lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Religio

message: "Βούδδας" is attested in Classical sources, so in theory we could say Buddismus/Buddistica. I kow a lot of Neo-Latinists spell it with the h anyway.
For Bahá'í, I would suggest Religio Bahāīa, as it looks nicely adjectival that way, and corresponds pretty well phonetically with the Arabic name. --Iustinus 05:32 oct 3, 2005 (UTC)

message: Dear Iustinus,
I agree about Buddistica being right, but latin sources citing Buddhism are not very usual, and as the only one I have (an extremely rare book) says "Buddhistica" with the 'h', I decided to go for the argument of autority since I'm in no position to assert anything, being new to latin. If "Buddistica" is the classical way to write it, anyone is welcome to change the article.
Also, about Bahá'í, I'm thankful for the suggestion! I was undecided, but your suggestion seems great.
Iosephus Porcarius 14:04 oct 3, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhistica, Buddistica, Bahāīa 

message: Has sententias delevi --
* Cicero censebat vocabulum a relegendo unde, dum maturi patribus ecclesiae dicebant e "religare" unde. 
-- quia
* (a) oportet notas celatas Latine scribere (multis Vicipaedianis Anglice non loquentibus): semper si tales notas Anglice scriptas reperio, removeo
* (b) sententiam Latinam non intellego. Fortasse scriptori oportet verbum "unde" in lexico quaerere?
-- atque addo haec --
* (c) si Cicero aliquid de origine verbo dixerit, utile erit locum citare
* (d) si "maturi patribus" (patres?) aliquid dixerint, utile erit nomina et locos citare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:56, 6 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Video. Gratias ago. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:55, 6 Decembris 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  De etymologia
Disputatio:Las Vegas

message: Some previous discussion at my talk page: Disputatio Usoris:Iustinus/Archive#Las Vegas?
Possibilities:
#Campi recommended by Egger. On the other hand, having a city named "Fields" could be very confusing. Stephanus Berard has suggested to me that this problem could be alleviated by saying Campi Nivatenses.
#Prata perhaps more accurate. Apparently the city got its name because the early Spanish explorers found a patch of grassland in the middle of the desert, and were impressed by this anomaly. So Vegas may actually mean "prairies" rather than "fields."
#Domina Nostra Dolorum Pratorum Magnorum (or Camporum Magnorum) would be the word-for-word translation of the original full name, viz. Nuestra Señora de los Dolores de Las Vegas Grandes. But  I can't see a city being called "Our Lady" of anything in Latin.
#Campi Magni/Prata Magna might be a viable compromise.
#Vegae. I've been increasingly favoring this option. It's not a real Latin word, but it seems likely to me that if the Romans had known Vegas they would probably have just called it by that name. Certainly they had no qualm about borrowing city names like Blattomagus (Celtic for "field of flowers") or Athenae (Greek for "City of Minerva") without translating. --Iustinus 02:18 oct 11, 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What the heck do we call this city in Latin?

message: Shouldn't it be Campi, Nivatae and Locus in Nivata? --Roland2 14:54, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  —Myces Tiberinus 16:53, 4 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Tene in animo, Campi, Nivatae de formula est. So if you want to change it, there are others that will need changes (but I should add, I conveniently put in the Ablative of the state in the formula, so it should be an easy change if that's what you want.) For the reasoning behind Campi, Nivatae vide Disputatio:Memphis_Tennesiae. Sinister Petrus 23:06, 1 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Campi, Nivitae'' and ''Locus in Nivita''
Disputatio:Mississippius

message: Usque hoc dicere melius non possum: aquam e maximis superficiebus conlingens bene mihi non sentit. 
I could not for the life of me come up with a better way to say that Ol' Man River has the largest drainage area in the United States. My compromise (and I hope I did this right) was to say aquam e maximis superficiebus conligens. Something about this doesn't feel good to me, but it was the best I could come up with at the time. --Sinister Petrus 04:27 oct 12, 2005 (UTC)

message: Cur vitat Vicipaedia lemma Flumen Mississippiense? IacobusAmor 12:10, 16 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vitatne? Nomen credo aptius esse Flumen Mississipanum (Mississipanus-a-um adiectivum secundum Traupman). Certe hoc flumen saepe ripas suas superfluit ut nomen fluvius minus aptum sit. --Rafaelgarcia 17:33, 19 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nomen fluminis ipsius (e fontibus pluribus recentius in interrete missis) "Mississippius" est. Ergo locutionem "Flumen Mississippiense" vito, quia, pace Francisco Glass, hic non habemus "flumen ad Mississippium pertinens", sed "Mississippium" ipsum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 30 Decembris 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lemma
Disputatio:Spatitempus

message: I don't know that spatium quattuor dimensionum is the best translation for "spacetime." I saw this title and assumed we were talking about four spatial dimensions. --Iustinus 21:14 oct 21, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not the obvious spatium-tempus? --Mafrius 03:14 oct 22, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :It wouldn't be 'spatium-tempus' but 'spatiotempus'.  In Greek it seems to be χωροχρόνος / χωρόχρονος.  Why not chōrochronus ?  (Still, inventing words shouldnt be something we should be doing here; it conflicts with the rule no original research. Probably better just to use ordinary words and say continuum spatii et temporis, which incidentally is what Albert Einstein called it.) —Myces Tiberinus 08:28 oct 24, 2005 (UTC)
Spatium-tempus horribile est auditu. Praeterea verbum spatii in lingua Latina et ad directiones et ad tempus pertinet. Tamen concedo nomen spatium 4 dimensionum plura significare, nam et alia spatia 4 dimensionum exstant sicut e. g. RxRxRxR.  
W. Bohmhammel 10 Kal Nov. 2005

text: :Permaxime consentio Mycae. Continuum spatii et temporis sit rectum.--Ioscius 16:03, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Not being a physicist, maybe I should keep off but ... To my understanding, spacetime (or space-time) and Raumzeit are so-called dvandva-composita that, in a way of speaking, abbreviate the underlying meaning "space & time". Now, the Latin way of expressing a dvandva-compositum is spatium et tempus (cf. tres et viginti = 23 qua 3 + 20) or spatio-tempus (à la Lexicon Finnico-Latinum). Maybe the "res" should be renamed as Spatio-tempus, which would mesh with French Espace-temps, Castilian Espacio-tiempo, Catalan Espai-temps? --Neander 15:23, 25 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
--- or Continuum spatio-temporale? --Neander 15:28, 25 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

text: Secundum :en:Spacetime continuum, "spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single construct called the spacetime continuum."—Ergo, spacetime et spacetime continuum evidenter sunt notiones distinctissimae, nam spacetime est mathematicum continui exemplar, et continuum est res ipsa. IacobusAmor 15:40, 25 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: : Ita vero. Sed placentne ipsi termini, spatio-tempus et continuum spatio-temporale? --Neander 16:24, 25 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Mihi placent! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:51, 29 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
Nec spatium-tempus aut spatio-tempus, sed spatiotemporius vel spatiotemporium. Nam rādīx verbī tempor- est.

text: The objections above are totally right. The page name at present "spatium quattuor dimensionum" is totally wrong. Space is three dimensional. Time is not a spatial dimension.Rafael--94.100.23.2 07:04, 26 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

message: Adiectivum “spatitemporale” mihi videtur esse salubrius quam “spatio-temporale”. Quae est vestra sententia? --Grufo (disputatio) 15:48, 29 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Pagina ad “Spatitempus” (cum fonte) movi. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:33, 22 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Die 29 Ianuarii 2024 — Estne haec pagina ad “[[Continuum spatitemporale]]” movenda?
Disputatio:Olympia (certamina)

message: Paginam moturus longam causarum expositionem scripseram, quae proh dolor longior erat quam quae a Vicipaedia servaretur. Id de causa hic repeto:
replies: text: Romani solebant hos "ludos" vel "Olympica certamina" (e.g. Plaut. Men. 2.3.59) vel "Olympia -orum" (e.g. Cic. Div. 2.70.144) nominare. Horatius, sane, metri causa ponit "Olympiorum ludicrum", sed nos oratione soluta scribere solemus, et praeterea nonnulla ligamina in Olympia (certamina) iam feceram. --Iustinus 19:55 nov 5, 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :Care Jchthys, titulus commentarii a nomine Olympia ad nomen Olympica mutavisti. Unde hoc nomen substantivum, Olympica? Secundum Cassell's Latin Dictionary (1968): "Ŏlympia -ōrum, n. the Olympic games : Cic." Secundum White Latin Dictionary (1938): "Olympĭa, -ōrum, n. (sc. certamina or sacra) The Olympic games (held every four years at Olympia)." IacobusAmor 00:06, 21 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagina Mota

message: Ante legendum vide hunc. Iustinus fontem bonum habet. Mihi nomisma esse melior quam medalia videtur. Utro verbo uti debemus? Sinister Petrus 03:59, 20 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medalia an Nomismata?
Disputatio:Georgius Gulielmus Fridericus Hegel

message: Quid hoc sibi vult?
 quam arbitur unam existentiam non cognosceri
Insunt errores, quos autem corrigere non possum nisi noscam quae vis sententiae sit. --Iustinus 17:01, 10 Novembris 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interroganda

message: De: Georgius Guilielmus Fridericus Hegel. Non Guilelmus? IacobusAmor 12:46, 11 Septembris 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Fridericus Schillerus

message: Ignosce, sed postquam cum indicativi perfecto construi solet. Praeterea disciplina academica de legibus eqs. in plurali appellari solet. W. B. 3 Idus Nov. MMV
replies: text: Bene, secundum Gildersleeve & Lodge; §§561-563, "postquam" saepissime (sed non semper) cum perfecto construitur. Recte igitur dicenti tibi concedo. Miror autem, quod Latinitas solet magis quam linguae vernaculae tempus plusquamperfectum diligere.

text: Quod autem ad "ius" attinet, potesne quaeso nobis auctoritatem citare? Locutionem quam proponis saltem apud L&S non invenio. Praeterea habemus locutionem "Juris Doctor" sat fixam (cum "Jurum Doctor" googlando aliquoties attestetur).

text: De "nato/natus/natu", mihi placet auctoris verbum priscum, nempe "nato" quod cum "ei" subsequenti congruatur. "Natu" bonae quidem Latinitatis etiam est, sed minus mihi placet. "Natus" sane non possumus dicere, quod coniungi cum verbo "dominus" sine dubio haberetur.

text: --Iustinus 02:32, 12 Novembris 2005 (UTC)
Quod ad ius attinet: Utrum singulari an plurali utaris, de verbo dependere videtur. Apud veteres auctores (Ciceronem, Livium eqs.) scriptum legimus e. g.: iuri studere (Cic. de leg.), iure uti, principia iuris, ius dicere, ius discere, sed: iura genti dare, condere iura eqs. (ius dare aliud quoddam significat, nempe concedere.) Inde te recte censuisse concedo. W.B. 13 Kal Dec. MMV
Summopere mihi gratulor, quod pro singulari Ducis nostri clementissimi ceterorumque academiae Jenensis tutorum gratia, provincia mihi demandata sit, in tam illustri ac splendida litterarum universitate, qualis Jenensis est, quae et vetustate sua ed magnorum virorum, qui illam nomine suo illustrarunt, fama et gloria prae aliis excellit, historiam publice docendi. Quid mihi potest esse optabilius atque gloriosius, quam ordini adscribi amplissimo tot tantorumque doctissimorum virorum, qui non solum de doctrinarum studiis immortaliter meriti sunt, sed quorum laus et fama totam pervagatur, non dicam Germaniam, sed Europam? Quum mihi vero exploratum sit, impetrata solummodo Magistri artium dignitate, ad honorificentissimum illud Academiae consortium adspirare posse, amplissimum illius Doctorum ordinem oro atque obtestor, ut mihi illum honoris academici gradum tribuere, haud dedignetur. Nec vero etiam deero, si quod aliud exigatur documentum, quo me ab academicae vitae genere haud alienum esse rite testificer, lubentissime me illud exhibere. Datum Vimariae XXVIIIV0 Aprilis MDCCLXXXIX.

message: Herders Conversations-Lexikon. Friburgi Brisgoviae 1857, tomus 5, p. 80-83 (hic in interreti)
thread_title: Fons recensionis mense Augusto 2020

message: That was Caroline von Wolzogen (presumably)? It would be nice to be more specific. Toddcs (disputatio) 21:21, 28 Octobris 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "domnae de Wolzogen"
Disputatio:Instrumentum musicum

message: Non opportet hanc paginam nominari Instrumentum Musicale?
replies: text: Concordo--200.145.46.252 14:29, 27 Novembris 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: :Homines Aetatis Aureae cognitum nominis adiectivi musicalis, -e non habuerunt; adiectivum rectum est musicus, -a, -um. IacobusAmor 12:03, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)

message: The currently standard system of classifying instruments is that of von Hornbostel & Sachs (nearly a century old). Today I've put the "phones" in their correct order according to this system, but have left the definitions nearly unchanged, though they aren't entirely right. The rest of the article—the examples—is hence out of whack. I'll come back to it when I find time. IacobusAmor 22:45, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: The Spanish Bandurria, according to the DRAE comes from pandurium, according to my dictionary (Spes Latino-Español Español-Latino) it is pandura and according to this page, it is also pandurus. I do not know really where to check this in the sources, but, which would be the correct form?--Xaverius 09:17, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verbum aequipollens Anglicum est bandore. Forma recta Latina pandura videtur. Ait OED: "The Romanic forms show much phonetic perversion: Sp. bandurria, bandola, Pg. bandurra, Fr. mandore, formerly mandole, It. mandola, pandora, pandura; all repr[esenting]. L. pandūra, pandūrium. . . . A musical instrument resembling a guitar or lute, with three, four, or six wire strings, used as a bass to the cittern." IacobusAmor 13:23, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: :Optime. Gratias ago!--Xaverius 14:47, 16 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pandura v Pandurus

message: Care 88.77.95.118, habes attestationes huius vocis? IacobusAmor 12:03, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ampla violina

message: The list of musical instruments in the text of the article may initially have been intended to serve as a checklist to assist further work, but adding to the list now is a pointless exercise, much as it would be to list all plant species in a single article. The world offers us thousands of named musical instruments, and the listing-function properly belongs in categories, except perhaps at the lowest level of classification (for example, all the known kinds of concussed stones might profitably be listed in an article on lithophones). Also, care ‎82.198.57.17, it would help to make footnotes showing your attestations of novelties like hiphopicus and such. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:51, 17 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless listing
Disputatio:Titus Livius

message: Mihi videtur carere duobus punctis ante verbum " orator"-- 16:29, 28 Novembris 2005 82.121.123.120
replies: text: Quid?--Ioshus (disp) 15:06, 5 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

message: dicivit: Quaero ne Livii cognomen Patavinus sit. Sciebam "Patavinum" eius originem indicare et non summ cognomen esse. Quintilianus in his operibus literaris eius patavinitatem vituperabat, quia rusticitatem linguisticam signum erat. Credo rectius cognomen "Patavinum" tollere.
P. Vergilius Hadrianus   [07/04/07   13:45 italica hora scilicet] (IP address; 87.20.94.166)
How do you think?
--Aphaea 17:04, 10 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Consentio. Movebo ad Titus Livius (sine abbreviatione, ut norma est Vicipaediae) si nemo renuit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:47, 23 Maii 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plane assentior. Porro censeo: Cum Patavinus non sit pars nominis, haec vox etiam in prima sententia delenda est, ut tautologia Patavinus ... Patavii natus vitetur. --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:41, 26 Maii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: :Recte mones. Id heri vidi, sed nihil feci! Verbum deleo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:28, 26 Maii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Gothlandia

message: Credo " insulam" melius convenire in accusativo casu .
thread_title: in accusativo casu

message: The image  says "Gottlandia". The map has a Latin name, so maybe "Gottlandia" is also valid? --Rolandus 13:58, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, Gothia seems to be most common (Hofmann and Graesse list it first) so I will move there with Gottlandia as another variant. Harrissimo 14:17, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).
thread_title: Gottlandia
Disputatio Formulae:Systema solarae nostra

message: Credo "solare" vice "solarae" dici

message: Is "Systema solarae nostra" correct grammar?
ALso, can someone translate the last sentence?  141.158.62.153 18:15, 28 Novembris 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. --Freiberg 19:50, 28 Novembris 2005 (UTC)
solaris, -is, -i, -em, -i eqs.: tertia declinatio (mixta); systema, -matis, n; inde: nostrum.
Redirect quaeso formulam.
Quae sententia convertenda erat? Illam in fine formulae nunc reddidi Latine. W. B. 4 Kal. Dec. 2005
thread_title:  Grammar
Disputatio:Nicolaus Cazantzaces

message: Quid significat " momen " ? "Nomen " ?

message: This is on the queue Mycēs set up for the Pagina Mensis. 
Suggestions: It would be really nice to get a liber picture of the man, rather than of his grave ;)
thread_title: Pagina Mensis

message: usor:201.42.38.132, without any explanation, made this pagea redirect to Nikolaos Kazantzakis, where he put up only a modified version of the introduction of this article. One can argue about the spelling (I for one prefer to use the system the Romans used to spell Greek, phonetic changes notwithstanding), but given the large amount of text that was unilaterally deleted whole-sale, this could practically be considered vandalism. Of course I am biased, because this article was my work, but I think I am right to be irritated. --Iustinus 22:26, 23 Martii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was irritated and it wasn't even my work. I hadn't realized the article already existed, though, or I'd have done the redirects for you. Also concur about translit, we should use their method not anything affected by modern orthographical practices.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:57, 23 Martii 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikolaos Kazantzakis  

message: In graeco hodierno "mp" est notatio litterae "b"( e.g mpar=bar). Scribamusne nomen "Alixis Zorba", vice "Alixis Zormpas"--Marc mage 21:20, 28 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Et Romani, pronuntiatione differenti, transscripserunt secundum alphabetum Graecum, non? sic 'e' ad 'η' et post 'η' in 'i' vertit; eodem modo, litterae 'φ, β' non melius scribuntur ut 'f, v,' sed 'ph, b.' (Hae mutationes aevo Romano acciderunt, nisi fallor.) Solum distulerunt Romani in diphthongis alienis 'ει, ου' scribendis, quae semper 'i, u' scripserunt. (...Immo, nonnumquam 'ει' ante vocales ut 'e' scripta est.)   —Myces Tiberinus 13:27, 29 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translitteratio 

message: Tentatio Ultima Christi
Ultima Tentatione Christi
Ultima Temptatio (Christi)
thread_title:  Tres nomina?
Disputatio:Feles

message: Cur maumant catti cattaeque?  Scisne?  --jasonc65
replies: text: Cur? Cur non? Quid ni? Sed placet cum felibus colloqui.

text: "maumare" est bonum novicium.

text: --Iustinus 18:16, 3 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
Pantherae felire dicuntur. Etiamne feles? W. B. / 3 Nonas Dec. 2005

text: Non primus hoc proponis. Sed paene certus eram locum classicum exstare in quo felire dicitur pardarum marum catulientium esse, sed hic locus si exstat non est De Naturis Animantium --Iustinus 01:44, 4 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

message: Fortasse "maumari" deponens potest esse, sicut canum "baubari".  --jasonc65
replies: text: Bene mones. --Iustinus 17:54, 31 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ambas ambobus figuras vidi.--Ioscius (disp) 23:43, 22 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  baubari, maumari. 

message: Quid significat hoc verbum rorrum?  Idem quod rugitum, ut Anglice dicunt roar?  Sed iam habemus rugitum ... et hae feles non rugiunt... —Mucius Tever (disputatio) 02:05, 23 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Salve Mucius. Norstedt Sueticum-Latinum dictionarium (editionis recentissimae) dicit pro roar "mugire" et "rugire". Norstedt Latinum-Sueticum dictionarium (etiam editionis recentissimae) non dicit de "mugire", "rugire", "rugitum", nec "rorrum". Tum fortasse "rorrum" aut moderne creatum est, aut scriptoris huius commentationis creatum est, aut lapse calami verbi in casu genetivo pluralis. Sed habemus "ros" (-is, m), dewdrop Anglice.

text: Donatello (disputatio) 13:25, 23 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: :Usuarius sine nomine "rorrum" addidit in hac recensione.  Censeo id delendum esse, nisi fontem possumus proferre.  —Mucius Tever (disputatio) 14:51, 24 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Sententia aliqua vitia habere videtur. Censeo delere oportet. -- Donatello (disputatio) 17:02, 24 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  "felitionem vel maumationem, rorrum, sibilum, rugitum" 

message: Tribuimusne felem generatim generi masculino aut feminino? Modo sic modo sic mihi quidem, ut sum scrupulosus, displicet. Sed suadeo ad femininum. Utcumque erit, nonnulla rescribenda fore videntur. --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:39, 6 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Feminino, certe. Nescio qua de causa commune genus iam in prima paginae versione ei ascriptum est, nam omnes haec lexica dicunt ea feminini generis esse. Lesgles (disputatio) 07:42, 7 Iulii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  de generibus felium
Disputatio:Mythologia

message: Est index,at non est articulus. [Scripsit scriptor ignotus.]

message: Thanks, Neander, for the welcome improvements in the text. In the bibliography, however, your ministrations have obliterated a distinction cultivated in academic editing over here:
replies: text: A: Author. Year. Title. Title.

text: B: Author. Year. Title. In Title.
In A, the italicized thing is a serial publication (most probably a journal or a newspaper); in B, the italicized thing is a one-off (most probably a book). Such a quantity of information conveyed in a mere preposition! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:32, 27 Maii 2015 (UTC)

text: I have a feeling that even the people over there are not unanimous on this: some make that distinction, some don't. I never saw the point in it myself. The nature of the italicized thing is evident in any case from other compulsory and distinctive details (editor and place of publication if it's a book; volume number if it's a journal; precise date if it's a newspaper). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:08, 27 Maii 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: : Iacobe, I give you that my changes in the bibliography section were idle chores. Indeed, there's nothing wrong in B, though I am scarcely alone in thinking that the A vs B distinction isn't too important. I'd point out though, in the wake of Andrew, that there's no such uniformity in actual editing practices in academic journals, not even over there. Witness e.g. Language, published by the Linguistic Society of America. And after all, Vicipaedia is scarcely bound to cling to prescriptions issued in the hope of being observed in anglophone writing. But of course this doesn't justify those changes I made.  Neander (disputatio) 17:45, 27 Maii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's changes
Disputatio Formulae:Sanctus-stipula

message: (Sorry for the English; I'm not fluent enough to write this in Latin.) I've renamed this from {{Sancti-stipula}} to {{Sanctus-stipula}}, because it is my understanding that the singular form is more appropriate.  Furthermore, it wasn't widely used enough that it seemed like a big deal. --Alynna Kasmira 08:19, 24 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  renamed
Disputatio:Gottinga

message: Moved from page to here:
[haec scripsit Iulia. visita paginam http://chat.yle.fi/yleradio1/latini/index.php!]
(CONTINUABITUR!)
--Roland2 15:05, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

message: Moueo hanc paginam ad 'Gottinga', quam forma in litteratura scientifica positus est. Vide e.g. illum et multi alii (quaere 'Gottingensis', non 'Gottinga', quam 'Gottinga' in Italiana est verbum). Pantocrator 02:08, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it got confused with Goetinga = Guttingen. IacobusAmor 04:30, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen