lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Kensington (UK Parliament constituency)

message: In my opinion, this article either does not verifiably satisfy the Notability criteria for Academics, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation. 
Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of third-party sources in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones, or self-published sources) suggests to some editors that multiple independent reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.
Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist User:, and other recent contributors to this article, to make some constructive improvements to it … I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.
Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.
To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings … I apologize if some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case. §— Elections 2015 labour candidate badly input
:It appears the above issue was resolved some time ago.- Adam37 Talk 18:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: This article does not [[WP:Verifiability|verifiably]] establish [[WP:PROF]]
Talk:Kettering (UK Parliament constituency)

message: Until 2005, the MP was called Sawford. Despite Kettering being somewhat Conservative, they still had an MP who is a republican. Is it common for typicly Tory to have an MP that seeks to disestablish the Monarchy? One of situation?--83.108.30.141 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  That Sawford bloke 

message: Watching BBC election coverage, due to boundary changes, it would have been classified as a Conservative hold, rather than a conservative gain. I'm not familiar with how these things are worked out on Wikipedia, but in any case, leaving it here.Park3r (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 1983 election
Talk:Kidderminster (UK Parliament constituency)

message: There is a fascinating page about Albert Grant and his misdeeds: Baron Albert Grant (1831 – 1899) - A Pioneer of Public Relations.
He really was a baron (it seems) but not a British one. He was made a baron by King Victor Emmanuel of Italy but it is not a title that he should have been using as an MP. Vidoue (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a footnote with a reference from the ODNB. Interesting character: might start an article myself :-) Lozleader (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baron Albert Grant (1831 – 1899)  
Talk:To France

message: Mary, Queen of Scots, attempted to flee from custody by Elizabeth I, Queen of England, to France. She was caught and beheaded as a verdict. The song is about that last attempt.
It is quite bizarre your own ears are to be distrusted as you may not add this explanation on Wikipedia. 109.38.151.63 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

message: I assume that this reference to Mary Queen of Scots will have come from the Elements 4CD box set - quote from an Oldfield forum thread notes that "the book included with the Elements box set says that "To France" was inspired by the unhappy life of Mary Queen of the Scots". If anyone has a copy of this, they could verify that this is correct.
A review at Allmusic notes the song being about Mary Queen of Scots, but doesn't indicate anything further or concrete. TubularWorld (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Queen of Scots
Talk:1999 Davis Cup

message: In the doubles match of the this year final, the names of the players are wrong. Fabrice Santoro of course is French and Nicolas Massu has, being from Chile, nothing to do with this match. Santoro should be placed on the spot of Massu; Aside Woodbridge should be placed Marc Woodforde
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.123.150 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Sentinel (instrumental)

message: This remix release should be mentioned in the article: http://www.discogs.com/release/767542  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.133.191 (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. TubularWorld (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentinel Restructure Mixes
Talk:Kingston and Surbiton (UK Parliament constituency)

message: I would use 'Sir Edward Davey' versus just 'Ed Davey' (for elections after 2015). Although the honours may not appear on the ballot paper, it seems to make sense on Wikipedia to take full account of their title. Unless someone can cite sources to the contrary? Matt 190417 19:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, and I've reverted until there is a decision. I removed honours from all other constituency pages without opposition. It has NEVER been standard procedure to include honours in ballot boxes on Wikipedia. Whether that be Sir, Dame, CBE, OBE, MBE, or even Baron in the case of someone like George Foulkes in the Scottish Parliamentary elections. In fact, it seems apparent that they've only been included in seats that the LibDems are trying to win back from last time - notably Ed Davey, Simon Hughes and Vince Cable. I have not seem them used on Labour/Conservative defending pages, which suggests to be that there is an intention of political bias from the individual(s) who have inserted them in the first place. I have removed any that I have come across - it does not make any sense to include them given they are not at all relevant in elections and certainly not on the day of poll. It is standard procedure to include a simplified version of the name that would appear on the ballot paper i.e. no middle names. This has been common practice for some time now. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia uses the Statement of Persons Nominated, which never uses honours. That's enough for me doktorb wordsdeeds 17:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honours in elections 
Talk:In dulci jubilo

message: '[...] composed in 1265.'
'The poem is thought to be written by the German mystic Heinrich Seuse circa 1328.'
I didn't know time machines existed in the mediaeval era... Siúnrá (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I had not noticed that someone had put that. Fixed anyway. TubularWorld (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry. I see that the music is "traditional". Is it known when it emerged? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: When was it composed?

message: Should this be at "In dulci jubilo"? Rob (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it should be moved to "In dulci jubilo"; see e.g. :Category:Piae Cantiones. However, I think such a move will require administrative assistance at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible move? 
Talk:Kingswinford (UK Parliament constituency)

message: United Kingdom general election, 1922 seems to be missing?  Stich (Lab) beat Beyfus (N.L.) by 919 votes.
:See Charles Sitch; has category for MP 1922-23.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Five Miles Out (song)

message: Do we know any more about Oldfield's "experience of a near-tragic flight"? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that he wrote about it in his autobiography, Changeling. TubularWorld (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

message: I'd swear the male voice singing the chorus along Maggie is Barry Palmer's.~Ignacio Agulló  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacio.Agulló (talk • contribs) 12:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not credited for it, and the male vocals on the TV videos are mimed by Mike in a way that suggests it's actually him singing... Jules TH 16 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male voices in the song
Talk:Don Alfonso

message: Should this actually be in the Songs written by Mike Oldfield category, considering it is only arranged by Oldfield? TubularWorld (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no.  (And I'll just use this as an opportunity to pop in and say hello, I'm still watching some of these pages and seeing you keeping them up to date.  Keep up the good work!) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writer category
Talk:Lambeth and Southwark (London Assembly constituency)

message: There's a link for every political party in this article except Animals Count, which has been deleted as supposedly unremarkable - even though its candidate in this election got more than a thousand votes and the organization has an active website. 23:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The greens are not included in the 2016 election.they got 25793 votes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boek2107 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greens
Talk:Lancaster (UK Parliament constituency)

message: The link from Marquess of Douglas goes to Alexander Douglas-Hamilton, 10th Duke of Hamilton. Maybe the 10th Duke of Hamilton was MP for Lancaster in 1802, but the 1st Marquess died in 1660 and the 2nd in 1699, so clearly were not.  Shipsview (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Shipsview. If you believe it to be incorrect, you can remove the links (the   symbols)  or link the correct article as required. As long as the Edit Box is filled in adequately, any edits you make are more than welcome doktorb wordsdeeds 10:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

text: There is debate over whether he was Hamilton or Douglas-Hamilton. I have left the Douglas out. Shipsview (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1802 Marquess of Douglas
Talk:Lancaster and Wyre (UK Parliament constituency)

message: There is a section reading (my italics):
The Boundary Commission for England proposals for parliamentary constituencies in Lancashire were completed in 2006. They proposed to split this seat into two. As a result Lancaster was attached to another part of Wyre borough, over the River Wyre to the fishing port of Fleetwood. The new seat of Lancaster and Fleetwood represents the first time the two places have been linked for parliamentary reasons for many years.
The other seat is the new Wyre and Preston North. This seat has never been created before, and the bringing together of Garstang, Thornton, Poulton-le-Fylde and the Fulwood and northern rural areas of Preston is unprecedented.
I realise that both these statements require citations - but shouldn't these italicised statements, if they are anywhere at all, be on the pages for the new constituencies? Crooked cottage (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New constituencies
Talk:Leicester (UK Parliament constituency)

message: I have removed the blue article link to his name as it connected him to a much later NZ politician, William Mouat Bolt, and have created a new (so far red) link called 'William Bolt (MP for Leicester)'.Cloptonson (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: William Bolt

message: The Eyre Coote elected 1768 is article linked to 'Eyre Coote (East India Company officer)' whose Wikipedia article article only mentions he was MP for Maryborough in the Irish parliament and Poole (1774-80) in the British. Please establish if this was the same man.  If it was, introduce service as MP for Leicester in the biographical article.Cloptonson (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have answered my own request as I found it is mentioned in his sketch in the Dictionary (and later Oxford Dictionary) of National Biography.  I have made good the deficiency in his wikipedia article but not tried to add a succession table.Cloptonson (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Eyre Coote
Talk:Leicester East (UK Parliament constituency)

message: Hi,
This page is missing the result from the 1922 General Election (as opposed to the 1922 by-election, which is included). 
Accordingly, the same party is shown winning both elections, but both are described as "gains".  This is because they lost this seat at the General election, having won it at the by-election. 
Furthermore, Arthur Evans is listed as a "Unionist" (presumably "Liberal Unionist") candidate, and his partisan colour box is blue.  The Wikipedia page for Arthur Evans says that he was a National Liberal, as opposed to a Liberal Unionist, although there was significant overlap between National Liberals and Liberal Unionists, so I'm not sure whether it was possible that he might have been both.  Also, would Liberal Unionists/National Liberals not typically be marked as yellow, rather than blue?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.195.249 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is missing a result 
Talk:Protected areas of Georgia (U.S. state)

message: Hey Johnny, nice article. Looks like we have some articles to write. (all the links in RED). I'll try and figure out why the Federal level protected areas and Biosphere Reserve sections have that big area of blank space. I think it has to do with the infobox and pictures in that area. Rocketmaniac (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Rocket. I agree with you about the picture/infobox thing. And yeah, there are quite a bit of red links in this article. I've been on a mission to get all the daughter articles for the Geography section of the Georgia article created (part of a list of things that need to be done to get Georgia up to Good Article and then possibly Featured Article status. Thanks for all your help, man. It's greatly appreciated. Reb (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice Article
Talk:Lewisham North (UK Parliament constituency)

message: There is a requested move open at Lewisham North, proposing that the page be moved to Lewisham North (disambiguation). You are invited to take part in the discussion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 16:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Lewisham North]]
Talk:Lewisham West and Penge (UK Parliament constituency)

message: The old Lewisham West seat was gained by the Conservatives in 1983 not 1979. 92.62.3.74 (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: True, and that together with "Labour won it back in 1992, despite failing to win the election nationally" give the lie to the unsourced claim that it was a marginal bellwether. I'll remove all that. NebY (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I've also removed the generalisations about diversity and suburbs, and the analysis of ward voting which also appears to be unsourced WP:OR. NebY (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  correction
Talk:Leyton (UK Parliament constituency)

message: The swing is quite confusing for these years. Both the 1967 and the 1970 elections are compared to the 1966 election, without making this apparent. On the contrary, in 1970 it says 'Labour hold' while it was regained from the Conservatives. Any suggestions on how to clarify this? I don't think a footnote would be sufficiently clear. effeietsanders 19:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1967 by-election and the 1970 election
Talk:University of Wisconsin Science Hall

message: Photos and/or photo uploads are needed.
*HABS photos do not seem to be available for this site.
*NRHP photos linked in article are not identified as taken by NPS employee, hence not clear if are public domain or not.
*New photos would be helpful.
Photoreq template removed, as photo seems adequate. -Freekee (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos
Talk:Unforgiven (2005)

message: The article is looking good. A few things to consider:
#The article says, "Hardy locked Edge for the Side Effect and both men went flying off the stage and into electrical equipment." Did he actually perform the move? It sounds like he was just preparing to perform it when they both fell off the stage. Either way, this should be more clear.
#: ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've managed to fix most of them, but I'm too tired to finish off. I fsomeone else feels like it they can address the above points; if not, I'll see what I can do tomorrow. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-GA review 

message: Issues:
*"and eight overall". Should be "eighth".
:--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some use "RAW", some use "Raw." --13 of Diamonds (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but it goes by MoS (trademarks) does it not? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant within this article. The lead section and the infobox uses "RAW". Elsewhere, "Raw". --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but RAW is the brand; Raw is the show. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an instance in the Aftermath section where the brand is referred as "Raw". --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. Does Raw still need changing? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll let that go for GA. This should still be discussed within your WikiProject. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before and always stated that Raw is the show and RAW is the brand. I go by what's said over there. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you explain this one please? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless that's a quote, I think the word "guy" is inappropriate to be used in this context. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would "individuals" work? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: I have passed this article as GA class. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA pass
Talk:Aryan Kaganof

message: The article only has one reference, and it is a dead link. Additional references are required. pietopper (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Link
Talk:Lincoln (UK Parliament constituency)

message: 1997 is down as from a Labour gain from Conservative and the precentage of vote change is calculated on the result for 1992. However this ignores the fact that the 1997 Lincoln had significantly different boundaries to the seat as previously contested. This means that had the new boundaries been in use in 1992 the  result would have been different. Indeed both The Almanac of British Politics and The Times Guide to the House of Commons 1997 predicted the seat would have been won by Labour in 1992 on these  boundaries, the former saying by around 1,000 votes and the later (which gives a detailed projection) by 964 votes (1.9%). Thus I think the % vote share change should be removed and the result described as a Labour Win rather than Gain (this is what the Times Guide to the House of Commons did and I think also the election night results on the BBC). Dunarc (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1997 result - changes from 1992 and technically not a Labour gain
Talk:Liskeard (UK Parliament constituency)

message: The blue link on here to Richard Edgcumbe (politician) goes to another politician of this name. I haven't changed it as I wasn't sure what to change it to. This is partly because he may also be the person behind these incoming links to RE (politician): 
* Grampound (UK Parliament constituency) 1593,
* Bossiney (UK Parliament constituency) 1628 to 1629
* Newport (Cornwall) (UK Parliament constituency)
* High Sheriff of Cornwall 1610.
If he is, then if someone has a source, could they please create a stub? If he probably isn't, this page should probably be changed to give a redlink to Richard Edgcumbe (MP for Liskeard). Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard Edgcumbe
Talk:List of parliamentary constituencies in Buckinghamshire

message: I would strongly suggest that the section entitled "Changes proposed for 2019", be changed, possibly to "Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies proposed changes" or similar. The new boundaries were not voted on by parliament so cannot now be used for the pending general election, so there is no possibility of them being used in 2019. Equally at the moment there is no guarantee another quick election if there is a hung parliament, so it is not even safe at this stage to talk about them being used for the 58th United Kingdom general election. Indeed given so much time has elapsed since the review without the changes being implemented and population change will have occurred within that time, it is not beyond question that these changes will now never be adopted as a future government may wait for the outcome of a further (7th) review. However calling them changes for 2019 is definitely inaccurate and potentially misleading to voters (though I am sure that that is no the intention of any editor). Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes proposed for 2019 