lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Conquisitatores Hispani

message: I'm afraid conquestor isn't the proper word for conquistador. Conquestor 'complainer; plaintiff' has been derived from the verb conqueror, conquestus sum, conqueri, whereas conquistador must be traced back to the verb conquīro, -quīsivi, -quīsitum, -quīrere. This verb would give conquisitor 'fellow explorer, discussant, recruitor, later conqueror'. The Spanish word conquistador, however, comes from Latin conquisitator which presupposes the verb conquisitare, a frequentative formation of conquirere. Accordingly, I strongly suggest Conquestores Hispani be replaced by Conquisitatores Hispani. This word is textually attested (see e.g., R.E.Latham's Revised Medieval Latin Word-List, p.107). --Neander 01:42, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
See also Ferdinandus Cortesius, where the correct Latin term conquisitator is used. --Neander 01:54, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved all the pages and redid the category to correct the error.--Rafaelgarcia 02:59, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Optime fecisti, o Rafael. Gracias < Gratias (ago). --Neander 03:07, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thanks for this correction. I had been using "conquestores" because it was suggested to me to use it: Vicipaedia:Taberna#Conquistadores --Xaverius 08:27, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquistador < Conquisitator 

message: Shouldn't it be Conquistatores Hispanici?--Rafaelgarcia 00:35, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought that Hispanus would be more adecuate for the noun and Hispanicus for the adjective, but we can discuss this--Xaverius 00:39, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :Cassell's says the adjectives are Hispaniensis et Hispanus. IacobusAmor
replies: text: ::I was just comparing the page Hispania, where it says in the right info box: nomen gentilicium Hispanus//adjectivum Hispanicus. Perhaps it is the Hispania page that is wrong...!? Words also gives Hispanus as the adjective.--Rafaelgarcia 01:30, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Also it is said Lingua Hispanica...Hmmm.--Rafaelgarcia 01:32, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::FWIW, White's Latin Dictionary has Hispanicus. IacobusAmor 01:33, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::So Hispanici shall it be then, isn't it?--Xaverius 09:16, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Apparently both forms are used so neither is wrong...--Rafaelgarcia 09:33, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hispanus et Hispanicus
Disputatio:Terrae motus

message: I think the title of this article should be "terraemotus", as Latin put this as one word (compare Spanish and Italian terremoto) --KedemusKedemus 05:32, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, in classical Latin this is a two word phrase, like Aquae Ductus, Res Publica. Now granted those words are sometimes written as one, but for the article title I'd rather keep them separate. This is afterall quite transparently two wors: terrae + motus, not a compound like the late terrimotium. --Iustinus 05:37, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yeah Iustino consentio. There's no reason for the move, plenty of sources indicate this as having been two words, sometimes even separated by adjectives. A redirect, on the other hand, couldn't hurt...--Ioshus (disp) 05:46, 13 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

message: Shouldn't "...propter ea quae saepe motum sequuntur: ruinae aedificiorum et in mare undae anomalae" be "...propter ea quae saepe motum sequuntur: ruinas aedificiorum et in mare undas anomalas" so that undas and ruinas respond to propter which requires an accusative?--Rafaelgarcia 19:06, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Case?
Disputatio:Ianua

message: ? I mean I like doors just fine, myself, but optimus?--Ioshus (disp) 16:08, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

message: etiam hanc paginam habent.--Massimo Macconi 18:25, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nec ego intellexi... Eam teneamus, mea sententia.--Ioshus (disp) 18:46, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quia movenda ad victionarium, aliae wiki 

message: Massimo- just letting you know a tidbit about the grammar of the sentence you wrote:
quae is fine, but it also could have been quod referring back to foramen. Just letting you know you have options! =] --Ioshus (disp) 18:50, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  on grammar
Disputatio:Robertus Laurentius Stine

message: Really? IacobusAmor 11:43, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
I looked up in Whittaker's Words and it gave "coitus" as Latin word for meeting, e.g. date. I know it sounds horny to English speakers but that's the most accurate word I found. KedemusKedemus 19:38, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "''Coitus Caecus'' (Anglice: ''Blind Date'')"
Disputatio:Laboratorium Dexterum

message: Is Dexter the short English form of something else? or is it just Dexter as in dextrus, -a, -um? wouldn't it then be "Dextris" because it finishes in -er?--Xaverius 12:07, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the personal name Dexter, -ri? or Dexter, -ris? That is: 2nd or 3rd declension? IacobusAmor 12:20, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :If it's any help (I bet it isn't) Dexter as an English surname is an old agent noun meaning dyer. And I imagine that those who call their children Dexter are basing their choice on the surname, not on right and left. In other words, the English name is not the same word as the Latin adjective. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::This website (and many others) say that you're half-right, half-wrong. They say that Dexter could be latin for 'right-handed' or could mean 'female dyer'. If it is 'on the right' or 'right-handed' (which I guess it is, since he is a male character), This site explains it clearly as Dexter (-tri). --Harrissimo 18:17, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well, thanks, Harrissimo. "Half-right, half-wrong" is about as good as I ever get :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:47, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Dexterum''?
Disputatio:Iohannes Traupman

message: Actually, Angr, I'm wondering if Iustinus doesn't know something we don't. It seems as if he was the one who wrote Traupvir, and he is one of the last people to use a form like that without reason. I wonder if Traupman himself sometimes uses Traupvir...--Ioshus (disp) 23:42, 15 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I frequently hear Latin speakers (mainly at Conventicula of course) flippantly call him "Traupvir." I honestly don't know if that comes from him (it might) or if it's just a common joke. --Iustinus 07:22, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I'd assume it's a joke—as when, ca. 1970, a fellow-student surnamed Fishman we, in a nod to women's lib & gender inclusivity, called Fishperson. IacobusAmor 12:30, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Hmm. Nonnative speakers of English who can parse my grammar (above) should probably babelize themselves as en-4 or higher. :) IacobusAmor 15:49, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

text: ::Well, either way it's a joke, obviously. I just mean I'm not certain where it originates. But it seems common enough to me to be mentioned. --Iustinus 14:21, 16 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I asked Terentius about this at the conventiculum this year. He said Traupvir was coined at some conventiculum long ago, and is of course used only jokingly. He has no idea who started it, but suspects that Dr. Traupman would not himself approve. Though, according to Terentius, the jocular name properly refers to the book, not the (Traup)man himself. --Iustinus 04:25, 16 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

message: Apud paginam in Facebook de "Latina in Vero Mundo," legimus denuntiationem quae affirmat Ioannem C. Traupman nuper (fortasse heri) mortuum esse. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:48, 24 Februarii 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Mortuus
Disputatio:Zea mays

message: Possumus eligere nomen botanicum speciei (Mays) aut binomen (Zea mays). Sed fortasse alii editores meliora nomina reperire possunt ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:31, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Procul dubio "Maizum" attestari potest, tamen ego semper Maizium, fontibus et Novae et Nostrae aetatis, vidi. --Iustinus 17:31, 17 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Fortasse ergo optime: "Maizium, vel Maizum (binomen: Zea mays), est. . . ." IacobusAmor 16:30, 26 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen

message: Haec e prima sententia removi: " vel Latinitate pura farD. P. Simpson, Cassell's Latin Dictionary (Novi Eboraci: Wiley Publishing, 1968), p. 757).
 
De Zea mays Romani antiqui nihil scierunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:02, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you then going to get rid of glans for 'bullet'? That's also the (pure) Latin recommended by Cassell's. The linguistic processes are identical. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:32, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :It's curious, though, that Cassell's, being classically based, even has an entry for maize; there are no entries for tomato, chocolate, etc. And why far and not triticum, hordeum, or the broader frumentum? Glans at least can be seen as the ancestor in some what of the modern bullet. Perhaps the fact that it appears in Cassell's merits a note, but I think "pura Latinitas" is misleading here. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:13, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Cassell's has "corn (the grain), frumentum (sing. = grain, plur. = standing corn)." Under corn, Traupman gives in and has maizium. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:09, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::The difference there is that Cassell's was compiled in Britain, whereas Traupman worked in the US: the word "corn" has different meanings in the two countries. Can you quote verbatim what Cassell's says s.v. "maize"? I don't have a copy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:19, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Cassell's has just two words: "maize, far." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:31, 3 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::And if anybody notices and asks: yes, the comma after maize here in Cassell's is in boldface, maintaining the traditional typographical standard, in which punctuation immediately after boldfaced matter is itself bolded. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:31, 3 Maii 2015 (UTC)

text: ::I did have a discussion with Jondel about whether we should cite a dictionary/glossary for what is an obvious error or not. (The culprit in that case was, probably, Traupman's printer: I can't remember where the discussion is.) I think better not, on the whole -- least said, soonest mended -- and that's why I didn't transfer the information about Cassell's to a footnote, but if others think we need to, OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:36, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far!
Disputatio:Rodericus (rex Visigothorum)

message: Paginam "Proelium apud fluvium Guadalete" scribere volo, sed nescio nomen latinum huius fluminis. Chronicae latine scriptae nihil dicunt de hoc flumine, chronicae hispanice scriptae nomen guadalete dum chronicae arabice scriptae nomen wadi Lakka dant. Auxilium peto!--Xaverius 19:18, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De amissione Hispaniae
Disputatio:Addua

message: Aliquot errores correxi. Puto "lacustrem" facete fictum esse, sed sine auctoritate est; "cuiusdem emissarium" -- non satis intellexi. Supersunt adhuc pauca quae parum facilia intellectu sint. Omnino tamen Latinitate satis bona scriptus est hic "articulus". --Neander 21:58, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Plurimas ex tuis commutationibus intellego, sed cur mutavisti verbum suus, -a, -um in verbum eius? IacobusAmor 23:41, 19 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Si "De cursu suo" &c dicimus, fluvium ipsum de se narrantem facimus, perinde ac Cicero de reditu suo in oratione sua (non eius) explicat. Sin autem putamus (ut equidem puto) scriptorem fluvium tamquam extraneis oculis spectare et obiective de eius (non sua) natura scribere, necesse est scriptor formis pronominis is, ea, id utatur. (Ceterum, in omnibus inscriptionibus huius "articuli" - sit venia verbo  :-) - "eius" sine damno deleri potest.) --Neander 02:11, 20 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

message: Pagina mota est ad Abdua sine explicatione. Addua mi paret nomen classicum esse (vide citationes), sed Abdua nomen alterum recentem (fortasse pseudetymologicum, sed nescio ... !) Si aliquis alios fontes habet, classicos, mediaevalibus, recentioribus, adde s. t. p.! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:29, 10 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Santander

message: According to Graesse, Portus Victoriae and Iuliobrigensium civitas are alternative names for Santoña, not Santander. However, my old map of Roman Spain does place Portus Victoriae at Santander. It is a real Roman name, but there has clearly been some dispute about its location. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:55, 21 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Matrica

message: WHY DID YOU BREAK MY PAGE????? -- added by Usor:85.118.10.166
replies: text: It's not your page, it's everybody's. Massimo and Harrissimo have both improved it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 22 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, quite...why would you be offended by what has happened to it?--Ioscius (disp) 11:55, 22 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: page breaking

message: Mihi non bene evenit petenti fontes huius nomen. Nomen Hungaricum significat centum tumuli, cuius googles ope petitio videri potest . Hoc in libro invenimus quoque stomogil quae scire licet valere idem ac centum tumuli. Sed videtur Stomogil esse hodierna urbs in loco antiquae Olbiae (sed non nostrae Olbiae!!! quae est in Sardinia) quae fuit in Ucraina meridionali. Petitio googles ope nominis Matricae autem nihil refert... Confusio maxima! Adiuva, si possis. --Ioscius∞ 23:31, 22 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  nomen
Disputatio:Zeno Citieus

message: Quis imaginem fecit? Quando? Ubi est? IacobusAmor 17:49, 22 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Why? It _is_ Zeno Citieus, all over Wikipedia... if I understood your question well... ...Have I done something wrong? 78.1.106.253 18:33, 22 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've done nothing wrong (as far as I can tell), but it is always more useful if you give (if you know) some more information about the image, if it is original/copy, Roman/Greek, in which museum, etc...--Xaverius 18:46, 22 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Surely. But there's no such kind of information on other Wikipedias, not even on Wikipedia Commons. I'm sorry.. 78.1.106.253 18:52, 22 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Imago
Disputatio:Garumna superior

message: Removi hanc tabulam quia in dubio sum de Latinitate. Si fontes habemus pro his nominibus, aut adde hic aut paginas de communibus crea s.v.p.! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:56, 24 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Communia                     	Census (1999)
Tolosa                       	390 350
Colombarium                  	28 538
Tournefeuille                	22 758
Muratus                      	20 735
Blaniacus                    	20 586
Plaisantia                   	14 164
Cugnaux                      	12 997
Unitas                       	12 141
Balma                        	11 944
Reimundvilla                 	11 696
Sanctus-Orentius-de-Gamevilla	11 142
Sanctus-Gaudens              	10 845
Castanetus                   	10 250
Portellum-super-Garumna      	8 737
Sanctus-Johannes             	8 362
Villa Nova-Tolosane          	8 252
Revellum                     	7 985
Castro Genestus              	7 735
Pipera                       	7 440
Fontsorbus                   	6 909
----
6-12-2007
Nomina tracta sunt ex Dauzat-Rostaing, Dictionnaire étymologique des noms de lieux en France, Librairie Guénégaud, 1963. Tamen "Tournefeuille" et "Cugnaux" desunt in his libris. (F.R.)
replies: text: Merci beaucoup. Mais peut-être sans traits d'union? Les traits d'union dans des noms de ce genre sont une particularité française, je crois. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 6 Decembris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tabula communium praecipuorum
Disputatio:Smyrna

message: *Iam de Smyrna ab Assyris scriptum est circa 2000 a.C.n..
Dubito quia, secundum pagina de Assyria, id regnum inceptum est post hunc annum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:46, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citatio desiderata

message: some difficulties translating from en.wiki in the first half of the II millenium b.C, I agree with you that circa 2000 isn't a goos choice sorry--Massimo Macconi 20:54, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see! No problem then. Thanks, Massimo. -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I had ..
Disputatio:Iustinianus I

message: :: "Anno 519 Iustinianus socius imperii factus est, .... Anno 527 imperii socius a Iustino I factus est."
Quo anno, quaeso, Iustinianus socius imperii factus est? --Fabullus 09:20, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Socius imperii

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=s1pTAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Persicum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vMDgULTZEO3G0AGUl4C4AQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Persicum&f=false
Title	Justiniani Augusti historia, in qua bellum Persicum, Gothicum libris XIII descriptum continetur (etc.) Nova editio, cui accesserunt breviaria, notae, gnomologia historica, chronologia (etc.) curanta Simone Goulart). - Lugduni, Franciscus Le-Preux 1594
Authors	Agathias Myrrhinaeus et Jornandes Episcopus Ravennas Prokopios Kaisarieus, Agathias Scholasticus Myrinaeus, Simon Goulart, Iordanes Gotus
Publisher	Franciscus Le Preux, 1594
Original from	Austrian National Library
Digitized	Oct 5, 2012
Rajmaan (disputatio) 22:33, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justiniani Augusti historia, in qua bellum Persicum, Gothicum libris XIII ...  By Agathias Myrrhinaeus et Jornandes Episcopus Ravennas Prokopios Kaisarieus, Agathias Scholasticus Myrinaeus, Simon Goulart, Iordanes Gotus
Disputatio:Margarita Thatcher

message: Well, knowing that we have Robertus Zimmerman why don't we move this to Margarita Roberts. Of course, we have the debate with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and his birth name which I cannot remember...--Xaverius 11:09, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, we have a Margarita Hilda Roberts as a redirecting page... sorry--Xaverius 11:12, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

message: Is this the right word here? I didn't think that it could mean anything other than 'Duchess'. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, thank you. I have made a quick change, but if you want to improve the article further, please do! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :And possibly a female PM should be "Prima Ministra"82.36.94.228 20:58, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ducissa? 

message: Cur non Factio Conservativa? Non arbitror exitum -trix adjectivum indicare posse. Tergum violinae 22:34, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factio Conservatrix?
Disputatio:Primus minister Britanniarum Regni

message: Very nice list, Massimo. Since Tory is the same colour as Conservative, should Whig be the same colour as Liberal? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:29, 26 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
*I took this list from it.wiki, I agree with you the colours must be the same, I'll change them . Ciao e grazie
thread_title: Colours
Disputatio Formulae:Primi ministri Britannici 1721–1945

message: The title of the formula will do just fine (because the title doesn't appear on pages), but I'm going to change the heading that appears in the panel to "Gubernatores Regni Britanniarum", for reasons of logic. They aren't "governors of the Britains of the kingdom" but "governors of the kingdom of the Britains". I hope that's OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:25, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Ledesia

message: I seem to remember some discussion of Leodis already! Some people may imagine it's a Latin name for Leeds (hence we have a redirect from it); but is there published evidence it's a Latin name for Leeds? If there is, we'd best cite it. The more reliable the material we put in an infobox, the better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:40, 27 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Copied from Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby: ... I may have found a lead for Leodis. In the Leeds Grammar School school hymn (written in Latin), there are the words Leodenses Cuncti and towards the end it says schola Leodensis. There is also a very frequent Leeds word Leodiensian meaning an ex-pupil of L.G.S. or in general a person from Leeds. I am pretty sure these words do not come from Ledesia. --Harrissimo 12:31, 11 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Agreed. This is good evidence and I have added it as a footnote. As soon as we come across Leodis itself used in a Latin context, we can reinstate the form in the first sentence or in the infobox. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 11 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen alium
Disputatio:Pyramus

message: Haec commentatio a bonae spei scriptore/scriptrice facta est. Res grammaticae rectissime se habent. Ideo nihil nisi stilisticis quibusdam rebus interveni. --Neander 02:23, 29 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

message: Se and suus refer "to the subject of the sentence or clause in which they stand" (Bradley's Arnold, #349). Ergo:
replies: text: Pyramus, quoniam parentes sui = 'Pyramus, since his own parents'

text: Pyramus, quoniam parentes eius = 'Pyramus, since his (i.e., someone else's) parents'
Since the first meaning is intended, isn't sui apter here? IacobusAmor 03:16, 29 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :I'm afraid you're right, Iacobe. I'll restore the original form in the text. Sorry for the accidental interference from my mother tongue. And thanks! --Neander 22:15, 29 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: eius/sui
Disputatio:Caballinum

message: Quidam nomen Sybar addidit (et Oppido Parvi Equi nunquam credidi). Sed habemus fontem? Secundum fontes interretiales, Sybar est nomen antiquissimum non Cavallini sed Lupiarum (Lecce). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:51, 29 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Iohannes Biclarensis

message: I think the word chronicon won't do as 3rd declension. I took it as a Greekish genitive plural (Chronicon libri, like Satyricon libri), and therefore I made the accusative chronica. Others might disagree ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:41, 30 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .  —Mucius Tever 13:12, 30 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks, Myces, yes, at any rate that entry seems to support me in making the acc. pl. chronica! But the form chronicon, from which Xaverius and I both started, must be wholly medieval: I can't find examples in Lewis & Short.

text: :Oh, and thanks for using . I hadn't ever seen that formula. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:07, 1 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronica
Disputatio:Ioannes Pachelbelius

message: Noster Ioannes Pachelbel est natus anno 1653, et obiit anno 1706, sed "Johañ Christoph Pachelbel. 1748" ait pictura. IacobusAmor 21:58, 1 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alter est.  commons:Talk:Johann Pachelbel.  —Mucius Tever 01:11, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idem? non idem?
Disputatio:Jurij Gagarin

message: Having looked at :en:Yuri I don't know whether to change this praenomen to Georgius, or to something else, or simply to re-spell it (perhaps Iuri?) according to our usual transliteration for Russian. Do we have a precedent? What do others think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:46, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Spanish he is Yuri Gagarín, and so it seems in English. Is there anything wrong in using Yurii? Nevertheless, I have asked Alexander about this; I bet he'll have a good idea of what to do in this case.--Xaverius 08:49, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Actually we already have him at Georgius Gagarin, so I will add the merge formula. To answer your question --
#I raised the issue because (as you know) we normally convert praenomina to their Latin form if there is one, but it seems to be unclear in the case of Yurii whether Georgius is the Latin form of it or not;
#J and Y and I are all possible transliterations of this Russian sound. I agree, let's see what Alexander says! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

text: :I suggest to move the page to Georgius Gagarin, as it's a rule to latinize first names here, and "Yury" originates from "Georgy". -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:31, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the 'Jurij' page has anything that the 'Georgius' page doesn't, so a simple redirect (from J to G) might suffice. Montivagus 15:51, 2 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Praenomen