lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Alicia de Larrocha

message: De hac nota: "Ioannes Petrus Thiollet, 88 notes pour piano solo, "Solo nec plus ultra", Neva Editions, 2015, p.50. ISBN 978 2 3505 5192 0." Why is this spam? It has the look (though not the format I'd prefer!) of an ordinary & appropriate bibliographic reference. Just wondering. (And yes, I've seen it being removed from one or more other articles.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:30, 23 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented on your talk page around the same time. Spam consists of multiple references to a single website or person, introduced systematically (often, as in this case, anonymously). But, as I said there, you are welcome to review my deletions and restore any references that were really useful. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 27 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam?
Disputatio:Iohannes von Neumann

message: The article says von Neumann was armae nucleriae ... peritus.
How do you get from arma nuclearia to armae nucleariae?
I believe arma is second-declension neuter plural, not first-declension singular,
and nuclearia is third-declension neuter plural, not first-declension singular.
Forsan armorum nuclearium was meant?
—Tortoise0308 (disputatio) 11:26, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think could do better is the right comment. You find weak English on English Wikipedia and weak Latin here: Wikipedians are human. Always feel free to improve us.

text: I'm not sure whether the genitive (as you suggest) or the dative (that I have temporarily inserted) was intended. I say "temporarily" because I don't understand the clause "et inter computatra humana et informaticam (Architectura von Neumann) numeratur" at all. And you can't put a parenthesis like that in a Latin sentence, though possibly you might in French.

text: But it's a start. All we have to do is to develop it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:54, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  armae nucleariae ?
Disputatio:Nadium

message: "Nadium" is great. I just know I would have found it difficult both to find and to recognise. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 29 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I had quite a hesitation, because "Nadjum" there is defined as part of Hejaz (p. 555 "in Nadjo Hidjazi"), but then you find it on p. 401 with the alternative form "Najd Hejaz", which, I think, doesn't leave a doubt anymore. Sigur (disputatio) 10:17, 29 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macte!
Disputatio:Mare Hibernicum

message: Sicut alii me dixerunt anno 2006, quando tiro eram -- Vicipaedia non est lexicon multilingue! Hic decem lemmata habemus primamque sententiam fere illegibilem. Quia utile nobis est numerus litterarum huius commentationis, nomina superflua non deleo sed in notam subiungo. Nescio autem qua ratione tanta nomina in encyclopaedia Latina enumerare licet. Cui bono? Omnes, qui illas linguas scribunt, Anglice legunt; omnes, qui ad Vicipaediam veniunt, Latine legere accipiunt.
Pro tempore omnia nomina vernacularia in notam misi, sed, si quis dixerit nomen Anglicum hoc casu utilius esse quam alia, non nego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 29 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De lemmatibus
Disputatio:Odeum

message: A problem with bringing the adjective melodramaticum into the picture with regard to opera is that melodrama is a technical term in music history: "Beginning in the 18th century, melodrama was a technique of combining spoken recitation with short pieces of accompanying music. In such works, music and spoken dialogue typically alternated, although the music was sometimes also used to accompany pantomime." As that explanation makes obvious, melodrama and opera aren't exactly the same thing. Defining operas as melodramas is like defining rectangles as squares. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:20, 29 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, melodrama is not perfect, and perhaps we need some more discussion at Disputatio:Melodrama (musica). I will just say that I see Viator's point about opera already having a separate, common meaning in Latin (L&S: "service, pains, exertion, work, labor"), and so far I don't see any Latin sources for opera in the Italian sense. The case is clearer, I think, against the adjective *operaticus. Operatic- seems to be a "barbarous" formation used in English, occasionally in Spanish, but not the other languages. Even if we go with opera, I think theatrum operae would be best, absent the discovery of a Latin adjective. Ideally we'd 18th- or 19th-century Latin sources that reference operas. They may not make the same distinctions as in English. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:13, 7 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Ioannes Petrus Thiollet

message: Hanc paginam delendam suadeo, re vera nolens, quia continuo notas fere inutiles hic dirigentes in alias paginas attrahit. Quae notae, a timido anonymo additae, molestum erit semper semperque delere. Anonymum illum (aliosque) ad disputandum libenter convoco.
Je propose la délétion de cette page, sans vraiment le vouloir, parce qu'elle attire continuellement la création par un anonyme timide de nouvelles notes inutiles, dans d'autres pages, liées à Thiollet, qu'il devient perte de temps de rayer. J'invite chaleureusement l'anonyme (et autres) à répondre ici! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:46, 1 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nemine contradicente, ad interim deleo, sed aliis non anonymis, meliori consilio nacto, restituere licebit! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 3 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :The anonymous editor has appeared on my talk page, and will, I hope, soon make a comment here. We can discuss in English, French or Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:46, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
He seems to have published enough books to be called wiki-notable, but the attempted citations to his book about pianists are being inserted in the wrong places: they belong (if they belong at all) in a section on each artist's critical reception, where a sentence or two of what used to be called appreciation could conceivably be welcome. (Too bad for Thiollet that most of the articles in question don't yet have such a section!) We don't need Thiollet's authority for the fact that Chopin was a pianist. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:16, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delenda?
Disputatio:Livinal

message: Nuada genus huius nominis feminile notat, sed fontem non nominat. Egomet genus neutrum suppono. Et conclusio "-al" et forma adiectivi "longum" resp. Italice "longo" id indicant. Idcirco genus neutrum indicare vellem. Qualis est oponio vestra? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 21:59, 9 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis, mea mente, sed nomen "Livinale Longum" propono. , quam paginam citare possumus. Tu quid censes? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 10 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Livinale Longum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:16, 10 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Genus nominis LIVINAL
Disputatio:Associatio Linguisticae Formalis Austronesicae

message: It's said (in the first relevant web page that I could find) that this is an association of Austronesianists interested in formal linguistics. Latin names of organizations normally begin with a nominative noun such as "Societas, Associatio, Universitas" etc. We don't have a noun for Austronesianists, but, the way I've put it, "Austronesiensis" could agree with Associatio or Linguisticae or both and I think that's about as pellucid as the English name is.
If other web pages can be found, they should of course be added! I haven't searched beyond the English and French wiki pages, which don't help. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:10, 10 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen + nexus 

message: Vel Austronesia ? Paene ab initio, exemplar usitatum non est -nesiensis, sed -nesius, -a, -um (adiectivis geographicis generalibusque datum) et -nesianus, -a, -um (linguis hodiernis datum) atque aliquando -nesicus, -a, -um (linguis parentalibus datum), Iustino Mucioque suadentibus. Similiter Melanesius, Micronesius, Polynesius. Lege de "Maorica ~ Maoriana?" in Disputatio:Lingua Maoriana et alibi. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:59, 10 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Making that choice, one loses the ambiguity: -a gives "Austronesian Association", -ae gives "Austronesian linguistics". I think the truth is somewhere in between! But if you're sure, move again. No objection. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:07, 10 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Austronesiensis
Disputatio:Fossa Mariannensis

message: An melius "fossa Marianensis"? "Marianus -a -um" enim mihi sonat "virginis Mariae" aut "C. Marii"; haec autem fossa non ex eis, sed ex insulis Marianis nominata est. De adiectivo cf. Thermaerobacter marianensis. Vera "Fossa Mariana" in Francia reperitur et e C. Mario nomen habet: vide Smith et :en:Fossa Mariana. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:52, 10 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sic, Marianensis (vel Marianana ?!). Insulae ex Mariana, non Mari(a/o), appellantur, si probe dicit enwiki: "The islands were named after the influential Spanish queen Mariana of Austria following their colonization in the 17th century." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:14, 10 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, Marianana is the name of a genus, so it's possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 10 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Insulae Mariannenses, de Marianna (Maria Anna), et binomina Artocarpus mariannensis, Aglaia mariannensis. Et insulae et fossa movendae sunt, ut videtur. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:59, 10 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)

text: ::Sed et insulae Marianae inveniuntur. Nam ambiguum est Marianus. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 18:04, 10 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Mihi Mariannae et Mariannensis placent, nam clariora sunt, originem nominis melius monstrant et a similibus certius distinguunt. Sed et alia, quae in fontibus inveniuntur, in nota aut alio modo memoranda sunt. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:12, 11 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Adolphus Kolping

message: *Herders Conversations-Lexikon. Friburgi Brisgoviae 1857, tomus 5, p. 809 (hic in interreti)
*Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, tomus 11. Lipsiae 1907, p. 306-307 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fontes recensionis mense Aprili 2020
Disputatio:Burlingtonia

message: De: "Georgius Dewey, praefectus classis": thus Cassell's & Traupman for 'admiral', and it would literally seem to signify 'overseer of the fleet', but Dewey is the only so-called admiral of the navy (highest-ranking admiral, equivalent to "admiral of the fleet" in other navies and "field marshal" in armies: six stars) in US history, all other "full" admirals being just plain admirals (five stars), so Latin requires a special term to accommodate this (unique) holder of this title: maybe maximus praefectus classis? or praefectus classium (since the titleholder oversees multiple fleets)? or what? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:00, 15 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Admiral of the Navy
Disputatio:Fenelo

message: *Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 6. Lipsiae 1906, p. 413-414 (hic in interreti)
* Herders Conversations-Lexikon. Friburgi Brisgoviae 1854, vol 2, p. 681-682 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fontes recensionis mense Aprili 2020
Disputatio:Renminbi

message: Sive Jenminbium. Videlicet Ienum Japonicum.
* Yuan = Juenum
* Jiao = Decesima
* Fen = Centesima
170.64.214.179 11:08, 30 Martii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fontem habetis? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 30 Martii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renminbium
Disputatio:Magdalena de Scudéry

message: *Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 18. Lipsiae 1909, p. 232 (hic in interreti)
*Damen Conversations Lexikon, vol 9. 1837, p. 187-188 (hic in interreti).
thread_title: Fontes primae recensionis
Disputatio:Ioanna Antonia de Pompadour

message: *Damen Conversations Lexikon, vol 8. Lipsiae 1837, p. 253-257 (hic in interreti)
*Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 16. Lipsiae 1908, p. 138 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fontes recensionis mense Aprili 2020
Disputatio:Lauditorium

message: Translatio toponymi a Auditorium ad LauditoriumNomi d'Italia - AAVV, De Agostiniauditore.itMontefeltro...da scoprireTOPONOMASTICA Post n°26 pubblicato il 22 Giugno 2007  necesse est. Auditorium erratum est!--Rabarama1999 (disputatio) 16:00, 25 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)

thread_title:  Notae
Disputatio:Cabbala

message: *Eisler, Rudolf: Philosophen-Lexikon. Berolini 1912, p. 309-310 (hic in interreti)
*Herders Conversations-Lexikon. Friburgi Brisgoviae 1855, tomus 3, p. 521-522 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fontes primae recensionis
Disputatio:Gim Jeong-eun

message: Quare nomen suum non est Iongunus Kim??? Sacraculum (disputatio) 02:29, 30 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Potes fontem istius nominis citare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:07, 30 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nos etiam scribemus Francus Schäffler, Sebastianus Kurz, Donaldus Trump (Donaldus Ioannes Trump) sine fonte latino eorum nominum. Sacraculum (disputatio) 18:49, 30 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Quare? Mos est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:12, 30 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Mein Latein ist leider nicht gut genug, um aktiv auf latein zu schreiben. Aber ich möchte nur ein Wort über die Wortfolge *Vorname; Nachname/Titel* hinzufügen. Sollte "Kim Jong-Un" nicht eher Kimiongunus (Chimiongunus?) sein, weil ja auch Kong Fuzi Confucius ist, und nicht Fuzius Kong. KevinMuskelprotz (disputatio) 20:20, 30 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iongunus Kim
Disputatio:Procuratio Nationum Unitarum pharmacis et sceleribus cohibendis

message: "Droga" linguis Romanicis (unde et Anglice) sed haud Latine dicitur, nisi fallor. Certe, sicut in textu nostro, "medicamentum (inlegitimum)" vel sim. dicere possumus. An compendiosius hic sensus exprimi potest? In aliis commentationibus "pharmacum" dixi ego, sed confiteor verbum esse Latinitatis recentioris.
"Officium" hic per errorem scribitur. Quomodo dicere? "Procuratio"?
Ergo paginam movendam suadeo, sed alii fortasse nomina meliora quam ego proponere possunt! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 6 Maii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Droga? Officium?
Disputatio:Analysis urinae

message: Lemma paginae ("urinanalysis") mihi videtur Theodiscum verbum. Fonte carente, suadeo lemam ad locutionem aliam (fortasse cum genetivo, analysis urinae? Aut analysis urinarius?) movere--Xaverius 08:49, 7 Maii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias Xaverie, tibi consentio. Antea me meta:List of articles every Wikipedia should habe/Expanded diligentius legere oportuisse cogito: "Urinanalysis" plene falsum est, at "Urinalysis" rectum esset, at "analysis urinae" maxime mihi placeret. In analysem urinae mutemne? Andreas Raether (disputatio) 17:36, 7 Maii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Movenda
Disputatio:Piranha

message: As far as I can see, "piranha" is a Portuguese and English name for an informal group. It's not a taxon. So, either we move this to "Serrasalminae" (which is the closest relevant taxon, and is the name of the relevant category at Commons), or we delete the taxobox. I haven't at present done either, but I added "Subfamilia = Serrasalminae", a line that was omitted from the taxobox, and deleted "Tribus = Piranha", faithfully copied from en:wiki but false. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 11 Maii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The classification seems to be problematic and in dispute, but the most pertinent fact for organizing the articles is that the topic specified in the list of 10,000 indispensable articles is piranha, excluding the pacu and the silver dollar, which are apparently also counted among the Serrasalminae. Perhaps the best thing would be to keep the article Piranha where it is, but to delete the taxobox—and yet the other wikis that I checked (German, Portuguese, Spanish) do have a taxobox. The French one (I now see) seems to have an informally styled taxobox; maybe inventing something like that would be a good idea. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:57, 11 Maii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, I realised that the list of 10,000 was in your sights!

text: :If the page is moved, it would have to be linked with the article "Serrasalmininae" in some other languages, so it would no longer serve the higher purpose. Therefore I agree, let's not move it. We might find "piranha" in a Latin source. It might even have been proposed as a taxon once upon a time, which would be really nice, but I've seen no sign of it.

text: :Meanwhile we aren't here to pretend this is a taxon if it isn't, so I think the effort of imitating the taxobox would be better spent on improving this or other articles. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:24, 12 Maii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Pirania turns out to be is an extinct genus of sea sponge, so there's that. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:46, 12 Maii 2020 (UTC)

text: ::I've already moved on to the sturgeons (posting soon). Btw, does Vicipaedia somewhere have a table of the Latin terms corresponding to the internationally authorized degrees of worry: of least concern, vulnerable, critically endangered, and so forth? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:42, 12 Maii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda?
Disputatio:Ioannes Frossardus

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, vol 7. Lipsiae 1907, p. 164-165 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons primae recensionis

message: "Ioannes Froissartius" vel "Froissartus" tardius, "Frossardus" paulo saepius in fontibus extra Vicipaediam reperio. Editiones chronicorum Latinae nomen "Frossardus" praeponunt: Frossardi ... Historiarum opus omne. Ergo titulum paginae nostrae "Ioannes Frossardus" suadeo. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:17, 16 Maii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nihil contra habeamus! Revera etiam hic https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/pnd118536370.html versio Froissartii non proponitur. Tamen generatim - quod attinet et ad nomina locorum peto veniam hanc: etiam versionem quae auribus placet interdum praeferas. Quae versio potius inusitata esse potest. Me opiniante: Fonte uno invento versio vel rara adhiberi potest. Quoad laborem concretum Vicipaedianum: quis nunc FROISSARTIOS omnes FROSSARDIS substituet? Giorno2 (disputatio)
replies: text: :Id possumus facere, sed non necesse est. Linguis naturalibus synonyma admittuntur; systemate Vici redirectiones admittuntur. Si, exempli gratia, "Frossardum" ad caput paginae praeferimus, "Froissartius", fonte fidei digno attestatus, aliis contextibus legitimus manet.

text: :Libris topographicis et historicis mediaevalibus, quos his diebus lego, omnis fere urbicula, omne fere oppidum, nomina Latina plura possidet. Si nomen singulum melius quam alia seligere possumus, iam bene fecerimus!

text: :Fortasse hoc casu plures fontes exspectare oportet. Incertus sum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:23, 17 Maii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Thermae Carolinae

message: Locutionem alteram "Carolinae Thermae" in notam submisi quia, ordine verborum Latinorum liberato, omnis Latinista eam locutionem per se construere potest. An recte feci? Debemus (si possumus) primas commentationum sententias simplicius reddere, titulis variis ad minimum reductis.
De quaestione, an locutionem "Carolinae Thermae" praeferre oportet, nihil dico. Si sic, locutio "Thermae Carolinae" invicem in notam suam submittenda erit! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:00, 21 Maii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Ordo crescentis lunae

message: :Ctitor primus anno 1382 fuerat Carolus III rex Neapolitanus. Finis ordinis erant pacis inter nobiles rebelles servatio, navigationis promotio et navium longarum cultus. Insuper reginae coronatio occasio grata erat. 
replies: text: Scutum ordinis fuit navis aurea in undis tumultuosis et sententia equitum Latina Non cedo tempori. Quam socii in redimiculo cum conchis et lunis crescentibus portabant. Palla equitum lilia picta habuit. Ad laevam inveniebatur navigium, ordinis signum, et caput operiebatur petaso nigro. Ctitore anno 1386 mortuo abolitus est iste sodalitas.
Haec "historia" addita est dum paginam augebam. Est historia non Ordinis crescentis lunae sed Ordinis navis vel argonautarum (:de:Orden der Argonauten). Fontes recentes, quos in bibliographia cito, nihil commune vident inter ordines anteriores ordinemque crescentis lunae. Mea mente alia pagina de Ordine argonautarum scribere necesse est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:44, 26 Maii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Tamen in versione Nederlandica Vicipaediae nl:Orde van de Halve Maan (Napels) continuatio inter Neapolitana et Francica utique datur. Quod cum ita sit, non sum expertus. Giorno2 (disputatio)
replies: text: ::Neque ego! sed novam paginam e fontibus fidei dignis hoc tempore augere conabor, non e Vicipaediis :)

text: ::Fontes recentes, quos usque adhuc vidi, de continuitate nihil dicunt. Fons nullus, neque recens neque priscus, usque adhuc repperi de "Ordine crescentis" ante Renatum Andegavensem exstantem. De Ordine ("Argonautarum"? "navis"? sine nomine?), quem Carolus III condiderat, duos fontes usque adhuc habeo, quorum unus suggerit, sine certitudine, sine fonte primario, Renatum aliquid de illa Ordine antiquiori fortasse scivisse. Quo erudito citato, res a te scriptas de ordine antiquiore rursus inserere oportebit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:57, 27 Maii 2020 (UTC)

text: ::... aut "Argonautarum" aut "navis"! Fontibus pluribus iam repertis, aliam paginam de illo ordine incipio textumque tuum ibi pono. Spero me bene fecisse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 27 Maii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Historia
Disputatio:Euleri formula

message: De: "as we say 'numerus complexus,' we should have 'analysis complexa'":—For English 'complex', both Cassell's (1968) and Traupman (2007) tell us to use Latin multiplex (ad verbum 'having many folds', 'manifold'), but of course if Latin-writing mathematicians have attested complexus, that might be good enough for Vicipaedia! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:54, 27 Maii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Gauss uses it, and I also find it in Kronecker.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:02, 27 Maii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :OK then. Attested it is! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:19, 27 Maii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Complex" =?
Disputatio:Pteroclididae

message: The lemma is Pteroclididae, but we seem to have some variation here. The English wikipedia gives the Latin name as Pteroclidae but the category as Pteroclididae. (Go figure!) Other wikis go various ways. The suffix for these taxonomic families is indisputably -idae, so the "correct" name (in all wikis?!) hinges on the correct form of the stem of the pertinent noun. If the word is pterocles, -is, then Pteroclidae may be better, but if it's pterocles, -idis, then the stem is pteroclid- and Pteroclididae would look better. A quick internet search turns up both forms pteroclidem and pteroclem. The paradigm of the Greek word Latinized as cles might be dispositive, so we wait for Greek authorities to advise. (Written in English in case people from the English wikipedia might be interested.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:48, 1 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Lupus de Vega

message: Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon, tomus 12. Lipsiae 1908, p. 708-709 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mense Iunio 2020

message: "Felix" praenomen patris, non ipsius, mihi videtur -- videte paginam Hispanicam. Fortasse re vera patronymum "Felices" > "Felicis" gessit?
An fontem habemus conversionis praenominis Hispanici "Lope" in "Lupum" Latinum? Nescio, sed, si fons exstat, accipere oportet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:06, 27 Maii 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lupus de/a Vega" saepe invenitur, quaedam addidi. De "Felice" nescio, an supervacuus sit. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 04:18, 28 Maii 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias tibi ago. Adhuc nunquam vidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:37, 28 Maii 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine