lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:The Early Admissions Game

message: There was a proposal to delete this page, but I see no argument here. The book is notable (often cited in the press). This entry is not promotional. I started it and am not an author or publisher. There is no copyright issue since the quotes fall under fair use. I agree that the entry could be better. With luck, others will add to it. David.Kane (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:My Best Friend's Mistake

message: There is a mistake in this episode. You can see a boom mike in the screen in the scene after the opening credits JayKeaton 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Actually, this is the first time we see Ted singing, but on My Heavy Meddle it says otherwise.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.188.40.126 (talk) 15:17, August 20, 2007 (UTC) 
:You're absolutely right, have removed it now, thanks--Jac16888 15:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ted
Talk:The Egypt Game

message: The Egypt Game (1967) is a Newbery Honor -winning novel by Zilpha Keatley Snyder. The story, set in California, follows the life of a lonely 11-year-old named April Hall ( April Dawn) (the daughter of an actress sent to live with her grandmother) and 11-year-old Melanie Ross, her new neighbor. Both share an interest in Ancient Egypt, and decide to create an elaborate "Egypt Game". Their bright imaginations inspire the game- but strange, dangerous things happen in their neighborhood, including the murder of a girl.
24.191.246.21 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: = summaries
Talk:The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

message: Is Marxist not a better term than Marxian? 163.1.99.26 15:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxian 

message: Most of the information on this page is a very close paraphrase, and in some places perhaps verbatim copy, of Robert Tucker's introduction to the essay in his Marx-Engels Reader. Without reference notes and quotation marks in the appropriate places, this is just plagiarism (unless Robert Tucker himself wrote the wiki article). Augenblick (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it really doesnt matter if something is plagiarized here, as no one is taking credit for what they write. all that matters is whether it is a copyright violation. verbatim copying of copyrighted text must be removed. if someone has adequately paraphrased a large portion of a copyrighted text, thats ok.(of course, the boundary between copyright violation and rewriting can be somewhat fluid)76.245.46.57 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: According to Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (volume 11, p. 738), Marx references Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy (p. 323 of the 1837 German edition), which is also the exact citation given in Engels's letter to Marx when describing the idea. Therein, Hegel basically posits that people at large are so stupid that they need every significant historical event to happen twice before they can actually acknowledge, understand, and accept it, pointing towards the two violent deaths of Julius Caesar and Cassius in close succession and Napoleon's two defeats (first at the Battle of Leipzig and again at the Battle of Waterloo) as examples. According to this notion, history is indeed not cyclical, but whoever refuses to learn from history is doomed to repeat it by making the same mistakes all over again. The first time, you couldn't know it was wrong, but the second time, you should've known. That's why the first time is a tragedy, whereas the second time is a farce. --2003:DA:CF04:EB00:F981:4CF3:1421:E75A (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hegel
Talk:The Enchanter Reborn

message: This article is not a legitimate target for removal without discussion. Moreover, for an article about a book, the book itself is always a legitimate source, and need not be cited as such; the Internet Speculative Fiction database (listed under external links) is also a legitimate source. Also, please note that if this article was to be removed, the proper redirect would be to L. Sprague de Camp, not Christopher Stasheff. BPK (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, according to Wikipedia:Notability (books) "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself."  The book has not been sourced to any such.  The author himself is of, at best very marginal notability.  However, I will take your word on the redirect (: BE——Critical__Talk 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: L. Sprague de Camp is universally regarded as a highly important author in the science fiction and fantasy fields; Moreover, the Harold Shea series, of which these books are a continuation, is a fantasy classic. I submit that the notability of de Camp and the series are facts against which your argument carries little weight. If you truly believe these two articles do not merit a place in wikipedia, there is a formal process by which you can contest them. Right now you don't have a consensus - just your own opinion, with which I respectfully disagree. BPK (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I replied here BE——Critical__Talk 17:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to [[User:Becritical]]
Talk:The End of the World News: An Entertainment

message: Should the subtitle (i.e. "An Entertainment") be in the article name? WP:SUBTITLES seems to say that subtitles are only used for disambiguation, and I don't think there's another work or entity called "The End of the World News" with a Wikipedia article. (Having said that, there's a song by Tom McRae called "End of the World News (Dose Me Up)" on the album Tom McRae,  and it seems to have been released as a single but hasn't got an article.) Grover Snodd (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtitle
Talk:The Enemy of My Enemy (Michael book)

message: Should there be a link to realpolitik to explain the title?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt. Jean-Luc Pikachu (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The guideline about disambiguating book titles says to disambiguate article about books based on the type of literary work and only add the author's name if "further disambiguation" is needed. Currently the disambiguation page lists The Enemy of My Enemy (novel), The Enemy of My Enemy (Charlie Jade),  The Enemy of My Enemy (Robin Hood), in addition to this article. Although there is a novel with the same title, there are no other non-fiction "book"s with the same title. Using "(book)" as a disambiguator implies the work is "non-fiction", and, so far, only this book is the only non-fiction book with this title, so this article doesn't need the author's name added to the disambiguating text. Additionally, because the author's first and last names are both recognizable first names in English, including the author's name in the disambiguator is confusing, as it is not very obvious one is referring to a book written by this particular author. It might be more obvious if the author had a different name. One of the sources gets around this by referring to the author in the possessive, calling it "George Michael's book", and I think this would perhaps be a better way to disambiguation, if it were needed. But, in this case I think it is unnecessary. To me, it would be better if books were disambiguated by their year of publication, as this would allow disambiguation of two distinctly different books under the same title published by the same author but published in different years. This can happen if an author revises a book to account for developments over the time between publications. These sorts of re-publications are not merely reprints of the original or simply a new edition with corrections, but are revisions of the author's thinking, too. So can be considered separate literary works. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title disambiguation
Talk:Motion picture credits

message: ok, why does the popular 10 year long series Stargate SG-1 say "with" this person (MICHAEL SHANKS) "as" that character (Daniel Jackson) in the opening credits for 10 years, when no other person gets this treatment? Is there something of relevance in this discrepancy worth adding to this article?  I mean, I understand why the longtime star Richard Dean Anderson was in the biggest letters and first, but why say "as this particular character" in smaller letters for only one person and none of the 4 or 6 or whatever number of other main stars in the intro? It's probably all simply because he's the youngest and newest to acting, maybe he requested it, or wasn't popular enough yet and "needed" this "help". ok, someone help me turn this into a helpful contribution. because I don't know what to do with it. Nastajus 05:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  with guy as guy rare 

message: Ok, I'm sure modern credits are probably created using computers, but motion pictures have been around longer than computers and (as far as I know) have always had credits. So, how did the credits get there? 
I think some information on the methods used to create the credits, both modern and historically, would be suitable here.
Mckechnie (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do they get there
Talk:The Essence of Christianity

message: The majority of this article was added in one lump by an unregistered user without any indication of its origin.  Is this original research or a copy and paste job?  See http://www.libraryofcanada.com/biography.html?author_id=3032&whereFrom=loc&author=Feuerbach,%20Ludwig  Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: libraryofcanada.com no longer exists. This article is awful and should be deleted or heavily trimmed. An encyclopedia is NOT a place to do an original critique of a philosopher.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced main section
Talk:The Ethics of Liberty

message: "Zwolinski... is a co-director of USD’s Institute for Law and Philosophy, editor of Arguing About Political Philosophy (Routledge, 2009) and author, with John Tomasi, of A Brief History of Libertarianism (forthcoming with Princeton University Press in 2014)." (USD faculty profile.) His association with USD is pertinent and linking his name via the school article link assists readers in finding him. Hence, describing his professional affiliation and linking USD in the article is proper. – S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Hoppe can be described with more particularity. He is a Emeritus from UNLV. I have no objection to short descriptions regarding same. My edit summary remark about USD being Catholic is not part of the article. But readers can discover this if they look.  – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zwolinski 
Talk:The Eve of Saint Venus

message: Could someone please adjust the heading to read "Eve of Saint Venus"? Two reasons:
(1) that's the correct title of the book, in every edition I'm aware of;
(2) spelling "Saint" out instead of abbreviating it avoids the obvious problem of having to choose between "St." (American) and "St" (UK), with the former pleasing most users of Wikipedia but annoying those who know that Burgess was British, and the latter pleasing UK readers but puzzling everyone else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.139.41 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading of article
Talk:The Evolution of Naval Weapons

message: It sounds as if this publication was written by De Camp while he was an employee of the USN.  If that is true, then it would be in the public domain, and could be uploaded to wikisource or the commons.  Geo Swan (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: It sounds as if this publication was written by De Camp while he was an employee of the USN
Talk:The Executioners (MacDonald novel)

message: The "Plot" section has a few of these, which Wikipedia's Manual of Style advises against. Since I haven't read the novel and don't want it to be spoiled, could anyone please reformat the paragraphs so that fewer or none of them have only one sentence?--Thylacine24 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-sentence paragraphs 

message: Why "The Executioners" ? It doesn't seem to fit the plot. --  Beardo (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title
Talk:The Exit Door Leads In

message: I'm finding some decent evidence for notability here, mostly via book snippets where people discuss the story's themes. There are also some things like this that I can't determine if they're about the story or not. If it is notable enough I'm going to have to create manual citations for each translation. Not really fun, but I can't justify using the sci-fi database since it's user submitted. (I discovered that after reviewing the source for the last short story I was working on.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:The Exotic Enchanter

message: This article is not a legitimate target for removal without discussion. Moreover, for an article about a book, the book itself is always a legitimate source, and need not be cited as such; the Internet Speculative Fiction database (listed under external links) is also a legitimate source. Also, please note that if this article was to be removed, the proper redirect would be to L. Sprague de Camp, not Christopher Stasheff. BPK (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, according to Wikipedia:Notability (books) "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself."  The book has not been sourced to any such.  The author himself is of, at best very marginal notability.  However, I will take your word on the redirect (: BE——Critical__Talk 21:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two authors under consideration here, not one. Regarding the first, Christopher Stasheff, well, he is a respectable midrange fantasy author - hardly marginal, though I would certainly concede that he's not a major figure. Thus, while I personally would question your wholesale deletion spree among the Stasheff articles, I have not contested it. But his status isn't really an issue in the present case. These two works are a collaboration with an unquestionably major figure: L. Sprague de Camp is universally regarded as a highly important author in the science fiction and fantasy fields, which makes your statement on the notability of the author irrelevant. Moreover, the Harold Shea series, of which these books are a continuation, is a fantasy classic. I submit that the notability of de Camp and the series are unquestioned facts against which your argument carries little weight. If you truly believe these two articles do not merit a place in wikipedia, there is a formal process by which you can contest them. Right now you don't have a consensus - just your own opinion, with which I respectfully disagree. BPK (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, sounds good.  I'm going through a process where I hope to do as few deletion discussions as possible.  I've found that people argue that a person/subject ought to be notable, and therefore keep the article, even though no one can find any notability in actual fact (sources that meed Notability (books)).  So the discussions are exhausting and I'd rather do things with tacit consensus such as you were willing to give on the redircts (:  So anyway, if I get to articles like this one, I'll get to them last and go through the formal discussion. BE——Critical__Talk 17:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to [[User:Becritical]]
Talk:The Exploits of Sherlock Holmes

message: I italicised titles
Rogersansom (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: Do these stories warrant individual articles ? Do we need plot summaries (and the first two which I looked at had quotes which seemed to me to add nothing) --  Beardo (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They clearly don't. I think we should just merge everything to this article. Jack234567 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual articles
Talk:The Eye of the Sibyl

message: There should be a reference for the claim that this story was published in Gnostic magazine or anywhere else.  The notes in the collection The Eye of the Sibyl and Other Stories (a 1992 trade paperback reprint of the 1987 hardcover Volume V ("The Little Black Box") of The Collected Stories of Philip K. Dick) state that it was previously unpublished.  The Internet Speculative Fiction Database (ISFDB) entry does not (as yet) list this story as published anywhere but in variants of Volume 5 of The Collected Stories.  The fragment here about Gnostic magazine in 1987 comes up multiple times on web searches now, and may only be a "fact" by virtue of repetition of this item at other sites.  The one fact that is certain is that it was published in 1987 and since in variant editions of the Collected Stories Volume 5.
Jszigeti (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing history for The Eye of the Sibyl
Talk:New York Rangers traditions

message: * I don't think the Rangers goal song was added until 1996 or 1997. Nyrmetros 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goal Song

message: *Why was this section removed? This is not a POV, but fact.
:"Another Rangers chant that was given life in the early 1980's is the "beat Your Wife Potvin, Beat Your Wife!" chant which would rain down from the famed blue seats in reference to an alleged domestic squabble between Dennis Potvin and his wife. This chant is now only carried out by the more hardcore segments of the Garden crowd, and does not enjoy the universal appeal that "Potvin Sucks!" does.  	 
:A song was recorded in the 1980's incorporating both of these chants, it can be found here. The song was allegedly written by the band Bobby Nyse and the Scrotums. [reference]?" Nyrmetros 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beat your wife Potvin 

message: * It happens at most games the Rangers play away from home. However I need help finding references on this. Nyrmetros 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potvin Sucks at away games 

message: The "Let's Go ..." chant is the most ubiquitous in sports.  Without firm evidence in hand, it's asinine to credit the Rangers for starting it, and it hardly counts as a "Rangers tradition" any more than having ice on the rink.  "Potvin sucks", while stupid, is at least semi-unique to the NYR fans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.60.118 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Let's Go Rangers" 

message: If anything this would be best suited to be merged with History of the New York Rangers, not the main article. IrisKawling 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A "Tradition" section within the History of the New York Rangers article would be a suitable fit. Clerks 15:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not against it, just as long as the traditions section is not overlooked on the NYR History page. Just don't want it to be an afterthought. Nyrmetros 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging
Talk:The Fair at Sorochyntsi (short story)

message: We need to rationalise the spelling of this word.  In the articles on the place and the traditional fair, it’s spelled "Sorochyntsi".  But in the articles on Gogol's short story and Mussorgsky's opera, it’s "Sorochintsï".  
I don’t support "Sorochintsï", on 2 grounds:
* it’s inconsistent with the other spellings; the spelling of the name of a place should govern the spelling of the names of things named after the place
* an umlauted "i" (ï) is not a recognised character in English, and this is, after all, English Wikipedia.
Now, we should generally leave opera and book titles alone, no matter if they’re misspelled by their authors.  But in this case, Gogol and Mussorgsky used a correctly-spelled Russian title "Сорочинская ярмарка".  This can have a variety of translations, but they should all be correctly spelled.  
Traditionally, it was "Sorochinsky Fair", but these days that’s not supported as it’s using a Russian adjective rather than an English one (it would be like calling Moscow University, "Moskovsky University").  So, we’re down to either "<name of place> Fair" or "The Fair at <name of place>".  The latter seems to have prevailed in the literature, although the former is also seen.  For the reasons stated above, the best option would seem to be "The Fair at Sorochyntsi", and that’s what I propose we move the short story and opera articles to.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorochyntsi / Sorochintsï
Talk:Anything but Love

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose. But is a preposition here, and per MOS:CT we don't capitalize prepositions of fewer than five letters in titles. Deor (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Upper case or lower case B? Let me present my case:
Article title: Anything but Love: small B, consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capital letters
First sentence: Anything But Love: capital b, matches title card
CTRL+F: Anything But Love: capital B, 4 matches
CTRL+F: Anything but Love: small b, 8 matches
Redirect: Anything But Love redirects to Anything but Love
i have a slight preference for the capital B so as to match the title card, but a stronger preference for all 12 mentions of the title matching each other (even if they don't match title card).
Maybe start the article with "Anything but Love (stylized as Anything But Love)..."? so well-meaning editors who aren't aware of past discussions don't wind up saying, "Oh, this doesn't match the Manual of Style" or "Hey, this doesn't match the title card" and undoing each other's efforts.
96.244.220.178 (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss move/edit request
Talk:The Fan Club

message: Hi y'all I'm so cute thick  Victore101 (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi
Talk:The Fantastic Dinosaur Adventure

message: I, the author of this stub, read the debate about the deletion of it. If you find this book not notable enough, I suggest that we merge it into The Fantastic Flying Journey, under a section called "Sequel" - Don golgi (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?
Talk:The Father-thing

message: I removed a comparison of this story to the writing of Ray Bradbury. It's possible there is a published critique, review or study that could provide a WP:RS, but I could not find anything that specifically compares this short story to anything by Bradbury. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with Bradbury
Talk:The Ferguson Rifle

message: I am not sure how to expand this article; I have just read the book (for a report), and I am not sure if I can help by expanding the article. Please reply to me, if possible, on my user talk page. 
I can only say off the top of my head that the main character is named "Ronan Chantry", and Irish person. Danny Sepley (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion?
Talk:Passover in the Christian tradition

message: Besides the fact that this article should be merged (no, it wasn't my idea); it also has significant problems.  The opening paragraph states that passover was the same day as last supper--This is wrong, it is a widely circulated myth, but it is wrong.  Any decent reading of the gospels will show that Christ was in the tomb on passover.  In the Gospels both the disciples & the Jewish priests were preparing for the passover right up to the crucifiction.--LanceHaverkamp 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: wrong date for passover