lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Anulus nuptialis

message: De: "Anulum nuptialisIohannes Traupman, Latin and English Dictionary (Novi Eboraci: Bantam Books, 2007), s.v. wedding ringReijo Pitkäranta, Suomi-latina-suomi-sanakirja: Lexicon Finnico-Latino-Finnicum, sub voce vihkisormus (Helsinki 2002)."—It's anulus nuptialis in the edition of Traupman here on my desk. Would somebody check Pitkäranta? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Φιλέτυμος helpfully added the references, but maybe didn't notice the dispute between our lemma and our pagename. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :A fair guess would be that anulum is a typo, especially because nuptialis isn't neuter. Something must be done, but what? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:52, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Well, it happens there was a 15th century book called "Anulus nuptialis". I'll cite it. That gives us two anyway. If anyone can then verify the citation of Pitk., so much the better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:12, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Anulum was indeed a typo. I'll remove the Citatio verificanda. Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 17:58, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma

message: De: Consuetudo induentis talem anulum extensa est ultra originem Europae. 'The custom of putting on such a ring has been extended beyond the beginning of Europe'. (1) Quod? (2) Melius: talis anuli induendi. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:02, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: About Europe, no comment :) About the verb, my sources say that "to wear" (of a ring) is gesto. But there may be better sources. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:32, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :It wasn't my verb. Take any verb you want! The point was that (as Gildersleeve says) gerundive + obj. is more usual than gerund + obj. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:23, 17 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Origo Europae?
Disputatio:Ricardus Jamin Vidal

message: Haud scio an eius insigne pravum sit. VIAM VERITAS ELEGI, sententia ibi exhibita, Anglice significare videtur "I, TRUTH, HAVE CHOSEN A WAY." Fortasse exspectaverimus VIAM VERITATIS ELEGI. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:28, 18 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte mones. Axioma verificavi VIAM VERITATIS ELEGI. Imaginem autem non apud nos sed apud Communia corrigere necesse est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:09, 18 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
Sententiis vestris, gratias vobis Iacobo et Andrea ago. Forsan sententiam monendi reliquam in Communia.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:10, 18 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Scientia heraldica|Res heraldica]]
Disputatio:Hafnium

message: Cur amotum est signum ? Definitioni sunt 87 litterae (et spatia), minus quam 200. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:26, 19 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Quia iam diu convenimus paginas in seriebus "paginarum brevium" rite enumeratas et inter se annexas non delere. Formula navigationis, quam ad pedem paginae vides, verba magica "series paginarum brevium" monstrat. His casibus inutile est formulam "Non stipula" addere, sed certe utile erit paginam augere! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:39, 19 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

text: Indices plenos harum paginarum brevium hic habes. Disputationem de hac re (anno circiter 2015) usque adhuc non repperi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:57, 19 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK, I have found the discussion now. It is here. To confirm, the full list of pages that I consequently interlinked and labelled as "series paginarum brevium" is here. The slight illogicality is that if one of these pages (e.g. "Hafnium") is expanded by an assiduous Vicipaedian to 30,000 characters, it will still be listed in a series paginarum brevium. But at present that's the least of our worries, it seems to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:14, 19 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitio haud sufficiens
Disputatio:Hastingus

message: The name is perhaps "Astingus". He is really mentioned in a few of the sources listed under "index". This new article, not in Latin, is evidently a resurgence of largely fictional material about the Natoli family, some of which we deleted recently. I think this should be deleted too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:52, 22 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a French article :fr:Hasting and an English article :en:Hastein. I've merged them to this via Wikidata now, and renamed our page Hastingus, which is his name in the major source by Dudo of St Quentin (see here). But the whole thing has to be rewritten. A useful recent secondary source is . Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:06, 23 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :I've converted the definition from en:Hastein and hidden the rest. No time today to do more. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:56, 23 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Someone has just now reinserted Hastingus's unattested names Aflingus de Nantolio and Afflengo and the birthyear that's nearly half a century too early for a vigorous Viking of the late ninth century. Perhaps two or more persons have been confused here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 23 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Thanks for making a start. I guess what you suggest is possible, but my current opinion is that "Aflingus" is an OCR misreading of some of the sources on Google Books and the Internet Archive. If you search Google for "Aflingus" (etc.), and enlarge the page view on the old books that you retrieve, you'll see that "Astingus" (etc.) becomes more likely ... Maybe someone will tell us what source the "de Nantolio" comes from.

text: :::Ne bellum inutiliter geramus paginam semi-protexi. Omni usore, qui nomen sibi adsignaverit, recensere et disputare licet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 23 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen et res
Disputatio:Flumen Argenteum Arubense

message: What does River Plate Aruba have to do with Mediolanum? Where is the evidence that the club was founded by Swiss players? If we translate the name, the Latin for "River Plate" would be "Flumen Argenteum" or "Flumen Platense": how could those words have the same meaning as "fluminis tabula"? Is there really an adjective "Arubacus"? ("Arubensis" and "Arubaensis" are easily confirmed via Google.) There are other similar questions! This page reads like nonsense, and does no credit to Vicipaedia. I think we should delete it before it gets any worse.
Quid commune habet Mediolanum cum River Plate Aruba? Ubi legimus Helveticos lusores hanc societatem condidisse? Si nomen vertere licet, River Plate nobis dicit "Flumen Argenteum" seu "Flumen Platense": quomodo synonymum sit "fluminis tabulae"? Exstat re vera adiectivum "Arubacus"? ("Arubensis" et "Arubaensis" apud Google faciliter reperimus.) Ab aliis quaestionibus abstineo, sed hanc paginam, iam malam, peiorem peioremque facimus! Mea mente cito delere oportet, ne risus in Vicipaediam incitet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:07, 28 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've banished the Swiss, deleted the nonfunctional official website, and otherwise fixed the prose up to at least the level of –3 (I trust). The English wiki, at River Plate, lists eight South American and Caribbean athletic teams named River Plate (Flumen Argenteum). I haven't verified the current players' names, but the English version of the article has hardly any more information than Vicipaedia now has. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:24, 29 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Or maybe –2? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:37, 29 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The team has a Facebook page under the name Riverplate Aruba, but I've refrained from adding the nexus since (one supposes) only subscribers to Facebook may access it. A similar consideration, however, doesn't stop the wikis from giving links to other subscription-only and commercial sites. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:21, 29 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :::You've done as well as a human being can, I think. You have even rid us of those 5500 masks or comedy characters. It was fun to imagine them all sitting around the arena. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 29 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I suppose the fans could take masks comic & tragic into the stadium and wear whichever kind better corresponded to the score of the moment. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:40, 29 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

text: :::I agree, none of the other Wikipedias has a convincing article of any length. If Facebook is all we have, I guess it serves as a link confirming that the team exists. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 29 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::The Facebook site has photos, schedules, and results of competitions, and 1,278 subscribers "like" it, but no doubt to the world's deep disappointment, it offers no information on those elusive Swiss founders. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:40, 29 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense / Sine sensu
Disputatio:Sacerdos Alexandri eponymus

message: Quaerens exempla "Apollonis" ut ea in "Apollinis" emendarem, hoc exemplum iucundum occurri. In fonte haec lego nomina patris: "Ἀπ[ο]λλώς or Ἀπ[ο]λλώ(νιος)". Sed quomodo genetivum scribamus? Alium hominem huius nominis reperio, Iudaeum conversum, qui erat Ἀπολλῶς, -ῶ (nota accentum). Itaque genetivus Apollo? Sed secundum exemplum "Minos, -ois", fortasse Apollois? Lesgles (disputatio) 16:32, 30 Octobris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athenaeus seu Limnaeus Apollonis sive Apollonii filius
Disputatio:Remanentia

message: I didn't see the point of inventing three lemmata: "remanentia" (a word that already exists in modern Latin) suffices, followed by a definition. If I'm wrong, please revert. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:37, 12 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Of course remanentia itself is a back-formation, but it accommodates a glaring bit of jargon, so why not? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:42, 12 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nemmata
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio/Homines

message: Vide "Regentes et duces - Antiquitas - Asia". Nonne Aegyptus in Africa reperitur? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:57, 1 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Reperitur! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:30, 1 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Recte dicis, o Andrea;  formam tabulae autem e Meta cepi, ubi vidimus titulos "Central Asia," "Eastern Asia," "Egypt," "Southern Asia," et "Western Asia" sub titulum "Asia."  Ibi ergo modificare debemus (id quod faciam).  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:35, 1 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classificatio
Disputatio Categoriae:Corrigenda

message: Quis miseretur huius erroris: Mensium nomina latina non substantiva sunt, sed adiectiva ad vocem mensis adiecta; quocum et genere et casu et numero congruere debent, e. g. a mense NovembrI. --Bavarese (disputatio) 17:21, 9 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Miseritus sum. An recte feci? --UV (disputatio) 23:35, 10 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita, optime! --Bavarese (disputatio) 00:16, 11 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  error
Disputatio:Fasciculus informaticus

message: Fortasse aptius nomen praesens mutaturum esse opinor. 
Norstedt (2009) "documentum" notavit (fil (dat.)). 
Verbum Graecum est Αρχείο: → archium (computatrum) seu archivum (computatrum)? 
Andreas Raether (disputatio) 19:52, 12 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabularium informaticum? 

message: Wikimedia Latina “fasciculum” pro Anglice computer file utitur – at fortasse “fasciculus” etiam folder significare possit. Alii pro computer file “plicam” (-a, -ae) suggerunt, sed verbum Medii Aevi est. “Folium” quoque ultimo memorandum est. --Grufo (disputatio) 03:08, 1 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ".comp file (computer) / scapus, plica | sound file / scapus soniger (v. sonifer)." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:27, 1 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: : Both “scapus” and “plica” look like poor translations to me (one means a lot of different things and the other is medieval). Interestingly, the etymology of English “file” would indirectly link it to “fasciculus”. “File” comes from “filum” – which referred to the string that tied a bundle of papers together. And “bundle of papers” is exactly what “fasciculus” is. In modern Italian this is what a “fascicolo” is (they use “file”, untranslated, for “computer file”), while in ancient Rome it was a bundle of papers tied together with a string (see Cic., “Fasciculus epistolarum aqua madidus redditus erat”). --Grufo (disputatio) 04:02, 1 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De iusto vocabulo
Disputatio:MundusLatinus

message: Si situs alii de situ "Munduslatinus" re vera loquuntur, res perutilis est! sed necesse est (et facile est) nexus plenos ad paginas respectivas inserere. Quo facto, haec pagina laete retinere possumus. Nexubus externis omnino carentibus pagina delenda erit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:26, 14 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De fontibus
Disputatio:Multiplicatio

message: * Octo semel efficit octo.
* Octo bis efficit sedecim.
* Octo ter efficit viginti quattuor.
* Octo quater efficit triginta duo.
* Octo quinquies efficit quadraginta.
* Octo sexies efficit quadraginta octo.
* Octo septies efficit quinquaginta sex.
* Octo octies efficit sexaginta quattuor.
* Octo novies efficit septuaginta duo.
* Octo decies efficit octoginta.
Andreas Raether (disputatio) 18:26, 15 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabula Pythagorica
Disputatio:Quintus Smyrnaeus

message: Care Federico Leva (BEIC) (Anglice scribebam ut melius intellegeres): The illustrations you're adding are decorative, but could you make them useful, as by adding informative captions. For example, the caption you give here as "Posthomerica, 1541" might help readers more if it were more specific, maybe something like "Pagina titularis quattuordecim librorum 'ab Homero,' Iodoco Valaraeo interprete (Lugduni, 1541)." (Or "poematis epici Quinti Smyrnaei" could be inserted after Homero.) The names of translators shouldn't be omitted, as they can be historically important! ¶ Also, the illustration says that this edition includes "The Rape of Helen" by Colutus the Theban (also translated by Iodocus Valaraeus), but your caption doesn't mention that. As a rule, captions should tell readers what to notice; otherwise, many readers won't. ¶ Also, what's important about this edition? The editio princeps was issued by a more famous publisher thirty-seven years earlier. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:47, 23 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: De fasciculis
Disputatio:Ars urbium disponendarum

message: At the very end of the preface of Book V, Vitrivius gives us dispositio locorum publicorum, and later, when discussing theatres (Arch V.6.1) he uses conformatio for the plan of a theatre. I see how Destinatio works as the translation, but with my Spanish-reading bias it does not highlight "planning" in the same way the Vitruvian constructions do.
Obviously the corpus agrimensorum may have more specific term, but I haven't got a copy at hand, and they mostly deal with centuriatio which is more grid laying than town planning.
Just a few thoughts!--Xaverius 16:57, 26 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, mainly because lexicon Vilborgianum gives ars urbium disponendarum (sub voce Stadsplanering) which is in line with the Vitruvian use of dispositio. Neander (disputatio) 07:15, 27 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :Since neither of the footnotes on Destinatio urbana actualy gives a source for the Latin name, should we move the page to Ars urbium disponendarum?--Xaverius 08:46, 27 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Yes, please do so if you like. ¶ "Destinatio urbana" might be a candidate for urban design (... or not? Without context, "destinatio urbana" looks somewhat ambiguous.) Neander (disputatio) 10:25, 27 Novembris 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinatio?
Disputatio:Praenomen

message: Cur nusquam mentio fit, quam facile plurima horum nominum, mutata declinatione, ad feminas nominandas apta sunt? --Bavarese (disputatio) 22:24, 13 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse est exemplum illius :en:Gender bias on Wikipedia. Sed quod ad praenomima Romana attinet, fortasse debemus de "gender bias in Ancient Rome" loqui, quia mulieres praenomina tempore classico plerumque non habebant (e.g. Iulia (uxor Pompeii Magni)). Potesne aliquid addere? Puto etiam hanc paginam aliquando in duas dividendam esse, fortasse Praenomen et Praenomen Romanum. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:57, 14 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Haec a me scripta tantum ad nomina Romana pertinent. Suadeo propriam paginam de illis nominibus. --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:49, 15 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomina feminarum
Disputatio:Annus luce mensus

message: Verbum anni hoc loco non placet cum solum ad temporis spatium pertineat. Praeferendum est e. c. verbum spatii.
Propono spatium lucis annuae aut spatium luce anni mensum aut similiter. 91.64.75.153 22:18, 14 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis, sed Vicipaedia e fontibus fidelibus (reliable sources) conficitur. Tres (!) fontes textuales et lexicographici hanc locutionem Latinam confirmant (vide notas in pagina ipsa subiunctas). Si et tu fontem fidelem Latinitatis recentioris proponere potes, optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:39, 15 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quia metiri est verbum deponens, cur Anglice significat mensus 'measured' ('year measured by light'), non 'measuring'? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:43, 15 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ah, OK, L&S aiunt: <<Part. perf.: mensus, a, um, measured off: “mensa spatia conficere,” Cic. N. D. 2, 27, 69.>> IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:45, 15 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Triadicum

message: Care 91.64.75.153, habesne nominis "Triadicum"? Nam iam habemus Aevum Triassicum, fontibus confirmatum. 22:23, 14 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide Disputatio:Triassicum, disputationem iam inceptam, fonte nunquam proposito. Ergo hanc paginam in redirectionem converti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 15 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, non vidi, gratias tibi ago! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:04, 15 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triadicum
Disputatio:Christophorus Patten

message: De nomine (vel Balliolanum vel Balliolense vel de Balliolo), vide pagina ix. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:10, 16 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte, sed habemus etiam "Collegium Ballioli", vide hic. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:48, 16 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sicut fons a te citatus admittit, "Collegium de Balliolo" est forma "officialis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:09, 16 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen ''Balliolanum''
Disputatio:Charon (satelles)

message: Noster Bavarese rogat: "Estne phaenomenon . . . vox latina?" Ut videtur, est! Sed mea sententia, plerumque in commentariis philosophicis scribi debet, praecipue in commentariis de philosophia Kantiana, quia vocabulum re vera non 'rem' tantum, sed 'rem quae observari potest' significat. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:41, 17 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Phaenomenon
Disputatio:Roterodamum

message: Quibus locis accentūs Roterodami ponantur? Gratias. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 17:22, 19 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortasse hanc orationem audire iuvabit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgVc0t9yOHg. Attende pronuntiationem vocis "Roterodamo" in initio. MARCVS (disputatio) 12:43, 8 Novembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roterodami quales accentūs quibus locis sunt?
Disputatio:Panthera onca

message: The move to "onca" was made without citing a source, so I reverted it. I have now added sources for the name Panthera onca. It may be that "onca" has been used alone in common Latin, but I haven't found any sources. (It's a slightly misleading transliteration of Portuguese onça.) Linnaeus cites other common Latin names ("Pardus brasiliensis", "Lynx brasiliensis"), but I don't see them as preferable to Panthera onca. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 23 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps BazookaTheHound will tell us why "binominibus non uti" would be a good idea for Vicipaedia. If onca were indeed in common use in Latin, Petroselinum crispum gives us a model:
replies: text: :Petroselinum crispum, apud antiquos petroselinum, est. . . .

text: Ergo fortasse:
replies: text: :Panthera onca, apud vulgus onca, est. . . .

text: But as Andrew indicates, even for that, Vicipaedia wants to see evidence. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:01, 23 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagename
Disputatio:Ligandus (biochemia)

message: Gratias, Iacobe, tibi, te hanc vocem ligandi dubitare. "Ligandus" de verbo "multiplicandus" (→multiplicatio) deduxi, quamdam fontem neglegens. Fortasse mutatio idonea sit. Quid censes tu / censet cuncta communitas? Andreas Raether (disputatio) 15:43, 28 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In duabus saltem wikipediis (Hispanicam et Suecicam dico) hoc verbum neutri generis (ligandum) esse dicitur, sed nescio an ex aliquo fonte hanc cognitionem sumpserint. Quia ipse minime rem teneo, dicere nequeo, quodnam verbum huic vocabulo subaudiendum sit (utrum liganda [scilicet molecula], an ligandus [sc. ?], an ligandum [sc. ?] sit), sed constat ligand__ gerundivam formam esse. Profecto fontem desideramus! Neander (disputatio) 17:35, 28 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: :Neutrius generis dixerim. Secundum Merriam-Webster, minuend, vocabulum Anglicum, a Latino minuendum (vicissim a gerundivo minuendus) derivatur. Similiter, opinor, ligand, vocabulum Anglicum, et Latinum ligandum. ¶ Invicem fortasse ligans, participium praesens. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:39, 28 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus "Ligandus"
Disputatio:Lingua Tahitiana

message: Re "EmausBot (Disputatio | conlationes)‎ m . . (4 422 octeti) (-26)‎ . . (Bot 1 nexus intervici removet, quod nunc apud Vicidata cum tessera d:Q34128 sunt)."—Should changes of this sort be silent? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:29, 31 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot
Disputatio:Ecclesia cathedralis Wellensis

message: I'd say that there's no use including a Google Books link in the bibliography unless it's possible to see the book, or a selection from it, using the link. Visible pages can be extremely useful, but Google Books in itself is an unreliable source for publication details, and Google can probably struggle on without the extra clicks we give it :)
For me, the Bedford and Brooke links produce visible text. The Cox and Hatton links offer me no text, and I would suggest removing the links. The Pepin link gives me an "error 404". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:21, 31 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! I've removed the links. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:28, 31 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nexibus Google Books 

message: I'm working on articles about English cathedrals, bibliographies included. There's a big bibliography here already, but it isn't clear why many of these items are listed. I guess all of them may have some mention of Wells Cathedral, but how would the reader know? There are not even any page numbers to indicate this. So I'm inclined to delete those whose titles don't indicate a connection with Wells or its cathedral. Any comments? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:58, 4 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Were they taken directly (lock, stock, and barrel, as we say) from the English wiki? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:58, 4 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Quite likely, I suppose.

text: :To save any one of these references from deletion, there would have to be some evident connection between it and the subject or the text of our article. If the evidence isn't in the item's title, then one might look for it in the article text or in a footnote. But, for example, "Hopkins, Clare (2005). Trinity: 450 Years of an Oxford College Community. Oxford University Press". It's about Trinity College, Oxford. The sole incidental mention of Oxford in the text has nothing to do with Trinity College. So the next editor is bound to say "Why is the book listed here?" Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:59, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Indeed, they were taken in one batch. If you'd like to delete the non-obvious references, please go ahead! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:35, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Thanks for responding! Rather than reduce the article length now I'll aim to expand the text and reshape the bibliography at the same time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:45, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De bibliographia