lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:To-do list

message: The list currently has a 'priority' (popularity, more accurately) status, but what about the urgency of the work? Some articles only need minor adjustments or have very low urgency tasks such as 'improve related articles', 'maintain quality' etc. Should this also be a factor, as with class/importance in banners? Richard001 07:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say urgent, do you mean important?--99.237.222.73 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my view, the easiest way to prioritize tasks is to simply order them in an itemization, and write something like "From most important to least" above the list. As far as I understand, the priority value applies to the whole list. Therefore, to use more than one priority value, one would need to use more than one "to do" list, distinguishing lists with the 'list' parameter. I am not aware of anyone making actual use of the 'priority' parameter value. By the way, the parameter name is 'priority', why should "popularity" be more accurate? --RainerBlome (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Priority vs. urgency

message: As someone just learning about this template, I was confused to read in the first paragraph:
> It is created and formatted using the  template.
But then to read in the subsequent instructions that the template text has a space in the middle, as in . I adjusted one example to have a space, but when I look at the code for the first instance it is “”. Can this also be changed to have a space in it?  While I have been editing Wikipedia for years, I have not done much with templates themselves and so I do not know how edits may or may not affect them. Hence this question. - Dyork (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The page name is Template:to do, with a space, while Template:todo is a redirect to the other. Using either one should work. To avoid unnecessary redirects, I suggest we use use it with a space () in all its documentation, so feel free to change uses of "todo" to "to do".--RainerBlome (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

text: - Thanks for the explanation, . Updated first reference to "to do" with a space, and searched rest of page for any other reference without a space (there weren't any). - Dyork (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should first template reference be “Todo” or “To do”? 

message: I notice when I use the  template, added to a Talk page, then edit that same To Do list, it shows up in an editing block as a tab very similar to a Talk page.  Ah... but the tab adjacent to that at top left of the editing area is a redlink, as if my new to-do list isn't connected to an article, or at least t one that isn't yet created.  This is throwing me off. Is this an error?  Why not make the To-Do tab a third tab, showing it inside the Talk page when it has been used? Jax MN (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red link for the adjacent article? 

message: :file:Ryansnote.svg Arlo James Barnes 03:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  icon
Talk:Russian ruble

message: This article claims that the ruble was "the world's" first decimal currency; this is obviously not true, since everything in China has been decimal for thousands of years. The Decimal Day article repeats this claim, with a contradictory addition about China with a reference in Dutch. I could just delete it, but perhaps there is a useful fact to be presented, that the ruble was the first decimal currency in Europe... Imaginatorium (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Russian propaganda lying? Say it isn’t so. Say it isn’t so!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:8D97:ED01:D5CB:BAE9:BC85:CFE3 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First decimal system" 

message: What have exchange rates looked like over the long term?  ★NealMcB★ (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need longer-term exchange rate charts, going back to 1998, 1993, or way back thru Soviet Union Ruble 

message: There may be a typo in the History section of the article, under the heading 'RUB (1998–present)'. The section states that 'the ruble want above its pre-war value', but I think the correct phrasing would be 'the ruble went above its pre-war value'. If this is the case, an established, registered editor should change it accordingly. 90.139.88.55 (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . lol1VNIO[not Lol1VNIO] (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in the History section
Talk:Pearl necklace

message: There is no essential connection between the sexual act of creating a pearl necklace (ejaculating on another person's neck) and mammary intercourse. Mammary intercourse, if not done to completion, will not result in a pearl necklace being made. Even done to climax, if the woman's breasts are quit large and firmly sqeezed together, none of the semen from the ejaculation may be deposited on her neck, but will remain below the intermammary sulcus. And a pearl necklace can be made maturbating at a womans neck or by withdrawing from another sexual activity with just enough time to position ones self to ejaculate on the neck. A separate article "pearl necklace (sexuality)" should be used to refer to the association between mammary intercourse and the pearl necklace. A new article would clear up this confusion. --Sneezy-pantz 05:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammary intercourse link removed 

message: And... what are the other terms when the semen is on the breasts rather than the neck or face in the end ?
SweetLittleFluffyThing 21:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Terms? 

message: "The greatest trio of unsung musical revolutionaries of our generation"? Does this not sound biased? Irunwithscissors 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Might I inquire why Pearl necklace (sexuality) isn't linked on this particular disambiguation page? 87.234.117.25 21:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pearl necklace (sexuality)
Talk:John Forsyth (politician)

message: I totally mixed this guy up with Blake Carrington, but that would be John Forsythe, right? Mike H 22:25, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
:Correct - this calls for a disambig page which is now created Dl2000 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Tachyon condensation

message: Actually, if you look at the QFT of a tachyonic field, you'd find it does not violate causality. However, it happens to be unstable with no lowest energy state. Phys 22:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This second statement is not correct. Just because a field is tachyonic when expanded around a certain point of the potential does not mean that there is not a minimum. The Higgs field is such an example. Joshua Davis 06:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Maybe this article should be merged with tachyon? I'm not sure what the terminology is, but I would actually suggest that this becomes a subsection of tachyon. Joshua Davis 06:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: How to travel in time Palakula saitarun (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: I have a phd in molecular biology and can't make head or tail of this
needs , at very least the intro, re write in language that people other then astrophysics phds can undertand
:I have a PhD in astrophysics, and I still get nothing out of this article 202.140.199.194 (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: article is incomprehensible jargon
Talk:South Bay (Los Angeles County)

message: STOP deleting Inglewood as a South Bay community, if you want PROOF it is part of the south bay check the link on the Inglewood wikipedia article that comes directly from LA COUNTY
here is more PROOF:
http://southbaycities.org/files/source/home-map.gif
http://www.southbayaor.com/images/southbaymap.large.jpg
http://www.chooselacounty.com/laregions/southbay.html
I disagree and question your sources; Real Estate agents will promote Inglewood as "South Bay" to increase property values and commissions, and L.A. County wants to increase property taxes.  Perhaps with the new term of "Westside" Inglewood could be "Southwest Side".
Inglewood is more the "South Bay" than Rancho Palos Verdes or San Pedro. Whoever is gatekeeping this ignorance is pretty clueless.
Well if there is any doubt left that Inglewood is part of the south bay let's reference three sources being: an official L.A. County Website that shows a map and lists the different regions  of L.A. County and shows both on the map and list that Inglewood is in the South Bay:
http://laedc.org/wtc/chooselacounty/regions-of-la-county/south-bay/
Also see the official South Bay Cities Council of Governments Website that is literally the official South Bay website that also lists it: 
'''
http://southbaycities.org/about-us
and lastly the Los Angeles times "Mapping L.A." section that also breaks down every region of Los Angeles county, including the South Bay:
'''
http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/region/south-bay/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD06:C3A0:8C66:F689:D4F2:3307 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inglewood IS part of the South Bay 

message: Please include us as part of the South Bay - thank you. 66.225.124.96 (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  City of Avalon & unincorporated Catalina Island
Talk:Tebibyte

message: The scant information here ought to be merged with Terabyte and redirected.  --Ardonik 22:48, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
I think the ammount of data provided on this page is perfect for its task. The other page does not describe in sufficiant and immediate detail what a Tebibyte is, thus we should keep it as it is now.
--JFM 16:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:History of the United States (1789–1815)

message: I propose that this article be split to History of the United States (1789–1815) and History of the United States (1815–1849). This article covers a significantly longer time period than most articles in this series, and its unwieldy length reflects that. The dividing point would be the end of the War of 1812. A split along 1815 seems to coincide with the sources, marking the start or end dates of three books that I intended to use while doing research for this article: Revolutionary America 1763–1815; Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815; and What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support Aside from the sourcing, it also seems to align more or less with the end of the Jeffersonian era and the beginning of the end of the First Party System. This split makes sense. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

text: *Support – Good proposal and solid rationale. Aza24 (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Support- I believe we should split the article. I've written an article on US involvement in the Napoleonic Wars. Despite my protests, it got merged into this article. Consequently, I think creating a separate page for the "History of the United States (1789–1815)" is a good idea. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there was nothing to merge as the info was already covered in other more specialized articles. The Banner talk 20:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Support. The article definitely is unwieldy at its current length. Having two articles would be better for readers and for editors (it would be much easier to edit). Historyday01 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Support per proposal QuincyMorgan (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

text: No objection It is indeed on the long side but not extreme. The Banner talk 11:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Support Michael7604 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to split (1789–1815) and (1815–1849)
Talk:Siula Grande

message: As far as I can determine from the mountaineering literature, 
Joe Simpson and Simon Yates were the first to reach the summit
via the West face of Siula Grande in 1985.
I found no record of previous ascents, but as the film states 
the West face was until 1985 unconquered, and that a previous team
had descended via the North Ridge, it implies there were previous ascents,
just not via the West face.
I'm still looking for details of previous acents, so far I've only found
later ascents. I also want to find the name they gave the first West face route.
-Wikibob | Talk 23:41, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
Anybody have any idea what Siula means?
:No but it is most likely Quechua along with most of the mountains in the Cordillera Huayhuash.
:: actually, I'm wondering more about the pronunciation. any ideas? --little Alex 06:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW the pronunciation is . I don't think it's necessary to include it in the infobox though, as it doesn't seem to be standard practice to do so with Spanish mountain names, and it follows the usual and invariable Spanish pronunciation rules. Blisco 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:BogoMIP

message: The original source of this article seems to be  The Linux FAQ at tldp.org, which is under the GFDL. It is thus not a copyvio except that the source and authors should be credited: Copyright (c) 2001 Robert Kiesling. Copyright (c) 2002, 2003 David Merrill; Wim van Dorst is specifically credited for that secion. --rbrwrˆ 23:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Royal Canadian Hussars

message: What do you think of this page?  It is the first one I do for Wikipedia, although I do run sevaral other wikis (work and javascript related).
:Great work!  Thanks for your excellent contribution.--Indefatigable 13:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://rch.ca/en/rch-history/since-1812/ and http://rch.ca/en/rch-history/since-1939/. Copied or closely paraphrased 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, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their 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.  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 
Talk:Siege of Yorktown

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved as per .  Sceptre (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 16 October 2021 

message: Where was the surrender document signed....at the Moore House?  Also, do we know the exact location of the surrender ceremony?  The article only says, quote, "At 2:00 pm the allied army entered the British positions, with the French on the left and the Americans on the right."  ~~ Elsquared67 (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  location questions 

message: Shouldn't Baron von Steuben be listed as well? I wanted to add him, but couldn't find the country data for Prussia. SureStrike1943 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He is already listed. He was not acting as a representative of Prussia. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, my bad. Didn't see him. I'm new to Wiki editing, and thought that the flags should symbolize their country of origin. SureStrike1943 (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanding officers 

message: The first sentence of this article states that the Siege is also known as "the German battle because of the presence of Germans in all three armies." There are no sources that establish this as an English naming convention, and I have certainly never heard it myself. It may be described as such in the German language, but as per Wikipedia:Article titles, this should not be included in the introduction. I have no issue with it being mentioned in the body of the article, but including it in the introduction is misleading at best. I would recommend removing it. Any opposition? 15:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't supported by sources, we don't include. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "German battle"? 

message: It is surprising that French naval commander is mentioned... but not its troops. De Grasse's fleet was made of "37 ships including 28 ships-of-the-line, (large battleships), 7 frigates and 2 cutters" - which is around 30,000 men by the standards of this era. For instance, in 1780, French ship of the line Invincible had a complement of 1,055 men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Invincible_(1780) ; and French ship of the line Royal Louis had a complement of 1,150 men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Royal_Louis_(1780)
Strength should be corrected to reflect that France deployed around 40,000 men at the siege of Yorktown - not 10,000. 2A01:E0A:904:D3A0:9453:F6B6:4E8:1A3B (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  French strength is ignoring its main (naval) component
Talk:Timepieces: The Best of Eric Clapton

message: doesn't anyone think the title of the article should be Timepieces: The Best of Eric Clapton? that's what it says on the picture...
:Well, I changed it based on the artwork (I have the CD), but then I noticed that the CD itself has "Time Pieces" as two words. But, the CD doesn't have the subtitle "The Best of Eric Clapton", so doesn't seem very accurate.Llamapez (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Isn't Hello, Old Friend included on this album???  If not, could any Clapton aficionado tell me what comp album it was included on???  Thanks. johncheverly 16:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello, Old Friend???
Talk:Red-tailed sportive lemur

message: 800 grams is pretty small. It looked suspicious. --1pezguy 00:49, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
:the figure comes from the Ganzhorn et al article, which is a peer-reviewed paper in a top journal, so unlikely to be wrong.  I will recheck the source, though, in case I made a copying error seglea 03:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: figure now checked - 800g is what the article says.  seglea 22:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can validate that: Lemurs of Madagascar says 600-900g. - UtherSRG 01:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight
Talk:Jack Whyte

message: I updated this page for several reasons.  First and foremost, I am very fond of the books.  That being the case, I thought a more detailed summary of the series was called for (though there is of course room for MUCH more detail!)  As for the format revision, I can't much see the point in having each of the book titles linked to a non-existent page.  As soon as someone summarizes each individual book this page should be updated.  I likewise felt it redundant to have an individual link to numerous sub-pages on his website. 
I do have one concern though, but felt that as a neophyte wiki-er I ought probably not make so big a change.  This page is titled "Jack Whyte" but essentially nothing is said about the man himself.  Wouldn't it be more accurate to move the content of this page to one titled "A Dream of Eagles" or even "The Camulod Chronicles"?  
-One25 22 April 2005
:I wouldn't move it; I'd either update the page with info about him or his writing style, or wait until he writes something which isn't part of the Dream of Eagles stuff and include that. His web page refers to a book on Burns, for example? I have just discovered this page whilst correcting a typo on the Merlin pages, incidentally. I didn't know about this series. I must find them now :) --Telsa 08:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impetus behind major revision 

message: Official site that was changed previously now no longer exists as well. Should it be removed? - March 19/2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.40.24 (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Site
Talk:The Honourable Schoolboy

message: Dear anonymous contributor,
Thanks for the article.  Please note that it is the consensus policy that we don't sign Wikipedia articles (comments on talk pages should be signed, though).  The identity of contributors is logged in the history page if you get an account. --Robert Merkel 04:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

message: This section is word for word exactly the same as the page at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Honourable_Schoolboy#encyclopedia
I don't know whether this article was copied from there, or vice versa.  If the former is true, shouldn't the cite and author get credit?--AlRonnfeldt (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Summary Copied 

message: The article says Sam Collins becomes temporary Chief of the Circus at the end of the novel. This is not correct; Saul Enderby becomes Chief. Collins is rewarded for his role in sharing information with the Americans (and facilitating Enderby's maneuvering to become Chief) by becoming head of Operations at the Circus.
2601:14C:8300:3437:2C64:D34F:21B8:7613 (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in Plot Summary
Talk:Irish republicanism

message: This article is basically garbage - full of factual inaccuracies (for instance claiming DeV was Taoiseach when the position didn't even exist) and POV nonsense. I've tried to tidy it up a bit, but I think it should be dumped and started again. 
I have subedited the first half of this article, but it still needs to be fully wikified. I do see some problems with the Northern Ireland sections, but as I am no expert in the field I dont want to make any changes it. It is certainly POV rather than fact and some of it is plain wrong. --Sideshow 04:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Garbage?

message: Why is this section's neutrality being disputed? Jarble (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV dispute