lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Prandium Keith Floyd ultimum

message: The first sentence has a plethora of elements! What's their best order? Given that the text apparently wants to start with the direct object and continue in an unexpected way, perhaps: "Prandium pro Celia Martin amica sua Keith Floyd in taberna Hix Oyster and Fish House, Marco Hix patrono, Lyme Regis in urbe Dorcestriensi die 14 Septembris dedit"? (With the verb in its expected place, this seems less strange.) Or even "Prandium pro Celia Martin amica sua in taberna Hix Oyster and Fish House, Marco Hix patrono, Lyme Regis in urbe Dorcestriensi die 14 Septembris dedit Keith Floyd"? (This makes Keith Floyd something of a climax.) What would "normal" encyclopedia order be? "Keith Floyd pro Celia Martin amica sua prandium in taberna Hix Oyster and Fish House, Marco Hix patrono, Lyme Regis in urbe Dorcestriensi die 14 Septembris dedit"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 15 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and first sentences need to be simpler than this. I'll rewrite. Or else I'll merge this into Keith Floyd: I have to admit it's on the border of non-notability by now, perhaps even across the border :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:32, 16 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melior rerum ordo?
Disputatio:Ricardus Feynman

message: 'Computatra humana'  could use some elaboration. The quote marks (which appear also in the article's text) tip us off that something mysterious, novel, or unconventional is going on. But  just what that might be we are only left to guess. Toddcs (disputatio) 19:00, 16 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the “computator” page (it still needs corrections) and  the internal link in this page. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:34, 17 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computatra humana?
Disputatio:Gymnasium Sancti Ignatii

message: Ik denk dat het de beste school ooit is ngl 145.102.243.194 13:08, 18 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sed Latinitas paginae est magnopere corrigenda. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:10, 18 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Het Sint.Ig
Disputatio:Dred Scott v. Sandford

message: This Latin version of the article is very arguably incomplete, in that it covers the Supreme Court decision itself, but provides absolutely no background of the case that that landmark decision was addressing. Toddcs (disputatio) 17:34, 20 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Most articles in Vicipaedia are incomplete! Feel free to amplify them! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:36, 20 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :The ones most in need of amplification, or even (in a couple of thousand cases) creation de novo, are those on the list of 10,000 topics that evrey wiki should have, especially the 1,000 most important of them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:41, 20 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background?
Disputatio:Bellum anni 1812

message: Just one very short paragraph of exposition in the entire article seems quite minimal. Especially considering that (unless my memory deceives me) the War of 1812 is mentioned on the 'Saeculum 19' page as one of the pivotal events of the 19th century. Toddcs (disputatio) 20:36, 20 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quite minimal
Disputatio:Notre-Dame de Paris (Hugo)

message: The two "anno Domini" at the beginning of the article seem not only very non-standard (the norm here on Latin Wikipedia is "p.C.n."), but in this case, where it refers to relatively recent events, even entirely superfluous. I will not risk, however, offending someone by removing them. Toddcs (disputatio) 14:29, 21 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The principal author was an anonymous editor, unfamiliar with Vicipaedia's stylistic norms, who added only that article more than a year ago and hasn't been seen since; no reason therefore to worry about offense. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:15, 21 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :Feel free to have made that change and other changes, particularly adding the formula for Augenda. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:10, 21 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "anno Domini"
Disputatio:Tanja Savičeva

message: Maybe I am missing something obvious here. But I am not sure what to make of "tuberculosi intestinorum". Isn't tuberculosis a disease not of the intestines, but of the lungs? // But, actually, now I see in English Wikipedia that tuberculosis can also affect other parts of the body. So I guess that explains it. Toddcs (disputatio) 15:28, 21 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: When puzzled over a question of scientific Latin terminology, it may be useful to look at Vicipaedia:Fontes nominum Latinorum. For names of diseases, this guides you to the webpage MKB. It's the best online source we've found for current official Latin names in this field. If you do a word search with your browser for uses of "tuberculosis" on that page, you'll find many instances of "Tuberculosis pulmonis" vel sim., but also an example "Tuberculosis glandularum intestinalium". I wouldn't alter our text here on that basis, because we don't know the facts, but I'd take that as evidence that "tuberculosis intestinorum" is not nonsense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 22 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tuberculosi intestinorum"
Disputatio:Vita

message: Is that an accurate translation? The Russian Wikipedia page of that song translates it as "Concerts are Life". That is, "live" is understood as meaning live music (as opposed to recorded music). Does the Latin "In Vivo" capture that? Toddcs (disputatio) 14:11, 2 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live Is Life ("In Vivo Est Vita")
Disputatio:Helmstadium

message: Röhmische Siedlung ? 2A02:810B:48C0:2EE2:F871:50B7:137A:D50F 07:55, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultra fines imperii Romani iacet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:14, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athenae ad Ehnum
Disputatio:Hadrianus (imperator)

message: ?! Toddcs (disputatio) 17:43, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Formam compendiariam . --Grufo (disputatio) 18:59, 3 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

text: @Grufo

text: Now I'm thinking there is a good chance you will not like what I just did with the Xvir and the VIvir. I meant no offense, of course. Please don't revert my changes. If you want me to do so, just tell me and I will, to get it back to exactly where you had it. Again, sorry. Toddcs (disputatio) 01:54, 18 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: : No problem. However, while I agree that too many abbreviations may obfuscate clarity, I also think that sometimes explained abbreviations can have a didactic value (and this might be precisely one of those cases). --Grufo (disputatio) 09:00, 19 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::@Grufo

text: ::Yes, you make a very good point with that.

text: ::But with that said, in this case I found the abbreviations very confusing because of their mixed case (Xvir and VIvir).

text: ::Coupled also with the very odd (but correct) word "stlitibus", and also the unclosed parenthesis which I have now fixed, at first it all jumped out at me as just a bunch of typos. Until I dug deeper.

text: ::Thanks again. Toddcs (disputatio) 09:31, 19 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::In general, abbreviations known only to experts should be shunned or explained. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:32, 19 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hadrianus Xvir stlitibus iudicandis ... VIvir equitum"
Disputatio:Monachus

message: It is interesting that this entire article - its expository part, in all events - consists of just one very short sentence. We are sometimes reminded that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." From reading this article, that point is far from obvious. Toddcs (disputatio) 22:41, 4 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So add more sentences! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:27, 5 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheer brevity of the article
Disputatio:Psalmus

message: Instead of
Sensu stricto, carmen canendum cum cithara est omne psalmus.
, would this be better, perhaps?
Sensu stricto, omne carmen cum cithara canendum psalmus est.
Toddcs (disputatio) 16:02, 12 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this be better, perhaps?
Disputatio:Eugenius Evtušenko

message: The article uses "tr." as an abbreviation for "translitteratio". Can such usage be considered normative (or even at all correct)? Toddcs (disputatio) 21:54, 12 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus quam 1700 tales abbreviationes cum nexu habemus — v. hic. Si aliquo modo emendabuntur, non solum forma abbreviationis mutanda est, sed et nexus (non ita, sed ita). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:20, 12 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation "tr."?
Disputatio:Suffragium

message: In Latin terms, why does suffragatio mean voting generally, while suffragium means the *right* to vote, specifically? Why not, say, the reverse? I suspect there is a rationale for this, but I do not know what is. Toddcs (disputatio) 17:30, 13 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffragium vs. suffragatio
Disputatio:Praemium Nobelianum pacis

message: Why here on Latin Wikipedia is this prize sometimes referred to as "Praemium Nobelianum Pacis Componendae" -- which then redirects to this article?
See Nelson Mandela, for example.
I will be much obliged to anyone who will explain what the "Componendae" is all about. Thanks!  Toddcs (disputatio) 20:01, 13 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Componendae
Disputatio:Rope (pellicula 1948)

message: Iacobe, gratias ago pro consiliis, quibus hoc commentariolum  emendare voluisti. Cum alia tum cinematographandi artem animadvertisti, quam male tractasse videor. Ex wikipedia Anglica, quo me deduxisti, prompsi sententiam, in qua duo inveniuntur vocabula, shot et take, quae in terminologia photographica uno tantum vocabulo Finnice redduntur, sc. otto (a capiendi verbo), nam shot mihi videtur 'captum subitaneum', take autem 'captum longiorem' significare. Nunc autem in incerto sum, haec sententia quo modo intellegi (et Latine reddi) possit: "The film is notable for being edited so as to appear as four long shots through the use of stitched-together long takes." Ita transtuli: "Pellicula eo insignis, quia ita edita est, ut in quattuor captibus longis consistere videatur, consutis adhibitis captibus longis." Fortasse me fugit, quo modo shot et take inter se differant. Potesne sodes tuam de verbis lineà subnotatis opinionem afferre?  Neander (disputatio) 12:27, 17 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De ''shot'' et ''take''
Disputatio:Museum Getty

message: @Toddcs, always feel free to change <div class="references-small"><references /></div> to <references />. The former was the original command (and it still works), but clever programmers eventually devised the latter, which, being more concise, is preferable. Someday, someone may globally change the former to the latter, but meanwhile, every helpful change, well, helps. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:55, 18 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notae
Disputatio:Lucius Tarquinius Priscus

message: That wording seems odd. Is anyone actually born with a name? Toddcs (disputatio) 04:28, 26 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "nomine Lucumone natus est" 

message: So, his mother was Tanaquil and his wife was also Tanaquil? Toddcs (disputatio) 04:34, 26 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Matris nomen incognitum est. Si quis fontem inveniet, addat. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 07:41, 26 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

text: Good catch. Women in the most ancient Roman times did not have an own name, but definitely did not inherit it from the mother, but from the father instead. So Tanaquil could not pass her name to her daughter. It is indeed a mistake: Tanaquil was wife to Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, but mother to Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. --Grufo (disputatio) 07:48, 26 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mater Tanaquil fuit. ... cum uxore sua Tanaquil
Disputatio:Miles Balakirev

message: (Had to be deleted and reentered)
thread_title:  - 

message: Apparently, syntonarius really means concertmaster, but is used here to mean conductor. Toddcs (disputatio) 07:27, 27 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Vocabula musica male stabilita sunt; videas, quam farraginem de dramate melico habemus, Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 09:35, 27 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  syntonarius?
Disputatio:Accessibilitas

message: sat perita sum Latine loquendi scribendique, Vicipaediam recensendi autem imperita. abbreviationem "etc." scripsi (certe pro eo quod est et cetera), alter autem signo dubitationis verbum signavit.  oportetne abstinere ab abbreviationibus Latinis? quae sunt normae huius rei apud Vicipaediam? gratias vobis!   CaeliaSalviana (disputatio) 03:11, 30 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoro utrum  ad inscriptionem “etc.” attineat, an cuntum indicem vocabulorum notet (i.e. “opera, vehicula, … etc.”), sed compendia nota, sicut “etc.”, libere scribere possumus; compendia obscuriora, in formulam  melius scribi possunt – e.g.:  → .  Si tibi placet, primo argumento formulae  uti potes ad verba dubia acclaranda – e.g.: systemata,  → systemata,  --Grufo (disputatio) 06:26, 30 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :"Abbreviationes" ancipites sunt quia tirones eas perperam intellegere solent. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:35, 30 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Gratias vobis sententias proferentibus. @IacobusAmor, compendium "etc." satis notum facileque intellectu, etiam tironibus, esse non putas? etiam apud Vicipaediam Anglice scriptam, scriptores suadentur ut hoc compendio utantur potius quam locutione integra.     CaeliaSalviana (disputatio) 18:00, 30 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Multi tirones hoc signum et cetera semper enuntiabunt cum autem vox recta sit et ceterae, et ceteras, et ceteri, et ceteris, et ceteros, usw. Similiter, % = centesimae, centesimas, centesimis. Quid, exempli gratia, de hac locutione cogitas, in commentario de Nucato? "Nucatum Montiademarense constat 30% vel plure ex amygdala, et 25% vel plure ex melle lavandulato." (Scripsit noster Iustinus anno 2005.) Quomodo enuntiabunt tirones hoc signum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:45, 6 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Nobody seems to have noticed what I was doing there with "usw." Oh well. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:32, 7 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

text: :::: Bonas rationes praebes, Iacobe. Quid cogites de ? --Grufo (disputatio) 11:58, 6 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Gratias, difficultates nunc melius intellego et compendium removebo.   CaeliaSalviana (disputatio) 03:41, 7 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Cur abbreviatio "etc." ratione Latinitatis dubia rubricetur non intellego -- te in capite acus eleganter saltitare video, mi Iacobe -- sed ratione encyclopaedica multo melius est "etc." eliminare enumerationemque aut augere aut terminare. Ergo editionem ultimam a  factam laudo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:36, 7 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Profecto laudabilis est! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:32, 7 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  abbreviatio "etc."
Disputatio Formulae:Pagina autotranslata

message: "Nisi sermo inter hebdomadam corrigetur, commentatio delebitur." Rectius mihi quidem videtur dici: "Nisi sermo inter hebdomadam correctus erit, ..." Neander (disputatio) 10:29, 30 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Bene dicis. Inscriptionem  ( ). --Grufo (disputatio) 10:39, 30 Novembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De futuro exacto
Disputatio:Senatus Romanus

message: On 'senex', the article links to the Wiktionary article of that word. But is that really better than linking to senectus right here in Latin Wikipedia? 🤔 Toddcs (disputatio) 01:44, 2 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been added by Denwego on 9 Aprilis 2019. By custom, Wiktionary links go under the "Nexus externi" and only in articles where the linked word is the lemma. So by all means fix it! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:55, 2 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link for 'senex'
Disputatio:Consul

message: Why is consul suffectus covered way, way up near the very top of the article, before almost anything (except a one-sentence, extremely brief definition) has even been said about consuls in general? One gets the impression that consul suffectus does not belong at that position in the article.  Toddcs (disputatio) 01:53, 2 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consul suffectus
Disputatio:Tribunus plebis

message: That has a strange sound to it. Livy wasn't keeping track of time that way, was he, considering that he is generally considered to have died before 20 p.C.n. 
Of course I realize that the assertion is not that Livy wrote it that way, but only that that is the *essence* of what Livy said, however he said it. Nonetheless it sounds strange. 
But especially because "ante Christum natum" is specificied in full. Using the standard abbreviation would make it at least *somewhat* less strange. Toddcs (disputatio) 22:30, 7 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Secundum Livium ... anno ante Christum natum 494 ineunte"
Disputatio:Functiones trigonometricae inversae

message: This article seems to be the only Latin text that uses the word "arctangens". 2A01:E0A:867:5F90:BD67:7D28:35DD:F99 20:47, 10 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. The whole page used wrong names (). The current Latin names are used even in non-Latin literature. --Grufo (disputatio) 08:04, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  arctangens?
Disputatio:Systema polycommaticum

message: "Systema" de politiis nunquam legi; "polycommaticum" neologismi Vicipaedianorum mihi redolet. Ut talem politiam describamus, propono aut "res publica plurum factionum" aut "politia plurum factionum". Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:15, 14 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Addere debeo: :el:Πολυκομματισμός in Vicipaedia Neograeca reperitur: ergo consuetudinibus nostris "Polycommatismus" tanquam vocabulum mutuatum adhibere licet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 14 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio:Oligodendroglioma anaplasticum

message: Versio hodierna haud utilis apparet: 1. Textui autotranslato errores maiores insunt, 2. Neuropathologia anno 2021 ab notione 'anaplastici' destitit. 
-> pagina nomine 'oligodendroglioma' (sine 'anaplasticum') necesse. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 11:33, 17 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagina autotranslata 

message: "== Revision to "anaplastic oligodendroglioma" ==
@Wname1 I want to explain why I've undone your changes to the article and moved it back to anaplastic oligodendroglioma (AOD).
- "Oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted" has both a grade 2 and grade 3 subtype, which are the successors of "oligodendroglioma" and "AOD", respectively. This article doesn't contain anything about the grade 2 subtype.
- The article hasn't been updated to reflect the changes of the new terminology and molecular critera, greatly exemplified in these sentences: "About 50 to 70% of WHO grade III Oligodendrogliomas, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted have combined allele losses on the short arm of chromosome 1 (1p) and the long arm of chromosome 19 (19q). This change is mostly referred to as "1p / 19q Co Deletion"." It also still uses Roman numerals for grades, mentions grade IV oligodendrogliomas, watchful waiting as a therapy etc.
As of now, the article doesn't cover "Oligodendroglioma, IDH-mutant and 1p/19q-codeleted" as defined by the 2021 WHO classification, but an obsolete entity. I've added an -template to make readers aware. Cheers, User:MaligneRange 12:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)" Wname1 (disputatio) 17:49, 19 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Emendabisne textum autotranslatum mox? Andreas Raether (disputatio) 21:36, 21 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :Bona quaestio! Nisi quis paginam utilem esse censeat, nisi quis emendare velit, mox delebitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:09, 22 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oligodendroglioma anaplasticum
Disputatio:Gallicauda Manhattensis

message: Cur non gallicauda Manhatensis littera T una? Nam etiam urbs ipsa Manhata unam litteram T solummodo habet. - Giorno2 (disputatio) 11:32, 23 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Manhattensis" scripsi quia fontes huius adiectivi habebamus, sed fortasse, si quis rursus quaereat, etiam "Manhatensis" reperire possit. Per me mutare licet! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:22, 23 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :Hic molgula Manhatensis et ibi m.M. et iterum illic m.M. citatur, bestia quaedam. Num sit in contextu cum Manhata, nescio. Giorno2 (disputatio) 14:46, 23 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen mutandum?
Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina prima/styles.css

message: : Per errorem putavi heri hanc paginam ab auctore ignoto creatam esse, sed historia aliter docet. Nihilominus occasio mihi suasit ut duas novas formulas crearem:
replies: text: *

text: *

text: Ergo non omnia mala sunt damnum. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:49, 29 Decembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cui prodest?
Disputatio:Regnum Bavariae

message: Warum steht Bavaria im Genitiv? Müsste der Artikel nicht eigentlich "Regnum Bavaria" heißen? Im klassischen Latein setzte man doch bei geografischen Angaben keinen Genitivus appositivus, sondern stets eine Apposition.  2001:4CA0:0:F232:C45F:4BA1:D1A9:5A4D 16:42, 2 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regnum Bavariae
Disputatio:Tragoedia lyrica (Francia)

message: Tragédie lyrique (vel Tragédie en musique) non est quaelibet tragoedia in musica, sed est peculiare genus Francogallicum quod ab aliis generibus tragicis distinguitur. Ergo credo locutionem Francogallicam esse praeferendam. Sin secus, cum linguam Latinam in titulo servare velimus, etiam "Tragoedia in musica (Francia)" eligere possimus. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:45, 4 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonne "Tragoedia lyrica" vel "Tragoedia lyrica (Francia)" scribi potest? Si hoc genus Francicum sit, melius erit fortasse coniunctionem verborum iuxta Francogallicam, non iuxta Anglicam, praeponere; Vicipaedia Francogallica Tragédie lyrique praeponit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:34, 4 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sic, "Tragoedia lyrica". Nescio, qua de causa hic Francogallice scribamus. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:32, 4 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: :: @Demetri: Haec commentatio haud de omnibus tragoediis in musica narrat, sed tantummodo de tragoedia in musica modo Francogallico. Exempli gratia, Rigoletto Verdianus etiam est tragoedia, at, etiamsi libello Victorem Hugo imitante, non est hic tractandus. --Grufo (disputatio) 03:20, 6 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)

text: : @Andrew: "Tragoedia lyrica (Francia)" mihi placet! --Grufo (disputatio) 03:20, 6 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Bene, sit "Tragoedia lyrica (Francia)", Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 09:03, 6 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die 4 Ianuarii 2024 — Estne haec pagina ad “[[Tragédie lyrique]]” movenda?
Disputatio:Iacobus Cafiero

message: Nomen Hispanicum Santiago simpliciter Iacobus est. Num fallor? Igitur tituli mutationem in Iacobus Cafiero proponam. - Giorno2 (disputatio) 08:31, 5 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Diego a Santiago differt: "Sanctiacobum" ergo temptavi, sed aut rarissime aut nunquam "Sanctiacobus" extra Vicipaediam legitur. Fortasse melius erit hoc vocabulum omnino ex encyclopaedia nostra exstirpare! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:22, 5 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: :Paginam movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:21, 5 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Iacobus pro Sanctiacobo
Disputatio:Megadeth

message: Salvete. Sensi aliquem interrogare de verbo "citharicen (-is, m.)". Lexicon meum et "citharicen" et "citharista (-ae, f.)" ostendit. Solum differentia genus est. Utar "citharicen"? Intellegam cogitationes vestros! Korax1349 (disputatio) 16:29, 5 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genus de "citharista"?