Talk:Cadit quaestio

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The shoe has dropped[edit]

In English, there is a similar idiom when people say that "the shoe has dropped."

I am English. I've never heard this phrase. Can someone justify this please? Tagging with ^{[citation needed]}. Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Waiting for the other shoe to drop" you've never heard before? DS (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how settling a dispute can be an instance of dropping the second shoe. But they are in no way synonymous. I deleted the shoe thing.--87.162.46.85 (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Editing sources[edit]

The two sources listed for the CQ mark used in copy editing are unreliable. The first one cites this Wikipedia article as the ultimate source of their claim, and the second one cites a user's comment on Merriam-Webster's website (which has not been validated by M-W). I posit that the sources used are thus unreliable; as far as I know, personally, the origin of the "CQ" mark used in copy editing is still a matter of debate. Until the origin has been explored adequately by a reputable source, I think the article should reflect that this is one possible origin; the article should not use the given sources, either. 50.241.148.173 (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can let it go. It's CQ. 74.78.167.235 (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is very true. I've amended the article to make it clear that the origin is uncertain, and retained the two sources only to show that a link with 'cadit quaestio' is claimed/suggested, not confirmed. mooncow 11:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]