lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Religio Graeca

message: Haec pagina (sicut hodie stat) easdem fere res recitat quas et pagina Mythologia Graeca. Sed re vera "religio" alias res debet dicere, et praecipue quomodo Graeci de rebus sacris credebant et agebant. Igitur magnam partem rerum quas hic reperio cum "Mythologia Graeca" contribuere volo, minorem partem rescribere. An quis disputare vult? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:47, 2 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio. Puto :en:Ancient Greek religion bonum exemplum esse; forsitan possimus solum summarium breve hic includere (cum nexo ad Mythologia Graeca). Lesgles (disputatio) 17:51, 4 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

text: Consentio de rescribere (radice/radicale). Enim 'Be Bold' /ausus fi. Etiam velim adiuvare. Nam, non coniungamus (merge)utrumque quod  mythologia est res fabula et religio sicut tua dicta est res sacris credentium , ritualisque etc.Jondel (disputatio) 11:14, 5 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagina recensenda? 

message: Fiderum, quamvis forma rationi grammaticae congruens sit, vix umquam in usu fuit, nam fides singulare tantum fuit et remanere debet. Constat Romanos etiam opinione usos esse, cum de fide dis habenda loquebantur, sicut Cicero disserens de natura deorum 3.11 
"Grave etiam argumentum tibi videbatur, quod opinio de dis inmortalibus et omnium esset et cottidie cresceret." Neander (disputatio) 19:59, 8 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratias tibi pro admonitione. Ergo in hac locutione (ex en:Judaism), opiniones pro faiths scribere debemus?—"Some Renewal Jews . . . borrow freely and openly from Buddhism, Sufism, Native American religion, and other faiths." Just checking! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:37, 8 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ibi neque "fides" neque "opiniones" sed "religiones" (dico ego). In sententia Anglica quam citas, faiths loco religions ad repetitionem evitandam introducitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:53, 8 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Ita vero. Equidem sententiam ab Iacobo prolatam ita Latine reddiderim: "Aliquot Iudaei redinduti ... libere et aperte ritùs petunt ab alienis religionibus, sicut a Buddhismo aut a Sufismo aut a caerimoniis Indorum Americanorum." Quin etiam ita: "... libere et aperte alienas imitantur religiones, sicut  Buddhismum aut Sufismum aut caerimonias Indorum Americanorum." Neander (disputatio) 06:57, 9 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Similiter musicae, -arum (figura pluralis) annon? Exempli gratia, vide "the different Celtic musics have much in common" (en:Celtic music). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:35, 9 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Equidem "non" responderim, nam musica,-ae singulare tantum est, musica,-orum autem plurale tantum (sensu quidem singulari aut non numerabili); itaque *musicae,-arum non dicitur. Quod ad Angl. musics attinet, ut sensum et colorem rectum intellegam, scire velim, quo alio modo Anglice dicas istam quam protulisti sententiam. An agitur de tam tenui discrimine, quod paraphrasi verti non possit? Neander (disputatio) 21:34, 9 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Fiderum''?
Disputatio:Tramen

message: Ave. Habemus nomen latinum huic vehiculo: tramen, contra autem graece derivatus "hamaxostichus". Ambo etiam moderne creati sunt. Quid censetur vobis de nomine commentationis? -- Donatello (disputatio) 09:26, 5 Decembris 2013 (UTC).
replies: text: Magis mihi placet tramen, qui Latinius videtur, et qui praeterea in lexico Russico primo datur (et Traupman solum tramen dat). Lesgles (disputatio) 20:54, 5 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen commentationis 

message: Ut in superioribus disputationibus et in ipsa pagina rei demonstratur, utrumque verbum recentioris est originis. Sed, si verbum traminis, ut probatur, hamaxosticho antiquius est necnon magis Latinum videtur, non est cur non transferantur omnes res ad paginam traminis. Ita opinor.186.195.44.2 13:37, 19 Martii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paginam transferamus oportet 

message: Primum documentum vocis hamaxostichi, quod invenire potui, est liber, qui Pinoculus inscribitur et anno 1950 editus esse videtur: https://books.google.at/books?id=20s_AAAAIAAJ&q=hamaxosticho&dq=hamaxosticho&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje_JHPwY_nAhUSIMUKHTl5CVYQ6AEwBHoECAQQAQ
Sed cum hamaxostichus iam compluribus annis ante inventus sit, nescio cur non vox vetustior inventa sit. Num nemo Latine de inventione hamaxostichi scripsit? Aliquisne scriptum de eius inventione invenire potest? Flo.bayer (disputatio) 11:16, 19 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Smith et Hall (1870) dicunt "ordo vehiculorum vaporibus motorum", sed hac circumlocutione vix uti possumus... Lesgles (disputatio) 04:10, 20 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  De fonte vocis
Disputatio:Commutatio neolithica

message: Licet sermones hodierni hoc utuntur equidem censeo esse fortior haec notio "rerum novarum" ad illam mutationem consuetudinum atque morum hominum describendam .. cui ideo Latine verbum commutationis vel fortasse transmissionis substituere propono. Autokrator (disputatio) 21:08, 5 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Consentio, mi Autokrator. Verba "Res novae" imposui quia V. G. Childe, qui Neolithic Revolution primus "invenit", fuit historicus Marxista et fortasse similitudinem indicare voluit cum revolutionibus recentissimis ... Alii autem (vide mox bibliographiam) verba mitiora praeferunt, Neolithisierung, Neolithic transition etc. "Commutatio" amo. An quis alius opinionem addere vult? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 6 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

message: Commutatio Neolithica aut neolithica - qua littera scribere oportet? --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:39, 21 Maii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  C. N... aut C. n...?
Disputatio:Articulus

message: Non video formam q.e. "articulum" in libro notà indicato. Utcumque est, articulus esse debet. Neander (disputatio) 14:47, 8 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Optime. Recte dicis Neander. Adhunc movebo. Libro, retinamus sicut fons.Jondel (disputatio) 14:37, 10 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

message: Ut mihi videtur, artus est pars membri continentis et os et articulos. Utcumque erit - neque sum medicus neque medicinalia legere soleo - fortasse expediat, si quis vestrum, experti ut estis, de ea re certiores nos faciat. --Bavarese (disputatio) 16:25, 2 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  de artubus et articulis
Disputatio:I heard a fly buzz

message: I mark this "vicificanda", as I always do in such cases, because it includes the whole text of a work (a poem): this isn't Vicipaedia policy. If the text were a bit longer, commenting on at least the majority of the lines of the poem, I think it would be fine ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:12, 9 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicificanda
Disputatio MediaWiki:Common.js

message: Hello, I propose to enable the tool created by Magnus Manske (creator of MediaWiki) to provide results from other languages and Commons (via Wikidata) when a page doesn't exist here: links are added to Special:Search and noarticletext. This helps to encourage translation and to make readers use your wiki more, because they can be sure to find something even if it's not local (rather than searching directly on the biggest wiki). The Italian and Polish Wikipedias, among others already enabled it by default.
Examples:   . More information: Magnus blog.
How to: just add the following line at the end of Common.js.
// Results from Wikidata
// 
if ( mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalSpecialPageName' ) === 'Search' ||  ( mw.config.get( 'wgArticleId' ) === 0 && mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalSpecialPageName' ) === false ) ) {
	importScriptURI("//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Wdsearch.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript");
}
--Nemo ~~~~~ (comments, translations and last instructions)
replies: text: I've made this addition -- seems like a Very Good Idea, especially since we have a lot of pages with no equivalents on other wikipedias.

text: Anyone who understands the matter better, pleasee check that I have done the right thing!

text: What I can't do is to correct the formatting on this page. I must be missing something simple. ~~~~
replies: text: : It was my fault, unclosed pre. Nice to see Latin in the avant-garde. :) --Nemo bis (disputatio) 10:50, 14 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give search results even when page doesn't exist 

message: Hi! I want to let you know that in near future badges will be deployed on Wikidata and the Wikipedias. They help us with displaying the good and featured article icons next to the sitelinks and will replace the javascript hack which is used at the moment together with the Link GA and Link FA templates. To avoid an overlap where the current system and the new feature conflict, I will add a minor fix to your Common.js which adds the class names to the interwiki links. This is part of my task as a global edit interface editor for the Wikidata team. Thanks, Bene* (disputatio) 19:22, 11 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, just go ahead! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:31, 11 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announced JavaScript change for badges implementation
Disputatio Categoriae:Anna Bolena

message: I'm not sure that categories for royal consorts are going to be necessary. How many pages will they ever contain? Wouldn't all the relevant pages be linked on her biography page anyway? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 13 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
I suppose many of them would be linked in her article. I was replicating , which is a category on English Wikipedia. If anyone thinks it is not a helpful category on Latin Wikipedia, I have no objections to it being removed. Boleyn (disputatio) 14:06, 13 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait and see: since you are working in this area, we may well end up with enough pages to justify it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:27, 13 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :No, it's fine, we have lots already. Creating it was a good idea! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:36, 13 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incertus sum
Disputatio:Ioanna Greia

message: If the family name was "Greia" in Latin, we need to cite a source for that name.
I think it's too much of a stretch to categorise her as a Tudor, isn't it? The surname Grey (or Greia) seems to tell us otherwise. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 13 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
I understand the point about the Tudor category. Her grandmother was Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII. Although I wouldn't normally class the granddaughter of a Tudor as a Tudor, Jane Grey is counted among the Tudor monarchs, along with her cousins who bore the surname. She is in the 'House of Tudor' category on English Wikipedia, and her notability is through her place in the Tudor family.
As for whether 'Greia' is the Latin version of her surname, I simply followed the already-created redlink in Eduardus VI's article, I don't know if it is the best translation. Boleyn (disputatio) 14:14, 13 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I wondered if that was it. The moment of creating a page is the moment when we need to ask "Is this a valid name or not?" It's quite likely to be OK. We could try checking "Ioanna Greia" on Google and take it from there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:13, 13 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

text: OK, I got her. I found in Latin historical works some examples of "Johanna Greia", which we would normally spell "Ioanna Greia", so no problem. I'll add a footnote. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 13 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen + familia
Disputatio:Basilius (imperator Trapezuntinus)

message: Salvete! Istam supra scriptam sententiam sequentia nomina liberorum casu nominativo expressa haud concinne mi videntur sonare. Fortasse ex ea nati sunt? - Bavarese (disputatio) 00:08, 14 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Melius, pro certo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:17, 14 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   Ex ea genuit ...
Disputatio:Margarita Andegavensis

message: I think "Aniouae" was maybe invented ... Luckily I've seen the Latin name of Anjou before. It looks odd, but believe me :)
The reference in the bibliography was to a print-on-demand book, which may or may not exist. ("Kessinger" is the clue.) It's better to cite the real original edition if we can. As it turns out, there's also an old reprint available free at archive.org. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:30, 14 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen; bibliographia
Disputatio:Somnium aedium rubrarum

message: Is it ok that the name of the page is in Chinese, not in Latin? I think that the page should be renamed to Somnium aedium rubrarum Elvonudinium (disputatio) 04:28, 19 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's our rule: we avoid making up titles. If any reliable source has published a Latin version of the title, we can use it. Otheriwse we use the best available original title, and then offer a translation of it. We give redirects from other likely versions.

text: After the pagename and first sentence, in the body of the article editors choose the most readable and most appropriate method for referring to the book. This may often be a Latin translation of the title. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:30, 10 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen paginae
Disputatio:AK-47

message: Greetings. Please help with the word "assault rifle" in Latin if you can. At the moment I have only written "automatic firearm" in the article; arma automatica. What do you think of this name? It can be good to mention that AK-47 is an assault rifle, instead of just an automatic firearm.
Donatello (disputatio) 21:23, 19 Decembris 2013 (UTC).
thread_title:  "Assault rifle" in Latin
Disputatio:Mythologia Graeca

message: I'm not sure whether the question of how to name Greek gods on Vicipaedia has been satisfactorily resolved. The Romans of course usually used their native equivalents, but in several of our pages, we use Latin transliterations of the Greek, perhaps because as moderns, we "know better" about the differences between the mythologies. Which is all fine, but there are still several problems:
# Some, but not all of the names seem to be attested in classical Latin: Lewis & Short has entries for Hera, Apollo, Artemis, Ares, Hermes (for a Hermes pillar), and Dionysus, but not for Zeus, Poseidon, Demeter, Athena, Aphrodite, Hephaestus, or Hestia.
# It's not clear how we would decline some of the Greek forms, especially Zeus (see Disputatio:Zeus)
So if we want to say, e.g. "about Zeus", I imagine we have a choice among "de Iove", "de Zeo(?)", "de Dio(?)" "de Zeus", "de Ζεύς"... Or maybe "de Iove Graeco". Thoughts? Lesgles (disputatio) 21:44, 21 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nominibus deorum
Disputatio:Westmonasterium

message: I think the move was a good idea (it agrees with the official Latin name of the diocese, for example) but I wouldn't consider a general bilingual dictionary an ideal source for a place name with a long history. No problem, I'll look for a couple of better sources. I'm sure I have some at hand. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 23 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right, Andrew. An old Latin text would make a better source. I surmise that both <V> and <W> are attested in old texts. The bilingual dictionaly quoted by me might be useful, though, in guiding the choice. Neander (disputatio) 10:23, 23 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :I moved back again. "W" is much more often used in local medieval and early modern sources of all kinds: similarly with many other Latin names of English places and people. The category was never moved to match the page, so it remains where it was. It's true, though, that the Catholic diocese, established in the 19th century, uses "V", so our category :Categoria:Archidioecesis Vestmonasteriensis and the article about the cathedral retain the "V" spelling. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:16, 12 Februarii 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  De pagina mota, W > V
Disputatio:Gjesdal

message: :Gjesdal commune in Norvegia est.
replies: text: Numerus incolarum 11 102 est.

text: Area communis 617,54 chiliometrorum quadratorum est.

text: Gjesdal in regione Rogaland est.

text: Ålgård caput communis maximum oppidumque est.

text: Dialectos communi jærsk est.

text: Demarchus communis Frode Fjeldsbø est.

text: Factio politica eius "factio laboratum" est.

text: Gjesdal fines cum Sandnes, Bjerkreim, Time Forsandque habet.
Ta-daa! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:23, 1 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhythmus orationis solutae
Disputatio:Robotor humaniformis

message: Salve. Videri potest non graviter hanc commentationem habere. Fortasse melius est vocabulum "robotor humaniformis" vel "robotor humaniformus" in dictionariis sunt. Haec verba solum robotum cum corpore hominis simile explicant. Alioquin haec verba in aliis commentationibus dici possunt, sicut in "Asimo", "Nao", et "Androide/Gynoide". In certis rebus complicare non oportes. Quid censetur vobis?
Donatello (disputatio) 02:20, 3 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: Mihi quidem praestare videtur hanc rem cum Androides contribuere. Neander (disputatio) 09:15, 21 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :Sed "android" (Hispanice androide, Theodisce Androide) et "humanoid robot" (Hispanice robot humanoide, Theodisce humanoider Roboter) non sunt eadem res. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:30, 21 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :: Sed in vicipaedia Anglica, commentatio ad quam deducit nexus quo uteris, asseverationem tuam refutare videtur: "An android is a humanoid robot or other artificial being." Neander (disputatio) 15:24, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Sic! Omnes androides sunt robota humaniformia (vel alia entia artificiosa), sed non omnia robota humaniformia sunt androides. Similiter, omnia quadrata sunt rectangula, sed non omnia rectangula sunt quadrata. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:47, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: :::: Sunt, qui inter robota humaniformia et androides distinguant; etiam sunt, qui has appellationes ad idem genus referri putent. Nihilo minus, nunc quidem facile concedo praestare inter humaniformia (humanoides) et androides differentiam habere, et quidem ita, ut illa ad operandi facultatem referantur (cum dexteritate quadam homini simili se gerant), hi praeterea ad aestheticam similitudinem hominis pertineant. Neander (disputatio) 10:38, 24 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  De commentatione hac habere
Disputatio:Filioque

message: Amice, haereo de flexione vocabuli protestans(?), num sit dicendum cum protestantibus? Quid tibi videtur? - Bavarese (disputatio) 21:33, 7 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Mihi quoque miranti, cum quadam confusione mentis captus essem, interrete perscrutanti et vox protestantus, quam participii distinguendi causa adhibitam esse arbitror, et protestans indicatae sunt. Tabulis nostris autem perspectis ibi verbum Protestantis iam in usu esse apparet. Gratias ago de mendo emendando! Autokrator (disputatio) 21:55, 7 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  cum protestantis?
Disputatio:Reunio

message: Neander recte monuit: fontem nominis Latini non habuimus. Iam autem repperi et citavi! An oportet rursus ad titulum "Reunio" movere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 8 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Macte strenuitate, Andrea! De adiectivo "Reunionensi" haud tamen satis liquet, utrum in nominativo "Reunio" an "Reunion" dici debeat (scilicet sine accentu acuto). Equidem hanc formam (Reunion) illi (Reunio) ipse praetulerim, quod (1) quam minime ab archetypo distat, (2) facilius nomen alienum (ut sane est) cognoscitur, cum ex forma "reunio" in mentem veniat vocabulum tamquam e "re" et "unio" male compositum. Neander (disputatio) 12:51, 9 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :Mihi admodum insolitum esse videtur "Reunion" scribere, quia declinatio "-o -onis" multo saepius quam "-on -onis" adhibetur, sed, ad mentem tuam consolandam, "Reunion" scribo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 9 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Latinistae recentiores (mentibus sine dubio confusis :) rarissime verbum "reunio" casú nominativo adhibuerunt. Cito  "reunio Episcopatus Moraviensis cum Pragensi". An nomen insulae Reunionis casú nominativo reperire possumus, in dubio sum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:43, 9 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Si volumus Réunion vocabulo recentioris Latinitatis q.e. reunio convertere, non est, cur vehementer contra dicam. Mea ratio cogitandi haec erat: Réunion adventicium nomen proprium est. De Platone aut Zenone nescis, utrum in nominativo Plato an Platon, Zeno an Zenon dici debeat, itaque ambobus usi sunt homines de illis loquentes. Cum de nomine adventicio parum "acclimatizato" agitur, ut de Amazone aut Damone, Amazon aut Damon dicitur. Réunion mihi parum acclimatizatum videtur, itaque Reunion mihi magis placebat. Sed ut initio dixi, reunio a te reperta (paene) effecit, ut opinionem mutarem. Utique nolo meis "Camenationibus" ('musings') aliorum opiniones supprimere. Fortasse utramque formam praebere debemus? Neander (disputatio) 15:24, 9 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::The name of the diocese comprising the island is Dioecesis Sancti Dionysii Reunionis. Is any nominative other than Reunio possible here? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:02, 9 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::: Ergo moveatur ad "Reunio". Neander (disputatio) 19:25, 9 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine
Disputatio:Kim Gyu-sik

message: Quae sequuntur removi. Fontem, si pagina Vicipaediarum sit, oportet in summario aut in pagina disputationis citare. De vocabulario hic disputandum est: liber Ebbe Vilborg ad rem Kim Gyu-Sik non pertinet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:21, 9 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
 == Fontes ==
 === Interrete ===
 * Vicipaedia Anglica, Kim Kyu-Sik,
 Maius 2012.
 === Litterae ===
 * Ebbe Vilborg, Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok, editio secunda, 2009.
 ** Korean independence movement et Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea translati ex hoc lexico. Verbum
 vice president non erat in hoc lexico, sed president est et 'praeses rei publicae' appellatur. Chairman 'alter a
 praeside' appellatur, sic unum potest dicere 'alter a praeside rei publicae', vice president.
replies: text: :Intellego. Iam pridem est hanc commentationem recensebam. Ea mutare egebatur. Opinor commentationem ad normam mutare volui, et oblivisci. At bene hoc removebas. :) Donatello (disputatio) 00:08, 12 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC).
replies: text: ::Intellego et ego, Donatello! Vidi editiones tuas iam diu factas, sed non sine explicatione removere volui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:29, 12 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
Disputatio:Murcianum

message: Hoc scire velim cur hac lingua omnia nomina descripta sint cum in regione Murciae tantum Hispanice loquamur. Mea sententia sensu caret, et si  valentianice dicere vultis quidni anglice, gallice, germanice, catalaunice, italice... Re vera non intelligo, mihi dicatis cur sic feceritis.
Praeterea, si quis voluerit eam linguam addere, dicat "valentianice", quia ab adiectivo rerum originem ducit. Eadem de causa dicimus "hispanice" neque "hispane".--Alfonsoz (disputatio) 20:21, 13 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bona quaestio. Pagina ab anonymo/anonymis recentius elaborata est. Fortasse alii non iam viderunt magnum pondus nominum vernacularium ... Oportet maximam partem nominum, tam Hispanicorum quam "Valentianorum", removere. Nomina Hispanica (et alia si relevant) dare oportet non hic sed in paginis de locis singulis. Si id corrigere vis, Alfonsoz, pro certo potes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:44, 13 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Curnam omnia nomina Valentianice sunt?