lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Kennethus Kaunda

message: Textum "et apud Universitatem Zambiae de oecologia studuit" removi. Certe non potuit apud universitatem studere, anno 1966 tantum conditam. Scientia oecologica inter studia universitaria etiam serius intravit. Si auctor aliam rem dicere voluit, oportet pellucidius exprimere et fortasse fontem citare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:43, 3 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universitas Zambiensis
Disputatio:Bernardinus Senensis

message: Care Marce Chemello: "Sancti Bernardini Senensis Opera omnia, 1745" = 'The Complete works of Saint Bernard of Siena'. But it's not: it's an image of him (or at least of someone), presumably from that edition of his works. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:28, 5 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Additamentum
Disputatio:Mare Frisium

message: Ich würde gerne eine Diskussion darüber eröffnen, welcher Seitentitel zu bevorzugen ist. Oldenburg findet sich bei Graesse als Oytha Frisica. Es gibt ein Segelschiff* "Mare Frisium". Im Internet finden sich mehrere Ressorts mit Namen "Mare Frisicum". Für mich klingt als Adjektiv Frisicum besser. Was meint Ihr denn? Findet jemand Quellen? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 00:54, 6 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Richtig, wie es scheint, ein Dreimastmarstoppsegelschoner! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:22, 6 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :"Frisius" est adiectivum classicum (e Tacito apud Lewis & Short citatum). "Frisicus" apud auctores classicos non reperio. Beda adiectivum non praebet.

text: :Adamus Bremensis de "Fresia" et "Fresonibus" scribit. Apud eundem "occeanum Fresonicum" [sic] reperire potes (p. 227 l. 3 editionis  Schmeidler). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:15, 6 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Frisium mare hic praebetur. Neander (disputatio) 10:45, 6 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Frisium" oder "Frisicum"?
Disputatio:Lacus Albertus (Australia Australis)

message: "Albertus" being a fellow's name, the Latin name "Lacus Albertus" makes me doubtful. I would have tried "Lacus Alberti", and indeed the form "Lacus Alberti" can be found, but in the context of another Lake Albert, and it's in the genitive case, so no proof of what the nominative should be. (It's the botanical name Millettia lacus-alberti.) Possibly semi-relevant also, the name "Lacus Eduardi" can be found, apparently nominative, as name of :en:Lake Édouard (Quebec), here on page 118. As to a Latin name for the Australian Lake Albert, I don't have any direct clue. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 15 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We presumably have four possibilities: Lacus Albert, Lacus Albertus, Lacus Alberti, and Lacus Albertianus. Simplicity points to the first two, but Haplochromis albertianus,  the cichlid fish found in the African Lake Albert, points us toward the fourth. Maybe, as your preliminary indagations indicate, Latin attestations of similarly structured names—e.g., Lake Anne, Lake Clare, Lake George, Lake James, Lake John, Lake Louise, Lake William (all of which are real lakes)—will help. Also, we have a second Lake Albert in New South Wales, another in South Dakota,  and at least three Albert Lakes elsewhere in the USA. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:09, 15 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio:Aemilianus Pugačëv

message: Varia in transliterationibus inveniuntur, nihil mirandum est; sed si littera Cyrillica inter Latinas posita est, nullo modo, nisi per nexum, pagina invenitur. Nam nemini quaerenti litteram Cyrillicam inserere in mentem veniet. Talpa~ruwiki (disputatio) 18:22, 15 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ergo ë (e diaeresis), non littera Cyrillica ё utitur, secundum ISO/R 9:1968 (ut in Wikipedia Italica). -- Alexander Geraščenko (disputatio) 18:34, 15 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: : Sic, intellexi. Ipse nunc abrogam, quae mutavi. Talpa~ruwiki (disputatio) 18:43, 15 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Iam correxi. Gratias ago. -- Alexander Geraščenko (disputatio) 18:44, 15 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De littera ''ё''
Disputatio:Collis Sancti Magni

message: Errorem feci, quia insigne non apparet, sed eum non invenio. Quis adiuvabit? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:30, 17 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hic fasciculus non apud Communia, sed apud Vicipaedias singulas stat; nobis igitur inutilis est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:11, 18 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Insigne deest
Disputatio:Vladimirus Solov'ëv

message: "... visiones suas Sophiae Sapientiae describit..." Quid hoc dire vult? An simpliciter: "visiones sapientiae"? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:23, 17 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Visionarius fuit, ut Swedenborg. Talpa~ruwiki (disputatio) 23:38, 17 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Hoc intellego. Sed cur illo hendiadyoin "Sophiae Sapientiae" usus es? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:47, 17 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Correxi. Usus sum, quod Russice dicitur Sophia Sapientia (София-Премудрость) saepe tamquam uno vocabulo. Talpa~ruwiki (disputatio) 00:04, 18 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Visiones SOPHIAE SAPIENTIAE ?
Disputatio:Twitter

message: Puto twitting esse titiatio vel pipiatio, twitter autem titiatrum vel pipiatrum Talpa~ruwiki (disputatio) 13:40, 19 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Twitting = vocabulum Anglicum e to twit = 'to subject to light ridicule or reproach; to make fun of as a fault' (dictionarium Merriam-Webster). Participium autem e to tweet deductum twittering est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:52, 19 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)

text: 'To tweet' ut videtur = breveloqui. <<When Gallagher and his Vatican colleagues began translating papal tweets into Latin in early 2013, they had no idea how popular the brief missives would become. The feed gained more than 100,000 followers in its first six months and has since grown to 855,000. As Gallagher notes, even translating the medium’s name was a matter of some debate. “ ‘Twitter’ is associated with the sound of a bird, and in Latin there are many words for that, like pipiare or pipilare, and people who study the classics know some of them, because Catullus uses this kind of language in his poetry,” he says. “But it didn’t sound right; it didn’t have any weight to it.” They ultimately settled on breveloquens (“to speak briefly”), which references an expression from Cicero.>> Fons hic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 19 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: : Gratias maximas. Sed Pagina alicuius breviloquentis, ut hic dicitur, una pagina potest nominari, nescio quomodo situs totus ('paginae breviloquentiae'? 'brevilocutorium' idoneum videtur). Talpa~ruwiki (disputatio) 14:58, 19 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Titulos paginarum de nominibus mercatoriis, lege protectis, vertere non solemus (vide Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis#Societates). Si nexus intervicios perlegis, videbis alias Vicipaedias magna parte nomen Twitter retinere. Versionem seu explicationem Latinam nihilominus praebere oportet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:24, 19 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Sic, nomen paginae mutare nolebam. Talpa~ruwiki (disputatio) 16:37, 19 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  de versione
Disputatio:Gubernatores civitatum in Civitatibus Foederatis

message: I am formatting these navboxes in our modern style (which makes them easier to edit and update, and allows links among them). I am also Latinizing the forenames, a thing that Helveticus, who created them, often didn't get around to doing.
I am at the same time separating governors of early territories from governors of modern states (while always linking the twin templates together, so that anyone can easily access the full list). I'm doing this because (a) shorter lists are easier to navigate (b) US territories are constitutionally different from US states and get into different categories (c) long navbox lists take up a lot of space on pages in mobile view. This consideration wouldn't apply to en:wiki, on which navboxes are not visible at all in mobile view. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:40, 19 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Macte! Lesgles (disputatio) 19:47, 25 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De renovatione harum formularum
Disputatio:Isaacius Dalmatus

message: Re vera? Non Isaacus? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:12, 19 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Isaacius, et in libris Latinis in pagina citatis, et in tota traditione orthodoxa, ubi notior, quam in Occidente, est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 00:20, 1 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Isaacius
Disputatio:Universitas Publica Smolenscensis

message: Non intellego, quin Categoria:Universitates Russiae inclusa est. Gratias.Andreas Raether (disputatio) 18:50, 21 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Credo esse includenda solum categoriae minimi gradûs et non "matres" eorum. Itaque, quia haec pagina iam in :Categoria:Universitas Publica Smolenscensis reperitur, non oportet :Categoria:Universitates Russiae, :Categoria:Universitates], etc. addere. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:42, 25 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ita. Taliter in omnibus universitatum paginis fecimus, si categoria de universitate iam exstat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:59, 25 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Nunc intellego. Eo modo mentionem duplicem vitemus. Gratias vobis, Lesgles et Andrew, ago. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 10:27, 26 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quin [[Categoria:Universitates Russiae]]?
Disputatio:Okinawa

message: This page says it's about the island. Then it says that the Okinawa prefecture (which has a different page) contains three islands, and lists them. The list seems to belong to the page about the prefecture, not to this page, so I am moving it to there. OK? The words "cuius Naha est" ("of which Naha is") make no sense to me, so I have deleted them. Naha is a redlink, so I can't tell what kind of thing it might be. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:13, 26 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Having now studied the page about the prefecture, I see that Naha is the capital city: perhaps "cuius caput est Naha" was intended here and a word got left out. Well, if Naha is also the main city of Okinawa island, that information would belong in this page! But I haven't time to check right now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:26, 26 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to make sense
Disputatio Categoriae:Balticum

message: I don't know what to call this category (I don't think "Balticum" has a Latin source or a clear meaning). We don't have an article "Baltic States"; we do have an article "Regio Baltica". But pages relevant to "Baltic States" are currently in this category, so the simplest thing would be to rename it "Categoria:Civitates Balticae" and change the interwiki links. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:23, 30 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Civitates Balticae melius est, nexus interviciales non compedes ferreae. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:54, 30 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Recte dicis. Si alii non contradicunt, movebo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 31 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and definition
Disputatio:Ioannes Giambrone

message: Perpauca de hoc iuvene scimus -- neque enim urbs nativitatis refertur. Fons "IMDB" haud fidei dignus est quia ab usoribus scribitur. Nisi quis augere velit, paginam delendam suadeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:54, 31 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delenda?
Disputatio:Gota

message: Voce iura urbana significari puto Stadtrecht. Sed fons huius vocis adhuc, ut mihi videtur, desideratur. Ego quidem nescio nomen latinum huius rei Gothae proprium. Sed in rebus medioaevalibus Stadtrecht  saepius vidi dictum ius oppidanum. Ius enim sunt - sc. inter alia - omnia iura ad quamvis rem pertinentia collecta atque in ordinem redacta. Velut ius gentium, ius belli etc. Nisi vocabulum magis idoneum reperimus, nonne voce ius oppidanum utendum sit? --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:55, 3 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  iura urbana? 

message: In fontibus Latinis adiectivum huius urbis Gothanus non Gothensis est. (Caspar Sagittarius, Memorabilia Historiae Gothanae, 1689; et al.)—Sic nos monet Danielus Pugnatorius.
replies: text: "Non"? Exstat vocabulum Gotensis, verum nomen adiectivum! "Nicolaus Maior Gotensis" et "Jeronimus Oswaldt Gotensis" in pagina 204 hic (anno 1841) et verba "principis Saxo Coburg Gotensis domí­nium" in numero 38 hic (anno 1988) inveniuntur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 09:48, 15 Iunii 2022 (UTC)

text: Scribae aetatum antiquiarum verbo "gotensis" utuntur si incolas insulae "Gotland" vel Gothos memoraverunt hic. Qua de causa verbo fallimur an de incola Gothae an de incola Gotlandiae vel de homine gentis Gothorum narratur. inquit Danielus Pugnatorius
thread_title:  adiectivum
Disputatio:Chemia theoretica

message: Quod est usus loci citati Tannor, D. J. et al. pro lectoribus hujus paginae? Quod habet communis cum chemia theoretica? Responde cito rogo!
replies: text: Gratias tuas propter paginam hodie inceptam accipimus! Tales sunt Vicipaediae: alii rem incipiunt, alii corrigunt. Si hanc citationem inutilem esse censes, tibimet ipso oportet (ratione iam supra data) citationem delere. Editoribus aliis eodem modo disputare licet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:34, 7 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nescio, sed invenies Tannor et al. in vicipaedia Anglica hic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:03, 7 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Non verificaveram, sed nullo modo stupefio ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:21, 7 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
Kernchen ist richtig, aber wie gesagt nicht in dem chemischen Kontext genutzt (muß ich inzwieschen fragen); Kern selbst ist falsch weil bedeutet anderes Ding: nucleus selbst ist kein core: i.e. nucleus (Kern) mit einzige geschlossene Elektronschalen nicht nacktes Kern... Tchougreeff (disputatio) 20:36, 11 Martii 2018 (UTC)
Nescio quis  inseruit quia nominum suum non reliquit contra regulos Vicipediae. Rogo certius esse quod falsum est cum nexibus, introductione etc. --Tchougreeff (disputatio) 21:15, 14 Martii 2018 (UTC)

message: Quod est V.CL sive VVClCl? "Vir Clarissimus" sive "Viri Clarissimi"? Creo non necessarium esse. Dioskorides (disputatio) 14:46, 13 Februarii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviationes
Disputatio Categoriae:Cannibalismus

message: In the English wiki, this is a subcategory of Category:Anthropophagy, but shouldn't it be the other way round? How can cannibalism among spiders be a subset of cannibalism among humans? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:36, 12 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right of course, but it depends on their definition(s) of cannibalism! The word was for a long time only used in relation to human eaters of humans. They are indeed a subset of anthopophages (and also a subset of humans, touch wood). When was it first used of any-species eaters of their own species? Indeed, when was anthropophage first used of any-species eaters of humans? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:04, 13 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Categoria falsa in en?
Disputatio:Depressio (psychiatria)

message: It's a shame that this article apparently echoes :en:Depression (mood), rather than :en:Major depressive disorder, because the latter is one of the 10,000 most important articles and the former isn't, so we get no points at Meta for our effort. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:58, 16 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Cum de pudore et turpitudine dicere nolim, distinctionem similiter sustinerem inter depressionem morbum versus modum animi. Quod, Iacobe, de primo versu censes? Andreas Raether (disputatio) 16:38, 16 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Mixup certainly, but I don't know where. Could someone with some knowledge have a look at the Wikidata items? There are quite some pages linked to item Q4340209 that look to me like rather being about major depressive disorders. So, I don't even know what is really meant by the Meta list. Sigur (disputatio) 15:21, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Links in Vicipaedia's lists take you to (usually) the English version of the article and (often) versions in other major wikis. Whoever wrote the original text of this article was apparently basing it on :en:Depression (mood), which is not the article specified in the list.Or maybe English once had a single article and ours was based on it, and then the English article was split, in such a way as to derange Vicipaedia's link. No time to work on this at the moment. The present title, however, "Depressio (psychiatria)," looks as if it corresponds better (though vaguely so) with :en:Major depressive disorder. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:51, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :::The original article was pretty short, but already called it "morbus". Immediately afterwards it was linked to :en:Clinical depression. So, I suppose the best idea would be for someone knowing their subject to redraft the article in that sense and link it to the other Wikidata item. Sigur (disputatio) 18:12, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Link mixup?

thread_title: Notae
Disputatio:Dublinum

message: Titulus noster est "Eblana". An melius "Dublinum"? Apud Google "Dublinum, Dublinensis" multo crebrius quam "Eblana, Eblanensis" reperio. Dioecesis, Collegium, fortasse etiam alia instituta huius urbis, si nomen Latinum proprium habent, "Dublinum" praeferunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:45, 16 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio ego, nam "Eblana", nomen Ptolemaeum, incertae significationis videtur. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:13, 20 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen
Disputatio Categoriae:Alumni studiorum generalium

message: An melius "Alumni studiorum generalium"? Latinitate antiquiori hoc, nisi fallor, est nomen proprium instituti ubi studia superiora generalia persequimur. "Universitas" est grex professorum discipulorumque in quaque urbe coeuntium. (NB: non omnes categorias movere suadeo, sed hanc supercategoriam tantum! Collegia, academiae, universitates singulae sua nomina habent.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:09, 16 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Gulielmus Smith eiusdem sententia esse videtur: "The term Universitas was adopted in the Middle Ages to denote certain great schools, but not as schools: it denoted these places as corporations, i. e. as associations of individuals. [...] The school as such was called Schola, and from the 13th century most commonly Studium: and if it was a distinguished school, it was called Studium Generale. The first occasion on which the term universitas was applied to a great school is said to be a Decretal of Innocent III. of the beginning of the 13th century, addressed Scholaribus Parisiensibus." Lesgles (disputatio) 18:08, 20 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De titulo
Disputatio:Turris Heredum quondam Iohanne de Aretio

message: Iohannis de Aretio? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:36, 18 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nomen haud intellego, neque fontem boni nominis reperio. Eheu! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:01, 18 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Apud Graesse inveni [http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0005/bsb00050914/images/index.html?id=00050914&groesser=&fip=193.174.98.30&no=&seite=532 "Turris: Torre d'Arese". Vero videtur quidam Giovanni Arese fuisse, cuius nomen ab ?Aresio deducitur. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:01, 20 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  non intelligo
Disputatio:Musica samanica

message: Do we have a Latin source for "samanismus", "samanicus", "samanisticus", "samani"? The best Latin term I could find (a while back) for the practitioners was "samanaei", and I couldn't find any adjectives or derived nouns, hence the category name "Doctrina samanaeorum". But early modern Latin on line is ever multiplying, so I can well believe that sources now exist. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:49, 27 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And also late modern Latin! I see now that footnote 5 at Samanismus helps a lot. Samanismus is maybe a neologism based on the modern Greek? If so, that's legitimate, I'd say, judging by the other Latin terms already cited in that footnote. It would then follow that ":Categoria:Doctrina samanaeorum" could be moved to "Samanismus". Any views? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:01, 27 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :A thorny issue! It's helpful to have a word for the concept, though one wonders whether Cicero might have made do with any of several available terms (magus? medicus? sacerdos? vates?), with or without a qualifying adjective. We might use medium, except that the article itself draws a contrast between shamans and mediums. The assumption that Cicero would have heard a foreign [ʃ] as equivalent to the native [s] has already given us some neologisms, like Sicagum for Chicago, so there's that. ¶ Do we have any way of searching the archives of the Latin broadcasts from Radio Bremen & Finland? It's not inconceivable that they've mentioned a concept like shamanism by now. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:21, 27 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Like you, I wondered about "vates". Horace was a "vates" all right, and in Odes 2.19-20 he is doing several of the things shamans do, but he differs from them in other ways! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 27 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nominibus
Disputatio Formulae:Aeva geologica

message: Cur habemus Neogenicum, Palaeogenicum, etc., nomina neutra, sed Quaternaria, nomen femininum (aut nomen plurale neutrum)? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:11, 27 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Quia fontes horum nominum omnium quaesivi. Quaternaria aetate excepta, nomina omnia aevorum geologicorum, tam longorum quam brevium, sub forma neutra repperi (interdum perpaucis exemplis!) Quaternaria tantum sub forma feminina, non neutra, usque adhuc habeo. Si vera ratio sit huius incongruitatis, nescio, quia nullibi explicatio "officialis" nominum Latinorum geologicorum exstare videtur. Si formam neutram invenis, optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:33, 27 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, fontem illam non vidi! Pro neutro genere hoc inveni: Doct. Aloysius Meschinelli, Fungorum fossilium omnium hucusque cognitorum iconographia, XXXI tabulis exornata (Vicetiae: 1902), p. vi: "aevum quaternarium". Lesgles (disputatio) 01:49, 28 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Valde bene! Per me nexús emenda ... et paginam crea si vis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 28 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Quaternaria'' aut ''quaternarium''
Disputatio Categoriae:Reges Aegypti

message: The problem here is that the rulers of Egypt before about 1200 a.C.n.—that is, for more than half the ultimate history of Aegyptus antiqua—weren't called pharaohs until nearly 2000 years after the known series of monarchs had begun. Perhaps the pharaones and reges could be collapsed into a single category based on monarcha. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:35, 4 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have said there's no real need to use the word "pharaones" in these categories. To Greek and Latin writers they were basileis = reges, as indeed, from an international point of view, they were. In particular, to class the Ptolemies as "pharaones" would be, although quite true, POV, because they were rulers of a bicultural state. Rather than choose their title in one of those two cultures, we should benefit from our use of an international and neutral language and class them among "reges". Same with their predecessors, I think. Plenty of room in individual articles, and in the article "Pharao", to explain what this title meant. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:09, 4 Martii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :There being no other comments, I merged "Pharaones" into "Reges Aegypti". I would propose to move "Categoria:Pharaones domus Ptolemaicae Aegypti‎" to "Categoria:Reges Ptolemaici" for the reason given above. The categories for older dynasties e.g. "Pharaones domus tertiae Aegypti" seem fine to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:12, 12 Martii 2018 (UTC)

text: :Sorry, I see that my last sentence appears to ignore what Iacobus says at the beginning: the earlier pharaohs were not called pharaohs until much later. I overlooked that point. So I have no objection to renaming those categories too if Iacobus or anyone else proposes a new name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:32, 17 Martii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Re "contribuenda"