lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Louise of Orléans

message: Marie-Louise not Louise-Marie. The first form is the correct form. --AndreaMimi (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source? Charles 05:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marie-Louise  

message: The name is Louise-Marie d'Orléans, NOT Marie-Louise of France.  The d'Orléans family was never called *de* France or *of* France, even after Louis-Philippe I became King of the French.  I plan on moving the article to Louise-Marie d'Orléans & correct the name(s) throughout the article.  Frania W. (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title incorrect

message: *Name: The article begins as follows:
"Louise Marie Thérèse Charlotte Isabelle d'Orléans, called Louise of France..."
Who has ever called her Louise of France or Louise de France.  
The children of Louis Philippe I, King of the French, were never "de France" or "of France", they all were "d'Orléans". 
*Title: 
1. Born in 1812, at the time of Napoléon's Empire, she could not be a "princesse de France" (a title that never existed, except in title-giving en:wiki) and that did not exist in Napoléon's time when the title of a princess (given to the new ones, i.e. belonging to the House of Bonaparte) was "princesse impériale", 
2. At the time of the Bourbon Restoration, Louise d'Orléans & all members of the old Bourbon royal family recovered the titles they held under the Ancien Régime, which made them "princes & princesses du sang" (never "de France").  
3. On 13 August 1830, Louis-Philippe I, King of the French, her father, signed an ordinance in which he declared that the surname of his family was, as before & always, "d'Orléans", and that the only title his daughters & aunt were to have was "princesse d'Orléans" (not "de France").  
Ordonnance of 13 August 1830 :
:LOUIS PHILIPPE ROI DES FRANÇAIS, à tous présens et à venir, salut.
:Notre avènement à la couronne ayant rendu nécessaire de déterminer les noms et les titres que devaient porter à l'avenir les princes et princesses nos enfans, ainsi que notre bien-aimée sœur,
:Nous avons ordonné et ordonnons ce qui suit :
:Les princes et princesses nos bien-aimés enfans, ainsi que notre bien-aimée sœur, continueront à porter le nom et les armes d'Orléans.
:Notre bien-aimé fils aîné, le duc de Chartres, portera, comme prince royal, le titre de duc d'Orléans.
:Nos bien-aimés fils puînés conserveront les titres qu'ils ont portés jusqu'à ce jour.
:Nos bien-aimées filles et notre bien-aimée sœur ne porteront d'autre titre que celui de princesses d'Orléans, en se distinguant entre elles par leurs prénoms.
:Il sera fait, en conséquence, sur les registres de l'état civil de la Maison royale, dans les archives de la Chambre des Pairs, toutes les rectifications qui résultent des dispositions ci-dessus [...]
So why does en:wiki insist on giving non-existing names & titles to the Orléans family members?
Whenever the subject comes up, I always get the answer (as above in the previous section) "This is English Wikipedia". It may be, but does it give English Wikipedia the right to be wrong thus spreading false information? 
--Frania W. (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name & title
Talk:God's utility function

message: Newer sections go below older sections,  thanks..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codwiki (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs rewrite

message: I am a deep supporter of Dawkins' views, but this article appears to me as a bit of one-side biased. I don't mean to say we should put any kind of creationism in there, just clean it all up to reflect a more neutral view. Some claims here sound as universally accepted at least, while some appear as outright quotes - and the phrase "as Dawkins says it best" doesn't really belong here.
--82.139.47.117 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I am reverting 71.193.28.243's good-faith removal of the sentence describing late-onset diseases and in particular Huntington's disease. While due to Anticipation (genetics), largely from paternal inheritance, the disease manifests earlier and earlier in subsequent generations, it is not clear that the disease will be extinguished also via the maternal lineage. Lineages involving hundreds of years of generations have been documented.
Can someone produce more convincing proof? Fred Hsu (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huntington's disease and anticipation 

message: The logic of the argument in this article seems badly flawed. By the same logic, if a gene had a utility function, we wouldn't have contraceptives, abortions, animal-rights activism, and a myriad of other energy-consuming activities that have a negative effect on the "goal" of spreading our genes.
I think this article must have a "criticism" section in which criticism such as this would be displayed, with citations to official publications. I don't do this myself because I don't have time to look for official publications on this topic.
--Erel Segal (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flawed logic 

message: Well, I agree with most of the points made above over the past many years. The article is essay-like, and sourced only to Dawkins's book, which is already covered in an article of its own, River Out of Eden. It is one-sided and unencyclopedic, and frankly if only Dawkins uses the phrase, it fails WP:N and WP:GNG; even as a Darwinist, I can't see why we would want an article on one chapter of one of Dawkins's books: after all, there are plenty of other chapters. No, the coverage in the section of the book article (also not cited to anything, but that's just about bearable in an article on a book) says all that is needed. Given that (on the evidence of this talk page) people have for years thought this article unsatisfactory, I'm redirecting this now as the consensus action that should have been taken a long time ago. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Not material for an article
Talk:Amazon Associates Web Service

message: Originally, "Amazon Web Services" was used synonymously with "Amazon E-Commerce Service", because it was the only web service offered.  Now, ECS is just one of a list of services available from AWS (see Amazon Web Services).  The article should probably explain this in a bit more detail, since people will probably be confused (especially from reading older books, etc.).  David 19:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECS vs AWS
Talk:Academy Award for Technical Achievement

message: Why is there no list with the winners and respective movies? --Jobu0101 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: While trying to reorganise the table (by putting each entry into a separate row) the following problem cropped up.
For several years in the table, the number of Department entries does not match the number of Recipients. Apart from the first two years (where all recipients fall under the same department), there are the following differences:
Year	Nr recipients	Nr departments
1956	6            	5
1968	3            	2
1972	5            	6
1996	7            	8
1997	11           	10
Can someone check the entries against the source and correct them please? I can't reorganise the table while this mismatch exists. Hops Splurt (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked the entries on the official Academy Awards Database and fixed them. Ken Perlin was moved from 1996 to 1997 by a user but I moved them back to 1996 as per the database citation. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello there! The edit on Ken Perlin's award date would have been me. I believe I may have misinterpreted the article initially. Ken Perlin won the Technical Achievement Award in 1997, as is mentioned on his own website (https://mrl.cs.nyu.edu/~perlin/doc/oscar.html). However, he was nominated for it in 1996, to which I naively mistook as an error to his award date. Sincerest apologies. MakotoMiyamoto (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Looking at this again, I think the Winners category should explicitly mention that the dates provides are the years in which the recipients were nominated, rather than having won their respective awards. The edit I made (albeit I admittedly neglected to edit the table directory. Much apologies for that) was in light of the fact that while Ken Perlin was nominated in 1996, he had won the award in 1997, as stated on his website. I think this is a fair change to make, because the inexplicit mention that these dates are nomination dates rather than award dates can be confusing. MakotoMiyamoto (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made changes to the header title of the Winners section. I'm not sure if it's worded the best way -- granted, I am admittedly novice in editing data entries -- but I believe it better describes the table. MakotoMiyamoto (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that people are nominated as such for this award, it appears as if a list of winners is announced by the Academy and they are then listed as the recipient of the award under that year's Academy Awards. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, why is the table subtitle declared by year of nomination? I understand that the 69th Oscar's Awards took place in 1997 (for all 1996 awards), but it is still correct to say that he was nominated in 1996 by virtue of this format. It seems a bit confusing to make the dates and awards this ambiguous. MakotoMiyamoto (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mismatch between Recipients and Departments
Talk:Oskar Potiorek

message: Is there some evidence that he was Slovene? Born in Carinthia, Czech (?) surname, German first name sounds more German/Austrian to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.53.115 (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovene 

message: Where is the reference for the Count Morsey warning about dangers and Potiorek's acceptance of the risks.  Having found and translated Morsey's published testimony of ten year anniversary I can see that Potiorek accepted the risks but Morsey does not say that it was he who protested the dangers but Rummerskirch and that the suggestion of staying put until the troops cleared the streets was put by Major Högers. Is there some other account that explains what Morsey himself stated or should this be corrected?  ihowgate@aol.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.143.199 (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Count Morsey Warning?
Talk:Racking focus

message: This is a pointless stub article, and should be deleted. The follow focus article is a little better (though technically in the film business "Follow Focus" refers the the mechanism on the camera used to achieve this rather than the actual technique itself, though I don't have a reliable source that asserts this.)
The Richard Rush claim is either nonsense or a severe distortion of what Rush might have said (I have no access to the cited source). The technique of racking or pulling focus as described in this article has existed since the early days of movies. DW Griffiths' 1912 film "The Musketeers of Pig Alley" clearly shows the technique in use before Richard Rush was even born. Verlaine76 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend deletion. 

message: Hello, I propose to merge Focus puller with this page, Racking focus because the Focus puller page links here and is essentially a description of the process. The article may then require some more cleaning up and streamlining, but I think it makes sense to fuse them. Don Tango Enchained (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Tharangambadi

message: Isn't there any map availbe of the area ?
What remains of the Danish Presence here?  Languange?  People?  Culture?  Tell us!
IceDragon64 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ???

message: * This website has a run-down of ships calling, bishops, local rulers, and Danish governors, some of which could be incorporated into this or affiliate pages. — LlywelynII 15:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for article expansion

message: Is 'colony' really the right term? As explained in the article, the trading station was patronised by the local king, and the area was never settled by Danes. //erik.bramsen.copenhagen  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.144.63.230 (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology
Talk:Glory of Love

message: I noticed here that there is mention of a song called "Glory of Love"
(1936) with the music and lyrics by Billy Hill. The song was used extensively in the movie Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, however I can't find a mention to that movie or to Billy Hill on this page. Are these different songs?  HWV258  04:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find the Wikipedia article about the 1936 song at The Glory of Love (song). 108.246.205.134 (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: A different song?

message: Ninja Sex Party, an American musical comedy duo, covered the song on their 2019 album Under The Covers Vol III
Since there is a Covers heading in the article, it should probably be added. After all, the article itself has a Wikipedia page ( Under the Covers, Vol. III ) and all the songs are listed there and linked to all of the song pages, including this one.
Under the Covers, Vol. III Charts for reference:
Chart (2019)                    	Peakposition
Australian Digital Albums (ARIA)	12
Dominakiara (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not noteworthy, per WP:COVERSONG. - SummerPhDv2.0 06:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ninja Sex Party's Version
Talk:Pitot House

message: Was there any damage to this house due to Hurricane Katrina?
: Very little. It is on high ground along the natural Bayou St. John levee, and was above the flooding. My photo here on the article is this past October, and as I note the only evident damage was part of the fence being knocked down by wind. As it has since reopened, anything else not visible was evidentally not major. -- Infrogmation 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Editor's cut

message: Does this warrant its own article?  Are "editor's cuts" even common anymore, and are they called that?  Isn't it more common to just call them a rough cut or assembly cut?  Maybe this phrase should just be defined on the "Film Editing" article in one sentence and not have its own page.Henry chianski (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article necessary? 

message: These appear to refer to the same thing, but I don't know enough about filmmaking to be sure. Input from editors more knowledgeable in the topic area than I would be appreciated. ― novov (t c) 09:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge, as there is heavy overlap and they're both short; Rough cut looks more developed, so merging there would seem to be better. Klbrain (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merge with [[Rough cut]]
Talk:Fast cutting

message: *Oppose - hip hop montage refers to footage which is specifically fast motion (as in the opposite of slow motion). You can argue that it's a subset of fast cutting because it also tends to employ fast cutting as well, although I'm not certain that this is uniformly the case. Girolamo Savonarola 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge with [[hip hop montage]]
Talk:Olmesartan

message: can you eat grapefruit with this medicine?  ˥ Ǝ Ʉ  H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: I don't have access to reference 1 to check, but I think that the Chembox is showing the data for the prodrug Olmesartan medoxomil, and the lede also begins with the name of the prodrug (vs the title which is for the drug). While the information is all useful there needs to be clarity about what the principle subject of the article is and better clarity about when the prodrug is being discussed vs the drug. --The chemistds (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between the drug and the pro-drug
Talk:Philip Simonsson

message: I suggest moving this page to Philippus Simonsson og Philip Simonsson. He is not in the officially recognized line of Norwegian kings. To be consistent, he should be treated the same as the many other pretenders of the time, e.g. Skule Bårdsson, Sigurd Slembe or Erling Steinvegg, and have his article headed by his name, not by the title of Norway. --Barend 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest moving page
Talk:Fyodor Rostopchin

message: In some Tarock games, there is a special move a player can make which is named Rostopchin.
"This consists of taking two consecutive tricks with Tarock XVII and Tarock XVIII, whereby when playing Tarock XVII one says "Ross!" and when playing Tarock XVIII "Topschin!" A player playing Tarock XVII and Tarock XVIII consecutively, without saying "Ross!" and "Topschin!" has not earned this bonus. He thus also cannot lose the bonus, if one of the two cards (or both cards) are captured."
-http://www.wareh.org/cards/strohmandeln.html
I believe that this unmistakably comes from Feodor Rostopchin who was made count in 1799 (XVII) and then disgraced in 1801 (XVIII).
Matthew Biebel (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

message: This is pretty obviously a translation from a Russian-language article and needs some work to be good English. I already made one change.
100.15.127.199 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  translation
Talk:Prince George of Greece and Denmark

message: While the success of the Entente powers on the Salonika front was limited, it is odd to see it described as “disastrous”. Was the cited author perhaps thinking of the Dardanelles Campaign, an unquestionable disaster for the Entente? --Clifford Mill (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Flagged errors Clifford Mill (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The Salonika front

message: Why was a Danish royal appointed to a position of power in the government of a Mediterranean island? I don't see any  connection in the article.
Grandma Roses (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: He was the son of the Greek king, but had also lived with his uncle in Denmark - an uncle who was also the brother of Queen Alexandra of Great Britain, "the Rose of Denmark" (we still have local pubs named for her). So when the Great Powers annexed Crete (see Cretan State) here was a young prince who was acceptable to both the local Greeks, but also the Northern European powers behind this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs an explanation 

message: @User:MisterWizzy: It would be interesting to find out whether Roudinesco and O'Grady (the only two sources mentioned, inserted by you, and which I unfortunately cannot verify − the book is not accessible to me, the Telegraph article  is hidden behind a pay barrier) refer to Marie or other credible witnesses, or whether they just cited warmed-up court gossip, which may or may not be anchored in reality. The literal statement to his wife Marie quoted in the section about his youth (citing Celia Bertin as source) is by no means unambiguous in this regard, it even seems rather harmless: "From that day, from that moment on, I loved him and I have never had any other friend but him. ..You will love him too when you meet him." There are other less reliable online sources rumoring this, , ,  but they are unsourced. After all, he only lived with his uncle Prince Valdemar of Denmark in Copenhagen for five years in his youth, during his naval officer training at the Danish Naval Academy, but then with his wife (including bringing up two children) between Paris and Greece for almost fifty years. (George and Marie married in 1907, Valdemar died in 1939.) This statement: Although a homosexual,[cit] who lived most of the year with his uncle Prince Valdemar of Denmark with whom he had a life-long relationship... seems to me to go a little far, it is also not supported by the other biographical information in the article, especially his places of residence mentioned there and in other sources. Of course, if his psychologist wife explicitly wrote this down or told reliable witnesses, that should also be mentioned. -- Equord (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality
Talk:Found footage (appropriation)

message: I don't think What's Up, Tiger Lily? is an example of found footage. Any thoughts? - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 20:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  uh, why not? I would think of "Tiger Lily" as the PRIME example of found footage! 93.219.142.144 (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't think

message: Might include something on the 1963 filme La Rabbia, which used 1950's newsreel footage -- 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057442/
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/dvd_reviews54/la_rabbia.htm
99.115.100.68 (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Examples

message: This page was recently moved from Found footage (appropriation) to Found footage (filmmaking). While I'm not at all sure "appropriation" is a good disambiguator, I think "filmmaking" is certainly worse: since the main thing being distinguished from this article is Found footage (pseudo-documentary), which also falls under the heading of "filmmaking", the current disambiguator fails in its primary function. jnestorius(talk) 13:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:RMUM I've moved it back to Found footage (appropriation). I would change Found footage (filmmaking) to redirect to Found footage with  but I'll wait in case  or anyone else wants to discuss further. jnestorius(talk) 13:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested move
Talk:French hours

message: Regarding this quote: "Meal penalties are monetary compensation that are incurred every half hour after the six-hour deadline until a meal break is given ... " Meal penalty increments are determined by union contracts signed by productions. Each union and/or local in each locality has different rules. I.E. IATSE locals in Toronto, Ontario use 6 minute increments for meal penalties and overtime. "Every half hour" is not a universal rule across all areas and unions. Kubrickrules (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Order of Illuminati

message: The article Illuminati covered 99% of this article so I elected it to merge last week.  The other article uses better English and more inclusive and lots of editors have refined it. I was going to try and redeem any names or dates or places not mentioned in the other article (2 named people here remain) but my concern is none of this article has been supported or substantiated with a reference.  Goldenrowley 20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Jib (camera)

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.   — CactusWriter | needles 17:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed