lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Yogyakartae Principia

message: LilyKitty, "dubsig" a "pro protectionem" removisti, sed "protectionem" in casu accusativo manet. IacobusAmor 04:13, 9 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias tibi ago, IacobusAmor, et ignosce me pro gratia. Modificavi de "pro protectionem" ad "pro protectione", quod verbum "pro" casum ablativum reget. --LilyKitty 09:06, 9 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Factum bene! IacobusAmor 13:44, 9 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "pro protectionem"

message: Munc cognovi textum graece Yogyakartae Principiorum. Sed graece scibere non posse. Spero vocem linguae Graecae de Yogyakartae Principiis in Vicipaedia creatur ab alio qui graece scribere scit. --LilyKitty 16:03, 27 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: De translatione horum Principiorum in graecam
Disputatio:Medicago sativa

message: It was a mistake, I think, to suggest deleting this. It's about the species Medicago sativa. As to whether it should be moved to Medicago sativa, currently a redirect, I have no strong opinion: I guess it depends on discussion elsewhere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:02, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not deleted
Disputatio:Linguae Italicae

message: By reverting to the title & phrasing that I was steering away from (in the article Italica linguarum subfamilia), someone has reinstated the problem of the original. Its first sentence now reads:
replies: text: The Italian languages establish a subfamily or division of the family of Indoeuropean languages.
By inserting a term for "subfamily" into the title and the lemma, I was trying to minimize the problem caused by the fact that the overwhelming (universal?) use of Italicus in Vicipaedia is to mean 'Italian', not 'Italic'. That Italicus = 'Italian' is the default that the new word in the lemma was trying to nudge the reader away from. Also, I was trying to make the text in Vicipaedia match the text in the English Wikipedia:

text: The Italic subfamily is a member of the Indo-European language family.
(The curiosity of constituunt is a less important issue.) IacobusAmor 14:48, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I accept your thanks for carefully merging the new article you created with the existing article you marked for deletion.

text: :The problem over Italica(e) can't be solved by moving this one article. It needs wider discussion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::You all might want to look at the discussion at Disputatio:Lingua Italica.--Rafaelgarcia 15:09, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Titulus et lemma

message: :Putting aside for the moment what the right name of the page should be and what the lemma should be, creating a new page and then asking for the former page to be deleted isn't the way to go about things. The way to do it is to "move" the page to the "new name" by clicking "movere". 
replies: text: If you create another page and then ask the previous one to be deleted, you create a situation and a lot of unnecessary work for the admins. For example, we want to preserve the history of the page so that user contributions are recorded. If, however, the admins want to preserve the history of the page, they will have to delete the new page and move the old page to the new page name. Furthermore, if the old page has any discussions on its disputatio (thankfully not the case here) then the admins will have to contribute together the separate discussions or at least move the old discussions over.

text: All these difficulties are avoided altogether by "moving" the page and not creating a separate new one.--Rafaelgarcia 15:09, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please "move" don't "create separate page and put delenda on old page"
Disputatio:Academia Nationalis Scientiarum Civitatum Foederatarum

message: Habemus attestationem? Antique fortasse melius: Nationalis Scientiarum Academia Civitatum Foederatarum (sed vox nationalis ut videtur antiquitate non fuit verbum). IacobusAmor 13:15, 13 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordo verborum
Disputatio:Tructa modo Navarreno

message: Nescio nomen verum huius piscis. Estne tructa, trutta aut oncorhynchus? --Xaverius 21:03, 16 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine

message: Haec verba "Hic cibus iam ab Aimerico Picaudo in codice Calixtino descriptus est" e pagina delevi quia confirmare non possum. Textum Libri peregrinationis hodie perlegi: ibi quattuor pisces cap. vi enumerantur, sed non tructa. Textum Latinum hic, versionem Francogallicam hic habes. Sunt multi mythi gastronomici in interrete, sed, si quis textum reperire potest, licet sententiam restituere! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:57, 16 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The identification of the trout is a clue. Oncorhynchus mykiss is a farmed species of modern Spain, but it comes from the Pacific, and had certainly not yet been introduced when Aimeric Picaud was writing! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:32, 20 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: De Aimerico Picaudo

message: Pro Tructa modo navarro, fortasse melius Tructa modo Navarrensi? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:16, 16 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ita, vel modo Navarreno. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:47, 17 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Modo Navarrano? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:51, 17 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sed adiectivus usitatissimus est navarrus, nonne? Fortasse navarrensem vidi, sed nunquam legi navarrenum...--Xaverius 23:23, 20 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::"Navarrus -a -um" nunquam vidi, sed de verbis tuis non dubito! "Navarrenus" per Google e fontibus Latinis ante paginam motam confirmavi. Si autem "Navarrus" praefers, s.t.p. iterum move, mi Xaveri! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 21 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Enimvero abunduntia formarum est. In libris Google reperio "rex Navarrenus", "rex Navarrus", "rex Navrrensis", "rex Navarraeus", "rex Navarreus" (sed saepissime "rex Navarrae"). Quod ad incolas attinet Du Cange suggerit "Navarii" ("les Navarrois") et "Navarreni, Navarrenses" (usus particularis: "qui partibus regis Navarrae adhaerebant contra Carolum V"). In Lexico Latinitatis medii aevi Alberti Blaise video "Navari (Navarri, Navarreni, Navarrenses), habitants de la Navarre". Lesgles (disputatio) 15:42, 23 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Clavis memorialis USB

message: Always use accusative. Thus ad data(acc plural) conservandos(not meant to be masculine but neutral, plural neutral accusative).
replies: text: Data = neuter pl.; conservandos = masc. pl.; conservandos can't go with data. According to Cassell's, the English word data is to be rendered in classical Latin as concessa. That might produce: 'to save data, for saving data' = ad concessa conservanda. IacobusAmor 04:18, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: : You're right! conservanda should go well, it's neutral plural accusative. Datum seems to be accepted by the mainstream Latin community.--Jondel 07:46, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: AD

message: for the sake of saving data, pro data conservanda 
- On account of, for the sake of : dolor pro patriā, Cic. Fin. 1, 7, 24: tumultus pro recuperandā re publicā, id. Brut. 90, 311 dub. (B. and K. omit pro): dedit pro corpore nummos.  There are others.--Jondel 00:33, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
-data -I assumed was single female abl.  (I LOVE SINGLE FEMALES!!   )
-conservanda single female(YES!!!) ablative .
That 's why I love to use pro. :)  --Jondel 00:33, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Allen & Greenough #506: "The Accusative of the Gerund and Gerundive is used after the preposition ad, to denote Purpose." IacobusAmor 04:25, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :No argurment there, in fact, that is why I made those changes, 'ad conservanda' seemed odd and I at first wanted to change to something like 'ad datam conservandam' or 'ad datos conservandos' but decided to use 'pro' (+abl forms)  instead.--Jondel 05:32, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

text: : conservanda was plural accusative all a long! :<  --Jondel 09:01, 18 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro - for the sake of
Disputatio:Taro

message: Just for my information: why are the words in this category and similar categories to be 'borrowing words' (verba mutuata), rather than just plain 'words'? The analogous categories in Wikipedia seem to be "Hawaiian words and phrases," "Japanese words and phrases," and so on. (They're sorted by language, not region, but Vicipaedia probably won't have enough Polynesian ones to justify categories for each Polynesian language, so I've grouped them under the region; that could of course be changed.) IacobusAmor 13:33, 19 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vide s.t.p. Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 11#Verba peregrina.

text: [Addo:] "Mutuata" = ex alia lingua in lingua Latina iam mutuata ... Sed dubito an distinctio re vera utilis sit. Fortasse "Verba Polynesia" satis erit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:07, 19 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Mutuor est verbum deponens: ergo, participium non est passivum, et verbum mutuatum significat 'a borrowing word'. Or is this one of that small set of deponents whose past participles actually are passive? My dictionaries don't speak to this point. IacobusAmor 17:16, 19 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Luckily yes :) Luna mutuata a sole luce fulget, as Pliny rightly says (cf. ). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:47, 19 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutuata
Disputatio:Institutum alimoniae et agriculturae provehendae

message: FAO may refer to:
replies: text: F.A.O., abbreviation for "For attention of"

text: Food and Agriculture Organization

text: Finance and Accounting Outsourcing

text: F.A.O. Schwarz, a toy store chain

text: Faro Airport (Portugal), IATA airport code (FAO)

text: Forces Armées Occidentales, a Chadian insurgent group

text: Frente Amplio Opositor, an umbrella organization of environmental groups within Mexico.

text: Fao, a port in Iraq on the Al-Faw Peninsula

text: Flight Activities Officer, a NASA flight controller
So redirecting it here, to Organizatio Alimentaria et Agriculturalis, and not toward a disambiguation page, is not a good idea. IacobusAmor 13:45, 19 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

text: Just started the disambiguation page with a couple of these; if you'd like to add more, please add! Lesgles (disputatio) 14:42, 12 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirectum de FAO
Disputatio Categoriae:Termini

message: Ah, :Categoria:Scientia has been deleted as a parent of this category. Over in the English wiki, the term is :en:Category:Knowledge. Maybe it should have been :Categoria:Cognitio here? But then such a category doesn't yet exist! IacobusAmor 15:02, 20 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't certain. My summary says "- scientia (more logical at "Termini scientifici"? Revert if I'm wrong)".

text: To be more explicit: you've created "Termini" and "Termini scientifici". "Scientia" is still a supercategory of "Termini scientifici". If you really want it to be a supercategory here, then better remove it from "Termini scientifici"; but that leaves me unclear as to the distinction you intend between "Termini" and "Termini scientifici". Anyway, "revert if I'm wrong" covers it :) Best of luck. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:31, 20 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Knowledge"
Disputatio:Independentium Civitatum Foederatio

message: Melius, Cassell's opinatur, Liberarum Civitatum Foederatio. IacobusAmor 16:17, 22 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Si 'The Commonwealth of Nations' = Consortio Populorum, then 'The Commonwealth of Independent States' should also be a consortio. No? Also, foederatio looks extra-wrong because the entity in question doesn't seem to be a federation or a league: "The CIS is comparable to a very loose association of states and in no way comparable to a federation, confederation or supra-national organisation such as the old European Community" (ex :en:Commonwealth of Independent States). Ergo, fortasse optime: Consortio Civitatum Liberarum. IacobusAmor 17:58, 11 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sounds good to me! Lesgles (disputatio) 03:18, 25 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Independentium Civitatum Foederatio
Disputatio:Dialectos

message: Orthographia dialectos in lexicis linguae classicae reperitur, sed dialectus in operibus recentioribus. Apud nos, paginae "Dialectos ..." et "Dialectus ..." exstant. Quid praeferre oportet? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:16, 24 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthographia
Disputatio:Lingua Aegyptiaca Reformata

message: Carolus Anthon erat philologus doctus and Horatii scholaris qui sctipta ad se ab Martino Harris adlata fuisse Aegyptiaca Reformata animo intellexit. Scripta igitur appellamus 'Anthonis Transcriptionem'. CTRlatin 02:21, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Latine scripsit Anthon? Nisi suum nomen Latine declinavit, nomen hodie non declinandum est. (Vide propositum Vicipaediae de nominibus in Latinum versis.) Fortasse melius sit nomen adiectivum Anthonianum, sicut in locutione Exemplum Anthonianum 'Anthon's Transcript'. (Secundum Cassell's, verbum Anglicum transcript Latine exemplum aut exemplar reddendum est.) IacobusAmor 13:32, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quis erat Anthon?
Disputatio:Miecislaus I (dux Polanorum)

message: Misico does not appear in en:wiki. The form which appears is Mesco and Dagome. Plus, the traditional Spanish name for Mieszko is Miecislao. Furthermore, Mieszko was the first king of Poland and last duke of the polanes. I prpose this page to be moved either to Mesco (rex Poloniae), Dagome (rex Poloniae) or Miecislaus (rex Poloniae) or else dux Polanorum. --Xaverius 20:06, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time it was inserted, the link to en:wiki did support this spelling, but it doesn't now (anyway, Wikipedia is not a reliable source!) By all means move to a better-attested form. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:26, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Then it should either be Mesco or Dagome (Miecislaus might just be a random latinisation into Spanish). --Xaverius 20:30, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It's not random, Mieszko is a short form of Mieczysław in Polish already, and Slavic names ending in -sław/-slav are commonly Latinised using -slaus (Miroslaus, Venceslaus, Stanislaus, Ladislaus, ...). As per Google, "Miecislaus rex" and "Mesco rex" are well attested. Gabriel Svoboda 21:14, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I'll move it then to Miecislaus --Xaverius 21:50, 28 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

message: ex pagina disputationis mea --Xaverius 16:57, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
Mieszko I was dux Poloniae. The first rex Poloniae was Bolesław I Chrobry crowned in 1025. Poznaniak 15:53, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless Poland was a duchy before, he was not dux Poloniae, but dux Polanorum (leader or prince of the Polanes rather than duke of Poland). All clear now, it is similar to Pelagius (dux Asturum) and his successors such as Ranimirus I (rex Asturorum). Do you agree then to move it to Miecislaus I (dux Polanorum)?--Xaverius 16:27, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ok. Poznaniak 16:50, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Not wanting to cause any more moves ... but "Polonorum" seems better attested than "Polanorum". I'm not sure if there is a difference in meaning. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:17, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::We are talking about the Polanes here rather than the Poles, which of course is a confusing term.--Xaverius 18:58, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mieszko I
Disputatio:Thomas S. Monson

message: Useful page. I added the category "Prophetae" (a category that can never be free of POV, but is surely as appropriate to this religion as to others). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:58, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: So far, the article has: natus Urbe Lacus Salsi in Uta. One supposes this falls under Gildersleeve's rule 411.3: "When urbe precedes, the preposition is always employed." Gildersleeve's example is in urbe Romā, making Romā an appositive, but if a true locative were to be used, the structure would be reversed: Romae in urbe. Also, both to avoid a repeated in and to follow Andrew's suggestion of using the genitive for states (and countries) where cities are found, perhaps this phrase would be better as natus in Urbe Lacu Salso Utae. Btw, the article Uta seems hardly even to be a stipula, so our new friend is most welcome to expand it mightily if he wishes! IacobusAmor 11:51, 29 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Iacobus was right on the need for "in". It has to be the "City of the Salt Lake" when forming a Latin name, I think (it's not that the city is the Salt Lake) so I have changed to "in Urbe Lacus Salsi". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:01, 3 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Quasi-locatives of cities with "City" in their name
Disputatio:Lingua Pathanensis

message: Nominis 'Lingua Pastuvica', quod compluries adhibetur in paginis Vicipaediae Latinae, fontes non inveni. Siquis invenerit nomen Latinum nominis indigeni 'Pashtu' similius, paginam moveto. Interdum "Lingua Afganica" sufficiet. --Fabullus 20:14, 2 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lingua Pathanensis" denuo possumus, fontes "Pathanorum" et "Pathanensis" iam repertis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 12 Septembris 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lingua 'Pastuvica'
Disputatio:Varietas Caucasia

message: I can't Google "phyle Caucasia". This article doesn't seem to correspond to the en:wiki page "White people" to which it's currently linked. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:33, 3 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor does the new article Nigrita clearly match :en:Black people. In both articles here, tinges of POV are in danger of bursting out all over. The first sentence of Nigrita, for example, is untrue, as is the title itself. IacobusAmor 11:18, 3 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
Instead, our article seems to correspond to :en:Caucasian race, for which that English page supplies a Latin form "Varietas Caucasia". If our article continues as at present, I suggest moving it to "Varietas Caucasia" and ensuring that the text makes clear we're talking about older anthropological theories, not current ones. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:33, 3 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

text: A discussion some months ago, however, seemed to establish that the best Latin term for 'race' was phyle. IacobusAmor 11:18, 3 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
But the "caucasia" has no sources. "Phyle europoides" would be more convenient, or just the plural "Europoides". --Mmh 23:51, 3 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually the term Caucasia does have a source (see :en:Caucasian race, where the Latin phrase "Varietas Caucasia" is given as the original term used by the inventor of this historical racial theory). Au contraire, I suspect that "europoides" has no source -- correct me if I'm wrong!

text: I suspect that what's happening here is that tails are wagging dogs. Our original anonymous contributor lazily wants to use the word "Caucasii" in Latin because the CIA fact book (or some such source) says "Caucasians" in English, and that source says it because "Caucasians" is a term still used, I believe, in official US racial terminology. However, "Caucasians" is not used in this sense in world English, and not in modern Latin either, so far as I know. Outdated US terminology shouldn't have got into that source, the source shouldn't be taken as gospel by our contributor, and an anonymous contributor isn't well placed to determine Vicipaedia's usage.

text: We probably need articles corresponding to :en:White people and :en:Black people, and I think their titles should be Homines albi and Homines nigri. So far as I know, these are neutral terms in latin. But maybe others have better suggestions.

text: The present article is no doubt needed (and the attested Latin term, like it or not, appears to be "Varietas Caucasia") but it is needed for historical, not current, information. Pages on modern geography and politics won't normally link to this page.

text: [If I've made any wrong guesses here I hope I'll be forgiven -- I'm just trying to sort out the terminology.] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 4 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sicut iam dudum Anglice supra proponitur, hodie movi. "Varietas Caucasica", nisi fallor, est forma Latina ab auctore huius theorematis scripta. Pagina brevissima de "Albicoloribus" nunc incipio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:11, 19 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen + res
Disputatio:Cyprus

message: Care Velvetron, scriptor arcane et semiabdite, inquis "Genus nominis Cyprus masculinum est." Unde hic nuntius? Lexicon Cassell's et lexicon White nobis aiunt nomen huius insulae esse femininum. IacobusAmor 11:54, 3 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Recte monuisti, mi Iacobe. Paginam iam correxi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 3 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Cyprus'' revera est vox masculina?
Disputatio:Argyrolagoidea

message: Quomodo potest haec ratio?
replies: text: :Infraphylum: Chordonia
replies: text: ::Phylum: Chordata
replies: text: :::Subphylum: Vertebrata
replies: text: ::::Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
IacobusAmor 02:22, 4 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nimium infraphylum?
Disputatio:Ichirō Mizuki

message: Do we know what  means? Maybe that would help us understand why Gjrwip wanted to delete this page... --Ioscius (disp) 12:15, 4 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was cross-wiki spamming on a large scale, but Ichirō Mizuki is apparently sufficiently notable to survive. The article is highly detailed and unreadable (just like those on dozens of other wikis), but I suppose the thing to do is to cut it, not eliminate it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:37, 4 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: sakujo
Disputatio:Americus Vesputius

message: (My apologies for this message being in English) The vandal General Tojo is spamming Wikipedia by removing references and adding his books as the only reference. The books are nothing more than reprints of out of copyright sources, with spelling errors from the title page on forward (For example it is James McClymont, not MacClymont, and Gaspar Correia, not Correa, and Charles Edwards Lester, not Charles Lester Edwards). This article is one of his targets, please watch for removal of valid references and adding of the spam references by new users or IP's. The books spammed so far are: 
* Magellan (2008) by Francis Guillemard (died 1933), Antonio Pigafetta (died 1534), Francisco Albo (contemporary of Magellan), Gaspar Correa (contemporary of Magellan), Keith Bridgeman (Editor) and Tahira Arsham (Editor); ISBN 978-1906421007
* Amerigo Vespucci (2009) by Charles Lester Edwards (died 1890), Amerigo Vespucci (died 1512), Keith Bridgeman (Editor) and Tahira Arsham (Editor); ISBN 978-1906421021
* Pedro Cabral (2009) by James Roxburgh MacClymont (out of copyright author), William Brooks Greenlee (edited around 1939), Pero Vaz de Caminha (died 1500), Keith Bridgeman (Editor), and Tahira Arsham (Editor);ISBN 978-1906421014
Please watch for removal of valid references and replacement with spam, and revert accordingly. As for the identity of the spammer and vandal General Tojo:
*Keith Bridgeman, London is the editor of all the books spammed by General Tojo
*Keith Bridgeman, London is the owner of the publishing house publishing the books spammed by General Tojo
*Keith Bridgeman, London is the owner of some Parkinson's disease patents spammed by General Tojo on Wikipedia for quite a few years now
*Keith Bridgeman, London is also the owner of the web page advertising both the Parkinson stuff and the books spammed by General Tojo.
For details see :en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo. PS: If a new editor is removing this message, it is most likely Keith Bridgeman. Please revert. -- Chris 73 15:08, 4 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Book Spam warning