lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:30 Arietis

message: === No ===
I do not think we should merge 30 Arietis Bb. Other planets that turned out to be non-planets have articles too, like HD 114762 b. Kepler-1229b talk  — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge talk

message: I do not think we should merge 30 Arietis Bb. Other planets that turned out to be non-planets have articles too, like HD 114762 b. Kepler-1229b talk  — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: If you will not add in the proposal then I will delete the merge template. Kepler-1229b talk  — Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be unwise.  The merge has been proposed and now should be discussed.  How about we consider this section to be the merge discussion.  It would be ideal if  gave the rationale for the merge so we don't go off making things up on our own.  I'll wait on giving my opinion until then.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: k then Kepler-1229b talk  — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

text: I proposed merging this, and some other articles on planet candidates now known to be stars, since Wikipedia (with a few exceptions) doesn't have separate articles on stellar components of a star system. If you want I can create merge proposal sections on the relevant talk pages. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be good.  Not essential, but it gives people a starting point to discuss and even if nobody comments then its something to point to later.  Lithopsian (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

text: * Merge/redirect: per nom.  There are several papers about the object, or about it and a small number of others, but we would only have a separate article about a minor component of a stellar system in exceptional circumstances (eg. Proxima Centauri).  In this case, there is nothing especially notable about the substellar companion.  Even as an exoplanet its only real claim to notoriety is all the discussion about how massive it is.  30 Arietis already included discussion of this object and I hopefully clarified this in the light of the recent paper (peer-reviewed publication not yet reflected in the citation, but doi assigned and being published January 2021).  Lithopsian (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the merge proposal?
Talk:City of Wollongong

message: The table re ICAC charges, etc. shows a number of individuals where charges were laid, but were later dismissed or found not guilty; whilst others were convicted. This is a good summary article that provides an overview of all outcomes. Where the charges were dismissed or they were found not guilty, I proposed deletion of the following under WP:BLPCRIME:
#Beth Morgan: Insufficient evidence to prosecute and the window of opportunity for prosecuting her for making false statements to the ICAC has passed. Propose: remove from table. Her personal involvement in the development scandal is already implied in text.
#John Gilbert: ICAC made a corrupt conduct finding against him but did not recommend the DPP investigate possible prosecution]. Propose: remove from table.
#Rod Oxley: ICAC made a corrupt conduct finding against him but did not recommend the DPP investigate possible prosecution]. Propose: remove from table.
#Joe Scimone: No charges laid due to insufficient evidence. Propose: remove from table.
#Valerio Zanotto: No charges laid due to insufficient evidence. Propose: remove from table.
#Kiril Jonovski: He was found not guilty of one count of furnishing false/misleading information and two counts of giving false/misleading evidence to ICAC.  Propose: remove from table.
#Zeki Esen: A court found him not guilty of furnishing false/misleading information and two counts of giving false/misleading evidence to ICAC. Propose: remove from table.
This will leave:
#Frank Vellar: Convicted of four offences related to lying to ICAC], and received a corrections order and non-custodial sentences
#Bulent Tabak: Found guilty of wilfully making a false statement to ICAC. Two-year good behaviour bond and $2500 fine. On appeal, conviction and sentence upheld.
#Frank Gigliotti: He was found guilty of two counts of giving false or misleading evidence to ICAC. He served four months in prison.
On other matters, there will improved referencing to bring the article up to date, now that the DPP has finalised all matters. Feedback is welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These all seem like reasonable changes to me (Don't really need to propose it, just remove it and if anyone complains then we can discuss here). Orderinchaos 11:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 ICAC Investigation and outcomes
Talk:Young Shire

message: The description fails to include the Village of Koorawatha in the north of the Shire.  In addition, update to the 1996 Census data would more accurately reflect the sustained growth of the Shire and especially the major Township of Young - present population approx 10,000 when extrapolated accurately across census districts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.109.45 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Category talk:American Revolutionary War forts

message: Why is Valley Forge not there? They camped at V.F too! What, is the pain of the soldiers too much to bear? They still should put V.F in the catagory, should the not?
Sincerely,
70.104.22.254 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I tried to add Fort Sackville to this category, but the article about Fort Sackville is named " Forts of Vincennes, Indiana ".  I wanted it to appear as "Fort Sackville" in the category, since that's the important and relevant part of the article, but I couldn't find a way to do that.  Hopefully someone more clever than I will come along and fix that...
Mingusboodle (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sackville
Talk:FireFTP

message: FYI to the people regularly maintaining this page; version 1.0 is out :) -- Limulus (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1.0

message: I don't think notability of this software has been addressed. The proposed policy and related discussion about software notability is found at WP:SOFTWARE. The current consensus is that download counts do not verify notability. Can "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" be found? Although FireFox itself is notable, as an add-on, FireFTP doesn't qualify as "core product", an alternate sign of notability. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I didn't mean to imply that the download count in itself makes it notable, I merely contributed that factoid along with everything else. Secondly, the criteria laid out at the proposed policy page is far from inclusive. This program strikes me as notable because of several common-sense things: it has a user base, and its design as a Firefox extension currently makes it far more peculiar and worthy of discussion compared to most of those at the comparison of FTP clients (typical Windows FTP clients are boring and pointless to me, too). Firefox Add-ons site recommendation is basically a third-party reference (unless the same person maintains both FireFTP and that web site). The Firefox web site editors do have something of a vested interest in supporting any Firefox extension, but this one still stands out among all other numerous extensions. --Joy [shallot] 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article should ever be nominated for deletion, it really needs the "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself" to secure its place. It is a worthwhile effort for someone to find a review or article that has been published about it. Other arguments about notability aren't considered nearly as strong. An opponent might suggest that this article isn't notable in its own right but should be merged into the Firefox article (or Firefox extensions article if there is one). ✤ JonHarder talk 03:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  FireFTP is notable. It's part of the history of web development as it came along at a time when it was really needed. Use has declined but are you going to start deleting articles for Homesite, Hotbot or Netscape next? Jeffery Thomas 20:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:31 Euphrosyne

message: The mass ref'd Baer 2008. However, it was off by more than an order of magnitude according to the link provided. Density was comparably off. I removed any claim that it is a rubble pile, since it would need to be almost solid metal to have that density. Being such an outlying, though, makes me suspect that it's more like to lie at the low end of the error bar. Still likely the 5th most massive asteroid though, unless Baer (2010) got their figures wrong. — kwami (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sidebar listing currently says "5.81 +/- 19.7 x 10^19 kg". That's a heck of an error range, about minus 140 (well, let's say zero) to plus 260 Petatonnes (the latter being about equal to the mass of Vesta). Is that even remotely correct, or has there been a decimal point slip? 146.199.0.203 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass
Talk:319 Leona

message: 2023-12-12 Tue - http://hea.iki.rssi.ru/~denis/special.html - Occultation of Betelgeuse by 319 Leona. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: https://cloud.occultwatcher.net/event/1075-319-83995-648466-H27989/1246616  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:4B5F:6E00:D140:FA21:1989:BF13 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occultation of Betelgeuse 

message: The duration of 6 seconds is false. The asteroid will occult the star for 10-11 seconds. (http://www.hal-astro-lab.com/asteroid/231212Betelgeuse.html) Aminabzz (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 seconds
Talk:330 Adalberta

message: A910CB?  Surely that's a typo for 1910CB? XinaNicole (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: and  are identical. Former was the original style used at the time, while latter is the converted version into the new-style provisional designation.Rfassbind – talk 15:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provisional designation
Talk:3325 TARDIS

message: Is there any reason why it was named tardis or just the guy liked the show that much?
:I imagine Brian simply liked the term and the show. I mean, like, who doesn't?! {Hold your cards and letters please, that was just rhetorical okay!}I updated the article to look like other asteroid articles. The data was taken from JPL's database at the link shown. Ergo, disagreements with the data shown should be taken up with them, please. JimScott (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was it named TARDIS?
Talk:Blanche Stuart Scott

message: * 1880, according to this site and her gravestone
* 1885 according to  this site
* 1889 according to this site
I hope someone will do some research and figure out which of these dates is valid.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 114-18-2808. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 18#114-18-2808 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Rusf10 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "114-18-2808" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 114182808. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 18#114182808 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "114182808" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Hello- 
I'm a bit new to editing, so please forgive any formatting or procedural faux pas. It looks like there may have been some mistaken conflation of Blanche Scott, the aviatrix, and Betty Scott (1883-1955), an actress and film writer who was born in NYC and died in Los Angeles. I am pretty sure they're not the same person. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0778878/?ref_=rvi_nm https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/5798325/betty-scott. The section on "Screenwriting and Museum Work" on Blanche Scott's page may need review and revision to examine the sources and see if Blanche did, indeed, do screenwriting work in California. 
Highresmess (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misidentification/Misattribution
Talk:Bennett Valley

message: I removed the geological section because of serious doubts about the description included and its attachment to the references listed.  I attempted to find the references listed, but could not find any mention of them outside of Wikipedia articles and their mirrors.  Please either post a URL to the reference, or, as it is an EIR, the URL to the City of Santa Rosa's website referencing the CEQA requirements and public comment periods and etc., for this EIR, or to the Earth Metrics Inc., website listing this EIR in their accomplishments or publications page.  Thank you.  KP Botany 20:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 
Talk:35 Cancri

message: The properties for this star seem a little out of whack. Based on mass and radius it's a subgiant version of the Sun, but the luminosity is 77×? That seems excessive. Praemonitus (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the reference for mass/radius is wrong. Possibly some sort of misidentification. CADARS lists a radius of 8.9 , which agrees well with the temperature and luminosity, and with the subgiant classification. Mass is also possibly wrong, because a near solar mass star in the Beehive Cluster (600 million years old) should not be evolved. At this age, it was probably a late B star, which is why it rotates very fast. Jolielegal (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct properties
Talk:Web template/Archive 2

message: ... please update here ...
: All of these sections (to me anyway)  have good content and comprise essential sections of the article series. The only one that seems a little shaky to me (in general) is the Template reuse and repositories, only because that seems to have been a source of spam-magnet in the historical legacy of this article. One big issue (for me anyway) is still the question how do we organize material, participation and workflow on these articles? I think this is important because some aspects are still quite difficult. I will send you some proposals soon for you to review to see what you think. dr.ef.tymac 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 

message: * "outputted" is ok?
** I think this is generally considered "grammatically correct", but not "favored usage" ... more favorable examples might include: (as a noun) "X does Y by sending output to Z"; "X sends generated output to Y"; "X produces Y, which is then output to Z"; "X succeeds only if it obtained the output from Y"; (as a verb) "the signal was output to the measuring unit" "the signal is output continuously at a rate of" ... probably the reason that "outputted" is disfavored is because the combining form "putted", when used by itself, is not grammatically correct . dr.ef.tymac 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms need change (not very used in english) 

message: Theres is very little references on this page, especially when it comes to the separation into different types of template languages. More references would really help. The singel reference there is seems referenced when it comes to the template languager hierarchy, but it doesn't seem to mention the types of templates in that hierarchy. In fact, it all smells like original research... --Regebro 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References
Talk:Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism

message: This page is sparse. I'm going to add some more to it. --PiOfFive 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This should really have a reception section.  You get somewhat of a gist of how warmly this was received in the external links, but not much, and also I wonder if anybody praisd the book.  
Also, should it be at this title?  I mean, American Terrorist is just so; it isn't listed at American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing.  Same with Lies and the Lying LIars, etc.  I propose moving this to Treason (book). 01:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 
Talk:36 Ophiuchi

message: I find no reference for the statement that the star earlier has been called Guniibuu by astronomers. If not, it should be in the chapter "Nomenclature", but not in the preamble. Deryni (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming_stars/  Lithopsian (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guniibuu 

message: This paper proposes a possible, consistent (with all three stars having roughly the same values) age of the entire system at ~2.2 Gyr based on updated gyrochronology where they included in their finding that K-dwarf spindown stalled. AstroChara (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of 36 Ophiuchi
Template talk:Football in Mexico

message: Is this template causing anyone else to have to scroll horizontally besides me? There seems to be a huge space between group 1 and groups 2 and 3 in the Apertura 2007/Clausura 2008 part of the template. The problem is better in Internet Explorer than in Opera, but there is still tons of whitespace. Lineofire (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Buggy Template?

message: I've removed the list of teams from Primera A from this template. They affect in no way teams from the Primera Division. There's no reason to list them. Plus, there were about 20 teams from Primera A without any created pages, and 4 teams out of 24 hardly justify having the whole league listed here. I propose we create pages for Primera A teams and make them their own template.--DethFromAbove 01:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I agree with you about the lack of sense of having a template for 20 teams in which only 4 teams have pages, this template is about "Futbol Mexicano", not Primera División de México. The Primera División A should at least be linked. Hari Seldon 05:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of "Primera A" teams

message: Any info you guys might wanna add can be found here. That is, if you speak spanish.--DethFromAbove 07:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added short tournaments
Talk:Giant Dipper

message: The text refers to an "image 4" but there are only three. Will remove.
W Nowicki (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image 4?
Talk:Adventurers Club

message: The history section of this page needs more information, but I don't have the sources available now to flesh it out.  Also, the fireworks bit may be more appropriate in the trivia section, but I hesitate to move it until the history section is more substantial. MissEvie 01:33, 22 January 
2007 (UTC)
The Meriwether Pleasure significance of the club needs to be mentioned as well. KeithBarrett (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: A comprehensive list of songs and their artists (not the club performer, but the original artist) would be very useful to add. KeithBarrett (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical Numbers 

message: Photos of the costume changes through the years would be good to have KeithBarrett (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costumes 

message: Need photos of the room interiors KeithBarrett (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interior 

message: A more comprehensive list of maid names in list format would be better KeithBarrett (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 
Talk:38 Arietis

message: the numbers do not add up on distance and absolute magnitued.  It cannot be 125ly away if it is a supergiant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.182.227 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a supergiant star. Regards, RJH (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Mahi River

message: Note:  Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article  falls under :Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article --  TinuCherian     (Wanna Talk?)   - 07:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition 
Talk:39 Boötis

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :"39 Boo". The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 14#"39 Boo" until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ""39 Boo"" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Satpura Range

message: with Madhya Pradesh workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under :Category:Madhya Pradesh or one of its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the irrelavent categories to the article   --  TinuCherian     (Wanna Talk?)   - 13:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Madhya Pradesh workgroup Addition 

message: Anyone know the actual etymology of the name? Satpura is certainly not Sanskrit for "seven mountains" (it would mean something like "virtuous fortress" AFAIK). 70.75.233.253 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Leo1pard (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page views
Talk:Rihand River

message: with chhattisgarh workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article  falls under :Category:Chhattisgarh or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article --  TinuCherian     (Wanna Talk?)   - 11:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/chhattisgarh workgroup Addition 

message: Leo1pard (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Page views
Talk:3C 279

message: Counts were 50 BEv and seen by Fermi.
Well?
And don't ask me to do it; I'm sick and broken and damaged and can't even roll over in bed. Prob lost the semester, too.
-- Verdana♥Bøld 06:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey, someone write about last month's gamma activity from this thing!