lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Jake Holmes

message: It seems strange to me that there's no mention of his authorship of Dazed and Confused in the intro.    I'm going to insert it -- if you have any objections, please state them here. -- 01:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dazed and confused in intro

message: Re: "For reasons that are not entirely clear, Page claimed sole songwriting credit for the song when it appeared on Led Zeppelin's debut album."
"For reasons not entirely clear" sounds to me like a fuzzy attempt to defend plagiarism, which is not to suggest we have to accuse Page of it: Let's stick to the facts and let the reader decide for himself. I'm removing the phrase, and since the phrase actually contains no information at all, I'm not removing any actual information. Here's a bit, by the way, from the Guardian about Page's response: "In 1990, Musician magazine quizzed Page on the subject, asking if Holmes was the original composer [of Dazed and Confused]. 'I don't know about all that,' Page replied. 'I'd rather not get into it because I don't know all the circumstances. What's he got – the riff or whatever? ... I haven't heard Jake Holmes so I don't know what it's all about anyway. Usually my riffs are pretty damn original.'"TheScotch (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons unclear? 
Talk:Campaea margaritata

message: I have respectfully reverted the binomial to Campaea margaritata - this seems to be the majority view - it is used in the two books cited and also in Checklist of UK Recorded Geometridae, Markku Savela's pages and UKMoths. Fauna Europaea goes with C. margaritaria but appears a lone voice. Richard Barlow 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binomial
Talk:Alan Moore bibliography

message: If we are going to do this then should we include "Adaptations of Moore works in other media" from the mian entry? The division between his books/comcis and adaptations is a bit of an slim one and they are usually creditted with being his work. Also it came up over at Garth Ennis but should we put a selected biography in the main entry and then refer people here for the full one? (Emperor 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: Technically, some of the things listed under image should be listed separately because wildstorm was purchased by DC in 1999 and things such as deathblow byblows was published not by image but by DC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.106.192 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is true, the script was commissioned from Moore by Image comics; the fact that it took that long to publish and, thus, was not published until Wildstorm was owned by DC seems (to me) beside the point. 64.95.27.5 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wildstorm/image 

message: There is a new category to use: :Category:Comics by Alan Moore. I'd suggest only using it for comics he soleyl wrote or had a big impact on. So he wrote a Rogue Trooper or two but that wouldn't really count while D.R. and Quinch would. (Emperor 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: 'V for Vendetta' is in the DC Comics section, however it was begun in Warrior magazine so would be Early British Work. Should it be moved? Midnightblueowl 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue arose when we first started tidying up the bibliography before its move here.  I still stand by classifying it as early British. (Emperor 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  V for Vendetta - Early British or DC 

message: this is definitely early british - given style and text
The name seems unnecessarily clunky - "List of works by Alan Moore" is tighter while still accurate and fits with others like List of works by Alan Grant. (Emperor (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  arka 

message: I'm curious as to whether or not it would be advantageous to have the list of works in a sortable table with two columns: Alphabetical order (which is by definition by title if done correctly) and the release date.
As a collecting fan of AM, I've so very often wanted to look back for whatever may be the most recent of his titles or what titles were done within specific time ranges.  It would be very useful to me and perhaps to others?
Tgm1024 (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline?  A table with two sortable columns: titles & date?
Talk:Tibetan spaniel

message: The 'country of origin' parameter of the infobox currently says Tibet. The problem is,  uses "country" to mean "state", specifically "preferably at time of origin to avoid squabbling over current political boundaries." But this rule is not always observed: to take one of the numerous examples, Phalène on the Spaniel page is listed as being from "Belgium"; but in the 16th century when the page says the breed originates, it should be the Southern Netherlands. For consistency, this spaniel should then be said to originate from China. But even if we were to take the 'at the time of origin' strictly, one cannot take Tibetan independence for granted. The earliest reliable date given here is at the breed's induction into the United Kingdom in the 1890s, when Tibet was under Qing Dynasty China. Therefore, the country of origin should be changed to China. Quigley (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *The country of origin as recognised by kennel clubs and associations is Tibet, not China, as stated in the citation I've added. Miyagawa (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then would you object to putting "FCI-recognized country of origin" in the parameter instead of simply "country of origin", and applying it consistently? Quigley (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Country of origin

message: The temperament section doesn't sound at all like an encyclopedia. It sounds like a breeder trying to sell you one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.193.59 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperament 
Talk:Road to Utopia

message: I am transcribing my late mother's diary (she lived in London, England). The entry for October 29 1945 reads: "Saw Bob & Bing in "Road to Utopia" in the afternoon...
IMDB gives the release date at 22 March 1946, and the Wikipedia article confirms the release year as 1946. How could my mother have seen the movie well before the release date? Was it released in different countries at different times?
Sorry to abuse Wikipedia's talk page in this way, but I'd be most grateful for an explanation, if anyone can help. Nick Michael (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this movie available before the release date?
Talk:RPK

message: The "differences" section says that a difference in the RPK and AK is that the RPK has an elevation adjustable sight. Every AKM/Ak74 I've dealt with has an elevation adjustable sight. So this should probably be removed as a difference. SenorBeef 04:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rear sight adjustment?

message: I could be wrong, but I believe the picture of a US soldier helping a foreign soldier with his weapon depicts a Kalashnikov class assault rifle such as an AK47 or an AK74, not an RPK.
it's an RPK series weapon, you can tell by the stock.Paulwharton 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error In Picture Caption?

message: Could someone please get a couple of English Links to information on the RPK. Most of the people here probably do not speak fluent Russian.Paulwharton 16:27, 08 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English Language Links

message: The image comparing the RPK-74 and AK-74 has been flipped horizontally.  The ejection port and fire selector are on the wrong side.  Would changing it cause any copyright problems? Zm634 (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison Image

message: The caption under the main picure reads: "RPK with a 75-round drum magazine." I don't know how many rounds are in ther, but tha is NOT a "drum mag" it's not even close.
:Well, it was a minor mistake.  The picture was replaced but the caption was not changed to reflect the image.  I corrected it.  Nice catch. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Mistake 

message: Is there a source out there that confirms if (and when) the RPK was used during the Vietnam War? I've seen many a picture of captured VC and NVA weapons caches, and I've seen many an RPD in those pictures, but I've never seen an RPK. It is certainly possible that it was used, but it should be sourced.63.3.21.129 (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam War Use 

message: "Supplied with the RPK are: spare magazines, a cleaning rod, cleaning kit (stored in a hollowed compartment in the buttstock), a sling, oil bottle, and magazine pouches (a single-pocket pouch for a drum magazine or a 4-pocket pouch for box magazines)."
Are you sure? Supplied by whom? Kalashnikov? This is actually how RPDs come into government service, under whatever contract they are procured under, with a gun, "spare magazines", sling, oil bottle, and one of two random types of magazine pouch? Has this always been the way procurement worked? Is it still today? What about the RPKs built in other nations, do they all come with this exact same list of items? 
To me this sounds like a list of things that comes with an ex-RPK when one buys them in the civilian market, or rather, what comes with them when wholesalers buy them in large lots for juresale in the US. I don't think the claim is accurate or even relevant to the article otherwise. 
2600:1000:B103:C09E:0:16:F401:7601 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessories?
Talk:Rock 'n' Roll High School

message: Back in the 1980s German tv showed "Rock'n'Roll High School" as a series, was this basically the movie or is there also a seperately produced tv series? (Danninx (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The tv-series "Rock'n'Roll High School" 

message: Duration of tracks 12 and 13 are swapped.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.46.208.216 (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracks Length 

message: Possibly it went national on August 24th, but it was in limited release before then. They had first run it at a Texas drive-in to no success, but then it opened in New York's 8th Street Playhouse. Here is the Daily News movie review from August 3rd, the day it opened there. Here are the listings of showtimes from that day, here's the ad -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now addressed this, thnks to some info posted by the director. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date is wrong 

message: In the Soundtrack section, under the "Other songs appearing in the film include:" there is a song by Huey Lewis and the News - "Who Cares".
That song is not in the film, it is not listed in the film credits, and the song was released in June of 1980 on their debut album, which is about one year after the film was released.
Please double check this and make the correction. 2603:7000:AB07:F1A6:F1C3:C945:ED2A:C73E (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the Soundtrack section
Talk:Romance & Cigarettes

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.movieweb.com/news/romance-and-cigarettes-coming-to-dvd-on-february-12th. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Aridoamerica

message: this article needs references. And it needs some things explained such as:
* how does this region relate to the North American Southwest? Is it a subregion of the Southwest?
* what is the origin of this term? who coined it?
* has the definition of Aridoamerica changed?
* what peoples are considered Aridoamericans?
* how popular is this term? (for example, the term is not prominent in the Handbook of North American Indians?)
* are peoples of this region who lived near good water sources excluded?
– ishwar  (speak) 17:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: explanation

message: I'm afraid that I have to question the map. "Aridoamerica" is supposed to cover the desert or near-desert regions of Mexico and the Southwest U.S. that had significant pre-Columbian populations. The map shown encompasses large swaths of forested areas and even a great deal of swampland. The sources listed do not appear to explicitly define this region per se. You can look at the following for reference:
    Precipitation Map
This shows that approximately 1/10 - 1/5 of the area shown on the map in the northeast cannot be classified in this way.
Is there any actual documentation that shows that anthropologists or geographers actually use the term in this way?
--MC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.1 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map problem 

message: Accepting the presumed convenience of representing what are actually transition zones by lines, the map labeled Aridoamerica needs a northern boundary to enclose the appropriate space, and U.S. states outlined as Mexican states are. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map labeled Aridoamerica has no northern boundary nor U.S. states
Category talk:Particle detectors

message: Is this category meant for types of particle detectors or notable instances of particle detectors?  (It has both right now.)  And what should its relationship to the category "particle experiments" be?  If no one has an opinion, I will change this category into one for types and the other into one for instances.  Strait 17:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments, so I will do it. Strait 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for itlinas 00:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:King's Guard (Thailand)

message: This article is apalling. It is both incomprehensible and almost totally devoid of information. Would anyone else support the idea of a complete rewrite? Please respond. Bosola 17:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the article has been rewritten, but now it consists mostly of a huge regimental unit list which is ugly and probably unnecessary. Is there somewhere we can link to so we could cut it out? --Lendorien 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut out the unit list. Still needs sourcing. --Lendorien 14:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Article is a stub and an unsourced orphan and falls under the scope of the article Thai Royal Army. I sugegst this article be merged into it. --Lendorien 15:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent addition of notable units reminded me that the RTG, as we called it, was hired to defend the perimeter of U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy Airfield, or RTNAFB, as we called it, during the Vietnam War. We were told the RTG was most emphatically not regular army, but more like mercenaries, and that they belonged to the Prince. --Pawyilee (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Unenforceable

message: I did a rewrite of this article, because the original article was just plain wrong.  I am not pretending this is a masterpiece, but at least it sets out the law correctly as it applies in most common law countries. Legis 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the 2005 law made any difference?  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2005/50019--r.htm  Kellyna 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the "Statement of Goods Act" which is referred to in this article? BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

message: I believe that this article should redirect to void (law), as the concepts have no practical differences.  It's like pleading guilty, versus pleading Nolo contendere.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Void (law)
Talk:Maude Gonne McBride

message: This article is redundant---there is already an article on Maud Gonne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maud_Gonne  ---Charles 17:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - merge into earlier main article Maud Gonne --mervyn 21:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant
Talk:Subdivisions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

message: Can someone please clarify how this article is different from Voivodships of Poland? --Elonka 17:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is narrower in time scope (lists only voivodeships of the PLC) and broader in administrative scope (lists other units than voivodships).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge question 

message: Almost done restructuring the page to point to the proper sub-pages. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated the page to keep to topic 

message: This article is a bit confusing about the subdivisions of the Voivodeships.  It says, "Each voivodeship was governed by a Voivode (governor). Voivodeships were further divided into starostwa, each starostwo being governed by a starosta. Cities were governed by castellans."  But then in the table, it divides all the Voivodeships into Powiats--without explanation.  When I look up Powiat, and read the history, it just says, "The history of Polish powiats goes back to the second half of the 14th century. They remained the basic unit of territorial organization in Poland, then in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, until the latter's partitioning in 1795."    140.147.236.194 (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I'll fix this. Powiat is the correct answer, starostwa existed only in the royal lands. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused about subdivisions? 

message: Can be copied from pl wiki version of this article (:pl:Podział terytorialny Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: List of powiats
Talk:MTR (software)

message: Re merge, absolutely no, and the reason is very simple: My Trace Route is a specific program / instance of the general traceroute and, if anything, should just be a para in the general article. I also note from Talk:Traceroute that this suggestion is now pretty old, so will remove the template. --AlisonW 17:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that this merge rightly so, never took place. --Hm2k (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:HMS Pursuer (D73)

message: The discussion for this move will take place on Category talk:Bogue class aircraft carriers because it affects many Bogue-class aircraft carriers which were transferred to the Royal Navy upon completion and never saw USN service. TomTheHand 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: The text says the ship's capacity is 18 aircraft, the infobox says 20. Which is the correct number? RASAM (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers
Talk:Charlton Media Group (Canada)

message: This Does Not Exist, Charlton Comics is over it's been absorbed by DC Comics! I looked Everywhere on The Internet For This, and i couldn't find it or Sword In Stone Productions, so unless someone shows me the link, this should be deleted! So please delete this! Also Is This The Charlton Media In Singapore: http://www.charltonmedia.com/contact.asp ? 67.167.13.117 
So Really This Page Should Be Deleted!(talk) 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page Should Be Deleted 

message: Roger Broughton does (or did?) exist, Sword in the Stone, A+, ACG, and Charlton media all existed.
the 200 comics or so that they published do exist. see the listing at the Grand Comicbook Database.
The recent (2008) Dark horse reprints of Nemesis and Magicman are (c) Charlton Media.  So it still exists. yes it  doesnt have a website - but a lot of things that exist dont have a website. 
DC bought about 8 of the Charlton superheroes that Dick Giordano edited - the rest went to various companies and individuals - Robin Snyder, John Lustig, Mike Catron (Apple Comics), Broughton bought most of the rest. 
Steven R. (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This page Should be Expanded 

message: I can find no independent verification for the claim "In 2009 DC Announced That They would be purchasing these [Broughton's Charlton Media Group] companies (and the one in Singapore)" so I have removed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.7.31 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: DC buys out Broughton?
Talk:Mannus

message: Mannus is probably derived from the Vedic Manushya.
Manu was the first man as per Hindu tradition and his descendants were/are called Manushya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.21.152 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 12 June 2006
:I'm not sure what you mean by "derived". Germanic and Indo-Aryan culture share a common origin, but I know of no actual cultural contact in the first centuries BC and AD. So rather than one being derived from the other, they may simply have evolved from the same Indoeuropean concept. --Helmold 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin
Talk:HMS Puncher (D79)

message: The discussion for this move will take place on Category talk:Bogue class aircraft carriers because it affects many Bogue-class aircraft carriers which were transferred to the Royal Navy upon completion and never saw USN service. TomTheHand 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I've changed "Propulsion was provided by one shaft, two boilers and a steam turbine ..." to "Propulsion was provided by two boilers and a steam turbine driving one shaft". 
I think it is more logical, but I'm no expert in mechanics so if it's wrong, please change it, but don't mass-revert as that would result in the loss of all other copyedits.
RASAM (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Power
Talk:HMS Reaper (D82)

message: The discussion for this move will take place on Category talk:Bogue class aircraft carriers because it affects many Bogue-class aircraft carriers which were transferred to the Royal Navy upon completion and never saw USN service. TomTheHand 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I've changed "Propulsion was provided by one shaft, two boilers and a steam turbine" to "Propulsion was provided by two boilers, a steam turbine and one shaft" as I think it is a bit more logical to have the boilers first. If its wrong, please change it back, but don't just mass-revert as all the other copyedits will be lost.
RASAM (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Power
Talk:Church of the Province of South East Asia

message: A proposal is being floated at the project page that there be a  standard format for organising each article about national provinces of the Anglican Communion, including this one. Please consider participating in the straw vote and discussion. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uniform format proposal

message: Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Church of the Province of South East Asia have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Personal Ordinariate