lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Disputatio:Expeditio Terrestris

message: For the adjective 'overland', Cassell's suggests only terrā (but only in contrast with 'by sea', and that distinction doesn't seem an apt here). Is trans terram OK? or would something else be better? IacobusAmor 14:04, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "terrestre" would be a better expression, but are you sure about "certamen" isn't a military campaign an "expeditio"? I don't recall Caesar's campaign in Gaul being called a "certamen". Wouldn't that be a contest or challenge?--Rafaelgarcia 14:19, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :That's tempting, but I have two reservations: (1) since all proelia that aren't naval engagements occurred on land, would a form of terrestris here be particular enough to denote this, and only this, campaign? (2) expeditio seems just right, but I worry about the caveat in Cassell's (emphasis added): "a military operation with lightly equipped troops," whereas in the Overland Campaign, Grant, if anything, was throwing against Lee the entire weight of the largest army he could muster. IacobusAmor 14:33, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::In L&S there are only three entries for "campaign": expeditio, aestivus, and res. Expeditio is a campaign in general used in this sense by Caesar for his actions in Gaul "tripartito milites equitesque in expeditionem misit, * Caes. B. G. 5, 10, 1; cf.: in expeditionem exercitum educere, * Cic. Div. 1" perhaps his soldiers were lightly armed, but given that it's an entire army he's leading I would doubt that; aestivus means the summer months apt for campaigning, so it is sometimes used as a synonym; likewise our all useful res. There might be a medieval term that could be found with some searching--I only wish I had the many volumes of the Glossarium Infimae Latinitatis on hand. I hear the French are slowly putting the content in an online database...

text: ::As to the objection you pose about terrestris, wouldn't the very same apply to the english name "overland campaign"? To be more specific add "Generalis Grant" or the year.--Rafaelgarcia 14:53, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: To me, trans terram suggests 'to / on the other side of the land / earth'. In the wake of Rafael, I'd suggest Expeditio terrestris. /// Cassell's seems to be alone to suggest a caveat that obviously comes from etymology [ex-ped-ire 'to set (the feet) free, release'], not from real texts. --Neander 18:24, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::OK, fixed! IacobusAmor 19:10, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Polytheismus

message: TV, delevisti hanc sententiam "Sunt autem Iudaei pagani (Anglice: Jewitch)"; :en: autem nobis docet:
replies: text: Jewitch (from the terms :en:Jew and :en:witch) or Jewish Neopaganism is a religious movement that seeks to create an :en:earth-based religion for the :en:Jewish people. It mixes principles of :en:Judaism, :en:Neopaganism and the :en:Kabbalah. Jewitches explore the origins of the Jewish religion and its ancient neighbors, the :en:Canaanites and :en:Canaanite religion, :en:Phoenicians, :en:Assyrians,:en:Babylonians, :en:Ugarit folk, and :en:Egyptians.

text: Jewitch religious groups are generally small, often linked with one another and often organized into "circles". Many of these "circles" of Jewitches are often discussion groups. Central in Jewitch philosophy is :en:The Hebrew Goddess, and the concept of :en:Shekhinah. The question of :en:Lilith in the Jewish tradition; and the :en:monotheism/:en:pantheism of Judaism.
Estne nobis evidentia has sententias esse falsas (et ergo in :en: delendas esse)? IacobusAmor 15:48, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewitches?
Disputatio:Dominus Quixotus a Manica

message: Estne Quixote aut Quijote? --Rafaelgarcia 23:46, 23 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In editione prima fuit "Quixote" (vide imaginem apud en:wiki); secundum orthographiam Hispanicam hodiernam "Quijote"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:38, 27 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

message: Cur est nomen atestatum Latinum operis redirectio ad nomen Hispanicum? In libris aliis habemus Latniam versionem ut lemma et titulo.--Xaverius 09:53, 31 Martii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: De versione latina

message: « Cervantes etiam scripsit Maurum qui Cide Hamete Benengeli (scil. Dominus ille cum naso melongenica) appellatus esset primum auctorem libri esse. Postquam is inventus fuerat, codex ex lingua Maurorum in linguam Hispanicam convertendus erat. Hoc magno cum studio factum est ad res gestas eius cognoscendas. »
Legere vita Cervantes ante scribens ita nugas. Praeterea sola interest de Quixote est ad esse primum moderni novae cum characteres psycologique evolutione super durationem opus opponitur ad novum Italian Renaissance, et Romanorum de milicia Media Aetate, praecise. Vatekor (disputatio) 21:02, 31 Martii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Me paenitet, sed commentarium tuum non intellego. Potes, si vis, scribere in lingua peregrina.--Xaverius 22:13, 31 Martii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  nugas 

message: Duae versiones Latinae nisi suffecerunt... --Iustinus (disputatio) 05:30, 30 Maii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libellus Rowan 

message: Care 5.86.126.82, formulam "Myrias|Ars" hodie delevisti, sed hic commentarius illo in indice inscribitur; vide hic. Qua pro causa, formulam restituimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 11 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Care 5.86.126.82 et nunc 94.163.55.14, auctores sine nominibus, formulam "Myrias|Ars" continenter suppressistis, sed hic commentarius illo in indice manet; videte hic. Qua pro causa, formulam iterum restituimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:54, 12 Augusti 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Myrias
Disputatio:Cerebrum

message: Puto iam habemus paginam cerebrum--Massimo Macconi 20:41, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it is linked to :en:cerebrum ... we sometimes are in this situation ... we needed a Latin page which is linked from the English page :en:brain to us. --Rolandus 20:45, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :ah ok, sorry--Massimo Macconi 20:46, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::No Massimo, don't be sorry. It's just the way this script works, it doesn't tell us if we have a particular page or not, it tells us if there is a problem. That problem could be 1) we don't have a page, 2) we have a page corresponding to 2+ english pages, 3) we have a page that isn't linked at all. --Ioscius (disp) 21:50, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::So what are we to do about this case? Classical Latin cerebrum, and our current article, seem to me to correspond more closely to English "brain". Should we change the links? Or am I wrong there? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::That would be my instinct at any rate. --Iustinus 14:25, 12 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::On the en:Cerebrum they give telencephalon as a synonym for english Cerebrum meaning forebrain.So for forebrain we should use telencephalon instead of cerebrum.--Rafaelgarcia 23:02, 10 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::A better reference is :en:Brain#Vertebrate brain regions--Rafaelgarcia 23:57, 10 Iunii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  brain 

message: Verbo cerebri, opinor, duo significationes sunt: prima est cerebrum in toto (i.e. telencephalon plus diencephalon plus mesencephalon plus metencephalon (cum cerebello) plus myelencephalon), altera invicem modo cerebrum telencephalon. Ergo, cogito, tres paginae creandae sunt: 
* Cerebrum (discretiva) 
* Cerebrum (Telencephalon) sive Cerebrum (pars) -> en:cerebrum, de:Telencephalon, es:Telencéfalo, fr:Télencéphale etc.
* Cerebrum (totum) -> en:brain, de:Gehirn, es:Cerebro, fr:Cerveau etc.
Quid vos hoc arbitramini? Andreas Raether (disputatio) 12:01, 26 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbi "Cerebrum" pagina discretiva necesse
Disputatio:Mao Zedong

message: Mao Zedong
replies: text: Yes, that's correct Pinyin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:00, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

message: Ne declinetis nomen Mao ut 'Maonis, Maoni, Maonem', &c., propterea quod radix nasali terminatione caret.
Si Mao ut Maonis declinaretur, tum haberemus 'Maonismus' pro 'Maoismus', quod esset absurdum.
Mea igitur sententia, oportet nomen Mao indeclinabile sinere. Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 20:30, 22 Septembris 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  De nomine Mao
Disputatio:Sclopetum polybolicum

message: I believe the proper term is polybolus but I'll need too look it up. --Iustinus 09:13, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicatum ab 1000 paginae Rolandi

message: Is that a correct attestation? A polybolum is a repeating ballista. So I would think, if a machine gun were to be described by comparison, one would use sclopetum polybolicum = a polybolum-like gun.--Rafaelgarcia 00:29, 27 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be worth mentioning that the Neo-Latin words for 'gun' attested in Ainsworth's dictionary are bombarda and scloppus [sic]. IacobusAmor 01:52, 27 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Indeed Latinists do not a good history with naming guns. I forget who called a handgun a manuballista!!--Rafaelgarcia 02:42, 27 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

text: :And William Whitaker defines a machine gun as simply "polybolum". Oh the lack of uniformity! CeleritasSoni 04:17, 27 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I think you are right. I'll move it to sclopetum polybolicum with polybolum as an alternative short form when I can be bothered to log in.82.36.94.228 07:32, 27 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Postquam nova pagina instituta est

message: "quod multos glandes ex ordine emittit"—Except for the gender problem (glans is feminine), the use of emittere with glandes seems to match a classical pattern, as Ainsworth, for 'to shoot an arrow, or dart', gives "Jaculor; sagittas, vel tela, emittere"; but separately we have the idea of 'to shoot off a gun', for which Ainsworth prescribes "Bombardam, vel tormentum, displodere," and Ainsworth says to render the idiom 'to shoot to death with a gun' as "Catapultae ictibus conficere." This is presumably not a handgun! IacobusAmor 12:39, 27 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the gender is wrong, why don't you correct it? I don't usually have a dictionary at hand when i write these things.82.36.94.228 22:06, 27 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: emittere
Disputatio:Annius Mela

message: Haec dicta non idem significant: Primum dicit, quod re vera ita est, secundum, quod ita esse potest. Hoc "Der Neue Pauly" loco citato dixit.--Schulz-Hameln 10:55, 28 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quod ad significationum differentiam attinet, certe recte dicis. Mutationem vero quin coniunctionis servandae causa feci, namque, ut reapse ipse affirmas, non absurdum videtur quin ... non negat dubium sed falsitatem. Equidem rem ita didici, ut quin non eligatur nisi post dicta, quae dubium negant. Sed facile concedo me grammaticae consulentem illam ipsam rem depravasse. --Neander 21:26, 28 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "''Nec dubium est''" vel "''non absurdum videtur''"?

message: Annius Mela . . . senator Romanus primo et secundo saeculo post Christum natum fuit. Anglice: 'Annius Mela . . . was a Roman senator in the first and second century after the birth of Christ'. Fortasse melius: Annius Mela . . . senator Romanus primo et secundo saeculis fuit vel fortasse etiam Annius Mela . . . fuit Romanus primi alteriusque saeculorum senator. IacobusAmor 12:06, 28 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguitas?
Disputatio:Doris Day

message: "Dorothea Day vulgo Doris Day [n. 1922] . . . est actrix Americana." Mehercule! Immo, Dorothea Day—vera Dorothea, non haec Dorothea falsa!—nata est anno 1897 et inclutissime fuit diurnista, anarchista, et Motus Opificum Catholicorum conditor! IacobusAmor 12:20, 28 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: O 85.1.45.29, utens ignote, nonne Anglicum Doris Latinum Doris significat? Unde hoc Dorothea ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:23, 25 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Magia (mystica)

message: I changed this caption, "Lapis ruber aetatis Graecae cum Herculis effigie viribus supernaturalibus praeditus", which I read as "A red stone of the Greek era with an effigy of Hercules gifted with supernatural strength." which would mean that "praeditus" is connected with "Herculis", but "Herculis" is genitive and "Praeditus" is nominative. Is "praeditus" going with "lapis"? It makes more sense for it to be with Hercules, since he was gifted with supernatural strength, as opposed to the rock being gifted with an effigy. Its quite likely theres something Im missing, I am asking not as a challenge but instead as a purely scholastic inquiry. CeleritasSoni 05:34, 30 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the subject of the article, and the purpose of the stone, it looks like the reading ought to be 'a red stone endowed with supernatural powers' (apparently, it is supposed to have an anti-choleric power).  Hercules normally has supernatural strength, after all, without magical assistance.    —Mucius Tever 13:58, 30 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Aha! Yes yes, I see it now. My catchup was more historical than grammatical, I am very pleased to hear that. I knew someone would straighten things out for me. Thanks a million! CeleritasSoni 15:02, 30 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding My Change
Disputatio:Collegium Trinitatis iuxta Dublinum

message: Nomen Latinum apud Google non reperio: fortasse "Collegium Trinitatis (Eblana)"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:58, 30 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ut hic videtur, nomen est Sacrosanctae et Individuae Trinitatis Collegium iuxta Dublinum vel Collegium Sacrosanctae et Individuae Trinitatis iuxta Dublinum. Secundum hoc, aliae universitates ibi sunt Universitas Collegium apud Dublinum et Universitas Dubliniensis. IacobusAmor 10:41, 30 Iulii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Recte iudicavisti. "Eblana, Eblanensis" interdum reperiuntur, sed multo rarius. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 21 Februarii 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomen
Disputatio:Diana

message: I removed the assertion about Stregheria and neopagans from the first paragraph.
# In the English article, the stregheria thing is marked "citation needed", and a comment on the talk page :en:Talk:Diana (mythology)#Huntress says it is based on work by :en:Charles Leland, who appears to have been a "mysterious manuscript" inventor. If I'm mistaken, please replace the info and add a reliable source! But maybe not in the first paragraph, because --
# All health to modern witches, but they are not really all that notable, are they? I mean, as compared with the state religion of the Roman Empire through hundreds of years? I'm planning to write a paragraph about more recent artists' and sculptors' use of Diana, and if there is good, sourced material backing up the neopagan claim, it could go back in towards the end, maybe. Does that make sense? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:22, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes! IacobusAmor 10:52, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I disagree that it be removed entirely. The claim is verifiable: if you read the stregheria page the source for Diana as one of the forms of the spirit is 'The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism, Shelley Rabinovitch & James Lewis, page 262, (2004).' I am not a neopagan nor do I care for their religion (being athiest), but mentioning that she is worshiped even today adds importance and color to the article. It's like writing an article on Latin on en and mentioning Living Latin and Vicipaedia.--24.183.186.151 14:36, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::A neat comparison! Following it up, I notice that Vicipaedia doesn't get into the lead section of :en:Latin language; nor does it get into the text at all, so far as I can see, though it does merit a link ... But, fine, I agree that neopagan Diana-worshippers should have their moment in the limelight, lower down the page. We're talking about what Conservapedia calls Placement bias. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Yeah I guess conservapedia people are experts at bias of all kinds.--Rafaelgarcia 16:42, 1 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stregheria 

message: Citationem Catulli abbreviavi, sed dubitanter. Si re vera citatio longa utilis sit, me reverte! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 15 Martii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citationes
Disputatio:Alexander Hamiltonius Stephens

message: So "Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Georgia (U.S. state)" = 
"Categoria:Legati populi Georgiae." OK, fair enough. But "Category:Georgia (U.S. state) State Senators" should most definitely not be "Categoria:Senatores (CFA)." Stephens never functioned as a U.S. Senator. (He was elected one after the war, but couldn't serve because his state hadn't yet been readamitted to the Union.) He did, however, function as a state senator (and a state representative) in the legislature of Georgia. Accordingly, for future use, four categories need to be available for each state: U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator, state representative, state senator. IacobusAmor 13:07, 6 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just following precedent as far as I could: the term "Legati populi ..." was established here long ago. Beyond that, I leave subcategories of US politicians to others! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 7 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well, something needs to be devised. If "Legati populi [Civitatis]" really means "Legati populi [Civitatis] in Congressu Civitatum Foederatarum," maybe that's how it should read, because then a parallel form could easily be devised for "Legati populi Civitatis [in legislatura {eiusdem} Civitatis]." In any case, the legates aren't really from states except in the case of states that have only one U.S. representative; in states that have multiple representatives (i.e., all but a few of them), they're legates from Congressional districts. They represent their district, not their state. IacobusAmor 21:17, 8 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tituli civiles
Disputatio:Bellum mille dierum

message: In aliis linguis videmus "Bellum mille dierum" vel sim. Titulum quem habemus "Bellum civile Columbiano mille dierum" necesse est mutare (quia errorem grammaticalem includit); titulum breviorem propono. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:35, 11 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulus
Disputatio:Hieroglyphica Aegyptia

message: Is it OK to use a Greek adjective as a noun? Did I use significare correctly? - Golradir 23:25, 14 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some what I hope are improvements/clarifications. Please correct if necessary.--Rafaelgarcia 04:44, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :We might prefer "Litterae hieroglyphicae Aegyptiae", in line with Macrobius's term; or we might prefer to adopt hieroglyphicus as a noun in the neuter plural, "Hieroglyphica Aegyptia". Maybe there are later sources that will help. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:16, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::They are more like characteres (Sinenses).Hieroglyphica (pl,n) sounds like the better option.I don't think we can rightly call the non phonetic ones letterae.--Rafaelgarcia 12:39, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Macrobius's & Ammianus's attestations would seem to support hieroglyphicae [scil. litterae vel notae], but not hieroglyphica. IacobusAmor 13:29, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Yes, you're right. I missed that!--Rafaelgarcia 13:46, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::No, they don't. Those sources use plural nouns, which happen to be feminine, and therefore attach the adjective "hieroglyphicus" to them in the feminine plural. They don't support using hieroglyphicae as a feminine plural noun, which is what our current title is doing.

text: :::::I agree that "Litterae" and "Notae" are not ideal terms, since we now know (as Macrobius and Ammianus didn't) how this system works. So the obvious thing is, yes, to adopt "hieroglyphic(s)" as a noun, just as English and other languages do. If one adopts an adjective as a noun (which is OK in Latin grammar) it is normal to adopt it in the neuter. I have now found attestations in more recent Latin for "Hieroglyphica Aegyptia" (neuter plural) -- the authors must, I guess, have followed the same train of logic, or relied on the fact that  was sometimes used as a neuter plural noun in Greek -- so I will move to that unless anyone objects. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:47, 31 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

message: Excusate latinam malam meam.
Ego non sum aegyptologistus, sed cogito quod melior quod phrasis "sš-nj-mdw.w-nṯr" mutet ad "zẖꜣ-nj-mdw-nṯr". (Verbum "sš" obsoletus, cogito. Nunc enim Victionarium (anglicae) redirigit ab "sš" ad "zẖꜣ". Atque Victionarum dicit quod pluralus de mdw non mdw.w sed simpliciter mdw est. Sicut expressio mdw nṯr.) 76.111.168.184 16:23, 19 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Roga utentem Iustinum, qui hieroglyphia certe scit! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:18, 19 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: :Recte monet usuarius ignotus scriptionem zẖɜ nunc praeferendam haberi (licet etiam sẖɜ scribere, saltem in textibus recentioribus.) Video me scripsisse potius sḫɜ' in pagina de Tabula Rosettana at non memini quare! --Iustinus (disputatio) 00:59, 27 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Est sš-nj-mdw.w-nṯr rectus?
Disputatio:Ioannes Sloane

message: Haec removi: "Primus socolata ut potio usus est." Reges Aztecorum potione socolatae usi sunt; iam in Anglia Samuel Pepys, Sloane nuper natum, usus est.
Fortasse Sloane primus Anglorum socolatam cum lacte bibit? Verificabo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:17, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socolata 

thread_title:  Recensio mense Augusto 2020
Disputatio:Botsuana

message: The current article title Botsuana is unsourced. We could find some sources, but Google reveals Botswana is much more common (mostly thanks to botanical & zoological names):
* Botswanae 6 420 hits
* Botswanensis 307 hits
* Botswanicus 9 hits
* Botsuanae 47 hits
* Botsuanicus 0 hits
* Botsuanensis 0 hits
* Botsvanae 0 hits
* Botsvanensis 0 hits
* Botsvanicus 0 hits
Unless there are any comments, the article should be renamed Botswana. Gabriel Svoboda 09:24, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Botsuana" is now sourced, and seems to be preferred by non-scientific Latin sources. Scientific sources are fine, but specialized, and we have no reason to prefer them to others. I have moved back, therefore, but if anyone disagrees please discuss. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 26 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen civitatis
Disputatio:Swazia

message: Botanists & zoologists suggest this country should be called Swazia:
* Swazicus 921 hits
* Swaziensis 913 hits
* Swaziae 70 hits
* Suazicus 0 hits
* Suaziensis 1 hit
* Suaziae 2 hits
* Svazicus 2 hits
* Svaziensis 0 hits
* Svaziae 1 hit
Any comments? Gabriel Svoboda 09:57, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen civitatis
Disputatio:Sisimiut

message: Sisimiut...I can only assume, without source, that this is a neuter noun declining "Sisimiut, -tis"? With the occasional uncertainty in Latin nouns, we should be a little more clear with these neo-Latin nouns, I think. Or maybe Im just a little confused. =) Thanks in advance for the help! 67.214.26.193 22:37, 18 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You should rather assume, unless told otherwise, that no other forms exist -- the word is not Latin and is indeclinable. Some foreign words were already treated as indeclinable in classical Latin: Vicipaedia naturally often has to do the same.

text: When I start a page with a foreign term, I like to say what language it is in. A full page on this topic, when someone writes it, will explain what language "Sisimiut" is and what the name means ... Feel free to join in! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 19 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Haha, thanks Andrew, Im afraid that that was actually me, and I just didnt realize I wasnt signed in. That shouldve been more obvious to me, especially since Ive worked with the Vulgate before, which is the master of indeclinability. Thanks again Andrew! Always been there for me! CeleritasSoni 17:13, 19 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Oh, it's you, CS! If you thought of asking how to decline Ittoqqortoormiit‎ ... don't bother :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:19, 19 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Of Sisimiut