lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Tessie (EP)

message: There's got to be a specific reason they didn't cover Dirty Water for this album (as they have several times before).  If someone knows what it is, it might make a worthy addition to the article.  64.209.127.213 23:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because, as you said, they've done so many times. -Mask  20:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirty Water?
Category talk:Christian music

message: Something needs to be done to clean up the hierarchy for this.  Should the subcategories be groups vs individuals, or genres?  I'm thinking genre, and that the musical groups/musicians/albums subcategories be scrapped or made subcategories of the genres.  Anyone else have a better idea? Jpers36 15:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: : - Cleanup completed Absolon S. Kent (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is also a category for Church music. Presumably not identical: church music being official and authorized by duly constituted church authorities, and Christian music potentially including church music, but also grassroots phenomena subject to market forces. Not identical, but extensive overlap? These two categories don't seem to know about each other. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian music and church music
Talk:Limited animation

message: The Critic isn't particularly limited animation, is it? sjorford →•← 15:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehhh, "particularly"? I think basically all TV animated series are limited, since it would be too expensive, time-consuming and difficult to make something like 10 different 20-30 minutes episodes for a season with full animation (24 frames a second or something). A Disney animated feature was generally about 1-1 1/2 hours and took several years to produce, the company only managed to release one movie a year because they had three different studios working full-time. (Although now, even Disney seems to have gone over to computer animation.) I think it's strange that you use the word "particularly", but compare for instance "Fantasia"/"Dumbo" or "Aladdin" with "The Critic", and it should be obvious what I mean. 85.226.122.222 17:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article states: "The UPA studio made the first serious effort to abandon the ultra-realistic approach perfected by Disney." I believe this to be untrue, as "The Adventures of Prince Achmed" precedes Disney's "Snow White" by a decade.
:I guess it's an over-simplification. Also, Fleischer's 1930's Betty Boop cartoons were deliberately surrealist. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Adventures of Prince Achmed

message: This article seems to consider "limited animation" primarily a style, although I have largely considered it as a technique evolved to cut back on animation in the ares where it's the least notable. Other opinions? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited animation a style or technique?

message: limited animation has nothing to with how "realistic" an animated film is. we need a genuine cartoonist or animation historian to work on this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.236.254 (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignorance Towards the Subject

message: I am rather confused at the collection of examples cited.  Though "south park" does have very crude animation, it is animated in Maya Studios, and thus does not follow "limited" animation techniques.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.132.145 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples cited

message: Hello. The following file contained in this article has been nominated for deletion on the 4th of January 2020:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:YukiClip2A.gif
Could you please express your opinion about this on the nomination page:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:YukiClip2A.gif
Personally, I think that this animated GIF shouldn't be deleted because it expresses very well the concept of limited animation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatvam (talk • contribs) 11:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all, the file has been kept Tatvam (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent! File nominated for deletion
Talk:Fabio Casartelli

message: Would it be relevant to add information on the stage win that Lance Armstrong achieved a few days after Casartelli's passing? His dedication of the win (and especially his body language approaching the finish of the stage) sticks in my mind as one of the greatest tour moments I have ever seen. The fact that it was a competitive win and that Armstrong was clearly spurred on by the memory of his colleague adds to the tribute performed that day. --The globetrotter 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lance Armstrong stage win 

message: This one really irks me:
:an impact at nearly 100 km/h (60 mph) has more than twenty times the energy a typical helmet is designed to absorb
for two reasons:
#It implies (albeit without spelling out) that Casartelli's speed at the time of the crash was "nearly 100 km/h", which is not true. (Please, prove me wrong and find a reference.)
#"Twenty times the energy"? Pure WP:OR. GregorB 12:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced claim 

message: It's somewhat unclear from the article if he was wearing any helmet at all, or if he was wearing an old, not modern bicycle helmet.
24.18.134.90 07:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bicycle Helmet

message: I've spotted an inconsistency as to whether he sustained any facial injuries:
On July 18. . .Casartelli's head struck the concrete blocks along the roadway, causing heavy facial and head injuries and loss of consciousness.
vs.
There was a small but very violent impact to the top of the skull a few centimetres to the left of the central axis. Contrary to several reports, there were no facial injuries. . .
(I am new to this, so please let me know of any oversights, thanks)
Ofthecosmos (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this too, and after almost a year there's been no debate or change. I'm going to remove the first reference to facial injuries since it is uncited. intooblv (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Facial Injuries

message: Is there a list of tour deaths?  Is he included?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.142.99 (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: tour deaths
Template talk:Infobox nuclear weapons by country

message: I left a lot of the formatting to be on the part of the end-user, because the responses can be pretty variable. There may need to be another, separate template for countries that either never did or haven't yet developed any weapons. --Fastfission 16:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: The template uses the common - but commonly misused - term "signatory" to describe a state's status under the NPT.  But the most significant indicator of a state's status is whether it is a "Party" to the NPT.  To be a signatory means that a state has signed, but is not necessarily bound by, a treaty.  A state can do this by ratifying, acceding, or succeeding to a treaty.
I think the template should be changed, but this also involves changing the use of the template wherever it occurs, so I wanted to discuss first. NPguy (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Signatory" the right term?
Talk:Kremer prize

message: Does anybody know if one can still win Kremer's prize? 4C 16:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: Each segment of what? It looks like this refers back to "a triangular course". So what, the course was divided into five segments, and there were separate prizes for completing 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 segments, because it's possible to go faster if you don't go so far, like sprinting? Is that what you're saying? Is it? It sounds like the MIT Monarch B did the whole 1.5 km. I have basically no idea what you're saying. Flight times are given without distances or speeds (and no information at all is given for the fifth winner). 81.131.34.29 (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "each subsequent segment had a prize of £10,000"
Talk:Defiant Theatre

message: I was a member of Defiant Theatre from 1997 to 2003. I served as its Marketing Manager for several of those years. While my motivations for creating this article are selfish (to preserve the memory of a company that brought me years of fulfillment), my aim is to keep this in the spirit of Wikipedia as a piece of human knowledge and not as an emotional, unbiased memoriam. I have called upon the 30+ members of the company to contribute, and I hope that they will. —Arloguthrie 16:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to this Discussion
Talk:Nidovirales

message: vertebrate virus??? --MarSch 16:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: UuuuxndhjdurjrjjdhdjdehhdejrjdjdJfjfjur hghfjfbvhhfnfjjfjfjfhjgfrjjfjjj ft fjgjgjjfjkmfmtjchjnfjjdfhjj for jjjjrjjjjjjjjrjjjkjjjjjj 2600:8805:9009:D100:D987:F886:4903:BFCB (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I cereal uHfhrjdjrjskhrejrjrjjdjdjdhjdjjrjshejejjejdh
Template talk:Santa Clara County, California

message: I like the new template, but after looking at it a while I started thinking it might be possible to make small improvements in two areas: 1) to increase the number of population groupings to make 'like' cities more apparent (EG Monte Sereno is nothing compared to Mountain View), and 2) to increase the 'content to blankspace ratio'. I created some examples of what I'm thinking of at User:Niteowlneils/Sandbox. I think I like the bottom one best, but am interested in seeing if any of them strike anyone else's fancy. Niteowlneils 22:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible template tweaks

message: I just added some more detail to the template to make it more accurate, but I think we need to look at the bigger picture.  Do we really need state parks and colleges and universities in this template?  And if we allow those exceptions, where the hell does it stop?  I could make a good argument that certain prominent K-12 schools are just as important (like Harker, Gunn, etc.), as well as county parks, transportation (we already have articles on VTA, the expressway system, and San Jose International Airport), utilities, and law enforcement.   And so on, ad infinitum.
I think limiting the template to geography, as was originally done, is a much safer bright-line rule that is easy to enforce.  A cluttered and three-page-long template is just as useless as one with categories that are not properly filled out (in attempting to expand the template, user Seven Days left out a lot of community colleges).  If people are really interested in all that extra information, we can always stick it into a See also list at the bottom of the Santa Clara County article.  --Coolcaesar 21:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * It is certainly not my intention to create a useless template. Since we already had a template listing all the cities in the county, I thought it would actually make it more useful to add more details about the county itself. I may have made a mistake, and if that is so, I deeply apologize. If the community feels that my changes are not useful, then the changes should be reverted, and I will personally remove the templates from every link I created in the template. Good luck with your law studies. — Seven Days » talk 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with the removing of the state parks; they just aren't necessary in this template and few other county templates for other states list state parks.  Thanks for taking care of that Coolcaesar.  --CapitalR 06:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need all this crap in the template?
Talk:The Taking of Christ (Caravaggio)

message: I take exception to the "Interpretation" here. It is full of spelling errors, half-sentences, and is often "just plain wrong". How, for example, could anyone say "in his eyes their (sic) is disbelief" or "he did not anticipate what Judas was doing", when Christ foretold the betrayal of Judas in all four gospels? (John 6:71-72, Matt 26:23-25, Mark 14:18-21, Luke 22:21-24) Personally, I wouldn't start ascribing emotions to Christ in this painting at all (let the observer see what he may), but if one wants to do that kind of thing, "disappointment" is almost certainly a better fit. By all means, point out the bona-fide symbolism (if it's there), but don't start making it up.
By any standard, this painting kicks ass. The technical execution in nothing short of superb: the musculature on the back of the soldier's hand; the reflections on the armour; or the furrowed faces of Christ and Judas are good examples. By way of comparison, a somewhat similar suit of armour can be seen in Garrett Morphy's portrait of Viscount Molyneux (downstairs in the same gallery), but it is plainly mediocre in comparison to the Carravaggio. The Taking of Christ is "just right": you can't pick out a bit that "looks wrong" in the way that you can with so many other paintings.
This painting is important because, when it was painted, it was radically different to the previous portrayals, not just of the beytrayal of Christ but of the Gospel stories generally. One of Carravaggio's contemporaries would almost certainly have painted the scene with the figures full-length, in full light, with surrounding scenery depicting Gethsemane. The three-quarter length figures, in darkness, and with no real indication of place was dark, edgy, ground-breaking stuff in 1602.
I don't know enough about this stuff to take it upon myself to do the deletion/rewrite but, IMVHO, the current "Interpretation" should go. 
--EmmetCaulfield 16:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation 

message: Another autograph version of the canvas is housed in Odessa Museum of Western and Eastern Art, Ukraine.
http://www.oweamuseum.odessa.ua
http://www.oweamuseum.odessa.ua/painting/p-italian/file/m001.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.146.246.9 (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another autograph version 

message: The figure fleeing on the left and Christ are portrayed by Caravaggio as though they are two sides of a single Janus-like figure. Thus we could interpret this two-faced figure as a representation of Christ's two natures, the divine and the human. Christ the god is calm and unconcerned, whereas Christ the man is terrified and fleeing for his life. I don't have any references for this interpretation, so I'll leave it here until someone finds one. Eroica (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  St John?
Talk:September Dossier

message: A theory which I find intriguing:
Maybe Saddam Husein never had any WMD, but he believed he had. If his minister of munitions (or whatever the post was called) had been ordered to create WMD, but had failed to do so, he might have realised that he would risk his life by admitting his failure; and so he assured Saddam Husein that the WMD existed and were ready for use. If Saddam Husein believed the WMD were real, we can't blame the US or UK security services for believing it too.
I think this theory once featured in a BBC program, I can't give a citation. I guess it shouldn't be mentioned in the article, while there is no evidence for it. Maproom (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page may interest you: WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. ~ smb 11:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, interesting. Maproom (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Saddam deceived?

message: In the introduction, we have the following statement. "The paper was part of a campaign by the government to bolster public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq." Whilst there may be an argument that this was the case, the leader of the government at the time, Tony Blair, sets out clearly in his memoirs that at no point until several weeks before Iraq was actually invaded was it a certainty that Iraq would be invaded - there were constant efforts, principally made through the UN, to resolve the situation diplomatically, which in September 2002 still gave a significant amount of hope. This statement makes it sound as if the government was running a campaign to encourage the public to support an invasion of Iraq, which misrepresents their intentions. I have revised this statement to "The paper was part of an ongoing investigation by the government into weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which ultimately led to its invasion in 2003." Unnachamois (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolstering support 

message: The Danish intelligence considered the 45 minute claim impossible. They also asked, what do they mean by "45 minutes"? 45 minutes to launch an order? 45 minutes to have airplanes in the air? If the Danish intelligence thought the 45-minute claim was hogwash, how likely is it that any other intelligence bureau believed it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danish intelligence
Talk:Algebraic K-theory

message: Crediting the initial theory to Serre rather than Grothendieck is strange and just not true.  That Bass defined K1 should be here.  Suslin's proof of the Karoubi conjecture showing topological K is a special case of algebraic K should also be here, and the Q construction should be mentioned. Milnor's definition wasn't only for fields.--John Z 16:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I wish there was some information on the properties of K-groups and their applications. Why are they so important? At the moment the talk about higher groups is completely incomprehensible. Sure, now I know a grotesque definition, but what's in it for me? --Anton (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation 

message: Would someone independently knowledgeable please comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory.  The question, I think, is whether "Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory" is an appropriate new topic to draft, or whether it should be included in this article first.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drafting of "Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory" 

message: In the section K_1 the statement E(A) = [GL(A), GL(A)] might be considered wrong, since the article Elementary_matrix also row-multiplication is allowed (multiplying a row with scalar), while for "our" elementary matrices it is not allowed (cf. http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/jhcw2.pdf p. 5 (2.4.) ) as far as I understand it. Since I am quite new to this area, can someone confirm this and mark that difference in the article(s).ChristianTS (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The terminology is inconsistent between K-theory and linear algebra. I've tried to make the article clearer.  Ozob (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  K_1 elementary matrices mistake 

message: This page should discuss computations in algebraic K-theory. The following two papers provide excellent tools for this
===Negative Algebraic K-theory===
Since negative algebraic K-theory is readily computable for a variety over a field of characteristic 0, this should be included on this page. Check out theorem 0.2 of http://annals.math.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/annals-v167-n2-p04.pdf for this.
===Cones of Smooth Varieties===
Check out the theorem on page 1 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.4642.pdf
:Yes, this article can and should definitely be expanded. Please go ahead and add whatever you see fit! If you need help with the Wikipedia editing purpose, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computations 

message: Check out the theorem on page 1 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.4642.pdf
:Yes, this article can and should definitely be expanded. Please go ahead and add whatever you see fit! If you need help with the Wikipedia editing purpose, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cones of Smooth Varieties
Talk:John Drake (Danger Man)

message: Before anyone decides to change it, it is perfectly correct for Drake to be listed under Fictional Irish-Americans AND Fictional British people in that the character underwent a retcon during the course of the series that resulted in his nationality changing, as explained in the article. 68.145.238.33 21:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the only nationality-oriented retcon here was that in the first "Danger Man" programme, Drake was an American (working for NATO) and in the later one, British. Here in the US at least, there is an accepted usage of "British" that covers all the British Isles, including Ireland, even though that's a separate country; saying the Irish are not British is like restricting "American" to the people of the United States, when actually the word is applicable to the entire American bi-continent. I'd call one single statement that Drake is an Irishman a slip stemming from the fact that McGoohan was one (albeit born in the USA, a citizenship that at this point he was not considering claiming). --Ted Watson (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dual nationality category

message: Is this episode really an example of John falling in love with a woman? Most of the episodes have some degree of flirtation between Drake and a female guest-star, although there is never sexual involvement. Does this episode really stand out from the rest in that regard? --99.225.254.102 (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Black Book, romance
Talk:Fantastic Four (disambiguation)

message: With apologies to Acjelen, I chose to rework her rework of my description of Ultimate Fantastic Four to clarify the fact that the Ultimate team is not merely "new stories," but rather a new team altogether. After all, the original FF's comic is still being published. --Joe Sewell 17:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate FF's relationship to the original team