lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Beer in New Zealand

message: There is unreferenced publicity on this page. There are no references to when and where Epic beer has won any prizes.
:I have changed this link to the official NZ international beer awards results page for 2006.Cstubbies 10:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publicity should be removed 

message: * Australis Brewing Company - brewed at Galbraith's Ale House in Auckland, and being the only brewery in the world to have its entire range (three beers) feature in Michael Jackson's Great Beer Guide.
* Limburg Brewing Company - 2008 - Originally brewed in Hawkes Bay, then contract Brewed at Steam Brewing for 2007 before finally closing in 2008.
* KEA Brewing Company - 2007 - Brewery previously Limburg Brewing
* Martinborough Beers & Ales
* Miner's Brewery - SOLD, renamed as West Coast Brewery
* Resort Brewing - SOLD, renamed as Dux de Lux Queenstown
* Hokianga Brewery
* Circle Breweries
* Pilot Bay - SOLD, was Rivehead Estate, currently Hallertau
* Milkshed Brewing 
* East West Brewery
* Marlborough Brewing Company - SOLD, now Renaissance Brewing
* Black Robin Brewing Company
* Ferrymead Brewing Company
* Twin Pines Brewhouse
* Parrot & Jigger
* Brofords - SOLD, became Circle Breweries, now Kiwi Breweries
* Club Habitat
* Egmont Brewing
* Ballies Brewery & Cafe
* Amazulu - 1997
* Victoria's - 1987
I have moved the above section from the article page. While embedded lists are discouraged on Wikipedia, there is some research value in some of these lists that should not be lost. SilkTork *YES! 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand Breweries - CLOSED  

message: There must be dozens of independent breweries in New Zealand these days. 101.100.128.225 (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In 2019 there were over 200 . It doesn't seem appropriate to list them all, but I'll add some links. Anarchangel23 (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breweries list is very incomplete
Template talk:CIA World Factbook only

message: I do not think this template is needed, where formatting can be improved is partly obvious, partly a matter of taste.
If you want to use it anyway, please put it on the talk page, do not clutter the article page.--Patrick 09:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree..I think it's rather pointless Fethroesforia 15:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Chibi Chibi

message: NOTE: This isn't an issue now. An edit by another user rewrote the paragraph this info was in.
In the anime, Sailor Moon was never forced to kill Chibi Chibi. After Chibichibi transforms into a sword as the Light of Hope, Chibichibi tells Usagi to fight Galaxia with it. While struggling with Galaxia, Usagi accidentally stabs Galaxia with it. Galaxia, angered beyond belief, attacks the sword, smashing it into many pieces. Chibichibi then disappears.
Discuss.
*This doesn't mean that Chibi Chibi is Sailor Cosmos. Danny Lilithborne 11:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ...
Talk:Adam Brothers

message: Thanks for adding the disambig notice, user:MadMax.  Strictly speaking, though, this isn't (yet) a disambig page, since we don't have specific pages for either of the two groups of Adam Brothers (only for some of the individual brothers concerned).  I suppose we could separate what's here into two stubs, and hope some sculptural or architectural experts will expand them... (I haven't removed the disambig, because I agree it is correct, in spirit if not in letter) seglea 09:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Action of 12 July 1564

message: I've removed the "move" template, as it's unclear what this event was, so impossible to move the article to its "canonical name".  If and when more information turns up, the article should be moved to the poper name. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Adventures of the Black Girl in Her Search for God

message: This has gone through several incarnations - it is important that it be NPOV - as you can see from the earlier arguments on this page, hinting that at least some readers were not prepared to go past the title, and assume it must be racist(!) and that it be (so far as it goes) accurate. While the original work is in fact very short it is far from simple, and is not easy to summarise accurately and fairly.
A recent very well-meant and literate set of changes, evidently aiming to make the synopsis more detailed, (refreshingly, by someone who had obviously read the original!) somehow managed to get the wrong end of the stick in places (IMHO) and I have made yet another attempt to get it right. It is, for instance, the "old man" (probably meant to be Shaw himself - although this is too OR for the article) who marries the Girl and the Red-Haired Irishman off. His "resemblance" to Voltaire is simply his espousal of the "let's just work in our garden" ending from Candide. I'm not sure that the reference to the colour of the children is even relevant in a short synopsis - Shaw himself plainly thinks it a barely relevant detail, although I have left it in for the nonce. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: The "Publication history" is a disaster. 
* Titles and publishers of these three books (1932, December 1932, 1934) and one serialization (1932) must be identified.
* Probably that December 1932 edition is the "original" featured in the article infobox.
There may be a fundamental confusion thruout the article, if it does fail to distinguish between a collection of short stories and one story that later became the title story. And perhaps also a specific publication of the one or the other with design and illustration/engraving by John Farleigh (whose linked biography article features this work in the lead).
--P64 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify, expand
Talk:Clyde Tunnel

message: :The tunnels are each 762 metres (2,500 feet) long with a gradient approaching 6 degrees or 1:16.
Someone miscalculated here. A gradient of 6° is 10.5% or 1:9.5, while a 1:16 gradient is just 3.6°. As I cannot judge what the correct number is, I removed the bit about the gradient altogether.—Herbee 10:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:My mistake. I double checked my source and it's 6%, not 6 degrees, which is around 1:16. I've made the correction. --Erath 16:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What the hell is a "snarlup"? Don't use a local colloquialism without linking to an article or a wiktionary entry... --Buddy13 (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: The press play and run team held a social run in Glasgow November 2023 taking a large group through the southbound tunnel. 2A02:C7E:5A42:5700:48BE:3294:A17C:3743 (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press Play & Run podcast
Category talk:Pacific hurricanes

message: }
Should this category be split according to Eastern North Pacific, Central North Pacific, Western North Pacific and South Pacific? — Instantnood 12:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:This should be for the Eastern and Central Pacific only; they are not hurricanes in the Western Pacific or the South Pacific. Those should go under Category:Pacific typhoons. CrazyC83 16:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Draw distance

message: This article isn't very good, it needs more elaboration, and it also seems to be implying that draw distance is a 'feature' of games, e.g. GTA.
I rewrote the entire thing to let it make some sense. 62.195.43.161 14:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Óengus I

message: Great work guys. Obviously, it could use images, but I don't see that as being a requirement for GA status. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A map is certainly feasible, and some other more or less appropriate illustrations can be included. So that's not really a problem, but there's still some other work to be done. I wouldn't like to have it nominated for featured, or even to go to the trouble of peer-reviewing it, until someone has had the opportunity to compare the article with Alex Woolf's "Onuist son of Uurguist : tyrannus carnifex or a David for the Picts?" which appears in David Hill & Margaret Worthington (eds), Æthelbald and Offa : two eighth-century kings of Mercia. British Archaeological Reports, British series, 383, Oxford, 2005. I don't think it's guilty of original research any more than any other article of it's type. However, as with the article on Penda of Mercia, the fact is that it's strung together from a whole lot of sources, and comparing it with a relatively long piece on the subject (of which Woolf's is the only one I am aware of) seems like a good idea. A second concern is that I asked a non-anglophone acquaintance to read through it to see if it made sense. While we haven't sat down and gone through it in detail, she did say that she found it quite hard going, in part because of the unfamiliar names, background, & so on, which is unavoidable, but also because of the way it was written, which could be addressed once I know exactly what she had in mind.  Angus McLellan  (Talk) 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: I have a feeling this needs a few more inline citations in several parts.  Besides a few spots where there's outright no citation, there's a number of spots where footnotes that seem to be more notes than references are used in place of referencing.  My inclination is that WP:FACR #1c is not met in the article's current state. Hog Farm  Bacon 04:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 
Talk:Stamp Act Congress

message: I reverted all the changes from the last two days. In addition to some random vandalism, an anonymous user inserted the entire text of the declaration of rights, without quotes or introduction. We could include the text, but I think the summary is adequate, and External links has a pointer to the full text. If we want the text we will need a section and an introductory sentence. Lou I 13:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: Discussion of proposed mergeinto is on the Stamp Act discussion page. BradMajors (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mergeinto

message: It is astonishing that Lou and Joe are parties to this terribly-written article. They both write as though they were texting each other. The main article is at this level too; it should be deleted and the subject started anew by someone with some knowledge of American history...Joe, i think not u. Dangnad (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Whadda heck!

message: The last section requires a citation. The reference to "Dartmouth" I assume means William Legge, Lord Dartmouth. in 1765 he was President of the Board of Trade, not Secretary of State for the Colonies, this didn't happen until 1772. In 1765 the American colonies were still under the Secretary of State for the Southern Department. I have not found a good historical reference as to where the declaration went, however it would most likely have gone to two places, the Board of Trade, but more importantly the Secretary of State for the Southern Department.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfurys483 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dartmouth  

message: The Stamp Act Congress was not a legislature(neither was the Continental Congress), and it had no legal or constitutional jurisdiction.  In English usage before 1789, a "congress" is a diplomatic body.  But how to fix this in the infobox I don't know.Mikedelsol (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a Legislature
Talk:Rue Mouffetard

message: I don't think this is much of a stub. It's a small place, this is a nice introduction.
The sidebar states that the street was created in the 21st C but the text of the article states that the road is medieval. I've had dinner in the Rue Mouffetard in the 1980's and it didn't look brand new then! I would modify it but I don't have an accurate date to put in GrahamPadruig (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: http://www.rue-mouffetard-market.com/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.132.82 (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: “ In 1910 Alexander Bogdanov delivered a lecture about Empiriomonism. Lenin replied quoting his own Materialism and Empiriocriticism in response.[1] ”. Is this just on the wrong page? It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Rue Mouffetard. B Plouviez (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogdanov?
Talk:Electrocution

message: Someone said in 2012 that this page should be merged into electrical injury (and partly into electric chair imho) and he's right because there is literally nothing is on this page that couldn't fit in either of those two articles. At BEST the page could be something like "List of electrocutions" but that seems rather dumb too. The only reason this page seems to exist is to be anal about the prescriptivist nonsense that NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T USE IT WHEN THE PERSON DIDN'T DIE!!! Oh come off it, it's popular usage and it's here to stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.250.227 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless page

message: The article implies that Andreas Cuneus was injured by the "extreme shock" he received in 1746. I cannot find evidence that the shock was "extreme" (rather than just unexpected), or that Andreas Cuneus (or Cunaeus), a Latinization of the Dutch name "Andreas van der Kun", was actually injured by the shock.  --Lambiam 11:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This book claims he was rendered unconcious which is kind of injurous.  The book says this was "the first recorded electric shock created by a man-made contrivance."  However this book (page 52) says that Cuneus' shock was predated by one von Kleist accidentally gave to himself. SpinningSpark 12:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But since electric machines had been around for all of the 18th century (albeit less powerful ones), it is unlikely that he was the first either. SpinningSpark 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Andreas Cuneus injured?
Talk:Mascara

message: Minor vandalism reverted. --Ef80 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: mascara comes from spanish word "máscara", so fix that mistake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.223.102 (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On what evidence?  Some evidence is required. Zaslav (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  spanish 

message: I noticed that this article has an unusual citation style. This is fine, if you really like it this way. (Don't let anyone tell you different.) A more standard approach would be to use author-date shortened footnotes for the in-line references (if you like,  makes this easier) and the  citation templates for the references with . But as I say, if you like it this way, it's fine. I just wanted to make sure you knew what was available. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual citation style 

message: In the Etymology section the source is declared to be possibly Spanish, Italian, Catalan, Portuguese, and/or Arabic.  Somehow biblical Hebrew, and Latin, got into the act; surely they should be removed as very dubiously relevant, so I put them here:
:The Hebrew word משקרות (in the phrase mesaqqeroth `eynayim) relating to women's eyes is found in Isaiah 3:16.Adam Clarke, Commentary, 1831, volume III page 688 It may mean flirting or ogling with the eyes, or painting them with red pigment.Even-Shoshan Dictionary.
:Latin treatises sometimes used the word mascara when referring to witches.
Then the History section begins with etymology by stating the source is "likely" the city name of Mascara, Algeria.  This belongs in the etymology section and is contradictory to everything that is already there.  Which conjectural etymologies have evidence?  Which are pure invention?  I invite a researcher to find out and clean this up. Zaslav (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: User:A_Georgian reverted my edit on the ground that this material is sourced.  The issue is not source, it is that there is no relevance to the etymology.  If there is relevance, it needs to be explained in the article.  There are often words that seem similar in many languages and even have vaguely similar meanings but that are not etymologically related.  I ask User:A_Georgian to provide evidence that there is a connection of "mascara" to these ancient words, more than just citing them.  Zaslav (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology conflict
Talk:Dvaita Vedanta

message: "In which a response for this would be, that we have not realised the non-duality of our soul and brahman. This realisation comes upon true knowledge, Madhva like any other human may have not realised the non-duality of reality and developed a philsophy or rather a doctrine from his interpretations."
I don't understand this, could someone please reword? Poweroid 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain 

message: To Hnaluru and the anon user who keeps adding the text beginning with: "Dvaita philosophy has some glaring drawbacks" - please see the following Wikipedia guideline page What Wikipedia is Not. This article is not a place to add personal opinions on Dvaita philosophy - it is an encyclopedic entry. What you added where point of view statements, not neutral arguments. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "Dvaita philosophy has some glaring drawbacks" 

message: Still needs some cleanup. --Shruti14 t c s 02:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Should the lead contain a quote? --Shruti14 t c s 02:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes in Lead? 

message: There was a term in this article that meant nothing to me.. 'jaati'.  I searched wikipedia in the hopes that I could link to an existing article but there wasn't one as far as I could tell.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.212.221 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define terms used for first time? (re: 'jaati') 

message: Can somebody please explain the purpose of this sub section?  Two points have been given to support this claim
1. Both have Prophets who are worshipped as "Son Of God"
2. Much little has been written about their Lives.
Jesus is claimed to be the "Son of God".  Madhwacharya is said to be the son of Vaayu. He is not told to be the son of Brahman/Narayana/Sri Hari.  According to Madhwa phylosophy Vaayu is subordinate to Hari.  How is this statement justified?  
The second argument is too weak to support the above claim.  Many founders of religion do not have a well documented history of themselves.  What makes it a unique similarity?  Requesting permission to delete this section.--Gthorvey (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison of Dvaita with Christianity
Talk:True Love

message: I was the one who added the puppy love/infatuation part (along with other parts) to the article. Yes, I agree we should point out something along those lines, either of the fact that Romeo/Juliet's love evolved from puppy love to true love, or that there are different interpretations as to whether it was puppy love or true love. Or perhaps it is both, and the Puppy Love article was just pointing out that Romeo and Juliet were both very young. So puppy love can have a partially overlapping definition with true love? I think we can add something like that into the article.
Thobanster 07:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About that inconsistency

message: People have been vandalising this article with rude comments and I think it should become protected. 24.83.248.231 07:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Strong oppose.  To rename to True Love would be an obvious violation of WP:CAPS.  The reason that the other examples on the disambig page have an uppercase "L" is because they are titles of works of art; i.e., they are proper nouns.  The concept of true love isn't, in English, a proper noun. CzechOut  ☎ | ✍ 07:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Move Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say I object. The logic does make sense. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

text: And where should True love point? To the dab or an article on romance? Dekimasuよ! 02:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm presuming that it should still target this page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should be a redirect here. Propaniac (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I'm not sure when this ceased to be an article and now a mess of a disambiguation page, but it's all over the place. Conspicuously missing is also a definition. I don't have the time to clean this now but tagging it and will return later. Ifnord (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jumbled disambiguation page
Talk:Otto von Below

message: General Otto von Below may have fought at Caporetto in Italy in 1917.  The Italian army suffered mightily at Caporetto.  
Superslum 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Purépecha

message: It´s shameful that an article have in it moral opinions about ruthlesness or use expresions like ravaged.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.244.53 (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Why not call them Purépecha? That is what they prefer. My friends in Michoacan never refer to them as "Tarascan" but solely as "Purépecha." Shouta 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purépecha 

message: Not sure of the history but I have met them here in the USA.  They still speak the language at home, plus Spanish and some English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.144.79 (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Now in the USA too

message: At the bottom there are three links given under "see also"; for the following two the reason for their inclusion is unclear:
*Erendira
*James Anaya, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
There seems to be no mention of the Purépecha in the corresponding articles. If we can't come up with a connection they should be deleted. 850 C (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" 

message: This sentence appears to have lost some context:
:
Took what as whose name? —Tamfang (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: they what now?

message: Why is the whole article in past tense? These people are still around, as shown by the population figures and the fact that we can point to at least one currently working Hollywood actor who is one. Not to mention the fact that they still speak their own language. 96.239.83.63 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Were?

message: To add to this article:  what is the literal meaning of "Purépecha" in the Purépecha language? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of "Purépecha"
Talk:Formerly Known as the Justice League

message: The Super Buddies are more or less considered canon in DC coninuity. In Countdown to Infinite Crisis, a picture of the group exists in Booster's (or Beetle's) OMAC file. --FuriousFreddy 15:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I don't understand how people claim it is not in continuity just because of when it was published. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 05:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuity

message: BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source suggestions