lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 2/Archive 1

message: I would like to move this page back to "Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Megadrive)" because the game was first released for that console, and the Japanese, Australian, AND European version of the game have also been released for the said console.
Only the North Americans and Brazilians call their console the Genesis.
WhisperToMe 22:24, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's call the Mega Drive/Genesis version Sonic the Hedgehog 2, and the Master System/Game Gear version either Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Game Gear) or Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (8-bit). (As someone who grew up with the Master System and hates that it never get mentioned, I'd prefer the latter.) --Nick R 19:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Genius! Wish I'd thought of it. -- Supermorff 14:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  name issue 

message: I added this link:
http://www.sws2b.com/ Philip1992 10:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link added
Talk:Antony Leung

message: Why is the scandal named Lexusgate? SYSS Mouse 23:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See the world famous Watergate scandal.  The word gate is used to name all kind of scandals ever since.  See also List_of_scandals_suffixed_with_gate.
Should Lexusgate have its own article with contents in this page moved there? Also, I think the sandal section should move tothe end of article. SYSS Mouse 03:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lexus gate

message: The Fu Mingxia article is missing sourcing for their family. Perhaps some of the sources should be copied over. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fu Mingxia 
Talk:Gate control theory of pain

message: Some parts of this article, such as "learning to control pain", don't seem to have much to do with the gate gontrol theory.  Or maybe it's just not explained enough how they're related.  The same bits also strike me as a bit scientifically questionable.  Can they be made a subpage?  Can someone find sources to cite for them?  Thanks, delldot | talk 01:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read psychalgia and psychogenic pain before you get too committed to your initial position.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: relevance?

message: I'm against merging this article with Pain, simply because Pain is big enough as it is. Lova Falk (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Pain has 2 paragraphs on gate control theory, which is enough for that article, but the subject deserves much more detailed coverage, which a dedicated article could provide. Anthony (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I've had second thoughts. All of this article is covered already under "Gate control theory" on the Pain page, and more concisely, and that's all that needs saying about the gate control theory. I see no need for this page and think it should redirect there. The illustrations have problems, discussed on the contributing artist's talk page. Anthony (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:J. Robert Oppenheimer

message: Hello all
An editor has repeatedly tried to add a list of the Oscars won by the Oppenhemier film and actors in that film. My view is that this information belongs in the article about the film. This article already notes that there is a film about Oppenheimer and that is enough. This article is about the man, not the film. Also see WP:NOTNEWS.
Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that the film and actors in it won numerous other awards, so why highlight the Academy Awards? Should we be implying that Oppenheimer is a more important historical figure because a film about him won an award? Should we be listing awards won by any books and films about Oppenheimer? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. Some historical figures have become famous due to a film, but I don't think that Oppenheimer has. The article on the film should cover it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

text: The Oppenheimer movie Oscars are in the article.  I see no harm with having a small separate section on Oppenheimer in popular culture. In that context there is no problem with noting the awards they have received. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  12:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I played around with some possible restructuring, but the material on dramatizations and so on is too well integrated into the "Legacy" section, so the best thing to do is to leave as is. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  20:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscar wins 

message: Little Boy was a uranium, gun-type weapon, whereas Fat Man was a plutonium, implosion-style weapon.
https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/the-vault/the-vault-2023/a-tale-of-two-bomb-designs/#:~:text=Little%20Boy%20was%20a%20uranium,plutonium%2C%20implosion%2Dstyle%20weapon.
Little boy is stated as a imposion-style weapon in the article. But it was a gun type weapon. Alpbyren (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly states that Little Boy was a gun-type weapon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 16:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024
Talk:Point of view

message: Isn't Point of view cinematography also a broader, more relevant perspective of film than the narrower perspective applied to Point of view pornography (POV)?  I am not sure what it is called in filmography but if anyone has more knowledge about this and can contribute it to this page, it would be very helpful to this article's development.  I really don't think that Point of view pornography (POV) should even be entered here, since it is a duplicate of the cinematographic perspective and NOT endemic to only pornography.  Realistically, the only differentiation between the cinematographic point of view and the pornographic, would be that of experiencing (on a physical or sensory level or perspective) the cinematographer's perspective of involvement and I am unaware of any method known to current technology to represent that point of view. Stevenmitchell 23:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of view pornography (POV) 

message: Point of view is also a BBC radio show, I'm not creating a Point of View (Radio) article because I'm unsure if it meets notability. Hopefully someone more experienced can help 194.80.32.10 03:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Points of View ;) Added. --Quiddity 04:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  point of view
Talk:Songshan Airport

message: This section lacks a clear context. It needs to make some reference to government policy or plans specifically related to the Songshan Airport. In its current form it is just a general paragraph saying that some cities in Asia have airports in the city area. Davidreid (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Shongshan airport has no international potential.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.30.185 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: International Potential

message: I had a stopover in Taiwan on my way to Manilla in 1978. I don't recall which airport in Taiwan, but it may have been this one. I remember the landing approach was very low over some buildings, and soon as the wheels touched, the pilot had the brakes and thrust reversers on for all they could do all the way down the runway and through a big u-turn to get the plane stopped. Flight originated in San Francisco, 9 hour layover due to China Airlines not taking off until every seat was filled and the cargo hold full. Had an emergency stop in Hawaii due to a nervous first time passenger eating a whole bag of dried banana chips. She had the equivalent of a full bunch of bananas pumped out of her stomach! In-flight movie was some Chinese western with subtitles. Two weeks later on the return flight they had the same movie!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 07:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Buildings at the end of the runway?
Talk:Cog

message: This ad for Honda Accord may be very amusing, but since the link doesn't work this entry is not very informative User:Wetman
: If there was an article on "cog" in the sense of a part of a gear-system, I'd say the link (which is about an advert named for such a part) should go there. But there isn't, and it's perhaps a leap to far to link it from the Gear page. However the link to the advertisment does now work, so we may as well keep it here. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 00:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

message: Hi,
How may I add a new line for COG? I wish to write: Creator of Gods to the terms + Link it to http://theoriginofgods.com/
Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.169.47 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a Line

message: The term COG also refers to the "Commander of the guard" in Marine Corps guard duty parlance. Usually a sergeant. At least it did when I served. o0drogue0o 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Military use
Talk:Yiff

message: The title of the BuzzFeed article quoted seems relatively straightforward as a reference. However, it appears to be a misinterpretation of what happened - a local newspaper hews more closely to the facts, quoting "inappropriate behaviour" and a Fox news report notes (around 1:55), that what was actually alleged was "simulated sex". This seems far more realistic, as it is something I have seen myself at furry events.
(In the end no evidence was provided to substantiate the specific claims made, but as mentioned in comments there volunteers were ultimately banned from using equipment and an agreement went unsigned.) GreenReaper (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not put that in the article?CycoMa (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with doing that, if people agree with it. I wanted to explain it in more detail here because a) it required a bit more space than provided in an edit summary, and b) I was curious to see if there were any obvious problems with doing so first. GreenReaper (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don’t see anyone opposing it’s inclusion. About you just put it in and me and other users tweak it a bit.CycoMa (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  are you still up for putting in what you wanted to add to this article?CycoMa (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the incident is currently described sounds odd in-article. If we don't use the word "yiffing", it would seem it barely belongs in the article at all, in my opinion. Unless we're describing how a mainstream news outlet used yiffing in a headline, it doesn't seem like a necessary addition, but I'm hardly the arbiter of its removal. Squeeyote (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  BuzzFeed mistaking simulated sex for actual sex 

message: There is already an article defining yiff on Wiktionary and any other information can already be gained from other articles like Furry Fandom (ex. the history and derogatory usage) I don't understand the necessity for this article. SharkFinnedGirl (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It exists because sources exist, and the Furry Fandom article is a general overview, not an exhaustive rundown of every phenomenon in the subculture. In any case merging would be the appropriate route per WP:BEFORE, and would probably be rejected as WP:COATRACKing. Dronebogus (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually going to cry; please do. Ceruleanix (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we flag this for deletion?
Talk:Miloš Obilić

message: di Lellio was already subject on this page, as it can be seen, and it was declined over and over again. Do you have any NEW source that can actually bring something new and offer the reason to include this in article? Thank you for peaceful communication. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 08:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  di Lellio, again :( 

message: So Ottoman miniature has no place here but 19th century fictional paintings has? What's your reason for your revert? Please explain. Beshogur (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources to offer for the last edit? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  please check below  and . For the miniature, check this. Beshogur (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see it as needed in the infobox, even more so because there are two opposite views and we have only a few usable source about Obilić. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sadko's revert 

message: Sigh. I really fail to see what's the big deal here. The current lead sentence reads "Miloš Obilić was a legendary Serbian knight who is reputed to have been in the service of Prince Lazar during the Ottoman invasion of Serbia in the late 14th century". Now, being a knight in someone's service does not seem to be much notable, does it?
Per MOS:FIRST,  and, particularly  Obilić is first and foremost remembered and celebrated as the Murad's assassin at the Battle of Kosovo, which I expressed in no uncertain terms as  So everything is there: legend, Murad, 1389 and Kosovo. Now, , can you plainly explain what's "more comprehensive" in the original and which "pertinent" information I erased? Per WP:BOLD, I'm not required to seek consensus prior to editing, and basically reshuffling of two sentences hardly constitutes "drastic changes". No such user (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel as though the overall context is clearer to the first-time reader by adding the 'Ottoman invasion of Serbia in the 14th century'. It gives a more complete picture of the situation  which led to his notable action, and it does so through the simple addition of only one sentence. The lead is supposed to give a quick overview, and I feel as though the original version provided that to better degree. It may seem hypercritical, but I'm putting myself in the shoes of someone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic or subject at hand. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So find a suitable place to restore the link to History of Ottoman Serbia instead of reverting wholesale. WP:STATUSQUO:  Really, reverting causes conflict and friction. In my opinion, "assassination of ... Ottoman Sultan ... in 1389 battle" provides sufficient context, but even if you reasonably disagree, there's plenty of room to establish it. No such user (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

text: It's hard to argue against "I like it" arguments, so I'll give up. No such user (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence
Talk:Chetniks

message: Serbo Croatian does not exist. Change this to Serbian 220.238.13.211 (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: not according to linguists. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Actually, Serbo-Croatian does not exist. Today, 2 different languages exist: Serbian and Croatian. 62.240.24.168 (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Serbo-Croatian does and always WILL exist.  It is the English name for the common language both of you speak - closer than the the northern and southern American English, and why there is a Wiki article under the name.  "Serbian" and "Croatian" are nationalist standardized languages adopted by both of your countries respectively, but these are political constructs. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: The name in the infobox should be re-named to "Chetnik Detachments of the Yugoslav Army" (the official name of the movement), in accordance with the practice of using the official name in the infobox. 129.97.131.0 (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the name in the infobox 

message: Section on etymology is rather dubious. It is long established that "četnik" is derived from "četa", which is of proto-Slavic origin, and attested in all Slavic languages, including those which didn't have any contact with Turkish language:
: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/%C4%8Deta
Source which is used to add those dubious claims is a Bosniak contemporary source which seems to try to portrait Chetniks as bad as possible, going to extent to try to even make origin of the word as something bad.
Ђидо (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tweaked the section to NPOV. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Isn't it obvious that photo (Chetniks in Šumadija kill a Partisan through heart extraction.) on which supposedly chetniks extract a heart is montage? There are multiple proofs of photo montages used to discredit Chetniks, this one is one of the most famous. There is no author, no place where it was created, multiple elements on photo seem added. Also, if Chetnik collaboration needs so many photos, why are not there more photos of chetnik collaboration with communists, French, English, Americans, Soviets? It seems that this article tries to convince people that Chetniks were only bad guys (like everything related to Serbs on Wikipedia history articles). 178.223.1.98 (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to anyone else. You say this has been proved, so do you have a reliable source that states this photograph is a montage, or is that your opinion? Thanks, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mock up Picture
Talk:Mantra

message: Would you please take a look at this section of the older version of this article. The sources behind the health benefits claims feel like non-MEDRS and primary, so I reverted / trimmed much of it here and here. I am fine if you trim it further or recover some of the content I removed, after your review. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping. Trimmed some more as it was based on primary sources. Have looked for secondary sources but it does not appear that there are many. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the review and cleanup, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mantra-related medical / health claims and non-MEDRS 

message: I'd reverted your edits regarding somechanges made by you in this article. But I think you were still diagreeing, so I've created this section. Mantras are not only found in Hinduism but in other indian religions such as Buddhism and also in Taoism and Shintoism, which requires their mention.Also their are many mantras in Pali found in Buddhist texts, like Luck Mantra and Vedabbha Mantra. You cannot just delete anything you find not good. Follow WP:PRESERVE.JaMongKut (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some IP had surreptitiously added a religion (Hinduism) in the lead when it was not the case before. I have restored it as it was before (without the mention of any specific religions which begin in the next para) per WP:STATUSQUO. And please don't incorrectly cite any guideline that you come across, PRESERVE is hardly applicable per WP:BRD. Gotitbro (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mantra 

message: It appears that Beej mantra contains information (possibly with some additional info) about a topic that is already covered in Mantra Singularity42 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, on this is one of many distinct mantra subtopic pages that worth maintaining separately, primarily because merging them all would be unwieldy. See Gayatri Mantra, Pavamana Mantra, Shanti Mantras, etc. Klbrain (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose Beej mantras are an unique, notable type of mantras. Keep as a subtopic. Redtigerxyz  Talk  07:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Beej mantra]] into [[Mantra]]
Talk:George Soros

message: Due to Mr Soro's large and consistent donations to political organisations and figures, surely it would make sense to add Political donor to the opening of the lead paragraph.
Interested to here the thoughts about this from other users. Basedosaurus (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding "political donor" to the lead paragraph 

message: There should be an addition to say that soros did in fact help confiscate property from jews to help the nazis.  Here is a link to the interview where he admitted it:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/arunpudur_in-a-1998-interview-george-soros-admits-to-activity-7045000603265093632-H-yN?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android 2603:7000:1200:F916:2454:3FB4:9873:D22C (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024
Talk:Gas bladder

message: It should be noted that there is a difference between gas bladders and swim bladders, gas bladders are a more primitive stage, which actually allows some fish (Karp) to breath air, the swim bladder is primarily marine, and can't be used to breath air directly.
Siraf 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas Bladder vs. Swim Bladder 

message: Link [5] is not valid any more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.27.66 (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links
Talk:Military technology during World War I

message: From WP:RfD:
* Military technology during World War I → Technology during World War I - Please delete Military technology during World War I as I have seen to that this very short stub has been merged into Technology during World War I, and I have fixed all redirection issues by checking off the list "what links here". Thus no articles link to Military technology during World War I anymore, it is just a redirection page hanging in the void. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 23:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Sit-down restaurant

message: I was thinking of perhaps a linguistic discussion of how older words need to be "re-branded" as time marches on? For example, we now have to describe what used to be called "watches" as "pocket watches" as "wristwatches" are now simply called "watches". And as "digital watchers" have become more commonplace, we must call the other kind "analog watches". The same thing happened to restaurant. --Dante Alighieri 18:17, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: See retronym. --Brion 18:20, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I couldn't for the life of me remember that word. ;) --Dante Alighieri 19:31, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)