lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Pontifex

message: Rectior? Quid est huius adfirmationis fons? IacobusAmor 15:27, 26 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Papa Ecclesiae Catholicae titulo Pontifice Maximo utitur; titulus autem rectior est Summus Pontifex."

message: Plebes est forma antiquior; quaeque forma a Cicerone et ab aliis adhibetur ... --Utilo (disputatio) 11:40, 13 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  plebs aut plebes?
Disputatio Formulae:Porta

message: Hi! Is it possible to move the introductio to the top box (which doesn't serve much of a purpose) and to move the scin tu? to the left column? I think that if we did that, the right and left columns would probably be of a more similar length. Also, can there be a Vicimedia box at the bottom (like on the pagina prima)? Harrissimo 20:02, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
replies: text: # Introductio: If you do not need it/like it, you can just omit it and add your text to the top box. I was trying to make arrangements like on :de:Portal:Österreich possible, where the top box more or less serves as a heading but does not contain much content. But of course it is not required to use the "introductio" part.

text: # Moving the "scin tu" to the left column: I'll make that an option in the next few minutes.

text: # Vicimedia box at the bottom: Good idea, I'll add that in the next few minutes.

text: --UV 21:20, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks as ever! Harrissimo 21:30, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
replies: text: ::...and is it also possible to have a nexus externi box (probably on the right?) and to have the collaboratio as an optional for the left column? Thanks, Harrissimo 23:32, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
replies: text: ::: Collaboratio in the left column as an option: ok

text: ::: nexus externi: MYPORTAL/nexusexterni will show up at the very bottom by default but there is an option to move it to the right column. I deliberately did not include it in the "Tu quoque adiuvare potes" box because I do not want to encourage adding weblinks to portals. Of course there might be cases where this is justified, but in general I would prefer encyclopedic articles to weblinks … Greetings, --UV 23:58, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::That's fine with me. I also have an issue with the adiuvare (It is mentioning a formula and keeping the old advice at Porta:Finnia) and can we expand the imago selecta, please (I could do it myself but I don't know how big an image is before it can become a problem to a smaller resolution screen in this context). Vale! Harrissimo 02:23, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
replies: text: ::::: Thanks for pointing out the adiuvare issue, should be fixed now. Personally, I would advise against enlarging the imago selecta, because the width of the second column depends on the width of the user's browser window. If we would specify a fixed size, then this size would be fixed for all users. If we do not specify a size, however (just say "thumb" without specifying a pixel size), then the size is determined by the user's preferences (Special:Preferences, click on the "Fasciculi" tab) – users with small screens can specify e. g. 120px, users with huge screen resolutions can specify e. g. 300px. That is exactly the reason why I generally think that fixed pixel sizes for images should be given in exceptional cases only. Greetings, --UV 09:38, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Thanks and I'll remember that for the future (I tend to add a lot of fixed pixel sizes :S). Harrissimo 10:09, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
thread_title: Propositio
Disputatio:Brixia

message: Haec removi:
* Antonio Fappani, Giuseppe Zanardelli e Geremia Bonomelli: corrispondenza inedita, Brescia, Società per la storia della Diocesi di Brescia, 1968 ("Fonti e documenti" 1).
* Antonio Fappani, La Campagna garibaldina del 1866 in Valle Sabbia e nelle Giudicarie, Brescia 1970.
* Antonio Fappani, Mons. Pietro Capretti, 1972
* Antonio Fappani, Achille Grandi - vita e opere, Modena, Ed.Paoline, 1960, 262pp.+ 16pp.ills.out of text, (texte en  Italien), dans la serie "Biografie di contemporanei" vol.17.
quia editor anonymus non explicavit utilitatem horum librorum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:14, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliographia

message: Sectio quae de historia urbis tractat fere eadem est atque pagina de Historia Brixiae.  Fortasse melius sit singula ex hac pagina removere ut in illa legantur?  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:00, 9 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymus anno 2014 hic has res scripsit, quas Nuada anno 2015 in paginam "Historia Brixiae" duplicavit. Nuada recte fecit sed non volumus duo exemplaria longa servare. Melius erit, mea mente, historiam non omnino ex hac pagina delere sed formá brevissimá hic retinere.  Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:46, 9 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Consentio.  Quid censent alii?  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:00, 9 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historia
Disputatio:Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon

message: In paginis de libris, norma nobis est titulo originali uti (vide Vicipaedia:Translatio nominum propriorum#Libri et arte facta). An debemus movere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:34, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita vero (cum translatione post lemma ut dicit TNP). Harrissimo 20:53, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC).
thread_title: Titulus

message: Ut translationem tituli "Lexicon biographicum et bibliographicum ecclesiae" propono.Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:12, 24 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Verbum "biobibliographicum" in prima sententia lego. Sed "biobibliographicum" fortasse neologismus est: haud scio. Si "biographicum et bibliographicum" inscribere vis, certe tibi licet! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:08, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cur titulus libri non plene transfertur?
Disputatio:Mosarabes

message: An fontem habemus pro Musarabiti? Ego repperi Muzarabici (vide bibliographiam). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:46, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the delay. I found Musarabiti in the "Chronicle of 754", although I'll double check that!--Xaverius 19:32, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Mozarabic in English, at least when referring to the liturgy and the plainchant. IacobusAmor 19:59, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Then the name would be like in Spanish, Mozárabe and thus in Latin Musarabus/Muzarabus?--Xaverius 20:13, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ok:

text: :::*Musarabitus (Musarabus) - need to be checked

text: :::*Muzarabicus (Muzarabus) - 15 entries in google ()

text: :::*Mozarabicus (Mozarabus) - Hofmann

text: :::*Mixtarabes - Also Hofmann

text: :::--Xaverius 20:22, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::There's a lot of internet support for Mozarabicus, e.g.  http://www3.usal.es/~cesduero/articulos/libermozarabe.htm.IacobusAmor 20:25, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::But then Mozarabicus is an adjective. What would be the noun? Mozarabus? oras Hofmann says too Mixtarabes?--Xaverius 20:28, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::According to the OED, the medieval Latin term is "Mosarabes pl., and with etymologizing perversion Mixtarabes"; it adds that the Latin term represents an Arabic word meaning 'would-be Arab'. IacobusAmor 20:36, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Do we move it then to Mosarabes?--Xaverius 20:39, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio Portae:Finnia/paginaedesideratae

message: ::(Harrissimo 02:42, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)) The Below is copied from the old page:
*For Karelia we have Carelia if you're talking about the whole area in Finland and Russia, or Carelia (Finnia) for just the Finnish part. The official regions are, obviously, Carelia Meridionalis and Septentrionalis.

message: I think Lappi exists but Lappones is more common. Certainly the place name is Lapponia. I'm a little wary of importing "Sami" into Latin without attestations elsewhere--despite my argument about Ulaan Baatar, I don't generally like updating Latin names soley on the basis of changing fashions in the modern vernacular languages. But I gather that many consider "Lapp" offensive, which could cause problems. Argh. --Iustinus 02:32, 28 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that most romance languages still have Lappi/Lappones etc. but Nuntii Latini have an article here which says Sami and Samorum. I was going by Victionarium a bit, since it has on its list "Lingua Lapponica Septentrionalis". --Harrissimo 08:04, 28 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Excellent. --Iustinus 08:35, 28 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lapp/Sami
Disputatio:Regio (taxinomia)

message: I think the form should be dominium (dominia would be the plural). This is supported by the Italian and Spanish forms which are dominio, not dominia. But I don't have a Botanical Latin source to confirm this. Does anyone? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:31, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I don't have a source either. Of course, domains have only existed since 1977, so one might be hard to find. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:34, 28 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :At the time when I wrote the above, the page had not yet been moved to "regio". The English article :en:Domain (biology) now gives two Latin terms in its first sentence, one of which is "regio": based on that, "regio" is probably OK. It is true that Dominium is medieval Latin, and botanists don't tend to go for that. But I realise Wikipedia isn't a reliable source ...! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:41, 28 Iunii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Regio is certainly OK, confirmed by the authoritative source now cited on our page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 18 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Taxinomia

message: *Taxonomia - been here since 9 jan 2006 quite some time something being incorrect? Hendricus 14:46, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the page for consistency. The form taxonomia certainly exists, but taxinomia is grammatically preferable and we have usually used it on other pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:44, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

message: Nonne est paginae Classificatio biologica et Taxinomia cognominatae??? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 11:45, 27 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Non commiscendae sunt. Classificatio biologica = :en:Biological classification et :de:Taxonomie in der Biologie, sed Taxinomia = :en:Taxonomy et :de:Taxonomie. IacobusAmor 13:31, 27 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Taxinomia pagina ipsa "Taxinomia [...] est biologiae pars quae classificationem systematicam viventium describit" dixit. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 15:12, 27 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Definitio fuit falsa: taxinomia non est biologiae pars: classificatio biologica est taxinomiae exemplum! Ergo commentarium emendavimus. ¶ Just to explain further: taxonomy is a much bigger field than biological taxonomy. It includes economic taxonomies, military taxonomies, philosophical taxonomies, artistic taxonomies, and other potential taxonomies. Biological classification is a subset of it. As en: explains, a taxonomy is typically
replies: text: :::"organized by supertype-subtype relationships, also called generalization-specialization relationships, or less formally, parent-child relationships. In such an inheritance relationship, the subtype by definition has the same properties, behaviors, and constraints as the supertype plus one or more additional properties, behaviors, or constraints. For example, car is a subtype of vehicle. So any car is also a vehicle, but not every vehicle is a car. Therefore, a type needs to satisfy more constraints to be a car than to be a vehicle. Another example, any shirt is also a piece of clothing, but not every piece of clothing is a shirt. Hence, a type must satisfy more parameters to be a shirt than to be a piece of clothing."

text: ::The taxonomies of cars & shirts have nothing to do with biology. Cars, shirts, and biological hierarchies are examples of taxonomy. And the article that's one of the 1000 celebrated pages is Taxinomia, not (the very much smaller concept of) Classificatio biologica. IacobusAmor 18:01, 27 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Though Classificatio biologica might be a smaller topic, it lends itself to a much longer encyclopedic article. Darn. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 18:18, 27 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?
Disputatio:Dasyurus geoffroii

message: Re: "Dasyurus geoffroii (Gould anno 1840) (ex: Dasyurinus geoffroii) (Anglice: western quoll) est animal marsupiale carnivorum Australianum (West)." Hendrice:
replies: text: 1. I've removed your pointless commas. As I've said before, the parentheses don't need them.

text: 2. I've changed your nonsense-word animalum to animal.

text: 3. The phrase now means it's "an Australian carnivorous marsupial animal." Is that what you were trying to say?

text: 4. What do you mean by "ex"? If 'formerly', that's often olim.

text: 5. It's bad typography to put a blankspace to the left of ")" (a closing parenthesis). IacobusAmor 14:10, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
* Sorry i haven't been responding by correcting your points, i have three more species i like to make an stipula for, after that i'll make a correction tour trough all marsupial and monotremes articles, - i did noticed them, Hendricus 14:14, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :ex is often used in the special Latin of the taxonomists to precede a formerly accepted binomen. I think that's the case here: ex is a technical usage,  and it should be retained. As Iacobus says, the normal Latin equivalent would be olim. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:59, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Then i will use olim instead, Hendricus 15:19, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::But see Andrew's point: if ex is a technical term in that field, you should keep it; but it's not an abbreviation (and therefore isn't followed by a period), and any noun that follows it must be in the ablative case, so "ex. Kangurus bicolor" would be wrong, and "ex Kangaro bicolore" or "ex Kangaru bicolore," depending on whether kangarus is second declension or fourth, might be right—unless, of course, ex has become an adverb as a technical term. IacobusAmor 15:26, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Then i get the point (period) out of it, Hendricus 15:29, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc.
Disputatio:Pagopago

message: Words gives conditio as "method of preserving (food)", so conditio tunarum in pyxes ferreas should do the trick (I think). Or would you use some kind of gerundive here? Condendus? Harrissimo 14:56, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: But conditio thunnorum in pyxibus stannis is a definition, not a word. Maybe conditio all by itself would work? IacobusAmor 16:47, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes - I just added in the pyxes so the reader doesn't get confused with any of the many meanings of conditio and end up thinking there's some sort of genetic engineering plant going on - Carolus Thunnus' backdrop does look a bit sinister ;) Harrissimo 17:15, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
replies: text: ::Actually, is a diminutive available for "Charlie"? Carolus already looks like one, and Carololus would look odd.
replies: text: :::I presume the form Carellus is a double diminutive and some lexica just point Carellus to Carolus but none actually say anything about diminution. Harrissimo 19:15, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Canning

message: And a cannery would be a conditionarium? IacobusAmor 17:55, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say anything certain. From the few conditionarium results, most are in a mathematical or grammatical conetext. The derivative word is conditorium, but that obviously acquired the wrong two contexts for "cannery". And I don't think we should coin either :S. So that leaves us with having to either make a two-word combo (≈Fabrica conditionis) or take a dubious conditionarium. Harrissimo 19:15, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
thread_title: Cannery
Disputatio:Falealupo

message: Re: "Non est adiectivum "vesper": sic, in mente habui vespertinus, -a, -um (Anglice: 'evening; western', praesertim aptum pro hoc vico); nihilominus, occiduus, -a, -um fortasse est melius. Gratias tibi ago! IacobusAmor 05:21, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: vesper
Disputatio:Feriae Captain Cook (Kauai)

message: Is the categoria "Feriae Havaiorum" better saved instead to mark feriae of Hawaii Island? It and "Feriae Kauaiorum" (etc.) could then be a subset of "Feriae Havaianae" (to include all the Insulae Havaianae). So when we have an island (Havaii) that's a subset of a civitas of the same name (Havaii), we'd be using the genitive for the subset and an adjective for the set. Does that make sense? (If not, I'd suggest that some other distinctive difference be devised.) Similarly, there might be a set Categoria:Feriae Britannicae with subsets "Feriae Anglicorum,""Feriae Scotorum," etc. Also, of course, even some of the subsets undoubtedly have subsets. "Feriae Anglicorum" might want to have a sub-subset for festivals in London, festivals in Yorkshire, and so on. I take the trouble of pointing this out because the world supports tens of thousands of events that are or might be called festivals—and surely in the distant future (five years?), they'll all be demanding their own page. Best to get the topic organized now, for its unbelievable expansion later! ¶ That probably goes for other sets of topics. Wiki en:, for example, says there are more than 30 000 incorporated cities in the United States. Their levels of categorization would presumably be (1) country, (2) state, (3) county. Some users might argue that there should even be a higher-order level: continent or superregion (to include the Pacific islands). Extrapolating from the population of the United States suggests that there should be at least 600 000 named settements in the world. Each will want its own page. Organizing this mess will be an onerous process! IacobusAmor 18:05, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Categoriae
Disputatio:Vimaria

message: Which shall it be? LionhardusCiampa 17:50, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "Ducis Gulielmi Ernesti", all genetive. --Alex1011 20:34, 4 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ducis Wilhelmi Ernst" sive "Ducis Gulielmi Ernestus"?
Disputatio:Crystallum

message: Re: "the meaning is "many salts, ceramic materials and water...form crystals, but with inverted order"—yeah, but since neuter nouns aren't marked in the accusative, the likelier reading of Crystalla formant is 'Crystals form', and later in the sentence, the reader has to wonder what went wrong. The context has been talking about crystals, and the salts (etc.) come as a surprise, so they shouldn't be the subject. Good prose doesn't zigzag like that, in any language. 'Crystals are X' naturally leads to 'Crystals form'. IacobusAmor 14:23, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Profecto recte dicis, amice! --Neander 23:10, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neuter accusatives
Disputatio:Satyrion

message: Need to track down some Paracelsus passages: --Iustinus 05:16, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
*De Longa Vita XI
* edd. Sudhoff & Matthiessen Sämtliche Werke I/13
* Man and Works? I/12.91–93
*De Imaginibus
thread_title: Paracelsus
Disputatio:Academia Nationalis Medicinae

message: [Copied from Disputatio usoris:Andrew Dalby :]
When you look at Academia Nationalis Medicinae and you go to the French interwiki, what does it says? is it a part of the French Institute or not? it's different from the English, Hendricus 21:04, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. mais ne fait pas partie de l'Institut de France "but does not form part of the Institut de France". Also, it never went to Poitiers: it went to the "rue de Poitiers" (Poitiers Street) in Paris. I thought that seemed odd. It just shows you can't trust en:wiki ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academia de Medicine
Disputatio:Zincum

message: The coining of the name "zinc" is generally credited to Paracelsus. While looking for his famous quote about satyrion, I stumbled on this:
replies: text: :Der zincken

text: Ponatur & ſuperſargatur de puluere talck & proijce, dum ſtat in fluxu & fixabitur.
replies: text: :Ad retinendum zincke.

text: Recipe Eum & tere eum & inuolue ipſum in globulum luteum instrumentum concauum, & benè lutatum, ſimul pone ad ignem horas 8. poſt imbibe in plumbo & purga per cineritium.

text: Primum Manuale (??) [QD25.H64 1582	] pp. 214–5
Could be useful later, once we have more actual content in this article! --Iustinus 22:30, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Locus Paracelsianus
Disputatio:Hilaria Clinton

message: Ambit?--Ioscius (disp) 22:07, 10 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
Ambio, ii, itum, ire + accusatif = make campaign for/ faire campagne pour/ run for . --Marc mage 23:18, 10 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
In Latinitate Ciceroniana populus ambitur sed munus petitur. Videas Antibarbarum (sc. Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache) ab Iohanne Philippo Krebs editum, s.v. ambire. --Neander 00:35, 11 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

message: Praenomen Latinum est Hilaria (cum una L tamquam hilaris), non "Hillaria" (more Anglico)! -- [Anon]
replies: text: Ergo moveo (pagina ipsa iam Hilaria habet). Sed dubito paulisper: Hillary est nomen familiale Anglicum (cf. Edmundus Hillary). Si hoc nomen familiale appellationem dominae Clinton inspiravit, oportet Hillary retinere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:27, 8 Novembris 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Praenomen
Disputatio:Capsicum (fructus)

message: I'm creating this page chiefly as a place to dump to loci I just found. Eventually, it should probably be merged with capsicum, but at the moment there's too little there to justify adding a large section on the name chile. --Iustinus 03:11, 11 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't linked from Capsicum or categorized with Capsicum, so it was rather forgotten. I've been adding general loci and bibliography to Capsicum. I'll bring that material over here now, because there really is a need for a page about the edible species as a group, especially since they hybridize and are difficult to pick apart (just as with Musa (fructus)). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:27, 29 Martii 2018 (UTC)

message: I moved to "Capsicum (fructus)" because this is the Latin name used by Gregorius de Regio, who gave the first good Latin description of these fruits (published 1611). In the Latin sources I've seen Chili (various spellings) is treated as a foreign indeclinable word, hence not such a good choice for us. But I'd be happy to learn I'm wrong! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:54, 29 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that "siliquastrum", used early on, is not a good choice because it was borrowed from Pliny on the theory that he was talking about chilies. He wasn't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:00, 29 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move