lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Close-up

message: I moved the image of the dog here, since it illustrates the same thing as the photo of the person. I replaced it with a smaller image of a close-up on a feature of a coin, which illustrates a still subject. Badon (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  diversifying examples 

message: Close-up photography → Close-up
:They appear to relate to the same topic, and even if they don't, they should be included in the same article in different sections. -- Patchy1  09:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: Go near the start per MOS:ORDER. User:Beyond My Ken  "really is better where EDITORS will see it, but doesn;t annoy READERS"  . Except that's not what the consensus says WP:LEADORDER "Maintenance tags should be below the disambiguation links. These tags inform the reader about the general quality of the article and should be presented to the user before the article itself." . I've seen editors consistently move them to the top when placed incorrectly at the bottom, which admittedly used to be more common than now. If you disagree with the consensus suggest you take it up either here, or more importantly at the MOS. Until then there's no consensus for putting at the bottom and I will undo, especially missing any discussion here (as yet). Widefox; talk 16:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS is a guideline and advisory, not mandatory, and there is therefore no "correct" and "incorrect".  When a guideline is followed blindly, it becomes a de facto policy.  If you want MOS to be a policy, open an RfC. Until that happens, editorial judgment is allowed to be used.  But, look, if it makes you happy to make the article look like shit, so be it. BMK (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, we've both been here long enough to know all that, and of course they look bad at the top. Transparency for readers trumps aesthetics in my book, so I agree with MOS. To reply in kind: why polish a turd? Widefox; talk 17:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance templates
Talk:Royal Ranger Regiment

message: I have deleted the line 
"Nowadays, many Dayak family had left their longhouses and migrating to the cities to look for a better future and breaking the poverty cycle. Nowadays as well, the number of Dayak youth are far more educated now than their previous ancestors. Hence, it also reduces the interest for these Dayak youth to join the Rangers or Army as their careers. Maybe in 10 years time, the number of Dayak in the Rangers battalion may significantly decrease, partly because of the 'glass ceiling policy' practised by the Army.  
For more adventure and recognition, they should consider the French Foreign Legion French Foreign Legion Recruitment Website ."
from the article due to it not being fact, but rather the writer's point of view, and I don't see the relevance to the article. 
Linkinstreet (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Acheivements
Talk:Second unit

message: The articles second unit and second unit director
appear to have been written completely independently and
contain duplicate information about what a second unit is.
I see no reason for them not to be merged. 207.176.159.90 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done129.31.71.161 07:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion
Talk:B-roll

message: 207.165.180.2 somehow thought that alternate meant gay butt sex.  Hmmm, not very amusing.  Roaming27 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooops, wrong ISP addy -- now corrected.  Roaming27 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This seems vague or misleading to me, as though it could be referring to moments during an interview where a reporter and subject exchange niceties ("I like those shoes!" "Thanks, I got them on sale.") or when the subject strays from the topic at hand. I'm going to try changing it to "supplemental or alternate footage intercut with the main shot in an interview or documentary." By all means, revert if this is not a change for the better. Rangergordon (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Unrelated talk during an interview"

message: As it stands now (2017-03-25) this page is almost incomprehensible. The four current sections and subsections describe related but clearly distinct usages of the term, which means the page muddles together history (technology limitations, and A and B collections of pre-edit material) and current practice (cutaways covering changes in A-reel shot).  The 'Etymology' section, in particular, presumes the reader is fluent in film production jargon.  I can piece together a likely understanding of what 'B-roll' means, but only by hypothesising a notion which is broadly consistent with the fragments written here. I shouldn't have to work that hard. NormanGray (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Major overhaul required
Talk:Guildford High School

message: I have taken the liberty to give this article an assessment on rating and importance. The feedback I have given is: This article gives some relevant information about the school, however the topics covered are limited. To improve this article needs to be expanded, cite its resources, and remain from a neutral point of view.
I have noticed some comments in this article which might not follow WP:NPOV, such as: Girls are taught a variety of fun and interesting subjects following the curriculum. It would also help the article if all disputable statements are cited with references. Camaron1 | Chris 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment
Talk:Andrew C. Erin

message: I knew him years back in Toronto.  He had his own head-shots on his fridge and walls, loved himself a bit too much.  He probably wrote this article himself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.167.83 (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haha, Guy's a complete narcissist! 
Talk:Audio editing

message: Pro Tools IS associated with Specific Hardware:- it must be Digidesign hardware, or M-Audio Hardware. silvarbullet1 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: I just reverted a merge action which turned this article into a redirect to Audio editing, which in turn is a redirect to Digital audio editor. I feel the merge was misguided as there is analog audio content here which doesn't belong at digital audio editor. Additionally, the merge action was not fully accomplished, with absolutely none of the content here added to any other article. A side benefit to the merge being so incomplete is that it is easy to revert. I'm for keeping this article in place. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only paragraph 1 of this article is not fully covered by the digital audio editor article. This article is a stub with absolutely no sources. And editing purports to cover this topic but has no audio section. The case is clear for a merge to those articles for now, splitting back out if and when the sections in question become too large. For now, preserving this as its own neglected article for the sake of a single paragraph on analogue editing doesn't seem right. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge effort 

message: I have removed the WikiProject tag, as this article is either a redirect or deleted. If you oppose, please restore the tag. Thank you, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Computing
Talk:KWES-TV

message: Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:
#WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information."  As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.  
#As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced. 
# WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article. 
#Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.
If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable.  Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material 
Talk:South Carolina Educational Television

message: The current SCETV logos (for the network and individual stations) are available for free download at scetv.org. This should justify fair use of current and past images on this page. JTRH 14:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos

message: Strange and sad that there seems to be no complete episode guide for Expeditions with Patrick McMillan anywhere?-96.233.20.151 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expeditions with Patrick McMillan 

message: Similar to UNC-TV in North Carolina, and WNSC-TV that is already split out, should we split out the rest of SCETV's stations into separate articles? Cheers! CentralTime301 03:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And same as my discussion with UNC-TV, at which you ignored me, there is no reason to do this because they are all simulcast. Despite this rejection, you probably already started working on the split-up, this post was just a formality. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. That’s ridiculous. Xenon54 (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split out into separate ETV stations 

message: ...What was SCETV from 1958-1963 before WNTV signed on? TCFLightyears93 (group chat / contributions) 17:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of curiosity...
File talk:Covers af5.jpg

message: This image looks extremely fake. Any confirmation that this is indeed the real cover? –-  kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sorry - It just looks so garish - I like the American covers much better. Thanks, though. –-  kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 23:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Jason White (character)

message: I've seen this chracter's name given as "Jason White" and as "Jason Lane,"  but the latter version only here on Wikipedia in another entry.  Does he have an actual last name in the movie credits?
Macduff 17:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: also on IMDB Exvicious 05:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There seems to be an inconsistency with the timeline.  We know that Superman has been gone five years, and presumably Lois Lane was not noticeably pregnant when he was left.  But when Clark Kent returns, it's revealed by Richard that Jason received an A in Science but a D in Gym.  If Jason were 5 years old, he'd be in kindergarten, but he seems to be in one of the early elementary grades.  Kindergarten students don't normally receive letter grades.  
He can also play the piano well (for a novice) which also points to an older age.  
SonPraises (talk) (contributions) 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline Inconsistency 

message: This article should be redirected to Superman Returns. This character has only appeared in that movie and the majority of this article's content is comprised of a reiteration of part of the film's plot. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - Doesn't warrant a separate article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - topic is not notable on its own outside the context of the film. Girolamo Savonarola 05:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - the article speculates in some places, and has no sources other than the film. Darcyj 05:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - lack of decent independent coverage (believe me, I've looked); rehashing of information in main Superman Returns article; notability not inherited. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 07:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - There is not enough real-world context for this character to warrant his own article -- any detail about him is easily covered at Superman returns. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - Unless he appears in more movies or gets adopted into the comic books, there won't be enough for a separate article. DonQuixote 16:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to ''[[Superman Returns]]'' 

message: Jason had nothing to do with the seaplane pulling out of its dive.  A facial shot of Jason right after the plane pulls up suggets nothing except that the kid was in the plane.  Wikipedia is for facts, not supposition.  Darcyj 06:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawing a long bow
Talk:Yenisey

message: Like, not a satellite photo, but a photo of part of the river from the ground, perhaps in Kyzyl? —Keenan Pepper 17:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo request 

message: According to this article the river is the 5th longest in the world, yet according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River#River_lists it is the 10th longest. I know that measuring the length of rivers is far from an exact science, but does anyone know which is more approximately the correct position, and does anyone have any suggestions as to what we should do to make the info here on Wiki more uniform as regards these lists? peace Warchef (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the difference is one of definition. The furthest headwaters of the Yenisey are not the Yenisey's own source, but the Angara's (rather like the situation of the Mississippi-Missouri). Therefore if one measures from the source of the Angara you get a longer distance from the source of the Yenisei. Booshank (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 5th longest?

message: It starts with sentences: 
"The canal was used one last time in 1942, when three steamboats and a cutter managed to make their way from the Yenisei to the Ob, but the passage was extremely difficult. The canal is now fully abandoned. It is occasionally reached by tourists using canoes, cars, or bicycles, or on foot."
I think these are coming from article Ob–Yenisei Canal and should be removed. 
If anyone feels like reinserting improved version of these sentenced going well with flow of article, go ahead, please. --Ruziklan (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation section 

message: The maximum depth is 24 metres ... The depth of river outflow is 32 metres.  Apologies, I'm no expert on geography, I contribute elsewhere & I'm just a reader of this interesting article. River outflow is frequently used elsewhere. Could someone kindly provide a definition and internal link?  Thanks in advance JRPG (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum depth and outflow depth
Talk:Wratten number

message: Is that 1B skylight exist in Kodak-Wratten products? Or just by other manufacturers? 203.185.57.117 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1B

message: Another important example of a wratten-like-but-not-wratten-number is a decamired number (1/10th of a mired) which is a measure of color temperature (1 decamired = 100000/temp°K). Eg a "B13" filter shifts color cast by 130 mireds towards the blue or higher kelvin values (cooling), and an "A13" shifts it the other way (warming). Like dioptres and focal length, adding and subtracting mired values is much easier than calculations in °K.
This Rodenstock brochure gives the following decamired equivalents of (Kodak) wratten filters (and their exposure values):
wratten	decamired	EV
81A    	A2.5     	-0.3
81EF   	A5       	-0.6
85     	A11      	-1
85B    	A13      	-1
82A    	B2       	-0.3
82B    	B3       	-0.6
82C    	B4.5     	-1
80B    	B11      	-1.6
80C    	B13      	-2
Redbobblehat (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decamired number 

message: What about a before-after comparison photo for each filter? I think that'd help this article *A LOT*! --85.178.99.78 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: I was comparing filters and I see that Hoya states that their R72 filter "does not let any wavelengths before 740nm pass through". According to the table, that matches the Wratten 87, not the 89B. Which is correct? Or do different makers make different R72 filters? 2600:8800:1220:5D00:8DC7:394D:283D:59F9 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filters for infrared photography
Talk:Filter factor

message: I removed the Cokin filter numbers from the table, because there's only one company that uses them.  Wratten numbers are basically the industry standard; everybody, including Cokin, uses them, at least for the color correcting filters.  Since mired values (KR1.5, KB1.5, etc.) are used for color correction by more than one company, I added those to the "other designation" column. — Wwagner 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Cokin numbers
Talk:Pedestrian-oriented development

message: Need for Separate Articles
"Pedestrian-friendly" is not the same as "carfree." Some areas that still admit cars can be regarded as pedestrian-friendly (such as the Dutch "woonerf" or "home zone), but these places cannot be regarded as carfree in the sense in which the word is used by people in the movement. "Carfree" means literally that--there are never any cars (but sometimes emergency vehicles and in some cases also delivery vans). J.H. Crawford 1 May 2006
:"Pedestrian-friendly" as Joel explains is not only different from "carfree', it is also an important safety and quality of life activity in in tself which merits its own place here. What we need is to improve the entry. (When I have time, he pleads.) ericbritton 17:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Rotary disc shutter

message: I would like somebody to dubbelcheck this, but the
Shutter Angle/360 = Exposure Time/Frame Intervall
formula is wrong, it doesen't come out right. for example:
a pretty usual set of numbers for this would be a shutter angel of 180, which would at 25 fps give us an exposure time of 50 (1/50 of a second) hence:
180/360 = 0.5
50/25 = 2
2 does not equal 0.5 obviously. but what does come out right is switching the place of "shutter angel" and "360"
 
360/Shutter Angel = Exposure Time/Frame Intervall  ==>  360/180 = 50/25 = 2
Seems like an honest misstake, but can somebody confirm this so we can change it?
Thank you.  
EDIT:
Actually, Im pretty shure this is the right way to go, so I changed it, please somebody call me on it if its wrong.
first time wiki-ing =)
Thank you
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Theharis (talk • contribs) 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the calculation-formula is wrong?? 

message: The article refers to 24p as "actually 23.976" ... says who?? Film is 24 frames per second, commonly displayed as 23.976 Hz on video displays due to legacy reasons (NTSC being 59.94 Hz or something like that). But this article is about film, not video, and 24 fps is more accurate/correct than 23.976 Hz. ScottJ (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  23.976? 

message: :This is the reason of the rule-of-thumb "Use an Exposure Time twice the value of the Frames-per-second to get normal motion blur".
I get what the article is trying to say but from a purely mathematical standpoint it makes no sense.
Take 25fps = 0.04 of a second.
Now use an exposure time twice this value 0.04 × 2 = 0.08 or 1/12.5 of a second.
What they are saying is.
25 × 2 = 50
25(fps) × 2 = (one)50(th of a second exposure time)
But it confused me. A rule of thumb is supposed to be for the layperson.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.209.40 (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing rule of thumb
Talk:Pun Plamondon

message: The content in italics below was removed from the article because it lacked citations. Replace only if citations are found. –Temporal User (Talk) 01:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited content 

message: Text and references copied from Pun Plamondon to John Sinclair (poet).   See former article's history for a list of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Text and references copied from John Sinclair (poet) to Pun Plamondon.   See former article's history for a list of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution
Talk:Live action

message: Any evidence about where and when this odd, awkward phrase originated?  The earliest I recall seeing it was in comic-book advertisements promoting Saturday-morning TV show line-ups in the fall during the early 1970s.  It was a strange phrase but generally got the idea across, so I have always assumed the TV networks originated it, for lack of a better phrase.  Can anyone cite an earlier use of "live action"? Asat (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it annoying when included in every film article replacing the word 'film,' I think 'movie' or 'film' gets the term across in a vastly superior way to 'live action,' the first time I ever encountered the phrase was in the last decade or less on Wikipedia, and the only place I ever seen the phrase is on Wikipedia. I don't see it's relevance, as it seems to make this assumption that all movies are otherwise animated. The default of a film should be that it is, precisely that, a film. <!//–  ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 07:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Though not much of a source, Dictionary.com and Merriam-webster seem to suggest that the term dates back to the 1950s. I'm pretty young, and never considered it a "new word". I use it pretty often too. I'm not sure where I encountered the phrase first, but it definitely wasn't Wikipedia. That's about all I know, though... ~Mable (chat) 08:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin? 

message: English 45.115.91.174 (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain live action movie
Talk:Central Equatoria

message: I am trying to create a decent map of Southern Sudan in general and Central Equatoria that shows the States and counties by merging these two images; a satellite  image and a 'district map'  Some UN agencies have newer better maps but I don't know how to handle credit (my photoshop are kinda weak too) and if they're cool with all that. Can anyone help with this? la gaie (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and Stuff 
Talk:Walt Disney Studios (Burbank)

message: The entire second paragraph (and longest) of the current three-paragraph lead is devoted to a weird fixation on studio tourism, while the date that the studio first became operational, or officially opened does make the cut. 
It's too much: I'm going to flag this for . — MaxEnt 20:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly lead