lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Titi monkey

message: "They are the only members of the Callicebinae subfamily"
Are they? Don't Xenothrix, Paralouatta, Antillothrix (nl:West-Indische apen) and a couple of fossil genera belong to the Callicebinae too? Ucucha (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see those listed in Groves or MSW. Perhaps we mean to say "...only extant members..." - UtherSRG (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. Xenothrix has gone extinct only by 1700, though. Still, it is extinct ;-). Ucucha (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members of Callicebinae 

message: New species discovered in Columbia by Conservation International.  Scientific Name is C. Caquetensis.  Only 250 are known to exist.  (Source:  MSN Science news)
--Dutch206 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, they is already an article for the species you're talking about (Caquetá Titi) and it is mentioned on this page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New species 

message: http://phys.org/news/2015-08-titi-monkey-species-peru.html mentions that the Urubamba brown titi monkey has been identified as a new species.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars~enwiki (talk • contribs) 03:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Callicebus urubambensis, new species 

message: On this page, the Ornate Titi is listed as being Plecturocebus ornatus and is in the P. moloch group, however on its own article, it has the name of Callicebus ornatus. Is there some confusion between scientific names, or is it somehow part of both groups? Scotth1001 (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ornate Titi?
Talk:Toplessness

message: Hey there! I will start off by saying: I know that “Bare-chested(ness)” may be the male equivalent of “toplessness”, but that doesn’t mean the word “topless(ness)” should be referring to “a complete female upper-body exposed” only. 
Next I will say: The word “Bare-breasted(ness)” can be the female equivalent of “toplessness”. Therefore, the “Topless(ness)” subject should be talking about “both the male’s and female’s upper body exposed” here on Wikipedia. I just don’t like how the 1st sentence started off on this subject in the article page.
Lastly I will say: Even though I’m a man, I would prefer that the word “Topless(ness)” be used to describe my own “male exposed upper-body” - if anyone is to talk about me and my natural upper-body at any point (say) in the future - being as I like it better versus the words “bare-chested(ness)” and “shirtless(ness)”, just to clarify! 🙂 
Anyways, Thanks for reading as my message here relates to the topic! 👍 Craig Lungren (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The article at present accurately describes contemporary English usage. —VeryRarelyStable 10:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the word “Topless(ness)”! 

message: Please remove the semi-protection of the current Toplessness article so that it can be edited freely.
:The article is protected to prevent both vandalism and censorship - ie removal of images.  There is no reason to think that these types of edits wouldn't increase if protection were removed.
:Also, this is the wrong place to request such changes - you can ask directly the editor who protected it here or ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protected
Talk:Gippsland V/Line rail service

message: This is a redirector to Gippsland Railway, another page I have classified for deletion. The page it redirects to is confusing and is not in the same format as all the other "[line name] railway line, [Melbourne/Victoria]" pages. I vote it should be deleted.
Somebody in the WWW 23:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Seymour railway line, Victoria which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 10:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: It has been more than 10 years since this merger was last proposed. In the meantime, Ararat V/Line rail service has been successfully merged into [[Ballarat V/Line rail service, meaning that Bairnsdale and Warrnambool are the only two long-distance destinations with distinct articles from their "parent" line. 
There is significant overlap between the two articles as it stands. In this particular case, there are regular services scheduled to terminate at the intermediate Sale, which is confusing in the current structure, and indicates that the decision to treat these as separate "services" is inappropriate original research. 
In that spirit, what reliable sources we do have on this issue favour the "five line" approach. V/Line themselves describe patronage statistics in five lines only and incorporate long-distance services into their "parent" lines. See page 12. Similarly, the Victorian Auditor-General describes the network as being made up of five "corridors" with multiple destinations on each. See page 4.
In my view, merging these articles is a step towards adhering to the principle of least astonishment and making our articles on this topic as informative and navigable as possible. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging , ,  as previous participants in the merge discussion. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If the other lines have been merged, then no objections here to merge this one as well. Wongm (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: From what can gather the proposal is to merge Bairnsdale V/Line rail service into Traralgon V/Line rail service. Should it not be the the other way around, i.e. the shorter being merged into the longer? Portafing (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I should perhaps have been clearer in this discussion section: I am proposing that the Bairnsdale article be merged into the Traralgon one. If you take a look at the sources I have provided, the convention is to refer to the "long-distance" services as branches/extensions of the "commuter" services, not the other way around. It should be clear why this is so when considering the Ballarat and Bendigo cases, each with two long-distance services branching from the commuter town. If there are reliable sources suggesting otherwise, please offer them here. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal
MediaWiki talk:Clearyourcache

message: Please change "Google Chrome" to "Chromium-based browsers" as the instructions also work for Microsoft Edge and other browsers that are based on Chromium. Aasim 07:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a very user-friendly message, and it certainly could be improved - but its safe to think that more users will know what a "Google Chrome" is, and not a "Chromium-based browser" - got a different suggestion? (I'm all for taking the word "Google" out of there though!). (Reactivated the answered=yes to =no if you reply to requeue this) — xaosflux Talk 11:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , maybe add "Microsoft Edge" to the list instead of "Chromium-based browsers" and remove "Internet Explorer" as many people don't use that browser anymore. Aasim 18:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I replaced IE with ME. — xaosflux Talk 18:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 20 August 2020 

message: Please change  to . The reason is internationalization - int: will adjust the messages according to the language selected, but this won't. Awesome Aasim 20:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the English warning includes significantly more information than the translated warnings I'm not convinced this is a good idea. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 8 November 2023 

message: Please change to 
Note: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Google Chrome, Firefox, Microsoft Edge and Safari: Hold down the  key and click the Reload toolbar button. For details and instructions about other browsers, see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
.
This pulls out  out of the namespace switch, making it show up on both user and mediawiki namespaces. (This interface message is only used on NS2 and NS8 so other namesapces aren't in the picture). 
Right now,  doesn't give any sensible output on MediaWiki namespace but I've requested an edit to change that, which should ideally be implemented first. – SD0001 (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 16:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 26 January 2024
Talk:Carl Vinson

message: Which district was he in? Who is his predecessor and successor? An article about a congressman cannot miss those crucial facts. Wooyi 00:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing facts... 
Talk:James Rosenquist

message: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.firstpulseprojects.net/bombproject/f-111.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.firstpulseprojects.net/bombproject/f-111.html&h=513&w=713&sz=64&tbnid=LbEFgvKd5cQJ:&tbnh=99&tbnw=137&start=60&prev=/images%3Fq%3Df-111%26start%3D40%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
:I've added a link to an archive of this exhibition to the External links section. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 02:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Guggenheim retrospective

message: Hi,
Please see the question at Talk:Last Nite. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Nite art 

message: 😎 213.205.240.158 (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  He used to be cool. 

message: No 213.205.240.158 (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  🤮
Talk:Halifax Mooseheads

message: from VfD:
not notable stublet on junior sports team Pedant 00:54, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC) I stand corrected, evidently I completely misunderstood what this team was.  As this seems to be consensus I'm going to remove the delete tag. Pedant 19:59, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
:You may be misunderstanding the use of the word "junior" here - the QMJHL is one the leagues of the Canadian Hockey League, which is one of the most important hockey leagues in the world. So, keep, but expand of course. Adam Bishop 00:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion discussion
Talk:Strange Days at Blake Holsey High

message: An edit I made about the DVD release has been removed, regarding pre-orders of the DVDs. They are indeed available at Amazon.co.uk, but are given a release date of Jan 1, 2020 () as evidenced by that link. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 10:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is being questioned is not whether this has happened or not, but whether it's relevant. Is a release date set to 2020 likely to be reliable? No. Is it relevant? Probably not, as it would seem that this is a bug in Amazon's system. --Sn0wflake 17:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; you're right. I've removed the note. I'd assumed that it was something to do with no source for the information. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 18:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD 

message: He is credited as "Jack Avenir", but in Conclusions Part 2, Josie2 says "Andreas Avenir". Whichever one is correct should be included in the article. Royboycrashfan  03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avenir's name? 

message: Isn't the correct title "Black Hole High"?82.41.66.173 08:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is correct, at least for the name that was used for broadcast in the United States of America. Val42 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: What's up with the janator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.235.187 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was never answered in the series. — Val42 20:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Janitor

message: Nevermind.CN Guy (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for talk page guidelines (i.e. discuss improvements to an article on it's talk page, not the subject of the article itself), and see here for the Wikipedia content disclaimer, which states that you'll find spoilers on Wikipedia. TalkIslander 12:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nevermind 

message: this show was asome even though it was not made in the US. i still dont no if the sience in this is true but i watch it all the time!!! i wonder if the cast even like's sience and i like..............(out of the cast)by the way im a girl(only if you were wondering) and if someone other than me is watch or reading this how come my new computer is not working?!!!???!! :) =)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.71.5 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  strange days at blake holsey high 

message: It looks like a web continuation series is being worked on, planned release in 2022. Not sure if this is enough of a source.
https://www.blakeholsey.com/echoes
https://twitter.com/BlakeHolseyHigh
Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New series
Talk:Legio II Augusta

message: According to , this legion may have existed before 9 AD, was originally stationed at Sabine, and was possibly identical to the Legio II Gallica (no article on that yet). JRM 01:05, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
* A very short article Legio II Gallica has been created. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Existed before 9 AD

message: This legion was stationed at Isca Domnoniorum (modern Exeter) from 50 to AD75, according to the page on Roman Exeter and corroborated by archaeology lectures (at Exeter University). In AD75, the legion relocated to Isca Augusta (mordern Caerleon). Suggest this page is corrected by someone with Wiki experience (i.e. not me!). Matt S 212.140.139.225 18:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Isca Dumnoniorum

message: Is there anyone in the world who would call this legion "Legio II Augusta" when writing or talking in English? Surely the article needs a name we would actually use? Moonraker2 (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Legio II Augusta?
Talk:University of Notre Dame

message: The redirect University of Notre Dame Folk Choir has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:University of Notre Dame Folk Choir]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Brittanica is an encyclopedia. Summerdays1 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A vague statement presented without context is unlikely to make sense much less convince anyone of anything. ElKevbo (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding GH questioning Brittanica as it relates to UND. Summerdays1 (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brittanica 

message: The symphony orchestra does exist, and its presence isn't small, but I'm having trouble finding the sourcing for this as an independent entity. In light of WP:NOPAGE and general organizational principles, I think it would be better to move the content of the merge subject into our article on the parent institution. As such, I propose merging the article on the orchestra into the relevant section on the larger Notre Dame page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong oppose: A quick Google search turned up these: , . A lot more turns up from various US periodicals in newspaper archives. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Notre Dame Symphony Orchestra]] into [[University of Notre Dame]]
Talk:Muswell Hillbillies

message: This article is written like a poetic personal review ignoring WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Reads more like a grade 5 school boy book report instead of an encyclopedia article. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: The 2022 reissue should be mentioned, e.g. see https://theseconddisc.com/2022/07/27/celluloid-heroes-the-kinks-combine-muswell-hillbillies-everybodys-in-show-biz-on-new-box/ 31.190.113.66 (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2022 reissue
Talk:List of religions and spiritual traditions/Archive 2

message: I thought the latest changes were extremely good. Props to Sunborn.--LordSuryaofShropshire 00:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
:I am a fairly useful editor, I am just zealous in arguments. I know it makes some people mad, I just expect everyone else to as zealous. However, I would like more explanation of the word "Indic". It by definition means "of India", however you don't want Rajneeshism listed in the Indic category. Also, I purpose a heiarchy of important groups, from the top down, we will have to shuffle around though maybe. This is important if we want to avoid dual listing. Scientology is also a non-revealed religion but probably belongs with the alien-based religions. All the Indigenous religions could go under non-revealed too. The Orisha religions probably could go under syncretic religions too. So what I purpose is that the categories at the top have more priority than the ones at the bottom. What that will do is act like a filter. If a religion fits a certain set of parameters it is in one group if not, the next set of parameters is tried. So at the bottom will be the uncategorized religions. It would be useful to set out the parameters so we can argue over the parameters rather than semantics. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 14:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you care anymore, LordSuryaofShropshire, but if you don't respond here within 3 days I will remove the word "Indic" from the category title. If however, you wish the word to stay, answer my previous questions in this category. Namely, However, I would like more explanation of the word "Indic". It by definition means "of India", however you don't want Rajneeshism listed in the Indic category. Why and how does this work? --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 03:52, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category changes
Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 1

message: There are a number of wikipedia articles regarding books and movies. While obviously you can't write "critics rave" without citing someone, I am wondering about the plot synopsis that is often included. If you see a movie and give a summary of events, or read a book and give a summary of the topics covered, does that count as original research? --Uncle Bungle 14:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that a plot summary does not fall under what this policy is addressing. A plot summary is a recounting of facts with a minimum of interpretation, which can easily be verfied by any interested party: no original research would apply to the interpretation of a book or movie. As an example, one does not have to argue that the Iliad is about a portion of the siege of Troy,; anyone can read a translation of the book & verify that fact; but to say that the Iliad reflects Homer's psychology & tells us this or that about him is original research & should not be included. One is a matter of observation, the other interpretation, & all interpretations ought to be the work of a published source, properly cited. -- llywrch 22:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books and movies 

message: I think this is a little confused because discussion of the draft rewrite is going on in two different places. I am going to move a bunch of this to the talk page for the rewrite. Then I'm going to archive a bunch. Maurreen 04:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Consolidation
Talk:Julia Kapiolani

message: I notice there are two articles on Queen Kapi'olani, one here and the other under Queen Kapiolani.  Looks like there were past attempts to redirect one to the other.  Could we get a consensus on which should redirect to the other?  KeithH 02:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I thought we fixed this problem a long time ago.  I think the main article should go under Kapiolani because she was and still is more commonly known by that single name.  --Gerald Farinas 06:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll go ahead and redirect it there.  Thanks, Gerald.  KeithH 07:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Two articles on Kapi'olani
Talk:FOB

message: I removed an acronym for a Counter-Strike clan, as this is obviously not in widespread use and thus doesn't really belong on the disambaguation page. 162.53.103.225 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Useless Acronym

message: This should be "free on board". 
Obviously this person who wrote: "freight on board" has no clue about international nor domestic shipment transactions.
fob (plural fobs)
noun 
Definition:
 
1. chain for pocket watch: a chain or ribbon used to attach a pocket watch to a vest
2. ornament on key ring: an ornament attached to a key ring
3. ornament on chain: a watch or ornament worn on the end of a chain or ribbon attached to clothing
4. pocket for watch: a small pocket on a vest for a watch
5. electronic device for opening doors - a small portable electronic device that activates a door lock
[Mid-17th century. Origin ?]
Since there are so many meanings for this term, should we turn this into a disambiguation page? 76.64.185.147 03:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Freight On Board

message: People who are FoBBy and ghetto...e.g. speaks no english, greasy hair, listens to hip-hop music, wears tacky large jewelery/gold chains with large pendant representing his/her FoBBineSS, 20" rims on a Toyota Camry with large decal on rear window. Acts as though his "fobness" is non-existing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRattu (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghetto FoBulous 

message: I think FOB and Fob would be better off as a single dab page Fob.  The reader who types "fob" into the "Go" box doesn't care that sometimes it's an acronym and sometimes it's a word.  They're looking for an article.  Let's help them find it, not make them jump through hoops.  No? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that seems pretty perfect to me. Good work. I think my consise definitions serve the purpose, since you have not changed them. Seems great to me. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split or merge
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/John Kenney

message: John Kenney stated "the redirect version apparently supported by everyone except CheeseDreams".
Looking at the edit history, it appears that "everyone" means John Kenney and Slrubenstein (who also violated Policy to protect the redirect). CheeseDreams 21:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Comments 

message: While I agree that these pages should not be deleted, in spite of failure to certify, because they are evidence for a potential arbitration, I do not see any value in allowing either the page itself or the talk page to continue to be edited.  It simply allows people (or, rather, CheeseDreams) to continue to beat up on me despite the RfC not getting certified.  Why don't we protect both page and talk page of these failed RfCs until such time as they are deleted? john k 00:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's just hypocrisy. CheeseDreams 19:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like it preserved as evidence against YOU. BUT...CheeseDreams 19:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preserving these pages
Talk:Argus

message: These are both disambiguation pages.  The only difference is that the Argus disambiguation page is restricted to figures in Greek mythology.  Unless this disambiguation page can justifiably be turned into a coherent article rather than a disambiguation page, these two disambiguation pages should be merged. Neelix (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Argus (disambiguation)]]