudum") is likely to lead to incomprehension. A Latin reader, not already knowing the English usage, would simply be lost. "Dorso nudo" could make a sort of sense, but Iacobus's phrase is, I think, apter. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 30 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Perhaps, though, it should specify the riding: Equitatio sine ephippio or Equitatus sine ephippio. Or (the nonnative speaker never knows!) perhaps there's actually a Latin word for 'to ride without a saddle'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:44, 30 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Equitatus equo nudo 'riding on a bare horse'? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:49, 30 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Notice, though, that the usual meaning of equitatus is 'cavalry'. :-) Neander (disputatio) 15:55, 30 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
Equitatio sine ephippio Is the one in my view. Although mentioning the word coitus in the title could improve comprehension. Fututio sine ephippio? I hear people often refer to it as “bareback fucking”. Amator irrumationis (disputatio)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Scepticismus

message: Non de numinibus auctor disseruit, sed de φαινόμενα et νοούμενα, phaenomenis et noumenis. An melius Latine noumena et noumenalis, ut in hoc libro vel in hoc, quam numena et numenalis, nescio. Quomodo nou- Latine legatur, nemo scit. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 18:58, 18 Februarii 2019 (UTC).
replies: text: Ah, OK, gratias. Sed fortasse noumenon, -i melius erit? Vide notam in commentario:
replies: text: :"Fridericus Gottlieb Born noumenon scripsit, nos autem numenon, nam Tertullianus (Adv. Valent. 7; 9) et Martianus Capella (Nupt. 2.126) vocabulum Graecum νοῦς 'mens, cogitatio' non nous sed nus scripserunt."

text: Quibus litteris scripserit hoc vocabulum Kantius ipse? ¶ Etiam: secundum L&S, n(o)umenalis non est vocabulum Latinum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:29, 18 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: : Kantius libros philosophicos Theodisce scripsit, ante eum haec verba fortasse Graecis litteris saepius scripta sunt. Ad unguem haec nescio, non historicus philosophiae sum. — Lewis and Short Latinitatem philosophicam non describunt, nec mediaevalem, nec novam. Nec haecceitas quaedam apud eos inveniri potest, nec phaenomenalis et n(o)umenalis.  Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:30, 18 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Iusto iure, Demetri, de hac re admonuisti. Ipse quoque, cum hanc appellationem Kantianam citabam, dubitavi, utrum Kantium secutus noumenon scriberem, an pro -ου- Graeco cum auctoribus antiquis -u- substituerem (cf. notam 24). Quoniam nunc bonis documentis noumenon scribendum esse instruisti, hunc locum mutabo. (Mutabo etiam aliquot lapsus calami (i.e. numin- etsi numen- scribere volui [et nunc noumen-]), qui mihi aliena agenti irrepserunt. Neander (disputatio) 21:38, 18 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
Etiam cum Friderico Born (supra citato) sunt:

text: *Baur (1794): "quum systema spatium & tempus ad noumena transferre vetaret."

text: *Tongiorgi (1862): "Ecce tibi praeformatum kantianum systema, phaenomena, noumena, judicia synthetica a priori."

text: *Zigliara (1876): "consequenter noumena, seu entia intelligibilia."

text: *Ortega y Peret (1879): "ast noumena seu quod objecta in se sunt."

text: *de Raeymaecker (1935):  "vel res in se tamquam noumenon kantianum."
Etiam noumen hic habemus, quamquam commentarius iam est vacuus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:36, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

text: Litteris -ou- rarius Latine iuxtapositis, aliis sicut Demetrio quomodo pronuntiare haud certe scientibus, fortasse utile erit scripturam Graecam (νοούμενα) vel (νοούμενον) ibi in textu nostro addere, ubi verbum "noumenon" vel "noumena" primum scribimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  De numenis
Disputatio:Maximilianus I Iosephus (rex Bavariae)

message: In imagine textui addita 
* a pictore Carolo Stieler facta
* rex ornatu regali vestitus
monstratur. Fortasse aliquis me callidior haec addere potest. --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:41, 9 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De imagine
Disputatio:Index nucleorum thalami

message: Lieber Andreas,
"album" - das weiße - scheint mir als Seitentitel nicht passend. Ich schlage die Änderung auf "Index nucleorum thalami" vor.
Bei der Gelegenheit möchte ich dir meine große Dankbarkeit ausdrücken, dass du in der Vicipaedia Latina soviel Medizin unterbringst. Jahrtausende lang war die Sprache der Medizin Latein und jetzt bist auf der ganzen Welt du fast der letzte, der ihr in diesem Lexikon diese Sprache verleiht! Devotus tibi congratulor. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:48, 13 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibi, Bis-Taurinus, vere lubenter ago gratias, vielen, vielen Dank. Titulum secundum commentarium tuum mutabo. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 12:22, 14 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album?
Disputatio:Buto

message: Hoc Latine appellatur nodulus sive nodulus vestiarius. https://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10779705_00334.html
replies: text: Ubi? Qua sub voce? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:03, 22 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sub voce "knoflik", quae impressa est in sinstrae columnae versu quinto a pagina ima.
thread_title: Fons
Disputatio:Dies Europaeus victimis memorandis

message: In 'Dies Europae victimis stalinismi et nazismi memorandis' ('European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism' etc.) movissem, si in verbis ipsis stalinismus et nazismus (quomodo secundum legitur? z non est ts) non dubitavissem. 'Dies Europae victimis memorandis'? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:03, 21 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse melius "Dies Europaeus ..." vel "... Europaea ..."? Incertus sum!

text: Nobis pronuntiatio res est minoris curae. Vicipaediani oculis legunt, digitis scribunt. Sine dubio variis modis z pronuntiant ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 21 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine
Disputatio:Buto caelibis

message: If the Latin expression is invented, that's surely a step too far for Vicipaedia. We're pretending that "buto caelibis" has this meaning in Latin, but it hasn't. "Wikipedia", as the prophet Wales said, "is not for things made up one day." In this context Humpty Dumpty asked "who is to be master?", but the answer was not "Wikipedia". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:04, 22 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Bona est formula convertimus () et hoc loco mihi idonea videtur. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 10:05, 23 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio Categoriae:Notiones (opus suendi)

message: Nonne butones sunt res, sicut aliae res huius mundi? Cur sub rubrica "notionum" separantur? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:14, 21 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Notiones (opus suendi)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:04, 21 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias ago -- paginam parabas eo tempore quo quaestionem posui. Assidue legem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:36, 22 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Iacobe, si re vera putas hanc rem dignam esse, quae in Vicipaedia divulgetur, opus est, ut nomine Anglico utaris aut aliquo titulo vere Latino commentationem inscribas. Si enim dicas notions a vocabulo Latino profectum esse, veritatem partialem (vel etiam minorem) dicas, nam solum notion 'concept, idea' a Latino mutuatum est, non quidem significatio 'haberdash ware' quae solum ex usu Americano evasit. Neander (disputatio) 15:42, 22 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notiones?
Disputatio:Ius farinosum Basiliense

message: Aucta nunc est haec pagina vel etiam augenda? (Et alia, de carnelevario Alamannico) Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:25, 22 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Aucta! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:32, 22 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Aucta?
Disputatio:Antiquitas classica

message: Neander, you've changed a caption to "Foedus Delium bello Peloponnesiaco," which I'd take for "the Delian league during the Peloponnesian war"; but the original, sub bello, was trying to say "just before the war" (to match the phrasing in the English wiki, "right before the war"). Cassell's has sub + abl. or acc. for 'just before', with several examples, including sub adventu Romanorum (Livy). Would the accusative, sub bellum, have been clearer? (For this idea, Traupman does give only sub + acc.) Or does the bare ablative really mean 'just before' in addition to 'during'? and if so, how would we be more precise in specifying the period just before something ('during the run up to', as English-speakers have been saying for several years now, with that new use of run)? Is bello ineunte possible? ¶ And while we're at it, how (in other contexts) should we translate the opposite idea, 'just after'? Traupman says it's also sub + acc.!!! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 28 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub bello/bellum
Disputatio:Cursus publicus de Turri et Tassis

message: Hi nobiles Latine appellantur "principes [etc.] de Turre et Taxis". Commentatio autem nostra non de principibus, sed de cursu publico, disserit. Ergo titulum propono "Cursus publicus de Turre et Taxis". Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:53, 28 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse melius "de Turri et Tassis"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:13, 28 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Consentio. Fontes plures huius orthographiae reperiuntur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 28 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Avicula mons

message: "Mons Avium" and "Avicula mons" were our lemmata, with a citation of Graesse. Neither name is in the current expanded edition of Graesse. I have found "Avicula" elsewhere and cited the source. I propose moving to "Avicula mons". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:35, 2 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Franciscus Baco

message: Quaeri licet, num Franciscus Baconus recte appelletur, an Franciscus Baconius (v. hunc locum). Nonne ex Baconi genetivi forma  et Baconum et interdum Baconium concludere possumus? Neander (disputatio) 14:18, 4 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Bibliotheca Harleiana? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:26, 4 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Google? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:28, 4 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Bene. Ipse quoque animadverti ambo cognomina in usu esse, sed fortasse saepius Baconum. Neander (disputatio) 17:08, 4 Novembris 2018 (UTC)

message: Ambae formae Baconis (iii decl.) et Baconi (ii decl.) fontes habent. Nomen italicizatum est :it:Francesco Bacone, quod suadet formam “Baco(n) ()” pervulgatam esse (suffixum Italicum -one ex accusativo Latino -onem oritur – vide etiam paginam italicam); Estne “Baco(n)” fortasse etiam forma praeferenda? --Grufo (disputatio) 14:40, 27 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Bona quaestio! Eandem ego quoque quaestionem mihi ipsi posui, praesertim cum paulo post Francisci patrem Nicolaum forma "Baco" appellari animadverterem. Plus minus temere Googleando Bacono me submisi. Neander (disputatio) 15:05, 27 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: : Credo illum ipsum Latine se appellavisse “Franciscum Baconem”. Vide: Francisci Baconis De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum libri IX --Grufo (disputatio) 16:27, 27 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ::"Franciscus Baco" a me suadetur. Sunt certe quibus "Bacon" Latine placet, sed pauciores. Sunt quibus "Baconus", sed pauci et recentiores. An ipse "Baco" casu nominativo se nuncupatus est incertus sum, sed coaevi certe hac orthographia usi sunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:50, 27 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Macte! Vobis libenter consentio. Ut primum (= mox) textum auxero, nominis formam mutabo. Neander (disputatio) 18:10, 27 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Nomen in veterrima commentarii imagine (ex anno 1631) est Baconus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:04, 27 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: Iacobe, ambae formae inveniri possunt. E.g. vide hanc editionem anni 1645, vel hanc editionem anni 1648, vel hanc editionem anni 1654, etc. Porro, credo non tam formam vetustiorem quam formam notiorem nobis esse quaerendam, et forma “Baconis” mihi videtur saeculis duodevicensimo et undevicensimo facta esse sola forma in editionibus adhibita. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:52, 27 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baco(n) (-onis, ''m.'') an Baconus?
Disputatio:Theudonevilla

message: Fōns: Paulus Diaconus Historia Langobardorum 1.5 "ego autem in Galliā Belgicā in locō quī Totonis villa dīcitur cōnstitūtus, statūs meī umbram mētiēns, decem et novem et sēmis pedēs invēnī." 131.109.129.234
replies: text: Gratias tibi agimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:51, 5 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Totonis Villa
Disputatio:Bloomingtonia (Indiana)

message: We have a source for "Bloomingtonia", which would be a fairly normal Latin version of an English name ending in "-ton". If there's a source for "oppidum Floris", that would be interesting, but it seems unlikely because "Floris" doesn't mean "blooming".
We don't accept one-off infoboxes because they don't really help anyone and there's nobody to maintain them. We do gladly accept Latin text. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 9 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: When you move it, bear in mind that Bloomington, Illinois, is nearby, and other Bloomingtons may well exist, too: so a parenthetical "(Indiana)" is probably in order. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:16, 9 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :And of course oppidum floris 'the town of a flower' is hardly possible and should be removed from the text; oppidum florum 'town of flowers, flower-town', though it doesn't literally refer to blooming, is a conceivable term, but it's so remote that even it should probably not be mentioned. Likewise oppidum florens 'a town that's flowering, flowering-town'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:20, 9 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thanks for that reminder. My knowledge of the Bloomingtons is not what it should be. Let's wait before deleting the name "oppidum Floris" and moving, just in case a source turns up. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 9 Novembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen