lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Scientista

message: Isn't there a pronoun missing there, such as "qui", or the like? Toddcs (disputatio) 14:43, 29 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Qui" is already there, if you happen to be talking about the first sentence :) A pronoun such as "is" could be added, but why? Shorter is better, let's not add it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 31 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see now, you're not talking about Vicipaedia but about the description at Wikidata. Many of those descriptions are written by editors who don't know the language they think they are writing. But anyone can go to Wikidata and correct it. OK, I'll do it for you. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:10, 31 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  persona pervestigationi studet
Disputatio:Ismail Sabri Yaakob

message: neutralitas mihi videtur esse dubia:
replies: text: Unus ex sermonibus Ismail Sabri controversissimis fuit ad commercia Sinorum abhorranda vocandis. Hi sermones, noti ut "sermo Sinicorum commerciis detrahendis", magnam indignationem apud communitatem Sinicam et alios sociales sectores excitaverunt.
Nuntia non invenio quae “sermonem” definiunt “controversissimum”, et de ipso sermone pauca lego. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:48, 31 Augusti 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die 31 Augusti 2023 — Neutralitas dubia
Disputatio:Constat ad salutem civium inventas esse leges

message: >> "Quantitas lex pro hominibus et non homine pro legibus facti sunt."
Does the grammar here need some adjustment?
Toddcs (disputatio) 14:53, 4 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Leges pro hominibus et non homines pro legibus facti sunt"? "Quantitas" autem quid hic valeat, non intelligo. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:24, 4 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantitas lex ...
Disputatio Formulae:Nexus interviciales absunt

message: Non ad Vicidata, sed nexus interviciales absunt. Si autem elementum Vicidatorum abest, formula nexus desiderati ponitur. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 18:41, 6 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Salve, Demetrie. Formula mota est. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:05, 7 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non ad Vicidata
Disputatio:Campana Libertatis

message: In first paragraph, "Campana verbsum" seems wrong, wants some love. Toddcs (disputatio) 11:02, 8 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Campana verbsum" ? 

message: In first paragraph, is"sanatur" the right word choice? Toddcs (disputatio) 11:06, 8 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it's been fixed. More troubling is the idea that it was cast (and presumably hung in place) decades before it was first rung. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:46, 8 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanatur?
Disputatio:Marcion

message: The mention of "inter urinas et faeces nascimur" in this article is not clear. That saying is usually attributed not to Marcion but to St. Augustine; isn't that right? And if so, the connection to Marcion is not clear and should be made explicit, rather than tossing it out to us just bye the bye in parentheses, and leaving us to wonder how it is relevant here. Toddcs (disputatio) 17:49, 9 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a hand, then! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:30, 9 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "inter urinas et faeces nascimur"
Disputatio:Mons Niger

message: Adiectivum Montis Nigri est Montenigrinus. Hoc nomina Latina scientifica monstrant exempli gratia Telestes montenigrinus, Salmo montenigrinus, Niphargus montenigrinus, Craspedosoma montenigrinum, Crematogaster montenigrina. 151.30.236.84 20:02, 9 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fontes tecum concordant, etiamsi causa litterae “-e-” (in loco “-i-”) in adiectivo “Montenigrini” mihi videatur esse obscura (fortasse propter nomen Italicum?). Nihilominus . --Grufo (disputatio) 20:15, 9 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De adiectivo rerum ad Montem Nigrum spectantium
Disputatio:Timor specificus

message: vocabulum Anglicum “coulrophobiae” introduxit. Sed non est series vocalium “-ou-” in lingua Latina, quia semper fit “-ū-” (nisi in hiatu). Atque  est dubia. Estne fortasse alii verbo – e.g. “scurriphobiae” – nobis favendum? --Grufo (disputatio) 14:05, 10 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Coulrophobia”
Disputatio:Ioannes Franciscus Giudice

message: I believe that "conflictor" is a much better translation of "collider" than the word "collisor". "Conflictor" is used in several articles from the Vatican and it appears also in Ephemeris (see http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/archi2008/nuntius1.php?id=512) where the LHC is translated as "Latus Hadronum Conflictor". This is a better translation than "Collisor Hadronalis Magnus" because: 1) it is faithful to the original meaning in English; 2) it reflects the original acronym; 3) "Collisor" is not a Latin word. Therefore, I recommend that the Vicipaedia page "LHC" should be entitled "Latus Hadronum Conflictor", instead of the awkward and incorrect "Collisor Hadronalis Magnus". Jbackroyd (disputatio) 19:34, 10 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jbackroyd. Latinists tend to avoid nomina agentis in -tor (or -sor) and -trix for objects, and tend to opt for other solutions (in the case of machines almost always -trum). For the case in point, Epistulae Leoninae suggest collistrum: “angl. Large Hadron Collider = *Collistrum hadroniorum magnorum.” (). --Grufo (disputatio) 20:29, 10 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflictor
Disputatio:Exordium anni (Iudaei)

message: In all due respect, the transliterations from the Hebrew, "yōm ha·zzikkårōn" and "yōm ha·ddīn", are just plain silly. 
If we are transliterating from how they are *written* in the Hebrew, then the "z" and "d" should not be doubled at all. 
But if we are transliterating from how these terms are *pronounced*, the doubling effect of the _dagesh_ is that the first of the double consonants completes the previous syllable, and the second one introduces the next syllable. 
Thus, the hyphen (or dot) should be *between* the double consonants, not before them. I.e., "haz·zikkaron" and "had·din".
I cannot discount the possibility that the transliteration style in the article purports to conform to some accepted standard. But if that is the case, it is all the more wondrous that such a standard would even exist at all. 
Of course I understand that the point of the separating hyphen or dot is merely to indicate that the definite article "ha" is only a prefix. But even so, seeing a double consonant together at the beginning of the actual base word ("zzikkaron" rather than "zikkaron", "ddin" rather than "din") offends the eye, and seems anomalous at best.
But now I notice that the article has "rōš haš·šånåh" with the dot *between* the two "s" of the second word, as expected. So it seems that I've been vindicated in my observation, and I have now adjusted the two cases I mentioned earlier accordingly.
Toddcs (disputatio) 02:05, 15 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possibly, but check with Andrew Dalby? If a particular transliteration is standard, that's the one to use. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:16, 15 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sorry, I only saw your note after I had already made the change in the article, as I have amended my comment above. (On second thought, I should probably never amend an earlier comment, and only append a new comment to it.)

text: :As I noted there, there was already an inconsistency between transliterations in the article itself, and I have now made them consistent. In all events, this is just a very subtle point of Hebrew grammar. But of course, whatever A. Dalby says to do is what I do. Toddcs (disputatio) 13:31, 15 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliterations from Hebrew
Disputatio:Angolia

message: Dear 2401:4900:55a5:784d:4d80:d4ab:d020:805b, in view of an attached footnote that gives the lemma as Angolia, by what authority do you change the name of the country to Angola? Have you checked the text in the footnote and found that it says the word is actually Angola, not Angolia? That could be right, but please tell us! (The cited text is apparently unavailable without purchase or a subscription.) Angola would indeed seem to be supported by the species epithet angolensis (not angoliensis), as seen in Phyllanthus angolensis. Also, the name as it first appeared in a European text (Portuguese!) appears to have been Angola, derived from the local title ngola (not ngolia). In contrast, Wictionary gives the lemma as Angolia. Has someone authoritative published a list of the Latin names of countries? Or is it in a reliable gazetteer? Maybe Hofmann? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:10, 15 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
* This book only refers to "Acta Apostolicae Sedis", which I have added as a footnote. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:36, 15 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma
Disputatio:Laith Saad Abdullah

message: Google literally shows five pages for “Laith Saad Abdullah”, and nothing is noticeable. My name reaches way more hits on Google and I do not have nor seek a Wikipedia page. I believe deletion is due. If the author thinks this is the case of a person known in a specific Arabic country but still not known internationally, they should start by writing a Wikipedia page in the Arabic Wikipedia. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:12, 16 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delenda 

message: I don't think this article deserves to be deleted, as it talks about an Arab journalist and an important novelist. Please look again at the article. 151.236.168.216 15:34, 18 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Pagina non Latine scripta et dubia gravitate. Adumbratio eiusdem paginae apud Vicipaediam Anglicam deleta est (“This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia”), et credo idem fatum fuisse eidem paginae apud Vicipaediam Vietnamensem. Apud nostram Vicipaediam Latinam usor Ahmed.bn.hossain paginam Dhiyaa saad abdullah, eodem textu, creavit. Idcirco formulam  paginae addidi. --Grufo (disputatio) 04:19, 22 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  From my point of view
Disputatio:Rosa Christiana Ossouka Raponda

message: Hi there. I changed the birth place as it reads in the Spanish language Wikipedia she was born in Libreville instead. I see it conflicts with what appears on the English Wikipedia too, despite using the same reference, which is dead now. --Bedivere (disputatio) 02:15, 18 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Bedivere. I moved this discussion here, because I feel that I do not know enough to be helpful (while maybe here we can have better chances of finding out the answer – I hope it will be OK for you). As you correctly mentioned  after looking at the page in other languages (specifically in French). But I see now that the Spanish and Italian pages instead mention Libreville (i.e. Liberopolis). The old version of one of the sources quoted in the English Wikipedia mentions that she was “Conseiller Municipal de la Commune de Libreville: 2018-2023” – however that says nothing about her birthplace. As soon as we have a source we can update the page accordingly. What do you think? --Grufo (disputatio) 02:39, 18 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :I'm fine with that! I will try to find a better source in the meantime. Have a great day! Bedivere (disputatio) 03:34, 18 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The (now ousted) Government of Gabon website states she was born in Franceville, so I am fine with the page retaining the mention to Francopolis  Bedivere (disputatio) 03:37, 18 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: That's great! Have a great day you too! --Grufo (disputatio) 15:31, 18 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De urbe natali
Disputatio:Gratia Wan

message: The page history of :d:Q111459086 clearly points towards self-promotion. --Grufo (disputatio) 04:26, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sposto in latino. Quod malum est cum hoc articulo. Quales notae et encyclopedia generis articulum vis? 199.119.235.211 05:08, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: : Quod dicis non intellego. Quod vocabulum est “sposto”? Quid fit “in latino” (loco?)? Num “Quales notas” dicere volebas? Quid est “encyclopedia generis articulum”? --Grufo (disputatio) 05:24, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Typus non posto. iam in latinam linguam muto. cur delere nescio. Fac tibi informationem referat magis opus est? Alias stellas in Lingua Latina repressimus paucas informationes habent: https://la.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_McAdams#/editor/0 199.119.235.211 06:06, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Quam ad hoc articulum non delere. ostendis mihi. 199.119.235.211 06:07, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

text: ::auxilium postulo 199.119.235.211 06:07, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

text: ::auxilium postulo 199.119.235.211 06:38, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

text: It is clear that there has been an attempt to spam this promotional material across many Wikipedias. To save waste of time I have deleted the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:52, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die 20 Septembris 2023 — Estne haec pagina delenda?
Disputatio Formulae:Pagina infeste propagata

message: This is a very good idea. I'm thinking about the name. Even bad pages may have several editores before they are deleted; and even one who is an auctor conexus can theoretically produce a good page. Moreover, it is rarely possible to demonstrate that an editor is conexus: we are guessing. It is really the page that we have to deal with, not the editor. So what can we say instead? We long ago called this kind of page Vicipaedia:Propaganda, but that's not a good name because we might be using it positively ("a page that we need to propagate"!).
I suggest something like "Pagina male propagata" or "infeste propagata", but I'm sure there will be a better proposal from someone else. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess they had the same doubts on English Wikipedia as well, which is why they gave it an incomprehensible name :) I had created already a redirect named . Technically you are right, ours are just guesses, that is why I chose a text that says “Aliquibus usoribus Vicipaedianis ... videtur”. Maybe we could be more precise concerning what is wrong and change the incipt of the text to:
replies: text: : Aliquibus usoribus Vicipaedianis auctor princeps huius commentationis quandam conexionem cum re dissertata videtur habere, quia notiones expositae vel processus scriptionis se gerunt quasi propaganda infesta vel celebratio suimet. ...

text: As for the name, I like . What do you think? --Grufo (disputatio) 09:44, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :To me the text on the formula was already suitably vague and all-embracing, so I wouldn't necessarily lengthen it. If you think  is a good name, let's use it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:00, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Alright. Moved without changes in the text. --Grufo (disputatio) 11:14, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine formulae
Disputatio:Lupanar

message: in the caption to the Avril painting, "obius" should presumably be "obitus"? But even with that adjustment, the intent is hardly clear. (Well, to this reader, at least.) Toddcs (disputatio) 13:31, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Obvius" in the sense of "client"? but this is also not very clear. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 13:42, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obius?
Disputatio:Crater

message: "Mactesim" as the transliteration for the craters of Israel Negev region (Makhteshim), seems very questionable. it appears to be a word borrowed from some totally unrelated language, and with an entirely unrelated meaning. Toddcs (disputatio) 02:11, 28 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any evidence that "crateres" in Latin is used to describe these features, so I'll delete the claim. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 28 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mactesim?
Disputatio:Schida adhaesiva

message: The article cites Davidis Morgan et Patricii Oeni Neo-Latin Lexicon, but the only translation of sticker I can find on that site is from https://neolatinlexicon.org/silva-old/, which warns that it is "collatio vocabulorum e variis locis (haud necessario probandorum vel adhibendorum)
Even then, they provide two translations:
 .car1 bumper sticker, sticker / schedula agglutinatoria* [Soc. Lat.]; schida adhaesive+ (Helf.)What makes Soc. Lat. a better source than Helf.? 104.247.233.135 04:07, 28 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They are both good. Usually in these cases the taste of who writes the article makes the choice. I also prefer schida adhaesiva to schedula agglutinatoria.  was regularly used for sticking magnets and similar things.  seems to refer more to something that solidifies from a non-solid state. This is at least my take. --Grufo (disputatio) 08:40, 28 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation
Disputatio:Periegesis

message: Requiring "ad quendam locum dissimilem ei ubi habitat agit" seems odd. From the English article it seems that the WTO only stipulates "outside their usual environment". Thus, similarity or dissimilarity is irrelevant. Toddcs (disputatio) 13:09, 30 Septembris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ad quendam locum dissimilem ei ubi habitat agit"
Disputatio:Misna

message: The Wikimedia image shown purports to be the title page of a Mishnah edition published in Vilna in 1921. But it is not that. As the page states very clearly, it is at best only a reprint, published in New York in 1953. Toddcs (disputatio) 03:48, 3 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of "Vilna 1921 edition" is not.
Disputatio:Imago

message: About the photo caption:
    >> Armin Peter Faust starting one of his
    >> works (in this case, his own portrait)
Is there anything in the "drawing" itself (which is still completely empty) that suggests it is, or will become, a self-portrait? Even if Faust has stated definitively that that was what he was about to draw, from the point of view of someone reading the article and viewing the photo it does not seem at all relevant. Toddcs (disputatio) 12:10, 4 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Artem Romanam in locum imaginis Petri Faust substitui. Sed fortasse nimis multas imagines addidi. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:14, 4 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faust Photo
Disputatio:Antibioticum

message: One might get the impression that this article is slightly confused. Its title is "antibioticum." But it starts out by defining "antibacteriale," which it then informs us is often used as a synonym for "antibiotici." Toddcs (disputatio) 13:50, 4 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Toddcs. I think that these are the kind of corrections that don't need a discussion. As you correctly mentioned the page is called "antibioticum"; and therefore, after making sure that sources for the name exist, you can directly correct the preamble accordingly. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:38, 4 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :I am always inclined to tread lightly, and to err on the side of caution. But I also understand that that is not always the correct approach. // I have now made the change. Toddcs (disputatio) 15:41, 6 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antibioticum vs. antibacteriale
Disputatio:Lex

message: The definitions & examples of these terms have gotten muddled and should someday be reorganized. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:27, 8 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the confusion arises especially if your first language is English. In English you can “study law”, but a parliament writes single laws. This confusion however is often absent in other languages, where the word derived from Latin lex usually indicates just single laws. In Latin ius is closer to “all the current laws put together” or “ordinament” or “the state of law”. It also means “right”. Lex instead is a single law. My two cents. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:24, 8 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

text: I believe that in theory you can have a ius without leges (e.g. an oral and flexible ordinament without written laws), but you can't have the opposite. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:28, 8 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :Our "Lex" links to English Statute, while our "Ius" links to English Law, and this state of affairs looks OK; however, the Thomist section of "Lex" may be more pertinent to "Ius." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:52, 8 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :: : Yes and no. It is true that abstract considerations usually pertain more to ius than lex, but first we would need to check what word Thomas Aquinas used, and if he used “lex” we cannot put “ius” into his mouth. And, second, he seems to speak about something that is promulgated, and that is indeed a lex. Nevertheless, the paragraph could still theoretically be moved to our Ius page. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:09, 8 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I'm leaving it there for now, and the definitions have been made to match those of their English equivalents. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:25, 8 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Ius'' ('law') vs. ''lex'' ('statute')
Disputatio:Dies Veneris pro posteritate

message: Doesn't this contravene Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" principle? 🤔 Toddcs (disputatio) 17:25, 10 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A little bit I think it does. Although what strikes me the most is the usage of “istae” where there should be “hae”. --Grufo (disputatio) 23:08, 10 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Res istae laudabiles"
Disputatio:Arcus Titi

message: It is very tempting to remove the 'dubsig' from menora. The official Latin Wikipedia guidelines say that 'dubsig' indicates doubtful Latinity. But given that 'menora' has its very own page on Latin Wikipedia (as the internal link itself shows), can the word's Latinity nonetheless be considered doubtful? Toddcs (disputatio) 01:29, 11 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (now renamed to ), as the name suggests, expresses doubt. It does not mean that the word marked is wrong, it means that the person who put the sign had doubts about it and is probably looking for answers. Therefore you can always remove  by simply writing in the edit summary why there is no reason to keep it. This will be among the possible things that whoever put  was waiting for in the first place (the other thing being having the word corrected). --Grufo (disputatio) 01:59, 11 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: :When the "doubt" was marked, the Vicipaedia page menora didn't exist. Now that it does exist, the proper place to document the Latin word is at that page, and the proper place to query its Latinity is at Disputatio:Menora. So I've deleted the "dubium". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:25, 11 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'dubsig' on 'menora'
Disputatio:Symptoma

message: Hoc tempore omnes linguae, Anglica excepta, Symptoma et signum modo simplici distinguunt. Titulus Vicipaediae Anglicae "signs and symptoms" haud cum regulis Vicipaediae Anglicae consonat; insuper titulus noster "Signa et symptoma" incaute plurale cum singulare mixit. Pro tempore "Symptoma" restitui, sed licet disputare! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 12 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Latinistarum nonnulli "symptoma" et "signum" hoc modo haud distinguunt, sed fontem repperi huius distinctionis: notas ergo iuxta "signum" et "symptoma" in lemmatibus nostris subiunxi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 12 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

text: Ergo si de titulo "Symptomata et signa" convenimus, ibidem fontem Latinum huius coniunctionis habebimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:47, 13 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De motu