lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Delphine Arnault

message: This appears to the the direct result of an article written in French run through babelfish or some other translation application.  As such, the wording is quite awkward. Jasmol 01:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Cream pie

message: May I suggest we merge Chocolate creme pie into this page Cream pie? That page describes much the same thing -- although it does tend to focus more on the chocolate aspects. I believe these apsects, as well as the cultural significance, can be retained on the merged page. Also, it is not so very long that it should too hard to merge in. While no doubt delicious, I believe Chocolate creme pie should take its rightful place, here, among the other cream pies. Ewlyahoocom 09:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree to proposed merge, also note that creme is a spelling required by US gov't labelling regulations when there is not enough real milk in the product to be called cream. Thatcher131 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: "The custard filling is related to the French crème patissière which is a key component of various French cakes and tarts."
 
How should we interpret the term "related" here? Is it the same as crème patissière, similar to it (in which case someone should describe how it's similar, or derived from it (i.e. using different ingredients or techniques).Jimjamjak (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Distant?) "relations" 

message: This is an encyclopaedia. It's job is to help people find information. It is not a place for prudes. Do not remove the redirect at the top of the page!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexplanation (talk • contribs) 12:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the {for} at the top - don't! 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Chocolate pie and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Chocolate pie until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 💬 16:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chocolate pie" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:UC Berkeley School of Information (Students)

message: We should be careful, with this list of names, to make sure that the links point to the right pages (*cough* Scott *cough*).  And to disambiguate those that need them.  Perhaps this is best left to the individuals themselves?
Raketenmensch (bradh)
:Word... I just removed all the links that didn't point to anything and both Nathan Good and Scott Fisher pointed to other peeps. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 02:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disamiguation 

message: What is the point of this page? How does this belong in an encyclopedia? Rybesh 08:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it in an effort to quell the "serious disagreement" that Judd had with not listing students.  I am in agreement with you and we could propose this page for deletion (modulo the rath of Judd, regardless of if this should exist in an encyclopedia). -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 02:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point?
Talk:Battle of Thermopylae (191 BC)

message: It's not entirely clear from this article who was coming to the pass from the north and who was coming from the south, fairly fundamental issue. PatGallacher (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using the undo button abusively, all while practicing drive-by editing. You have contributed nothing of worth to this article so far. Don't quote WP:OWN to me when you have no idea what it means.--Catlemur (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2020 

message: I would shorten them and direct people to the main articles on the topic. Ifly6 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prelude and background are excessively long
Talk:Orgazmo

message: Something must be said in this article about the controversy surrounding its NC-17 rating. I'll do it myself in a few days if no one else does. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 19:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings Controversy 

message: OMG this movie sounds hilarious, where can I get it?Cameron Nedland 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a link for the DVD at the bottom of the page, and if you go to the IMDb, they have it in all formatts. — Frecklefoot | Talk 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!! I'll have to get it.Cameron Nedland 21:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL!!! 

message: This article needs a cast list instead of a list of guest porn stars. --Phoenix Hacker 04:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I'll expand it later on.--Swellman 04:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast

message: Most of the trivia section can be found here, word for word -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0124819/trivia .
If they copied Wikipedia, fine.  If wikipedia copied them, then it probably should be removed.  I don't really like the idea of removing it, in spite of a `trivia sections are discouraged' policy, but if it's a copyright violation, it should be.
dougmc 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section copied? 

message: Would anyone object to the removal of the See Also section? I don't think that just the Mormon thing is strong enough for these two movies to be linked together. Gibmute128 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also - "Latter Days"? 

message: I get what is being said -- obviously the film was complete/almost-complete before the show even went into production, but technically the show premiered several weeks before this film did, so isn't the current wording a little misleading? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the two really "later [go] on to create ... ''South Park''"? 

message: Why are people putting these mass production companies into film production? someone say why? LeronJomes (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuzui Enterprises And MDP Worldwide
Talk:Major (rank)

message: Police forces in the US and UAE often have the rank Major.
The page on Captain includes the police rank.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.242.173 (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[police rank]]

message: Currently, the text of the article seems to imply that the rank of 'major' derives from 'sergeant major' ("Historically, the rank designation develops in English in the 1640s, taken from French majeur, in turn a shortening of sergent-majeur, which at the time designated a higher rank than at present.[citation needed]"). That is, quite frankly, nonsense. As a stand-alone rank name, it is shortened from 'captain major' (capitanus maior), meaning, approximately, "most important captain". It was historically applied to the most senior captain when multiple captains had their forces combined into a unit of sorts. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever you are thank you! The article and the publication referenced {Cipra, Dave (7 June 1985). "A History of Ranks & Titles – Final episode: The Landlubbers". Commandant's Bulletin. 12: 13–16.} are completely wrong. Your explaination is correct. 2A00:23C8:1B24:C801:61E2:558B:E5B0:4EBC (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have undone the change to remove sourced content and adding unsourced content per Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations". If there are any sources to support the above statement, please feel free to change back . Skjoldbro (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of 'major' as a stand-alone rank name 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus to move Major to Major (rank) and Major (disambiguation) to Major. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 October 2023 

message: Cf. Talk:Major#post-move. --Joy (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  post-move
Talk:Libertarian Party of Canada candidates in the 1988 Canadian federal election

message: In case anyone's wondering ... I don't know if this is the same Anna Young who runs a German Shepherd rescue operation in Toronto.  It could be, but I've no proof.  CJCurrie 02:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: November 2005
Talk:Original Game Boy

message: I suggest moving this article to Game Boy (original). The PlayStation article was moved to PlayStation (original). Right now, it looks as if "Original" is part of the console name.
And I really disagree with both PlayStation and Game Boy changes, but well, it is already done. -- ReyBrujo 02:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like all the other PlayStation consoles do. Actually, most solutions are better than having Game Boy redirect to Game Boy line -- ReyBrujo 23:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh?
Talk:Daanbantayan

message: I'm not a professional historian, but I do know something about the war in northern Cebu during the Liberation. I highly doubt this "Battle of Daanbantayan". I do know that there was a mass surrender of Japanese soldiers at Paypay, one of the barangays of Daanbantayan, but this is the first time I met this "Battle". --124.106.231.91 (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Daanbantayan? 

message: Thanks for adding info on islands and dive sites. But its current format is not very encyclopedic. A table of travel distances is more suitable in a travel guide, so it fails WP:NOT. It is indeed good to have more info on the islands and attractions, but it should be rewritten in prose or paragraph format, see WP:Prose. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Attactions
Talk:Kamchatka earthquakes

message: The "tragically, six cows died"   line is so beautiful that I can't bear to remove it. Ashibaka (tock) 03:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Nothing in the news but I saw:
2006/04/20 23:25 M 7.7 KORYAKIA, RUSSIA Z= 43km 61.09N 167.10E
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/170_60.php
on USGS information bulletin and that means a 7.7 on the Richter Scale.. that's pretty darn powerfull and it is in the region if i am not mistaken.
Agree to merge 2006 Kamchatka Quake with "Kamchatka Quakes"... as noted above both articles... Cesium_133 (talk) 22:59 UTC, 20 May 2009
How do they now the magnitude and location of the event if this happened in 1700s201.218.67.29 (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: News

message: I went to the USGS and uploaded their "earthquakes since 1900" image. They only had a detail on the 1952 event, and the pic self-generated was only marginally better than the overview. Feel free to add that one if you like. (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/events/1952_11_04.php) I figured I would leave up the picture request until something better comes along. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 17:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New Pic
Talk:25th Dáil

message: What do the coloured bands mean? -- Perfecto  03:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour bands 
Talk:Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic

message: Unless there are any complaints I'm going to move this article to Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and then redirect Moldavian ASSR to point to that. - FrancisTyers 03:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. "Moldavian ASSR" is a more often used term than "Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic". The title doesn't have to be the official name, but the most common used name. See Soviet Union vs. "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". bogdan | Talk 09:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok :) Please feel free to join WikiProject Soviet Union, we're talking about stuff like that there. - FrancisTyers 14:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Actually, MASSR had 8100 (more exactly 8134) square versts, not square km. So the area was about 8,677. ;-) bogdan 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verst vs. Kilometre 

message: Charles King in the Moldovans accurately describes Soviet acts as occupying following the ultimtum. Caving to un ultimtum does not mean territory thus acquired is not occupied. We'll see about appropriate wording. PētersV 03:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeap, but all other sources use "cede" (one "pressured to cede", which i preffered thinking it will better fit the POV of nationalist wikiusers).Anonimu 11:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anonimu, all sources use "cede". Said action was done under and ultimatum from the Soviet Union. "Ceding" territory to the Soviet Union does not mean that the Soviet Union does not occupy the territory so gained, as then contend. Revised per King, also leaving existing sources. I trust this will end the reverts from both sides. PētersV 14:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceding under ultimatum 
Talk:Kangaroo court

message: I'm confused by the Retrieved Date being before the Original Date in References 2, 3, 5, 9, and 15. For example, from Reference 2 "from the original on August 23, 2023. Retrieved July 6, 2020." 76.67.254.80 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Confusion
Talk:Red Allen

message: Britannica says born in 1908. Which is correct? Danny 03:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved, 1908. Danny 03:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How? (PLEASE don't just say "Resolved"; site your sources and reasoning.) I note that Allen's biographer Chilton has the 1906 date, with notes saying it is confirmed by Orleans Parish notary records. What is the reason and evidence to reject that and instead accept 1908? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 05:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you have still not replied, I am changing it to reflect Chilton's research. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Allaboutjazz.com, also confirms 1906 as his birthdate. --MaximilianT (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Duck test

message: It was coined by James Whitcomb Riley who wrote in one of his poems that "when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."
Provide the poem's title and some other sourced proofs for this attribution. --Che Baraka 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's right. After 15 years no one has yet been able to indicate in which work Riley would have written that sentence. --Frognall (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Further reading" section referenced a specific publication of Riley's complete works, but I found it on archive.org () and there's not a single "duck" in it.  I agree with you and have removed Riley from the article. DefaultFree (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Whitcomb Riley and the attribution to him 

message: The history is just about robot ducks, not the history of the phrase. Is this supposed to happen? Evenite (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on with history? 

message: The section titled 'in popular culture' seems a little long, and kind of random
Starchamelix (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" section 

message: Just as Americans refer to the pinnacle of their national game as the World Series, in this article, quality international research is deleted in favour of references to American entertainment and history. This seems to be a trend in parts of Wikipedia where the quality is deleted, leaving a bland residue of little value to anyone. 
Logical fallacies are used in politics, law and popular culture, and the duck test is one of the more egregious. By deleting the historical reference to France in the 18th century, an important reference that will be used by serious users of Wikipedia is lost. We are left with Dirk Gently, Monty Python and the Marx Brothers.
And what is the elephant test doing here? CDT1997 (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Vandalism
Talk:Aeëtes

message: The article mentions that Aeëtes has been mentioned as husband to "his niece Hecate". This may be due to some confusion between Perses the titan and Perses, brother of Aeëtes.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnyeggs (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perses 

message: isn't it Ætas?--Herzog 03:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Someone should mention that the Argonauts came to the city of Aea in Colchis. T@nn 05:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aea 

message: The article mentions Aeëtes and Aeetes inconsistently. If Aeëtes is the proper spelling than every reference to the character should be consistent throughout.
ICE77 (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent spelling 

message: The Relation column of the family table contains a row header titled "Plague", which then details Aeetes' consorts. I assume this is a joke about wives. Unless referring to consorts as plagues in Greek mythology is a known practice, it should be corrected to "Consorts" as in the text above the table, as it otherwise confuses. Sandwichpants (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plague
Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons computer and video games by platform

message: The Console games section uses the format Title - platforms - release date, while the Computer games section has title and release date under separate platform subheadings. I'm wondering if a consistent formatting style should be used throughout. I want to expand the Computer games section to include Amiga, Apple II, Atari ST, C64, MSX and ZX Spectrum, but I'd like to clear this up first. --Muchness 17:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the PC games dont need to say GAME - PC - YEAR ... or GAME - MAC - YEAR as such they didnt include it, I would argue that they are following that format but since the data would be the same on every entry its assumed. I would love for you to include Amiga, Apple II, Atari ST, C64, MSX, ZX, etc... We're trying to get a complete list, I was originally unable to find a list of those when I expanded this.  ALKIVAR™ 15:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant was that the computer games could be formatted as TITLE - Amiga, Apple II, DOS, Mac - DATE, or consoles could be separated into SNES, PS2, Xbox etc subcategories. But if it's fine in its current state, I'll go ahead and add the other platforms. --Muchness 17:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to go through the effort of sorting to smaller SNES/PS2/Xbox/etc... lists I would have no problem with that.  ALKIVAR™ 13:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting issue 

message: I removed the following blurb on Gold Box games because I couldn't verify the info; Gold Box games are not currently selling for large sums on eBay. Several of the early D&D computer games were published in gold boxes and used a common interface. These games, collectively and unofficially called the "Gold Box" series, are popular collector's items and sell on eBay for frequently large sums.
--Muchness 16:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold Box blurb

message: In response to concerns raised on this article's WP:FLC discussion, I propose a tables-based format for the list:
Title           	Date	Publisher	Platform                                               	Campaign setting	Notes
Pool of Radiance	1988	SSI      	DOS, Amiga, Apple II, Atari ST, Commodore 64, Macintosh	Forgotten Realms	Part of the Gold Box series.
 --Muchness 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * How about changing "Notes" into "Series"? Ben Standeven 21:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format
Template talk:Northeast Corridor navbox

message: Is it really necessary to put former services in this template?  It's already pretty cluttered.  I mean, theoretically, we could go back to former servcies all the way back to the Penn Central days and beyond -- where would we draw the line? --Jfruh 04:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Former services"

message: This is not really a Northeast Corridor train, it uses the Boston-Springfield line. Merely because a short section of terminal trackage is shared in Boston with NEC doesn't make it a "Northeast Corridor train", any more than Empire Service (Amtrak) would be considered NEC simply because Empire Service trains share a short stretch of tracks leading to Pennsylvania Station (New York).  JGHowes   talk 20:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, and similar reasoning for why I removed the LIRR. I would guess the guideline should be that a service warrants inclusion if, and only if, it shares more than one station with NEC regional trains. (Emphasis added for the sake of future contributors.)oknazevad (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lake Shore Limited]] 

message: I've reverted the changes by  for the following reasons: this template covers all services on the Northeast Corridor, not just Amtrak ones; the dedicated Amtrak services on the corridor itself aren't "commuter" services. None of Amtrak's current operations on the corridor qualify as commuter; the only ones historically which might have would be the Clocker, Beacon Hill or Chesapeake. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: While I see your point about Shuttle trains being shown on NEC timetables, they fundamentally are not an NEC service. They only run on the NEC for 1.7 miles, and don't provide usable intra-NEC service. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying, but it is true that Amtrak considers it a branch of the NEC more than a separate line, and the shuttle trains are numbered as portions of the connecting Regionals, similar to the Boston portion of the Lake Shore Limited or the Portland split of the Empire Builder, just without the actual coupling/uncoupling of cars. Maybe the best solution is to put the shuttle in parentheses after the Regional, so it's lesser status is more obvious while retaining it as a useful link for aiding navigation and giving a full picture of Amtrak's operations. oknazevad (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shuttle
Talk:Miss Grundy

message: Funniest thing - in the 1970s, I saw a list of teachers at W. Sherwood Fox Public School in London, Ontario.  There was a Miss Grundy.  I wonder if the students sometimes associated her with Archie's high school teacher!
GBC 04:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 11-12-2005

message: In one comic where Mr. Weatherbee gets carried away wearing an army officer's hat, Ms. Grundy nixes it by revealing she was a Major in the US Army auxillary during WW2.  I wont add it to the main article unless I can find the exact reference.  Yanqui9 05:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ms. Grundy in the Army 

message: I always thought Miss Grundy was real.  I'm so grateful that Wikipedia insists on putting in the "fictional character" line on all these articles.  Otherwise it could get real confusing.  70.53.109.185 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks a lot!
Talk:Battle of Tarakan (1942)

message: A spelling error of my grandfather’s name appears in the paragraph about the Dutch plans. 
In the table of explanations of KNIL ground forces under Simon de Waal, his name is correctly spelled Treffers. (Commander Frits Treffers). 
In the paragraph of text it is spelled as Treffer or Treffer’s for possessive. Neither is correct. 172.103.224.122 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it as per the Wikipedia style guide.  Davidelit (Talk)  06:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested edit