lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Formicarium

message: Should the article Ant Farm be merged with this article, or made to be pop tart . -Cdelosr1 22:14, 20 August 2006‎ (UTC)
:Done.  Peter O. (Talk) 14:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: If the expression "Ant Farm" is being used generically, instead of being used in reference to a particular branded product, would it not be correct to spell it as "ant farm" without capitalization? -- Wavelength (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most online sources don't capitalize it and I can't find any reliable sources that do.  An ant farm is simply a farm of ants anyway, so I'm pretty sure those are common nouns.  I'll just be bold and pull the trigger now. —LOL T/C 07:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ant Farm" is a registered trademark of Uncle Milton, Inc.  They capitalize it.  Is that reliable enough for you? — QuicksilverT @ 14:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of "Ant Farm" 

message: "This type of formicarium is for observing worker ants and its effectiveness in serious ant propagation is limited."
What is "ant propagation" supposed to mean here? Actually spreading ants across the world? Surely the effectiveness is limited there, given that you don't normally have a queen, and don't normally provide enough protein anyway. On the other hand, it is helping propagate those particular worker ants... Maybe somebody's just trying to say that this type of formicarium is of limited effectiveness for sustaining an ant colony in the long term. Please clarify. —WorldAsWill (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propagation 

message: The article claims that commercial formicarium was patented in 1931 by Frank Austin, but the Uncle Milton site claims it was invented by its now-deceased founder, Milton Levine.  If the 1931 Austin patent can't be documented, the statement should be removed. — QuicksilverT @ 14:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ant Farm® inventor 

message: In case, anybody reads this :-), I added some stuff under "History" especially the link to Austin's Patent from 1931. 
Poepkop (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austin's Patent
Talk:Red Branch

message: I agree with the proposal - but the claim in the Red Branch Knights article that the stories of the Ulster Cycle date from the Bronze Age need to be removed. Even Kenneth Jackson's belief that the Ulster Cycle was a "Window on the Iron Age" is challenged these days by scholars who see the stories as essentially medieval. --Nicknack009 22:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be here. The name "Red Branch" in the earliest stories applied to the building, and only later was it used as the name of the group of warriors. --Nicknack009 23:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger
Talk:Indian locomotive class WAG-7

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Indian locomotive class WAP-7 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 14:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Northern royal albatross

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Diomedea sanfordi - SE Tasmania 2019.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 1, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-12-01. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Talk:Annette Hanshaw

message: It would be interesting to know more about the copyright status of her works. Her music was used by Nina Paley in Paley's film, "Sita Sings the Blues", and Roger Ebert in a review describes music licensing issues that persist today: http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/having-a-wonderful-time-wish-you-could-hear  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.225.22 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless Congress amends the law, with few exceptions (such as recordings produced by Thomas Edison), all recordings made in the United States before 1972 are copyrighted until the year 2067. -- kosboot (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to the Music Modernization Act, all of Hanshaw's recordings will eventually go into the public domain (95 complete years after their initial release). - kosboot (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:National Transport Museum, Bulgaria

message: I just edited this page and I'm not sure what the translator meant by their use of the word "exponent" twice. I would have changed it to something else if I knew because as a native English speaker it doesn't make sense to me, especially after looking it up in the dictonary and thesaurus.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtarr (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks. My dictionary misled me, it cites "exponent" as a synonym of "exhibit" — an object exposed to public view. I changed both occurrences to "exhibit". --Cameltrader 09:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, welcome! I hope you enjoy contributing, but beware, it's addictive :) --Cameltrader 09:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Exponent" 

message: The English sounds perfectly fine on this page to me. Perhaps you should remove it from the  Recently completed Bulgarian translations list. Pepsi2786 00:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Cameltrader 06:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English sounds fine..
Talk:Perry Stream

message: I removed the piece of trivia about the river being featured in Little House on the Prairie on the basis that it doesn't come up in Google, and the user has been doing a lot of vandalism elsewhere on Wikipedia. I have no idea whether or not it's true, though, so please put it back if you think fit. Blowski 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:11th Armored Division (United States)

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.    --dashiellx (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 
Talk:49th Armored Division (United States)

message: By this edit  I've just stripped out a Texas Military Forces museum webpage link and a general officer bio because they do not support what the editor who inserted them say they did: the assignment of 6th Battalion, 112th Armor, to the 1st Brigade in 1989, and specific text saying that particular battalions of the 141st Infantry Regiment (United States) were assigned to the 1st Bde in 1989. It remains unclear what the original source actually was. As with my previous practice, I will post this note to the ongoing discussion at the main WT:MILHIST talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assignment of battalions to 1st Brigade in 1989
Talk:16th Armored Division (United States)

message: And 16th Armored was instrumental in saving them... How can this be the case, if the deepest point of penetration of US forces in WW-II was Plzen ? Brno/Vienna area is some 150 miles (240/250 km) further east. Take a look at the map... --129.187.244.28 (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sudeten"Germans, expelled from Brno marched to Austrian border and herded ...?
Talk:14th Armored Division (United States)

message: Tanker 72 Although I am delighted you have undertaken the task of filling out the history of the 14th AD on this webpage, I am obligated to ask the following of you.
1.) Please do not use copywrited materials from the 14th AD Association Website without prior permission.
2.) Please do not use materials taken from my published works without proper citation. For example, the information used in the CCR Rifle Company section of the article is from one of my published and copywrited articles.
3.) Please make the necessary changes and obtain the requested authorities as soon as possible.
4.) Please contact me directly if you are a member of the 14th AD Association so we can properly coordinate your edits in terms of permissions and citations.
I will make mention of your efforts to improve this webpage at our annual reunion this week, and that I have requested you use appropriate permissions and citations.
Thank you,
Jim Lankford
National Historian and Website Editor
14th Armored Division Association
"LIBERATORS" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Lankford (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 12 September 2011

message: I think CMH stands for Congressional Medal of Honour, DSC is Distinguished Service Cross and SS is Silver Star. But I am stumped over LM, SM, BSM and AM. They, (and the first three), should be explained. At the moment, the reader is confronted with a meaningless jumble of letters. RASAM (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The initials are now spelled out with appropriate wiki-links. Hope that helps. Boneyard90 (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Medals
Talk:Indian locomotive class WAG-5

message: what is a BOXN wagon?? Peter Horn User talk 21:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOXN wagon 
Talk:Gunnar Kaasen

message: ==Untitled==
What choice? Leaving Rohn asleep? I'd be clearer: "accused Kaasen of leaving Rohn to sleep and making the last leg of the journey himself to hog the event's publicity. Kaasen's defenders say he made the right choice by letting Rohn sleep and passing him by..." Kovu401 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "made the right choice"? 

message: What choice? Leaving Rohn asleep? I'd be clearer: "accused Kaasen of leaving Rohn to sleep and making the last leg of the journey himself to hog the event's publicity. Kaasen's defenders say he made the right choice by letting Rohn sleep and passing him by..." Kovu401 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:9th Armored Division (United States)

message: If the 9TH Armored Division did not get to England until September, 1944 then how could they have also participated in Operation Fortitude to fool the Germans into thinking that the invasion was coming at the Pas-de-Calais? Suggest removal of information pertaining to Operation Fortitude.99.175.223.227 (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data pertaining to "Fortitude" 

message: "attached 22 November 1945 to 9 January 1945" = should be 22 November 1944!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.12.24.12 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed!
Talk:8th Armored Division (United States)

message: I'v done some fairly substantial updates and would love any feedback on what else is needed to get this out of the 'start' category.--Lepeu1999 21:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good B-Class now.  One point that stands out, though: the citations really ought to have page numbers, not just book titles. Kirill Lokshin 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I'll work on that.--Lepeu1999 01:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: Made a case for the reinclusion of the deleted citation on the admin who deleted it's talk page.--Lepeu1999 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reincluded the citation as I believe it was deleted in error.  I made a case for the reinclusion on the editor's talk page.  The site is a legitimate veterans association and as such counts as a primary source.  Since it's been coupled with a reliable secondary source its use is fully in keeping with WP. The editor in question agree over a week ago that he/she may have been hasty but has done nothing since so I'm adding it back.--Lepeu1999 19:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted citation 

message: Obviously that photo was taken with the 11th AD and shows a scene in Wernberg, Bavaria - so Central Germany does not fit here ! --129.187.244.28 (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo: ''US Armored Infantrymen advance past an M4A3 Sherman tank in Central Germany, April 1945''
Talk:7th Armored Division (United States)

message: *"Wikipedia has a policy that AOL and Comcast web site links cannot be included here" actually that is not true. There is, however an automated script, User:Shadowbot, that automatically removes such linsk because they are very often spam. I ahve blocked this script (bot) from operating for 24 hours, and asked the programmer to fix the issue. DES (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: The lede paragraph needs to be updated to summarize the notable actions of the unit. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: I wikified the article somewhat by adding more links and subheads. Someone with more expertise on the unit's actions could easily expand each of the subhead sections with detail of the various battles, like the defense of St. Vith. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing needed
Talk:Ballade (forme fixe)

message: I added in a pronunciation key.  I am not sure if it is totally correct since I have little experience with IPA and it may need editing, however, it is better than nothing since some people may think it's pronounced like, "bell-aid" (I rarely grasp French pronunciation). 68.115.90.55 01:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation
Talk:Expert Field Medical Badge

message: An Army Regulation manual contains the Army Regulation and the regulation is the authority, not the manual...  Use of the word "manual" becomes redundant. Deathbunny 22:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: ...From what I remember, the Grouping of badges is for wear purposes, but Combat Badges supercede Expert badges.  I may be wrong, but a cite might be nice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.219.6.37 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Sure I agree with your "higher", "same", and "lower" assessments... 
Talk:Chanuyot

message: Shouldn't we call this Chanuyot in line with the rule that Sepharidic hebrew is used for general Jewish concepts? --Shirahadasha 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. JFW | T@lk 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: I added one source (about the move of the Sanhedrin), but for the rest perhaps Shira wants to send an email to Dovid Teitelbaum (david@campsci.com), whose page is really not that bad (apart from the speculative assertion that the Al Aqsa incorporates the chanuyot ruins). JFW | T@lk 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The Chanuyot were a storehouse? this must be a case of mistranslation - the word חנויות in hebrew is translated store - but not as in storehouse, but as in shops. Daniel Tzvi 21:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excuse me? 
Talk:San Clemente al Laterano

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nomination.--FoxyProxy 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There's a paragraph that says: There is evidence of pagan worship on the site. In the second century members of a Mithraic cult built a small temple dedicated to Mithras in an insula, or apartment complex, on the site. This temple, used for initiation rituals, lasted until about the third century. Somebody has added, in a way that cannot be seen on the article: "not true:by which time Christianity had largely supplanted pagan worship in Rome." What can't be true is what that hidden note says. If you consider that Diocletian died on 305, and that Christianism was tolerated only after the Edict of Milan (313), this is, at the beginning of the fourth century, you cannot possibly think that Christianity had largely supplanted pagan worship in the third century in Rome. So it should disappear even as an hidden text as now is, unless somebody cites the origin of that sentence. --Joanenglish (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Invisible note

message: I have raised the importance of this, architecturally, because of the site's rarity in revealing all the layers of building, still accessible to the public, including a Mithraic tomb, and a very rare example of an atrium. Amandajm (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Top importance
Talk:Hendrik Herzberg

message: I am not sure why this is being considered for deletion, but Herzberg is a marvelous and very famous writer.
The writer's name is Hendrik HerTzberg, and there is a separate Wiki page for him already, so this one should probably be deleted to eliminate confusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.5.97 (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pheasant pigeon

message: If this species has been split then the page needs to be moved to lowercase and perhaps new species pages need to be created. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 23:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The IUCN now also sees the 4 subspecies as 4 different species. I suggest as well that this page would be split into different pages for the different species.--Jarne Colman (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not split it yet as the IOC has not even proposed it as a potential split yet for the next draft (v8.2). 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: At the other hand, WHB alive does recognizes 4 species: https://www.hbw.com/species/green-naped-pheasant-pigeon-otidiphaps-nobilis.Jarne Colman (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I did had a look at the pages on taxonomy on the wiki-project and after looking at the comparison between the authors, I must say I agree we should wait longer. At least until the majority of recent works of big authors agrees on turning the 4 subspecies into species.Jarne Colman (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: I don't think we should keep the species IUCN status. The IUCN no longer threats it as one species, and thus it is no longer true to say that it sees the species as 'least concern'.Jarne Colman (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN-status 

message: Will this article ever be split. The IUCN lists it as four different species. We could do something that is done with other birds that are considered one species by some, and multiple by others, by keeping this article and creating a page for the other four birds. Just curious! Historynerd2 (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Split 

message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Efd3eAK1N4
https://abcbirds.org/news/black-naped-pheasant-pigeon-rediscovered/
https://www.audubon.org/news/like-finding-unicorn-researchers-rediscover-black-naped-pheasant-pigeon-bird
https://dariuszzdziebk.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Black-naped-Pheasant-pigeon-by-Doka-Nason_American-Bird-Conservancy_1600x900.png 104.246.225.133 (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real image instead of drawing for O. n. insularis
Talk:Derby Dinner Playhouse

message: I lost my photo of DDP, so I'll go get another one.--Bedford 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Talk:2004 United States presidential election in Florida

message: It seems as if the content of both of these articles should be in one place, preferably here, since this seems to be the "main" article discussing the 2004 Election in Florida. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps the article should instead/also be merged 'back' to the main irregularities article, 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities. Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me.  However, I think this article should at least have a subheading with a few paragraphs devoted to the controversy along with a link to the main article. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally created this and the ohio article back when we had only one gi-normous article.  My intent was to find a way to split up the content. into subarticles.  now we have the machines-suppression-polls-legal actions break down which seems to work pretty well.  I was actually hoping these articles would be deleted in the vfds, but i think merge is actually more ideal.  this article predominately deals with vote suppression.  i suggest merging this and ohio into 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression.  I'm fine with the idea of a subheading and a few paragraphs, with a link. Kevin Baastalk 17:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To make sure there's no confusion: I suggested merging 2004 United States election voting controversies, Florida and 2004 United States election voting controversies, Ohio into 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression.  In any case, we all seem to agree that there should be a subheading and a few short paragraphs on this page, w/an appropriate link. Kevin Baastalk 18:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, one could do the reverse and split/merge 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression into 2004 United States election voting controversies, Florida and 2004 United States election voting controversies, Ohio. I never liked the redundancy. Kevin Baastalk 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, i misunderstood, sorry, my English sucks...--Revas 18:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's my fault, and it's my bad english.  I didn't suggest - i meant to suggest.  I thought this was the talk page for the irregularities article when i wrote that.  Let's start on a draft for the section and link in this article. Kevin Baastalk 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge controversies article

message: The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration Motion
Talk:Eloi

message: This page is stupid!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.40.201.139 (talk • contribs) .
:What's your reason for saying that? --Makaristos 13:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s the kind of statement that could get a guy fired from a prestigious voice acting gig. 2600:1014:B091:1360:C045:5503:16D4:FDBF (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled