lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Sanctus

message: Grosswardeyn, tua addimenta—"Nomen latinum provenit de 'sanguis'. Sanctus est participium falsum. Significatio: unctus cum sanguinem. Offertus."—delevimus quia fons deest; praeterea, sanctus sine dubio est participium (sancio, sancire, sanxi, sanctus). Fontem tuae affirmationis habueras? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:35, 6 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Additamenta recentissima
Disputatio:Liber Exodus

message: Equidem faveo titulo pleniori "Liber Exodus", quia (i) sic in Nova Vulgata scribitur; (ii) hoc ab aliis significationibus distinguendum est, e.g. ipsi exitu Israëlitarum ex Aegypto (:en:The Exodus); (iii) congruentiam cum aliis libris Bibliorum (libro Ruth, libro I Regum, etc.) permittit. Sed quid dicunt alii? Lesgles (disputatio) 21:00, 6 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: An fons noster de titulo simplici (Tert. Adv. Iud. 11, vide col. 632) per errorem adducitur? Ibi enim Tertullianus (verbis "sicut Moyses ante nuntiabat in Exodo dicens, ...") non librum Exodum sed Deuteronomiam citat. Ergo verbum "Exodum" sensu exitus Israëlitarum ex Aegypto adhibetur, non sensu libri Biblici.

text: Sunt sine dubio aliae citationes! Sed si "liber Exodus" in titulis editionum ipsius libri stat, nonne hoc nobis fontem optimum videri debet? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:51, 6 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: : Per me retrahere licet mutationem quam nimis rapide fecisse videor. Neander (disputatio) 07:12, 7 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Tertullianus fortasse de libro Biblico loquitur, sed errat. Vide notam in illa pagina: "Cum non in Exodo, sed Deuteronomio XXVIIII habentur Scripturae verba quae citat, etiam hic lapsus est memoria Tertulianus, aut legendum contra condicum omnium fidem: in Deuteronomio. Le Pr." Certiorem autem locum Augustini nunc addidi. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:25, 8 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulis
Disputatio:Sepultura principalis Hochdorf

message: Pro lemmate Sepultura principalis Hochdorf (Hochdorf Chieftain's Grave, Sépulture de Hochdorf) fortasse melius Sepulcrum principis Hochdorf? Secundum Cassell's sepultura = 'a burying' (the act of burying), sed locus (the resulting burial) plerumque = sepulcrum. Traupman ait 'burial' (act) = sepultura. Secundum Cassell's, 'chief' = caput, princeps, dux, et 'chieftain' = regulus. Traupman ait 'chief' = princeps, et 'chieftain' = dux. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:30, 12 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Ictus pedis

message: Nonne "calcitratus" (-us; 4th) nomen melius est?  Videte, de Ludovico et Curtio: "calcĭtrātus , ūs, m. calcitro, I.a striking with the heel, a kicking: “mulae,” Plin. 8, 44, 69, § 174; cf. calcitro, I." [Scripsit 86.140.46.60, utens sine nomine, 14:35, 13 Martii 2018‎.]
replies: text: That's definitely relevant! Note that the author of the original text was anonymous and hasn't been heard from (at the original address) since 2011. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:46, 13 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Pugilatus pedibus pugnisque

message: Could not "kick-boxing" be better translated in one of the following ways?
(1) "pugilatio pedibus pugnisque" [ablative of instrument: the boxing is accompished by means of the feet and fists]; 
(2) "pugilatio pedum pugnorumque" [appositional genitive: the boxing is explained or defined by feet and fists] (in either case, c.f. "la boxe pieds-poings" in French;
(3) "pugilatio calcitrosa pugneaque;" [qualification by adjectives: 'kicky-fisty boxing']; or, simply,
(4) "pugilatio calcitrosa. [qualification by adjective 'kicky-boxing']?
As a Latinist and a kick-boxer, I'm quite keen to come up with something that isn't just an English import.
Rufus Obscurus, 13.iii.2018
replies: text: It seems no one commented. I'll try a translation of the French term (close to your suggestion 1) and we'll see how it goes.

text: For the present anyone who wants to make a comment on this page needs a named account. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:38, 19 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: :I see now that Rufus Obscurus made the same comment at "Boxe pieds-poings". Following the underlying logic as I perceive it, I have merged the two pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:13, 27 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Sith

message: Does not " Dominus (fem. Domina) Tenebrae Sith" simply read: "Lord of the Dark, Sith," where "Sith" appears in apposition to the expression "Lord of the Dark?"  
Even if "Sith" were declinable, such that it could properly read, "of the Sith," two distinct genitives strikes me as bad and ugly Latin, just as "Lord of the Dark of the Sith" would be bad and ugly English.
Is not the better expression of the title accomplished using an adjective, just as in English, i.e. "Dominus Tenebrarius" vel "Domina Tenebraria?" for "Dark Lord" or "Dark Lady?"  Then, when there is some sort of settled agreement on how to render "Sith" in Latin (whether "Sithis, Sithis;" [3rd] or, as has been suggested in the body of the article, "Sithia, Sithiae" [1st]) and there is a meaningful plural genitive that could be used, the whole title might be rendered:
"Dominus Tenebrarius Sithium," or "Dominus Tenebrarius Sithiarum."
replies: text: The usual Latin order (contrary to a common English practice) is to put appositives second; that would suggest Sith, Dominus Tenebrae, or Sith, Dominus Tenebrarius. For your last example (involving a noun, an adjective, and a genitive noun), Bradley's Arnold's rule says the usual Latin order would be Tenebrarius Sithium/Sithiarum Dominus, with the adjective first, the genitive second, and the noun modified by the adjective third. The classic example (BA Introduction 85) is Vera animi magnitudo 'True greatness of mind'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:01, 13 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Iacobe, you are, of course, entirely correct.  I had neglected that rule of style, but your quotationn of "vera animi magnitudo" brought it back immediately.  Rufus Obscurus, 15.iii.2018

message: I hadn't seen this page before. I notice the words "In antiqua aetate crebri fuerunt Sith". This isn't true, you know. "Dinosauri" yes, "Sith" no. In an encyclopedia we are supposed to write what's true.
But luckily we write a language that has an excellent way of dealing with this problem. In introducing the topic, we say whose assertions or fictions we are about to rehearse. Having made that clear, we continue in indirect speech, transforming main clauses into accusative + infinitive. The return of an indicative main clause will indicate the end of our dependence on the unreliable or fictional source.
Perhaps we ought to make this clear in a guideline? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 13 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth
Disputatio:Homilia Areopagitica

message: Propono, ut scriberemus hoc verbum litera initiali maiuscula, quia Areopagus de nomine Aris derivatur. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:18, 4 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Pagina mota est. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:32, 5 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  areopagtica --> Areopagitica
Disputatio:Departimentum Iustitiae Civitatum Foederatarum

message: Valete! Quamquam iam paginam ita creavi, mihi tamen videtur esse "departimentum" pessimam latinitatem, cum melius nobis "ministerium" conveniat. Latinitas etiam neque multum stricta esse debeat. Quid vero vobis opinio est de re hac?
replies: text: "Ministerium" malo, sed fortasse aliis aliter videtur. Gratias multas tibi ago propter paginam novam bona Latinitate scriptum!

text: Quo dicto, rem parvam indico de sententia Officialiter, Departimentum Iustitiae operas incipit, Iulii die primo, 1870 anno. Hodierni Anglice loquentes saepe sententias "Adverbium + comma + res" scribunt; maiores nostri rarius; Latine loquentes etiam rarius. Suggero "Ministerium Iustitiae operas suas Iulii die primo, 1870 anno, rite incepit". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 16 Martii 2018 (UTC)

message: In duobus dictionariis hodiernis, department =
replies: text: Cassell's: (1) office: munus, provincia. (2) branch, division: pars, genus.

text: Traupman: (1) of administration: provincia, administratio. (2) branch: genus. (3) academic: facultas IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:54, 16 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Iuxta "administrationem" habemus "procurationem". Cf. etiam Livium 4.8 "ministerii procurationem"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:44, 17 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: De lemmate
Disputatio:Graeci

message: Usor Wiki user wiki, in commentario tuo scripsisti "'Graeci' pluraliter non possunt esse 'populus' singulariter". Re vera? Non cognosco regulam, qua complementum cum subiectum numero semper concordandum sit. Vide, e.g., "Romani fuerunt populus fortissimus" in hoc libro de grammatica. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:41, 16 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graeci sunt populus/populi
Disputatio:Bionta

message: I agree, and as preparation I have found and footnoted a couple of sources for "Biota" as taxonomic head: hence we can confidently treat "Bionta" as a non-preferred synonym. The Spanish article :es:Biota (taxonomía) already does this (maybe others too). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 18 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of abandoned concepts have their own article. (Why, philosophia is rife with them!) The current text seems to be a fact in the history of science, and so it should be preserved somewhere, even if only as a footnote in Biota. For reference: the whole text of the English article is currently "Bionta is a defunct taxon created by Lee Barker Walton in 1930, to denominate all the living beings. It was divided up into three subkingdoms; Protistodeae, Metaphytodeae (multicellular plants), and Zoodeae (multicellular animals)." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:44, 18 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :I agree about preserving abandoned knowledge, but in this case I do think that a note in Biota would do the job. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:49, 18 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::If we follow our generous practice with synonymous taxa (of which there are oodles, though this one is right at the top of the tree) we would preserve the redirect (of course) and also retain the two categories :Categoria:Taxa Walton and :Categoria:Taxa 1930 on the redirect page. Thus "Bionta" would continue to appear in italics in the appropriate categories.

text: ::So far as I can see, en:wiki doesn't have a page "Biota", unlike many other wikis. Therefore en:wiki doesn't yet have anywhere for "Bionta" to redirect to! I expect they'll get there in the end. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 18 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribuenda
Disputatio:Pisaster ochraceus

message: What's with these formulas? Should we be adding them to every taxon? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:47, 18 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so; they do provide a relatively reliable source of taxonomic information. Is there something you don't like about them? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:56, 18 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :No, just wondering. Did we discuss them in the Taberna? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:01, 19 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I think the last discussion was at Disputatio usoris:Lesgles#Cuminum_cyminum. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:29, 19 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ah, OK. I wasn't entirely sure whether that was a private project or you were inviting others to barge in. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:51, 19 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Barge away! :) Lesgles (disputatio) 19:17, 20 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::In that earlier discussion I said I was adding these formulae to all plant pages. So I was, but I haven't had time recently to continue that blanket coverage. My estimate is that I had done about a third. As expanded by Lesgles, the formula is now suitable for animals as well as plants, at any taxonomic level, and, yes, by all means, add it to any appropriate page.

text: :::::It draws information from Wikidata, so the benefit it brings to a new page will be visible as soon as you make the Wikidata link. On an existing page, already linked, it will take effect the moment it's added. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 21 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Situs scientifici
Disputatio:Sedes centralis exploratoria

message: Fonte reperto et rite citato, categoriam sine mora movi. Litteras initiales maiusculas nihilominus retinui, sicut in omnibus aliis categoriis de institutis: malo enim aut omnes tales categorias litteris minusculis rescribere, aut nullas. Sunt milia ... Lectores Vicipaediarum ad categorias multo minus quam ad paginas animos attendunt. Categoriae in facie "mobili" Vicipaediarum, a plurimis lectoribus usitata, non iam videntur. Dubito an hoc opus (dico: nominum categoriarum litteris minusculis rescriptio) re vera necesse sit. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:27, 19 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceteri sine dubio maiusculis favent, nam tantopere valet exemplum Anglici sermonis, ut maiusculis etiam ibi ubi mores editorum philologorum dissuadeant utantur. At tuam bene intellego causam hic maiusculis utendi. Nil igitur per me obstat, quin etiam hic maiusculis utamur. (Et profecto sic in lexico Vilborgiana scibitur.) Neander (disputatio) 16:33, 19 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scriptura categoriae
Disputatio:Administratio strategica

message: Titulus mihi nondum placet. Quomodo management Anglicum in Latinum convertitur? "Administratio" forsitan rectius apparet. Alia nomina in Theodisce-Latine dictionario inveni: ars administrandi, gubernatio, regimen, magisterium. Pagina Translate-Latin.com: cura, discessio, moderamen, procuratio ostendit. Quid sumam? Gratias consiliorum vestrorum ago. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 15:22, 31 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fontem pro "administratio commoda" habemus, tum fortasse licet nobis lemma paginae motare--Xaverius 12:05, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Optime, Xaverie! Tantas res in oeconomia etiamnunc notationes poscere rear. Tune mutationem facies hanc? Andreas Raether (disputatio) 16:22, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Male legi! fons non ad administratio commoda referret... male paginam movi..--Xaverius 15:00, 19 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Etiam, secundum Cassell forsitan 'Rei domesticae cura' management significat.--Xaverius 15:05, 19 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Pro 'management', Cassell's nobis ait: "administratio, tractatio, cura (care, e.g. of a family), (pro)curatio, dispensatio, moderatio." Traupman nobis dat cura et administratio. Pro 'strategic', Traupman nobis dat bene ordinatus et (si 'advantageous' significat) commodus et (usus militaris) apportunus (mendum pro opportunus?). Cassell's vocabulo pro 'strategic' caret. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:46, 19 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Traupman, nisi fallor, rem non tangit. Cassell's deficiente, possumus mea mente eadem metaphora uti, quam Anglice et in aliis linguis adhibetur: cur non "strategicus -a -um"? (NB non fingimus: hoc verbum iam ad titulum operis Onosandri in editionibus Latine divulgatis videtur, cf. Google.) Latinitas Anglicitasque eodem modo e Graecitate concepta idonea deprehendunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:40, 20 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superscriptio "moderamen strategicum"
Disputatio:Cædmon

message: Est hic "æ" littera propria Anglosaxonum vel ligatura litterarum a cum e? Tunc licet nobis nomen paginae a Cædmon ad Caedmon mutare? --Xaverius 09:27, 2 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Est littera abecedarii Anglosaxonorum, "æsc" nomine, id quod "fraxinus" significat. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:30, 2 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita ego quoque censebam. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:56, 2 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine
Disputatio:Orbitalis atomica

message: Nunc orbitalis atomica, sed fortasse melius orbital atomicum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:11, 7 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per me bene. Adiectivas femininas, duce paginae creatore, accepi, sed quo substantivo simul audito nescivi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:12, 8 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
Non consento: orbital in Suard, Michèle; Berthier, Gaston; Del Re, Giuseppe (1967). "Nova methodus adhibendi approximationem molecularium orbitalium ad plures iuxtapositas unitates". Theoretica Chimica Acta 7 (3): 236–244 Gen. Plur. orbitalium i.e. III voc. similiter animal Tchougreeff (disputatio) 06:10, 12 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::FYI: secundum L&S, approximatio et iuxtapono non sunt verba Latina, et methodus est verbum postclassicum (ratio plerumque erit verbum aptissimum). Ergo nobis videtur Suard et alios, auctores recentes, Latinitatem classicam non colere, et eorum verba proinde in dubium vocanda esse. Nihilominus, verbum genetivum orbitalium habens nominativa ambo orbitalis et orbital indicat, sed si hoc verbum similiter animal declinanda est, nominativum necessario erit orbital. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:21, 12 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ingosce mihi meam silentiam longam. Vere dixisti, sed quid agamus, amici? De electronibus vel orbitalibus Rōmānī antīquī non scribebant. Puto "orbital" ex stirpe differentialis ac integralis ac aliorum, quae late in scripturis saeculi XIX (heu!) adsunt (viz. e.g. Caraffa), esse. Approximatio autem in Wiktionary adest et origine nobili videtur. Quod ad methodum attinet, si Gauss et Euler ea utebantur, nobis aeque licet...  Tchougreeff (disputatio) 12:39, 15 Maii 2020 (UTC)

text: :Ergo ad titulum propositum "orbital atomicum" consentis, aut aliud quid proponis? Responsum tuum non bene intellego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 12 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Non intellego quoque. O rem occultissimam! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:24, 12 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Tchougreeff verba a se olim scripta "Non consentio" denuo delevit. Fortasse ad titulum quem habemus non consentit, ad motum a te propositum consentit! Videbimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 12 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Ingosce mihi, amici, meam silentiam longam. Vero, de titulo agitur, quia orbitalis cum -is Nomen Adjectivum est, et lemmata de rebus i.e. Nominibus substantivis scribendae sunt, ergo olrbital neut. III cujus Gen.:orbitalis, atomicum. Electron autem non II in -onorum est, sed III in -um  secundum ipsam Vicipaediam...Tchougreeff (disputatio) 13:05, 26 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Lost

message: Cur est Jack Iacobus neque Iohannes? Nomen Jack est nomenis anglici Iohanno: John.
(Lingam Latinam non possum scribere bene; me paenitet.) Jackpaulryan (disputatio) 01:05, 10 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: En recte dicis.  Corrigamus adhunc Jack ad Iohannes? Tibi?--Jondel (disputatio) 14:39, 11 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack?
Disputatio:Panormus

message: In dubio sum, an orthographia "Panhormus" ad titulum nostrum idonea sit. Licet fontes antiquos hanc formam saepius adhibere, haec urbs historiam claram mediaevalem et recentem habet. Temporibus recentioribus, nisi fallor, scriptores Latini sine -h- multo saepius scribunt. Apud Hofmannum Panormus tantum videtur; apud Smith (qui de rebus classicis disserit) Panormus praeponitur. Cf. "archidioecesis Panormitana" etc. Etiamsi -h- silens recte inserendum sit, ab illis qui nomen Graecum Πάνορμος in Latinum simpliciter tranferunt "Panormus" scribitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:56, 11 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Cassell's ait (1968:422): "Pănormus -i, and Pănormum -i, n. (Πάνορμος), a town on the north coast of Sicily (the modern Palermo). ¶ Hence adj. Pănormĭtānus -a -um, of Panormus." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:44, 11 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :In libris classicis scriptura sine h vero rarum videtur: apud PHI video Panhorm- quadraginta exempla (apud Ciceronem, Livium, Plinium etc.) et Panorm- duo (tantum apud Livium). Forcellini insuper in suo Onomastico haec ait:
replies: text: ::PĂNHORMUS, i, f. 2. (Πάνορμος et Πανόρμος, ὁ et ἡ) nom. geogr. — a) Scribitur (Georg. Lübk., al.), sed minus recte, etiam Panormus sine aspiratione, in Itin. Ant. p. 91., 97. et 648.; Panhormus vero (V. infra sub c) in optt. mss., inscriptt. et edit. libr. — b) Forma duplex est, sc. Panhormus (Panhormos) f. communior, et etiam Panhormum n., ut ap. Plin. 3. Hist. nat. 8. 14. (90). — c) Etymon ducunt alii a Phoen. panhorm, i. e. magna rupes v. scopulus. — In mss. et edit. libr. etiam Panh. decurtatum occurrit (V. Zumpt, Cic. Verr. 2. 63. p. 304. et Tzucke, Mel. II. p. II. p. 574.); alii vero ex Gr. πάνορμος, a πάνυ et ὅρμος v. ὁρμή = peropportunus portus sive ad solvendum sive ad appellendum; vel a πᾶς, omnis et ὅρμος = tota statio v. portus ob spatiosum sinum a Graecis dictus, olim Machanath = campus.

text: :Sed recte dicite de historia posteriore. Si "Panormus" restituere volumus, non recusabo. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:45, 15 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Etiamsi "Panormus" in titulo nostro restituitur, possumus dicere "Panormus[1] (auctoribus classicis, melius ut videtur, Panhormus)[2] ...". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 16 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthographia
Disputatio:Nihon Shoki

message: "It begins with (a) story of creation...."--Jondel (disputatio) 14:02, 11 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Incipit cum = 'it begins when'. The syntax of 'It begins with' is fine in English, but doesn't it sound weird in Latin? Why not start with Primum and then say what happens: Primum fabulam creationis enarrat. IacobusAmor (disputatio)
I think that is an excellent way of expressing it although I  confess,  I still cannot tell when it sounds off/weird or not in Latin. I will make the changes you have suggested.--Jondel (disputatio) 16:43, 11 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Incipit cum? fabula creationis
Disputatio:Pactio de cybercriminalitate

message: Scelus -eris n. 3 decl., ergo "cyberscelere". An hoc verbum nobis idoneum sit, incertus sum. Possumus etiam "de scelere informatico" dicere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:49, 12 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Cum hic de usu speciali et termino technico agatur, linguas filias imitatus titulum mutavi. Neander (disputatio) 19:19, 12 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio:Carolus Demuth

message: It turns out that he graduated not from Franklin and Marshall College, but from Franklin and Marshall Academy, a preparatory (high) school run by the college. The error arose because in his biography, Wikipedia specifies the academy but links it to the college—and then the article on the college mentions the connection only in a later section, easily missed. Oh well. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:19, 15 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So I created the category. Never mind, and thanks for explaining. No doubt a real F&M College alumnus will turn up some time soon :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:26, 15 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Some years ago (I think), an F&M College alumnus did wander by, but the name escapes me. I thought it might be Secundus Zephyrus, but he's from Drexel University—which Carolus Demuth also attended! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:43, 15 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Academia
Disputatio:Hortus Eystettensis

message: Mi Andreas, vidi hanc paginam ad librum pictum ligatam esse. Sed 'liber pictus' hic non est 'liber pictus', ut puto. Fortasse necesse est nobis novam paginam de libris pictis (vel libris illuminatis?) creare?--Xaverius 08:03, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Primo passu redirectionem, quae nos a "libro picto" ad "librum nubeculatum" misit, delevi; libri enim picti non omnes nubeculati sunt. Gratias Iacobo agimus si nexum in hanc paginam more suo inseruerit, errorem ita patefaciens. Certe potes paginam "Liber pictus" creare! Salve optime, mi Xaveri! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :You're welcome! One of the reasons I insert links is to help keep the vocabulary straight! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:19, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Would then liber pictus reflect :en:Illuminated_manuscript or would it be something wider?--Xaverius 11:43, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well, if you're writing the article(s), you get to decide. I have used ":Categoria:Libri picti" for all books notable for their images, whether printed or manuscript. But it doesn't have to stay like that (the numbers are increasing), and anyway that doesn't have to correspond precisely with the article of the same title. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:32, 18 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Liber pictus