lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:October 14

message: Removed: 
*1948 - Malagasy Republic becomes independent. 
Could not be confirmed. --mav 16:02, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this page it was October 14, 1958. Adam Bishop 16:04, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Well he IS the new bond...check the 2005 entry.--Codenamecuckoo 18:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Craig 

message: "2008 - It is rumored that in 2008 aliens will show themselves with a 2000 foot space craft and stay in our skys for 3 24 hour periods." What's with this? It seems like this rumour begun circulating today for some reason; anyone know why?--Soapy000 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Currently there isn't enough printed material out there to justify the channeling forecast for it to be mentioned in the Wikipedia. Currently from what I've researched, its a "vision" so far by two people; which has become a widespread 'rumor', but all the material is all pointing to the two "channelers"; (Mikey Quinsey (EscapeIllusion (?))and Magenta Pixie (MagentaPixie2012). Until actual written material is published on it, I think this is currently just trivial material, and doesn't belong to Wikipedia (until published more) M4771 (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Written material about how it is affecting bookies: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/editors-choice/2008/10/13/bookies-suspend-bets-on-alien-landing-86908-20798802/ 67.71.93.166 (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ONE NET article about it, and thats not enough to be covered in wikipedia. There should be more, and it should be referenced on something thats not on the internet as well. Theres also lots of skeptical questions going around the whole topic M4771 (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aliens? 

message: I can't find anything that backs up this claim "1834 – In Philadelphia, members of the American Whig Party and American Democrats carry out a brick, stone, and firearm, battle for the control of an election in Moyamensing Township, resulting in one death, several injuries, and the burning down of a block of the town's buildings"
I only see other sites that repeat the exact same text without any context or references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.9.131.44 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find anything either. I have removed it for being unsupported. The other sites you see are likely mirrors of wikipedia, or which there are many. Thanks. Winston365 (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle for Moyamensing
Talk:Lung

message: I am an avid learner and often use the platform "Khan Academy", which is the educational website that this Wikipedia article references in one of its videos. However, the caption of said video states that it was taken "from the Khan Academy", which I feel is quite wrong. Never in my almost two years of studying there have I heard anyone mention Khan Academy as an actual concrete "object". I believe that this should be changed (refer to the subject), but do not want to do it without a general consensus. Does anyone else agree? Liamyangll (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with this change --Iztwoz (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I have updated it because there is no point waiting for more people to agree - no one has come for two months. I have linked this talk page section in my edit summary. Liamyangll (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "from the Khan Academy" to "from Khan Academy" 

message: Might as well rename the article, as it is pretty much unclear until you get to get to section six that all of the previous was only about human lungs. Sure, mammals will have many of these things in common, but even within that group there are significant differences, not to mention non-mammalian lungs. There are many categorical statements that are simply not true (volumes, weights, lobe numbers are just the obvious ones), unless it's made clear they apply only to human lungs. Renaming the article and splitting off section six into a new article will be easier than trying to fix that whole mess. Fgf10 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to "Human Lung", it's easier.... 

message: when you inhale does air in lung have higher concentration than air in capillary and when you exhale does air in capillary have higher concentration than air in lung
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c3:4201:d70::af01 (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Clyde!Franklin! 05:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Lung →  – The article uses "lungs", not "lung". Mucube (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any rule that the bolded term in the lead sentence must match the grammatical number of the title. I think it's fine as is. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 November 2022 

message: Lungs 2402:3A80:1182:E158:0:0:87BD:8D75 (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology 

message: Has anyone got self-made audios of the human respiration? I am kinds dissappointed on the fact that there are none. DuDeMaNBaLl (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lung sounds needed
Talk:Ape genocide

message: Shouldn't the words "Great ape children" be changed to the more scientific term "Great ape babies" in order to be more NPOV? Shralk 02:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Children" 

message: I'm going to add the merger tag to this. I'd considered VfD but there is enough to go into ape extinction. This gets a lot of google hits but I could not find one which wasn't simply a borrowing from Wiki or an accidental conjunction of the two terms. I really think this case of the Encyclopedia creating rather than describing a topic. Marskell 12:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, time's up. Marskell 14:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger
Talk:Citation

message: In academia and textual studies is there a word for this?: "All the books and authors which happen to be mentioned in a particular book, but which aren't really 'citations.'"
For example, William James and Carl Jung (obliquely) are mentioned, along with James' book "The Varieties of Religious Experience", in the "Big Book" of Alcoholics Anonymous. But they aren't really "citations" or "references." It's not like there's a footnote: "See William James page such-and-such.". They're just mentioned as part of the story. Carl Jung isn't even named - he's just referred to obliquely. But is there a word for all the texts and authors which happen to be mentioned in a written work?
Other examples:
All the books and authors which are mentioned in the Complete Works of, say, Goethe or Tolstoy.
Or all the books mentioned within the actual text of the Bible: https://carm.org/other-books-mentioned-in-the-bible
I'm trying to find a word for this. It doesn't just include any "person" mentioned - I'm only counting mentions of people who are "authors"--who have written something.
I'm tempted to invent a word if no such word exists: "referentia."
Traversetravis (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Try asking at a WP:RD? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a word for the books and authors which are merely mentioned in a book? 

message: Lying for the Admiralty, book by Margaret Cameron-Ash (2018)  
Wimbledon32 (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a test? Clarinetguy097 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong here? 

message: That big subsection, mostly a list, should probably be split into its own subarticle. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split [[citation styles]] 

message: The reason I say this because it can get annoying trying to cite for video games, I made a article on Papyrus (Character) and submitted in hopes of it becoming an official Wikipedia page but was rejected because of the sources not being “Reilable” Sonic Punch Revival (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As it says at the top of this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Nardog (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should have a citation for video game 

message: Impact of adding the right ingredients in Bread and Pastry 175.176.69.163 (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical research 

message: Never seen this before. How, then, to edit these areas? Primergrey (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Section editing not supported"
Talk:Archon

message: The three-eyed beings from Sirius are an example of possible Archons.
Read: Philip K. Dick
If an Archon can be the head of a sorrority there has to be a female form of the word. What is it?
Should we perhaps move the gnostic Archons to another page? I'm sure we could expand on what's already in the article, such as that the first Archon (when not called God himself) is often identified as Athoth, the Reaper, or how, in the Apocryphon of John, a massive list is given for the Archons responsible for engineering the body of Adam. I'd seperate it myself, but I wanted to see how everyone feels on this.
If one goes to Thesmothete one is redirected to Archon, but the word thesmothete appears nowhere on the Archon page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.41.204 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Who is this All Holiness *T*he Ecumenical Patriarch? Can I get a reference? Is he even historically relevant and if so should he not be named and given the treatment an historically relevant Pater Ecumaniac deserves?  Get continuity on this stat.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9A00:5BB0:840:EC79:E08B:F3E7 (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: His Holiness the Unnamed Father of Ecumenical

message: I think the Gnosticism section of this article should be splitted into a different article. The political title is poorly related to the Gnostic meaning, and the only relation that exist is because one (the Gnostic term) derives from the other (the political title), but besides that, they are now two completely different things. --Camahuetos (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnostic meaning versus political title. 

message: Camahuetos, your reasoning for splitting pages is misinformed.  The first use of Archon was 1579 CEhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archon.  The Nag Hammadi textshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library date back to mid Fourth Century AD.https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/post-biblical-period/the-nag-hammadi-codices/.  The title derived from the beings themselves made the holders of the title relevant because of their relationship with the actual Archonshttps://books.google.com/books?id=0fpuDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&dq=the+relationship+between+the+alien+archons+and+the+title+archon&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAsLT1w7LfAhVOQq0KHSDyC94Q6AEISjAG#v=onepage&q=the%20relationship%20between%20the%20alien%20archons%20and%20the%20title%20archon&f=falseZerostatetechnologies (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Nag Hammadi contrasting first evidence of modern useage

message: Not sure if done right (not that experienced with this tags)
But I would suggest to move the last section to the coressponding article. Otherwise this article is about two diffrent concepts and the Gnostic Archon is also in two different articles.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  splitting
Talk:74 BC

message: The EB 1911 article that the Bithynia is based on states that there were only 3 kings named Nicomedes, the last being Nicomedes III who willed his kingdom to the Romans. However, the Oxford Classical Dictionary states that their were four kings with this name, the last being Nicomedes IV Philopator whose raids led to the First Mithridatic War & presumably bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans.
Hence my vagueness in this article. More reasearch is needed to decide between these 2 authorities. -- llywrch 17:52, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicomedes

message: The intro text is clearly european centered. The year was only known by the Roman name in the roman areas, which pretty much only included Italy at the time, and it was only known as 74 bc since the middle ages in christian europe. Taketa (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And Europe is where this "year" existed. In other calendars in other parts of the world, it was the end of one year and the beginning of another. Thus, it wasn't one but two years in most parts of world. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 08:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ... If you mean that noone else called the year from day 1 to day 365 by this name, then think again. This year existed nowhere. Noone at the time called it this. The roman calender did not follow modern calenders and a consul's term started on the ide of March (15th of March). So these years didn't exist even with romans. Not even in middle age Europe. Middle age Europe did not follow the Gregorian calender. So it was two years with them as well. Taketa (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the Roman consuls started taking office on January 1 starting in 152 BC, so that's the date they were starting on in this year. Secondly, it doesn't say that it was a year in the Gregorian calendar, but rather, in the pre-Julian Roman calendar. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 11:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. I am starting to understand where you are coming from. Especially the second point is important. So this 74 BC is per the Roman calendar. I never heard of this before. Is this common amongst all the Englishspeaking world or a specific group (like historians?). I'm pretty sure it is not custom in the Netherlands and I'm pretty sure most common people have never heard of this before. Surely 74 BC is counted according to gregoian count and not pre julian roman count. This sounds too extreme to be true. Do you have any sources that the modern calendar describes 74 BC per the Roman calendar and not the gregorian one? Why was the choice made for this Roman year, which does not equal regular years. It sounds rather European centered and an odd choice. Taketa (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro text
Talk:Berserker

message: Why are all these articles Norse-Centric? When the Norse are the least of them?120.29.109.137 (talk) 05:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norse-Centric? 

message: The photo of the reenactor with the bear on his head isn't very historical and unnecessary in this article. I am going to remove it unless someone can make a very good case for retaining it. 2403:5813:9C91:1:F3DE:27FF:BD2D:9D4F (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove reenacter image
Talk:Norton Juster

message: I've found this for sale with the subtitle "A Paranomastic Odyssey" (is this a misspelling of paronomastic?  If so, is the misspelling intentional?), but I also see citations as "A Paranormal Odyssey."  I suspect the latter is an error.  Can anyone confirm or refute the actual title of this work? Krychek 16:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stark Naked 

message: I'm afraid I don't understand why there's a reference to an unpublished book here. MrDarwin 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Passing of Irving"

message: This article has serious fact issues. I think it needs a rewrite or at least some serious work that I don't want to commit to doing. There's a lot of unsourced or badly sourced material here (see the claim about Minnie Mouse being his mother) and, while most of it is sourced with pages from one book, I've already found evidence of sources that don't support the claims (the Scholastic biography). Unfortunately, I don't have access to a copy of the book being cited to verify the claims. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to fix this/bring it into compliance with Biographies of Living Persons. Stellarnebula (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Obvious vandalism can just be removed as I have done.  The poor sourcing is more difficult but that's no reason not to deal with the vandalism for now. If it continues then take a look at WP:RFPP. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright thank you! Stellarnebula (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Vandalism/Biographies of Living Persons Policy 

message: Who knew that a phantom toll booth was a prison of your mind? Who knew the moral of the story is to free your mind?  
Do you think I'm wrong?
 I think it's the biggest grinner to show up in a while. I read this about 1,000 years ago when I was still a child.  Then and now, children and adults and fossils think that the title means different. There are no discussions about it.
If you were to look it up, the word tolbooth, in a Webster's dictionary perhaps on page 1215 if you're lucky, you might see that a toll booth is a Scottish prison or jail.  I wish our author was still around.  I bet you this conversation would give him the biggest grin. He probably crossed over grinning over this hidden fact. 107.127.18.21 (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phantom Tolbooth
Talk:Ralph Engelstad

message: Citation #1: Las Vegas Sun article is a broken link.
How about this for a better source? Jerk the Strings by Nick Coleman, Minnesota Monthly, October 2001 
Evan.wondrasek (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Citation 

message: I have made some fairly substantial edits to the article, which was growing large with philanthropic bloat between Engelstad himself and the foundation that bears his name. I trimmed all of these substantially, in line with WP:NOTPROMO. I have also re-arranged the article so that the material related to his life is at the top and the philanthropic material is grouped together as is was previously split. In the philanthropy section, I have kept all of the namesakes but moved it to a subsection. I do wonder if the controversies should be merged into one section and each of the issues (alleged Nazi-sympathies and UND naming) as a subsection. Ip208man (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming article
Talk:Railroad car

message: *US Air force G50 Strategic Air Command guard car
*US Air Force Guard Car G-50Strategic Air Command guard car, rebuilt from Army 1943 troop kitchen car #8750. Photographed at the Western Pacific Railroad Museum in Portola, California.
*Peacekeeper Rail Garrison Car.
--Pawyilee (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military cars 

message: Slate waggon is the actual spelling of the name of the article. The alternative spelling slate wagon is a redirect to the first spelling. Your "typo fix" served no useful purpose. Peter Horn User talk 14:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. In the case of the alternative spellings of waggon and wagon it is the reverse, the first one being the redirect to the latter. Go figure. To play it safe, before you correct a "typo", click on the link first. Alternaive spellings can be a minefield. Peter Horn User talk 14:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative spellings 

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: Not moved. There is strong, unanimous, policy-based opposition to the move so I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 February 2023 

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: Procedural close. Per the strong consensus here, and this proposal has already been closed earlier today. Opening up a new one immediately after a previous SNOW closure is unproductive. If you disagree with a closed move, you should either talk with the closer on their talk page as mentioned above, or open a move review not simply open a new discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 February 2023
Talk:U2

message: given the extent to which it pervades their lyrics and themes of their songs.  It is not like their faith is a secret. 170.52.155.145 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd there are only a couple of vague passing references go their religious faith . . . 

message: something I've been wondering recently is whether or not Irish use British English and would thereby treat bands as collective nouns, considering that their country—contrary to popular belief—is not part of UK like Northern Ireland (think of Snow Patrol). that said, are bands like U2, Interference, and Stockton's Wing (the latter two articles of which I recently fixed) supposed to use British English, thereby treating bands and groups as collective nouns? Geoyui (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, the originator's style should be maintained, unless agreed to otherwise. GenQuest "scribble" 05:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "are" or "is"? 

message: Hello! I'm asking for a little help on the article for their Joshua Tree Tour. I did a dozen edits of new information and formatting and the one thing I haven't done is writing to the appropriate dialect of English. Does anyone know Hiberno-English and is willing to fix some of the grammar for me? I think that's my best solution. Thanks. Carlinal (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Joshua Tree Tour 

message: It’s basic grammar. 2604:2D80:ED87:E800:8131:305C:CA9F:28F4 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it really isn't. Please read the collective noun article, then any article about a group from the British Isles (which aren't written in American English). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk •  contributions) 06:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's that whacky English styling. We Americans have to get used to that stuff. :-)  GenQuest "scribble" 05:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  U2 is a band, not are a band, etc.