Disputatio:Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum

Is the "rerum" necessary in Latin? My impression is that it would be superfluous.--84.9.219.34 23:41, 29 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"necessary" ? Probably not. But that's how the name is given in the book Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis, in the front matter under "Libri de Harrio Pottero iam editi". —Myces Tiberinus 10:43, 18 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contribuenda[fontem recensere]

I think this page should not be merged with Harrius Potter. — Maybe it was another situation when we did not have the Categoria:Harrius Potter?

The poor content would support a merging, but on the long run it will be better to have this page: Interwiki links, discussions, ...

--Roland (disp.) 17:46, 6 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowlingis[fontem recensere]

Hmm... Harrissimo.

Basiliscus[fontem recensere]

The creature really should be a basiliscus (i.e. regulus), matching the English but Needham consistently names the creature basilicus (i.e. regalis) in the book. (A little part of me died every time I saw it.) The article currently says basiliscus, though I'm pretty sure the discrepancy should be noted. —Mucius Tever 02:17, 30 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a typo. Sadness! It happens. I hope they will correct it in future editions.--Rafaelgarcia 02:20, 30 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are typoes in the book, but they are occasional. The basilicus, however, is referred to so frequently that, paired with the non-appearance of basiliscus, I think it must have been an error on the translator's (or the editor's) part. —Mucius Tever 10:20, 30 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]