lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Gummi manducabile

message: Apud J. G. Krünitz, Oeconomische Encyclopädie (1773-1858) legimus s. v. Masticatorium et ibidem sub titulo Käu-Mittel (pagg. 290 s.) sequentia:
"Masticatoria nennt man solche Arzeneyen, welche nur gekäuet werden dürfen, und die unter dem Käuen ihre Haupt=Wirkung thun. Die Absichten, in welchen man sich solcher Mittel bedient, sind verschieden. Man gebraucht nähmlich dergleichen: 1. um einen übeln Geruch des Mundes zu maskieren; und alsdann sind es meistens gewürzhafte Substanzen, zu denen man seine Zuflucht nimmt. Sie werden sowohl in einfacher, als zusammen gesetzter, Gestalt gekäuet. Letzteres war schon zu den Zeiten des Horaz üblich; er sagt: Pastillos Ruffinus olet, Gorgonius hircum.
Zu Erfüllung dieser Anzeige, wählt man, ausser den Gewürzen im strengsten Verstande, noch: den Fenchel in allen seinen Theilen, wie auch die Präparate davon; den Anieß, auf gleiche Weise; das Guajac=Holz; das Sassafras=Holz, und allerley balsamische Rinden. Siehe Gestank des Mundes, im XVII Th. S. 727, fgg. [...]" [E versione interretiali, quam repperi die 23 Septembris 2013] - Bavarese (disputatio) 11:59, 23 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  de masticatorii fontibus 

message: Date veniam ob hanc paginam sine explicatione motam. Explicationem heri scripsi sed non servavi! Volui dicere "masticatorium" re vera nomen esse Latinitatis recentioris, sicut Bavarese supra monstrat; sed sunt et alia masticatoria -- e.g. mastiche, chicle, betre etc. Igitur id verbum ad categoriam novam nominandam usurpavi, hancque paginam ad titulum pellucidiorem movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:35, 24 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explicatio
Disputatio:Masticatorium

message: Apud J. G. Krünitz, Oeconomische Encyclopädie (1773-1858) legimus s. v. Masticatorium et ibidem sub titulo Käu-Mittel (pagg. 290 s.) sequentia:
"Masticatoria nennt man solche Arzeneyen, welche nur gekäuet werden dürfen, und die unter dem Käuen ihre Haupt=Wirkung thun. Die Absichten, in welchen man sich solcher Mittel bedient, sind verschieden. Man gebraucht nähmlich dergleichen: 1. um einen übeln Geruch des Mundes zu maskieren; und alsdann sind es meistens gewürzhafte Substanzen, zu denen man seine Zuflucht nimmt. Sie werden sowohl in einfacher, als zusammen gesetzter, Gestalt gekäuet. Letzteres war schon zu den Zeiten des Horaz üblich; er sagt: Pastillos Ruffinus olet, Gorgonius hircum.
Zu Erfüllung dieser Anzeige, wählt man, ausser den Gewürzen im strengsten Verstande, noch: den Fenchel in allen seinen Theilen, wie auch die Präparate davon; den Anieß, auf gleiche Weise; das Guajac=Holz; das Sassafras=Holz, und allerley balsamische Rinden. Siehe Gestank des Mundes, im XVII Th. S. 727, fgg. [...]" [E versione interretiali, quam repperi die 23 Septembris 2013] - Bavarese (disputatio) 11:59, 23 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ergo "gummi manducabile" est masticatorium, sed pro certo sunt alia masticatoria, imprimis masticha, chicle et betre seu betel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:43, 23 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  de masticatorii fontibus
Disputatio:Cummis

message: Salve. :) Demiro in quo modo "gummis" et "cummis" in casu accusativo declinantur ut "-im" contra autem "-em". Estne modus latinus sive graecus antiquus?
Donatello (disputatio) 00:18, 26 Septembris 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: Cato et Plinius "cummim" scribunt. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:51, 28 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gummis et cummis in casu accusativo 

message: Mihi videtur nomen sensum ampliorem habere, i.e. :en:Natural gum. Nam Plinius et Cato cummim Mundi Novi, cauchuc (:en:Natural rubber), non cognoscebant. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:00, 28 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte dicis. Vide praesertim  13.66-67 ubi Plinius noster varietates "cummis" enumerat. Nobis necesse est paginas duas, "cummis" et "?" An "cauchuc" in textu quodam Latino repperisti? Ego non. Hic habes commentationem eruditissimam de nominibus arborum ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:45, 28 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fortasse cummis elastica (gummis/cummis elastica, Google Books)? Sive caoutchouc (, ), sed haec orthographia est haud Latina. Sive cummis Heveae brasiliensis? Lesgles (disputatio) 02:02, 29 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gum" aut "rubber" significat?
Disputatio:Anguilla

message: I think this page isn't right for Vicipaedia. It pretends to be about the word "anguilla", but actually it's an article about the English word "eel" translated into Latin.
Latin "anguilla" is the classical name of the species Anguilla anguilla and no others. Other eels known in classical times had different Latin names. So our page "Anguilla" should be a discretiva leading to:
# Anguilla anguilla
# genus Anguilla, probably to be dealt with under family Anguillidae, a single-genus family
# the island Anguilla (insula).
Am I right? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:56, 27 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm now making the change that I proposed above. The text relating to Engl. "eel" remains in the history, so if anyone wants to retrieve it for inclusion in a page, no problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 1 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error?
Disputatio:Rupes Casellae

message: I changed "saxum" to "rupes". I'd say saxum is a big piece of stone, but rupes is a rock as geographical feature. Hope I'm right ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:39, 27 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we now have the name "Casella", I have moved this page to "Rupes Casellae". I didn't go for "arx" because, attempting to translate the name as closely as I can, "rock" -- I said to myself -- means "rupes". It doesn't mean "castellum" or "arx". Any reliable source -- or anyone who argues more cogently -- wins, of course. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:10, 11 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rupes
Disputatio:Angelo di Monteverde

message: Licet nobis nomen Latinum operibus non litterariis (e.g. picturis, sculpturis) imponere, nisi fallor (vide VP:TNP), si nomen vulgare converti potest. Sed "Monteverdei" est forma falsa ... Fortasse possumus "Angelus Resurrectionis (Monteverde)"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:22, 28 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Abila (Decapolis)

message: "Abila in Decapolis" haud cum arte grammatica congruit; in fontibus Latinis neque "Abila in Decapolis" neque "Abila in Decapoli" reperio. Possumus, e nomine adiectivo episcopatús "Abilenus in Palaestina", fingere nomen substantivum "Abila in Palaestina": alii eandem rem iam fecerunt, e.g. hic. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:44, 29 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte monuisti, quod Latinitatem (accuratius Graecitatem) attinet. Ceterum autem censeo nuncupatione Palaestinae rem vetere claritate carere praesertim cum alter oppidum haud procul a dicta urbe exstitisse videtur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abila_(Peraea)). --Autokrator (disputatio) 10:23, 29 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Factiones politicae per ideologias digestae

message: per ideologiam aut per ideologias? --UV (disputatio) 07:51, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Aut fortasse ideologia (abl. sg.)? Nescio an possumus societates humanas per conceptus abstractos plurales distribuere ... Neander, quid dicis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: : Ut mihi quidem videtur, subcategoriae sub hac categoria enumeratae variis ideologiis politicis consistunt, inter quas communismus, liberalismus, socialismus classicae, ut ita dicam, ideologiae sunt. Itaque nihil obstare videtur, quin "per ideologias" scribamus. Neander (disputatio) 19:16, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Gratias tibi ago! No problem ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:26, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  de titulo huius categoriae
Disputatio:Ioannes Terrentius

message: Saepius reperio "Johannes Terrentius Constantiensis". Nisi fallor, "Johannes" praenomen est, "Terrentius" cognomen Latinum, "Constantiensis" origo. (Malo "Terentius", sed haec forma rarissime reperitur.) Paginam movendam suadeo ad "Iohannes Terrentius Constantiensis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:49, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Moveo ego, sed ad formam "Ioannes Terrentius". Constantiensis interdum, Lynceus interdum, Iohannes interdum reperiuntur. Quando fontes ambiguuntur, "Ioannes" apud nos praefertur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 12 Augusti 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Saeculum 22

message: This doesn't contain any verifiable facts, and the names of the decennia are erroneous, aren't they? I don't know in what language the years from 2091 to 2200 are called "decennium 220" -- surely not Latin. I think the page is best deleted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:13, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non stipula
Disputatio:Furius Honsell

message: Quibus annis  pro Universitate Stanfordiense, Schola Normale Superiore Lutetiae, Universitate Augustae Taurinorum laboravit, nescio. Haec in pagina italica non reperio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:26, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curriculum vitae
Disputatio:Sarbelius Makhlouf

message: Hic Sanctus Latine appellatur "Sarbelius Makhlouf". Alia pagina creetur oportet, ut illuc materia redirigatur.

message: Si nomen Latinum in prompu est, nova instituatur oportet pagina, ad quam tota huius paginae redirigatur materia. Assentior opinioni.--189.72.136.189 00:48, 19 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirectio
Disputatio:Taoismus

message: Usor:Shii cleaned this page. It is therefore much shorter than before. Hidden text was taken out -- good, good. The list of "fontes" was taken out -- good, because the claim that they were fontes was a fib, and they were every last one of them in English, but also not so good, because they counted towards our dear old 1000 pages. I like doing bibliographies, but I don't think I can face up to Chinese religion this month. The "nexus externi" still require explanations to replace the useless repeated URLs. Anyone who can add anything good to this page, please do! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:48, 5 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quo dicto, bibliographiam, res utiles cum inutilibus comprehendentem, pro tempore restituo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 6 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Optime!Jondel (disputatio) 01:25, 22 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Nullus fons nominis citatur. Si fontem bonum "Taoismi" habemus, sit. Sed Theodisci "Daoismus" dicunt: id praefero, quia cum translitteratione pinyin congruit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:53, 5 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cum de prima littera hic agatur, hunc repperi fontem, in quo Tao scriptio apparet. Num bonus sit fons, nescio. Neander (disputatio) 19:03, 5 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita, bene ... Possumus, hoc exemplo utentes, Tao (indecl.) dicere (sicut multi aliis linguis iam dicunt); possumus etiam verbum Latinitatis plenum Daoismus, gratiá Theodisce loquentibus, recipere. An praeferentiam habes? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 6 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Haesito, nam te imperitior sum non-Indoeuropaearum linguarum orientalium. Siquidem "Tao" fonte confirmatum est, nonne etiam in titulo "Taoismus" retinendus sit consequentiae causa? Quamquam per me etiam "Daoismum" addere licet in ipsa commentatione. Neander (disputatio) 21:04, 7 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ita sit. Cur non? Gratias tibi ago! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:39, 8 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Porticus Attali

message: Per me hoc aedificium non est forum -- agora enim est forum -- sed aut "stoa" aut "porticus". Si quis "porticus Attali" apud Google quaerit, exempla fere quinque reperit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:55, 9 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Res ita est ut dixisti - moveatur!--Utilo (disputatio) 20:07, 12 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Gratias tibi ago, mi amice. Moveo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 21 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Ignitegium

message: Gratias ad Andrew Dalby, cosilium suum quo res incepta est.Jondel (disputatio) 08:07, 11 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adgnitio 

message: I'm sorry to say that, in its present form, the article is full of errors in morphology and syntax -- so full that it doesn't seem possible to list them all. I corrected a couple of self-correcting errors, but with the rest I don't know what to do. Perhaps someone else does? Neander (disputatio) 16:33, 11 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your help Neander and to others would have the time and expertise to help out!Jondel (disputatio) 06:18, 12 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adnotatio
Disputatio:Ivone Lara

message: "Dona" est re vera titulus; tales titulos e nominibus paginarum excludere solemus. Igitur suadeo Ivone Lara (an sit versio Latina huius praenominis, nescio). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 10 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen 

message: Putavi creare ipsum titulum quod in pagina lusitana est. Domina scripsi quia Lusitanice Dona appellata est.
Si melius Ivone Lara est, bonum est Ivone Lara scribere!
Omnibus gratias ago
Rei Momo (disputatio) 13:38, 15 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ivone Lara
Disputatio:Organizatio ad arma chemica interdicenda

message: Salve! Nonne dicendum est ad interdictionem armorum chemicorum? - Bavarese (disputatio) 10:45, 11 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Pro certo, Bavarese. Latinitatis causa statim movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:00, 11 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ad interdictionem ...
Disputatio:Abdul Halim (sultanus Kedah)

message: Alibi reperio "Kedahensis" in nominibus botanicis; "Kedalensis" non reperio. Unde venit?
I can find "Kedahensis" in botanical names; I don't find "Kedalensis" anywhere. Where did it come from? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 11 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. It was invented. Let us move it then.Jondel (disputatio) 03:51, 4 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine adiectivo
Disputatio:Sulloniacis

message: I don't understand how this place could be a "figlinum Romanum". I changed to "mansio Romana", which it surely was. If I'm being silly, please explain :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:42, 11 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You were quite right; my Latin is generally shabby to say the least (being a teenager whose only experience with it has been self-taught). My attempt had been for pottery, referring to the workplace of a potter. Sadly, my only available Latin dictionary - Collins pocket dictionary - is hardly extensive enough for that, and "figlinum" was the best substitute I could find on short notice. But of course, I was stupidly overlooking the fact that evidence of a pottery on Brockley Hill does not mean that Sulloniacis was restricted to the pottery alone. Benjitheijneb (disputatio) 18:35, 11 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figlinum 

message: My attempt in creating this small entry was to refer to both Sulloniacis (the historical Roman estate) and Edgware (the modern town roughly analogous to it). I would justify this in that Sulloniacis would be the oldest attested name for the area. In hindsight, however, I do wonder whether or not the distinction warrants a separate page for both modern Edgware and the Roman estate. Any opinions on this? (This would also make the issue of interlanguage links easier, since I was unsure whether or not to link this to the English Wikipedia page Sulloniacis or to the pages for Edgware.)
thread_title:  Modern Edgware vs Sulloniacis
Disputatio:Palmariola

message: # Non "Artemisa" sed "Artemita" in libro laudato reperitur
# "deinde Columbaria": non ita se habere videtur, nam "Columbaria" iam apud Plinium (nat. 3.81) invenitur
# "Artemisia" etiam apud Plinium (ibidem) reperitur, sed idem locus esse videtur ac "Dianium" (hodie Gianuto; vide commentarium huic paginae additum, p. 150)
# Quae cum ita sint, si nomen antiquum volumus, quin Columbariam in titulo scribamus; sin autem nomen Latinum fonte attestatum hodierno nomini simile malumus, quin Palmariolam in titulo scribamus. Utrum e his eligamus? Neander (disputatio) 17:27, 12 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Solutionem claram non video. Apud Hofmannum sequentes commentationes inveni:
replies: text: :::ARTEMISIA [3] sive ARTEMITA, insul. Tyrrhenica, Latinis Dianium, vulgo Gianuti. Stephani Breviator. [scriptum Graecum - ??] Imperito exscriptori siquidem notius erat nomen unius Musarum. Cluver.
replies: text: :::ARTEMITA civitas 500. stad. a Seleucia distans, ad orientem exposita. Strabo l. 15. Item insul. contra Acheloi fluv. Ostium, Artemia Straboni. Forte Artemisia Plinii l. 3. c. 6. est. Item insul. [scriptum Graecum]. Steph. Aliis est Van, urbs permunita, sub Turcis, non longe ab Arsissa lacu in Austrum. Cuius incolae ex parte Christiani sunt. Etiam Arthemita, Baudrand.
replies: text: :::Gianuti, insula maris Hetrusci, Dianium, Sinonia.

text: :::Palmaiola, insula maris Tyrrheni, Artemita.

text: :::Palmarola, insula maris Tyrrheni, Palmaria, aliis Pandaria. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:47, 12 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

text: ::The notes in this translation of Pliny may also be useful:
replies: text: :::"We next have Urgo704, a larger island, and Capraria, which the Greeks have called Ægilion705; then Igilium706 and Dianium707, which they have also called Artemisia, both of them opposite the coast of Cosa; also Barpana708, Mænaria, Columbaria, and Venaria."

text: :::"704 Now La Gorgona. 705 Both of these names meaning "Goat island." It is now called Capraia. 706 The modern Giglio. 707 Now Gianuto, opposite Monte Argentaro on the main-land. 708 These are probably the small islands now called Formiete or Formicole di Grossetto, Troja, Palmajola, and Cervoli." Lesgles (disputatio) 18:53, 12 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Gratias tibi ago pro his, Lesgles! Profecto arduum est solutionem certam ostendere. Constat quidem "Artemisam" vocem nihili esse. "Artemita" in Hofmanni Nomenclatore ad insulam Palmaiola, sed in Lexico ad insulam Gianuti refertur. Apud Plinium Columbaria tenuiter (cf. comm.Angl.: "probably") cum insula Palmaiola coniungitur. Cum agnitiones toponomasticae plus minus ambiguae sint, forsitan tutissimum sit Palmariolam, nomen Latinum minime a nomine hodierno abhorrens eligere?  Neander (disputatio) 14:35, 13 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: Consentio; forsitan possumus alias formas in notis dare. Et Artemisa citam mortem mori debet. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:24, 13 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adnotationes
Disputatio:Naxos

message: Fontes a me reperti nomen hodiernum montis maioris Ζας nominativum, Ζα genetivum dant (inde σπήλαιο Ζα ut qui diceret "Caverna Zae"). Ita textum mutavi: si erravi, corrige s.v.p.
Nomen exstat classicum montis alicuius Δρίος apud Diodorum Siculum (5.51), sed Zae aut Coroni? ... nescio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:03, 14 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sed hodie pro monte Ζα nomen Latinum recentius "Mons Iovis Melosii" repperi! Stipulam igitur mox incipio ‎fontemque citabo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:29, 15 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine montium
Disputatio:Margarita Maria Burgunda

message: Why does it say "Revelationem Sacri cordis Iesu vixit." ({She} lived the revelation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus)?
Should it be suscepit (received) instead of vixit?
132.3.65.80 20:34, 16 Octobris 2013 (UTC)Adrian J Combe IV
replies: text: "Vixit" won't do for us, I agree. But there's another problem: we can't encyclopedically assert that she received this revelation, can we? In French, if writing an encyclopedia article, I would say not "elle a reçu" but "elle aurait reçu", past conditional; in Latin I would want to say "susceperit", potential subjunctive. Would that make sense? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:20, 17 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

message: Vollständiges Heiligen-Lexikon, tomus 4. Augustae Vindelicum 1875, p. 137-138 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mense Maio 2020
Disputatio:Podagra

message: Hunc paragraphum ad deletionem propono. Latinitas eius est pessima, propositum est superfluum. Quis vestrum consentit, quis dissentit? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 21:42, 2 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio, audacter dele! --UV (disputatio) 21:25, 7 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Statim dele! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:05, 7 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Podagara: Radix de Consultatione
Disputatio Categoriae:Cultura Minoa

message: I think Neander foresees moving this category to "Cultura Minoa" --cf. his move of the page Cultura Minoa. I think the move is right: I notice that when Evans published the Linear A tablets he used the title "Scripta Minoa", so there is no doubt that this Latin word has been used in the required sense. Since moving categories is slightly more fiddly than moving pages, I just wanted to check there are no objections before we do the move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:47, 21 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Neander is right, of course! Minoica is rather Italian than Latin.--178.190.162.207 11:22, 21 Octobris 2013 (UTC) = --Utilo (disputatio) 11:23, 21 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

text: Also the category "Urbes Minoicae" should be moved.--Utilo (disputatio) 12:41, 25 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :(Just got back from travelling.) Yes, agreed. Thanks for doing some editing on relevant pages. I'll ask UVbot to move the categories. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:21, 25 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Done! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:16, 25 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movenda?
Disputatio:Insula Ioannis de Lissabona

message: I don't think this is the best possible pagename.
#it looks like a man's name -- and it is! this man existed, a navigator and cartographer who deserves an article. So the primary sense of the name would be him, not the island named after him.
#this wouldn't be the expected Latin for his name -- I'd have expected (from more-Latinist authors) Ioannes Olisiponensis or Ulixiponensis or Lissabonensis, or (from less-Latinist authors) Ioannes de Lissabona. But I can't confirm any of those forms, or this one either. Is there a source?
I see, on the map illustrated, the name "I. de Iuan de-Lixboa". That looks to me like a good clue to what we should call the island: Latinizing it will be fine, but is there an attested form of his or its name? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After poking around a bit, I have only found references to the island, so I'm not sure there's enough for an article on the man, even if he existed. But to clarify it, maybe we should move it to "Insula Juan de Lisboa"? I haven't found a Latin name either. Lesgles (disputatio) 01:24, 12 Maii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :The French Wikipedia, for what it's worth, gives "Juan de Lisboa, ou Saint-Jean de Lisbonne". Lesgles (disputatio) 01:26, 12 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Disputatio:Ethologia

message: I doubt the value of these. Are they just Latin translations from a similar list on en:wiki? If so, isn't it a bit like setting homework for future Vicipaedians? Why should they write exactly the same articles that are on en:wiki, and always slightly worse (because no faithful translation is quite as good as its original)? Why shouldn't they do something different (and better)? Anyway, I placed them below, whence anyone convinced of their utility can restore them to the page! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
*Abnormes avium in captivitate mores
*Activitas loco movendi
*Activitas vacui
*Aestimatio intrinsica(ethica animalium)
*Altruismus in animalibus
*Animals in Translation (liber)
*Anthropozoologia
*Cognitio animalium
*Communicatio animalium
*Ethica animalium	
*Ethologia cognitiva
*Ethologia humana
*Etoecologia
*Fraus in animalibus
*Index morum abnormalium in animalibus
*Magna catena entis
*Mores adiunctivi
*Motus animi in animalibus
*Nepotismus ethnicus
*Neuroethologia	
*Oecologia morum
*Quaestio Darwiniana
*Rationes comparativae phylogeneticae
*Scientia salutis animalium
*Sexualitas animalium non humanorum
*Sociophysiologia
*Somnus (non humanus)
*Stimuli supernormales
thread_title: Vide etiam