lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Confucianismus

message: Confucius sinarum philosophus, sive scientia sinensis: latine exposita By Confucio, Prospero Intorcetta ((S.I.)), Chétien Herdtrich, François de Rougemont, Philip Couplet ((S.I.))
http://books.google.com/books?id=BerpG7rz0_YC&pg=PR21&dq=confucius+sinae&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qgfhUNmZN-iy0AH5rIHwCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=confucius%20sinae&f=false
Confucius, Sinarum philosophus, sive scientia sinensis latine exposita ... By Confucius, Couplet
http://books.google.com/books?id=iXWgwMUw1k0C&pg=PR39&dq=confucius+sinae&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qgfhUNmZN-iy0AH5rIHwCw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=confucius%20sinae&f=false
Confucius Sinarum philosophus, sive Scientia sinensis latine exposita By Prospero Intorcetta (S.J.), Christian Herdtrich, Confucius, Philippus Couplet, Franciscus de Rougemont (S.J.)
http://books.google.com/books?id=1H4PAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Confucius Sinarum philosophus, sive: scientia Sinensis: Adiecta Tabula ... By Qiu Kong, Prospero Intorcetta
http://books.google.com/books?id=TcBEAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA4&dq=confucius+sinae&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qgfhUNmZN-iy0AH5rIHwCw&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=confucius%20sinae&f=false
De ritibus Sinensium erga Confucium philosophum, et progenitores mortuos Alexandri papae VII. decreto permissis, adversùs librum inscriptum, Historia cultûs Sinensium ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=7U1v4rEXKfoC&pg=PA127&dq=confucius+sinae&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qgfhUNmZN-iy0AH5rIHwCw&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=confucius%20sinae&f=false
De ritibus Sinensium erga Confucium philosophum, et progenitores mortuos ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=7U1v4rEXKfoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Confucius+sinarum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9Q3hUJqGIuiq0AHhwoGwCA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAzgy#v=onepage&q=Confucius%20sinarum&f=false
Ad virum nobilem de cultu Confucii philosophi et progenitorum apud Sinas
http://books.google.com/books?id=ofNaAAAAQAAJ&pg=PT36&dq=confucius+sinae&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gQjhUNnaEOuz0QGb9YDoDA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBjgU
De ritibus Sinensium erga Confucium
http://books.google.com/books?id=ikBFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA308&dq=confucius+sinae&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gQjhUNnaEOuz0QGb9YDoDA&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCTgU#v=onepage&q=confucius%20sinae&f=false
De ritibus Sinensium erga Confucium philosophum, et progenitores mortuos ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=5l6nfzLns04C&pg=PA571&dq=confucius+sinae&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DAnhUM2AOu-n0AGW5IGgBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgy#v=onepage&q=confucius%20sinae&f=false
Confucii, Sinensium philosophi principis, vitae et doctrinae de beatitudine ... By Dietrich Dressler, Johannes Gottlieb Schneider
http://books.google.com/books?id=cUJIAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Confucius+sinarum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tA3hUM6vHsTK0AH9kYC4CQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADg8
Rajmaan (disputatio) 04:02, 31 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confucius sinarum philosophus, sive scientia sinensis: latine exposita
Disputatio:Ordo Fratrum Praedicatorum

message: The title is in french, but the apology is in latin.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PkpGAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA154&dq=confucius+sinae&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hwnhUKCpCcG10QGi64F4&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=confucius%20sinae&f=false
Apologie des dominicains, missionnaires de la Chine ou Réponse au livre du père Le Tellier, jésuite, intitulé: Défense des nouveaux chrétiens et a l'éclaircissement du P. Le Gobien, de la même compagnie, sur les honneurs que les Chinois rendent à Confucius et aux morts By Noël Alexandre
http://books.google.com/books?id=FglcAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Confucius+sinarum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Cg7hUPGILdLh0wG50oAo&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBjgo#v=onepage&q=Confucius%20sinarum&f=false
Rajmaan (disputatio) 04:06, 31 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologie Des Dominicains Missionnaires De La Chine. Ou Réponse au Livre du ...  By Noël Alexandre
Disputatio Categoriae:Auctores Samoani

message: What's the difference between this category and Categoria:Auctores Samoani (aside from the fact that the latter has many more members)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:57, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, this is Categoria:Auctores Samoani. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:18, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes! And that's not literally what was meant. Kudos to your reading skills! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:41, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

text: The difference between this and "Scriptores Samoae" is that "Scriptores Samoae" should contain authors who work or worked in Samoa; "Auctores Samoani" should contain authors who write/wrote in Samoan. The headnote on the category page already says this. [NB: That last sentence is not meant to carry a note of impatience -- sorry if it seems to -- but rather of relief! I intended to write such notes where confusion might arise, so I'm glad that I remembered to do so here :)] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:18, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :We've been through this before, and as you see, the distinction hasn't stuck. (Is there something counterintuitive about it?) For Scriptores Samoae, the little gray cells, apparently "correctly," go right to 'writers native of or resident in Samoa', but then, for auctores Samoani, they default to 'ethnic Samoans who originated things (e.g., books in any language, sculptures in any genre, etc.)', and that's apparently incorrect, on at least two counts. ¶ Some of this categorizing is incomplete or mysterious. T. S. Eliot, for example, is listed as one of the Scriptores Civitatum Foederatarum, but not one of the Scriptores Angliae, but Wystanus Hugo Auden, who made the opposite migration, gets categorized under both countries. (If we included all the countries in which Auden was staying when he composed poems, we'd have to add Austria, Italy, and China, not to mention the international region of the high seas.) Is there a criterion for deciding which countries can count somebody as "their" poet or writer? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:41, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Any number can -- categories, like entities, can be multiplied. So, for example, if Auden and Eliot had literary careers in both countries, they should be scriptores of both countries. Would that make sense?

text: ::Yes, I agree that it can be difficult to remember the exact meaning of the "Auctores ..." names. Short names are good because they are quick to type, but explicit names are good because you can't misunderstand them. So, by all means suggest a more perfect pattern. Vicipaedia is a work in progress ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:11, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Auctores vs. Scriptores
Disputatio:Pseudonymum

message: Can anybody please come up with a source for the word "Pseudonymum". My dictionary says "falsum nomen", and I suggest we use that instead. The Greek word is ψευδώνυμος, and if we were to latinize this it would be pseudonumus.--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 21:24, 2 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Pseudonymum videtur esse vocabulum recentioris Latinitatis. Verbum doctum est, sicut in aliis quoque linguis Europaeis. Quod ad falsum nomen attinet, puto homines antiquos Latine loquentes "falso nomine" non usos esse eodem sensu ac nos hodie "pseudonymo" utimur. Dicit enim Plautus (in Milite glorioso 437-8): "Falsum nomen possidere, Philocomasium, postulas. / ἄδικος es tu, non δικαία, et meo ero facis iniuriam." Item apud Ciceronem (Rosc.com. 1.1): "egone hos digitos meos impellere potui, ut falsum perscriberent nomen?" Utroque loco non de pseudonymo (sensu hodierno) sed de nomine per mendacium iniuriamque dato agi videtur. ¶ Non est negandum <> litteram Graecam primo [u] appellatam esse, ut apud auctores antiquissimos (sicut Plautum) videtur qui nomen q.e. Πύρρος Burrum pronuntiaverunt, <> more Graecorum occidentalium appellantes. Sed auctores classicae posterioresque plerumque verba a sermone Attico mutuati sunt, et in dialecto Attica iam dudum mutatio illa [u] > [y] facta erat. Sunt nonnulla nomina — sicut callionymus, dionymus, homonymus, myrionymus, trionymus et quidem Hieronymus — quae exemplum praebuerunt etiam ad peudonymum formandum. Neander (disputatio) 06:05, 3 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fontem e libro Latino recentiori nunc citavi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:39, 3 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Romanos scio verba Graeca Latine interpretatos esse. Sententiis tuis lectis, verbum etiam "falsum nomen" intellego aliter significare. Verbumne pseudonymum aut Pseudonymus nobis utandum est?--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 17:33, 3 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Quamquam pseudonimo, verbum Italianum, masculini generis est, Latine scribentibus neutro genere (id est pseudonymum) utendum est, ut fit in verbis comparabilibus, sicut apud Servium legimus "Ferri acies: bene addidit ferri, quia homonymum est acies." Et vide, quaeso, notam primam ab Andrea additam. Neander (disputatio) 00:27, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Gratias tibi, Neander. Fontes tam bonons repperisti, ut nunc vocibus claris dicere possimus verbum esse pseudonymum. --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 01:36, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudonymum
Disputatio:Lingua Syriaca

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=GW4UAAAAQAAJ
Title	Thesaurus Arabico-Syro-Latinus...
Author	Thomas a Nouaria
Publisher	Typis Sac. Congregationis de propagfide, 1636
Original from	Ghent University
Digitized	Jul 16, 2008
http://books.google.com/books?id=ti9nuuye9tcC
http://books.google.com/books?id=DaJFAAAAcAAJ
Title	Thesaurus Arabico-syro-latinus
Author	Tommaso Obizzino
Publisher	Typ. Congreg. Prop. fid., 1636
Original from	the Bavarian State Library
Digitized	Jan 11, 2011
Length	517 pages
http://books.google.com/books?id=CJBNAAAAcAAJ
Rajmaan (disputatio) 20:14, 3 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?id=rLxIAAAAcAAJ
Title	Observationes Arabico-Syriacae
Authors	Theodoricus Hackspan, Johann Leonhard Rinder
Publisher	Scherffius, 1639
Original from	the Bavarian State Library
Digitized	Apr 12, 2011
Length	24 pages
thread_title:  Arabico-syro-latinus  o
Disputatio Categoriae:Ludi televisifici

message: Greetings. What do you consider about a category where video game articles should be in? We have :Categoria:Ludi consolarum lusoriarum and :Categoria:Ludus televisificus (I created this one). I got the name ludus televisificus, "video game", in my Lexicon Vilborgianum (Swedish-Latin, second edition, 2009). I think it should be in Categoria:Ludus televisificus then the name is better. Both categories mean almost exactly the same, then all video games are used in video game consols (consola lusoria), and with some kind of monitor, almost usually a television. For video game series, we have :Categoria:Series lusoriae, which has to do with both video game series and computer game series.
Donatello (disputatio) 21:11, 3 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: I have joined the two categories at Categoria:Ludi televisifici (plural per VP:CAT). --UV (disputatio) 22:29, 12 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Bona idea beneque facte. Gratias ago UV. :)

text: :Donatello (disputatio) 00:35, 13 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: ::For the word for monitor and console, may I suggest cartibulum which Neander suggested somewhere. And for video, visificus?  --Jondel (disputatio) 08:19, 20 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Traupman (2007): monitor = 'monitorium'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:06, 20 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mota ex ''Disputatio Categoriae:Ludi consolarum lusoriarum'' 

message: As found in Traupman and mentioned by Iacobus at the Taberna .--Jondel (disputatio) 12:57, 29 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lusus" is a 4th declension noun, so the plural for the category name will be "Categoria:Lusus magnetoscopici". Why we should prefer "lusus" to "ludus" (which even a tiro Latinist can decline) I don't know. If we stuck to the commoner word it would be "Categoria:Ludi magnetoscopici". No problem about moving, but, before we do it, does anyone else want to comment on the term we choose?  Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 29 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :Since we adopt plural forms for the categories ,Categoria:Ludi magnetoscopici is great. Going back to your original argument which needs to be worked out for the principal article, well it comes from Traupman. Visificus or visificum is another option, e.g. Ludus visificus for the principal article.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:50, 29 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Lusus magnetoscopicus
Disputatio:Hadrianus V

message: Are we allowed to use Roman numerals?--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 21:47, 3 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We use them in some traditional contexts like the names of kings and popes (so "Hadrianus V" is fine of course). Not otherwise, not in text. I am working on the curricula vitae of the Popes, and you will see that I will eliminate these roman numerals from the text as I continue :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:08, 3 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman numerals?
Disputatio:Sophophonum

message: Forsan, sollerterphonascum melius sit secundum Élizabeth Antébi et Marie-France Saignes in suorum blog-ibus.?(Gratias a Leonellum Pons pro has nuntiones)Quod tibi videtur?
Perhaps sollerterphonascum is better, according to Élizabeth Antébi et Marie-France Saignes in their blogs? ((Thanks to Leonellus Pons for this info)How do you guys feel about this?Jondel (disputatio) 00:54, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe sollerterphonascum is better, I don't know enough to make a decisive argument, though I would prefer if we could at least have Sophophoum in the body. The issue is not an easy one - barely used - and we could as well use something like telephonicum saepiens (an intelligent phone) :) . the adverb "sollerter" seems wrong to me ("A cleverly phone?"), instead perhaps sollersphonascum? But I'd keep to the two words: telephonum sollers or telephonum saepiens.--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 01:08, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Neither do I know enough but for the meantime, your opinions matter thanks.Jondel (disputatio) 01:24, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
Ephemeris(a publishing authority) used sophophonum (got that right I hope) and thus that might be preferable. Jondel (disputatio) 01:28, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

text: Agreed--Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 01:37, 4 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  movenda ad sollerterphonascum
Disputatio:Monoecus (urbs)

message: I am switching round the names a bit. I suspect "Monagus" and "Monagum" are attempts at Latin by a local lawyer who didn't really know: and "Hercolis" and "Erculis" are just errors, because we know very well that the God's Latin name is "Hercules -is". Books whose only function is to list place-names may include erroneous forms from manuscripts: an encyclopaedia has to choose what its readers need to know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:46, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know that much about the name origin, wouldn't it be more appropiate to have a seperate article like Monoecus (nomen)? A short description could then be added to Monoecus and Principatus Monoeci linking to Monoecus (nomen), as the names are nearly identical. --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 16:50, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :In general, articles about words are thought to be not appropriate for the wikipedias: articles in encyclopaedias (according to this doctrine) are about things, not about words. So, if (like me and perhaps you) one is interested in the origins of words, the neat way to work one's interest into a Vicipaedia article is to have a section headed "nomen" or "etymologia" within an article about a thing.

text: :I don't yet know whether this section is better placed here or at Principatus Monoeci: that will become clear when we do some more work on the pages, I think. For the moment, it makes sense here because this article is about the little place that has always had this name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:58, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nominibus
Disputatio:Palatium Topkapı

message: Pro lemmate "Topkapı-Palatium" habemus fontem? Melius Palatium Magnum et Sacrum Palatium? Vide quod confirmat Wikipedia Anglica: "The Great Palace of Constantinople (Greek: Μέγα Παλάτιον, Latin: Palatium Magnum, Turkish: Büyük Saray) — also known as the Sacred Palace (Latin: Sacrum Palatium, Greek: Ιερόν Παλάτιον) — was the large Imperial Byzantine palace complex. . . ." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:12, 6 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fontem adhuc nescio. - Palatium Magnum sive Sacrum Palatium aliud est ac Topkapi-Palatium et commentatione propria dignum esset.--Utilo (disputatio) 11:09, 6 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fontem Latinum pro "Topkapi" reperire nequeo - quid de "Palatium sultanorum Topkapi dictum" vel "Palatium sultanorum (Topkapi)"?--Utilo (disputatio) 13:49, 6 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: De lemmate "Topkapı-Palatium"
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina prima/Nuntii

message: De usu huius formulae vide s.v.p. Disputatio Formulae:Scintu#nuntia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:47, 7 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vide ... 

message: Nuntius de ministra prima Daniae falsus est. Cwbr77 (disputatio) 22:52, 5 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Quomodo falsus est? Erat falsus, sed eum emendare conatus sum. Quaeso meliorem versionem praepone! Lesgles (disputatio) 15:14, 6 Februarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dania

message: Incertus sum: "Sclopetatio Tomocratica Constantinopoli Anni 2017 Novi" = recte? Opis indigeo ...
thread_title:  1.1.17 Estne titulus recte? 

message: A mortibus nuntiisque politicis, quos olim addidi, iamdudum abstinui quod easdem res in pagina 2017 anonymus quis addere solet. Rebus infinitis nondum Latine scriptis, haud necesse est eadem bis scribere! Sed bene erit novos nuntios interdum in pagina prima legere! Ergo nuntios scientificos addere incipio, id quod nemo usque adhuc facit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:53, 8 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuntii scientifici 

message: Secondo me si dovrebbe evitare attributi valutanti nelle nostre notizie. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 11:16, 22 Octobris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gubernatio latrocinalis", "suffragia falsificata" 

message: <nowiki>"Ante 100 annos Unio Rerum Publicarum Sovieticarum Socialisticarum fundata est." Censeo valere diputandum, utrum eventa praeterita hunc inserenda sint an non.Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 12:01, 31 Decembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anniversaria eventorum praeteritorum
Disputatio:Centesima pars

message: Cassell's: "percentage, pars, portio ; to render particular percentages, in rates of interest, etc.,  use centesima (pars), which is 1% monthly (12% per annum)." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:21, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene repperisti. Paginam movendam suadeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 9 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Movi. De pro centum, etc., quae locutiones in variis libris recentioribus apparent, fontem addi, sed percentationem numquam reperio. Lesgles (disputatio) 01:09, 12 Maii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Archivum Nationale (Francia)

message: J'ai protégé la page parce que deux références qui pourraient être utiles ont été retirées anonymement deux fois. Si on ajoute quelque chose plus courante et plus utile, on n'a pas nécessairement besoin de retirer une autre. Dans les bibliothèques et archives il est quelquefois utile de savoir comment ça se passait, comment on a procédé, même si ça se passe autrement et on procède autrement aujourd'hui. Ainsi les délétions voulues nécessitent une explication plus claire. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 9 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Il suffit pourtant de consulter le blog en question pour constater qu'il ne concerne pas les Archives nationales, de même qu'il suffit de lire le Que-sais-je de Favier, qui par parenthèse date des années 60 pour l'essentiel, pour voir qu'il ne traite pas spécifiquement des AN !
replies: text: :Desquels, alors? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:27, 14 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Le livre de Favier traite de toutes les archives, à la fois au sens de documents et d'institutions, le tout en 128 pages au format de poche. Ce n'est donc pas une source sérieuse pour cet article !
replies: text: :::Merci d'avoir appointi les i :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 28 Februarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection
Disputatio:Hugenoti

message: Care ‎144.36.54.79, usor sine nomine, vocem Hugenoti ad Ugunotti mutasti, sed fons ad eandem sententiam—eandem sententiam!—adfixus ait: "Inde fit ille foedus inter nobiles et simplices homines religionis calvinisticae quo factio hugenotica nata est." Certe nomen adiectivum hugenotica nomen substantivum Hugenoti vel Hugenotici significat, non Ugunnotti. Praeterea, idem fons deinde ait: "Neque hugenoti contenti sunt." Ergo nomen et lemma attestatum sunt Hugenotus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:23, 15 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Schola Regia Grammatica Lancastrensis

message: Schola saeculo tertiodecimo condita habet sine dubio nomen Latinum. An quis hoc nomen nobis dicere potest?
A school founded in the 13th century must have had a Latin name. Can someone (maybe someone at the school) tell us what the Latin name was? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:02, 15 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen Latinum
Disputatio:Collegium publicum ad scientas artesque docendas Argentorati

message: Institutum Nationalis Scientiae appliquées Argentorati…
Quam traducere «Science appliquée» in linguam Latinam ?
--130.79.23.57 16:13, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibilis : «Collegium publicum ad scientas artesque docendas Argentorati», traducere difficilis est. --93.1.25.37 17:14, 28 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen 

message: Comment traduire en latin «Mécatronique» ou «Génie climatique et énergétique» ?
Pour l’instant c’est noté «Mechatronica» et «Ars energiam» mais ça n’a pas l’air satisfaisant…
--2001:660:2402:14:1E65:9DFF:FE7A:20D3 07:34, 8 Martii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  traduction
Disputatio:Alexandra Pascalidou

message: Non intellegi "a parentibus e Graeca ad monstrare originem". Tempto "parentibus origine Graecis" (Anglice her parents being Greek in origin); si erravi, corrigete s.v.p. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:24, 28 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haud intellegi
Disputatio:Madrasa Sankuri

message: Our page said 1581; en:wiki currently says 988, based on an external link which actually gives 989, but a 10th-century date is hard to believe since historians say the city itself was founded in the 12th century. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:33, 29 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of foundation