lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Superior colliculus

message: superior colliculi should be merged with this one (and then introduce a redirect from the other version). I'd vote for keeping the superior colliculus, and remove superior colliculi. Note List of regions in the human brain currently refers to superior colliculi. Yogi de 12:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to have been done, as superior colliculi now redirects here. --David Iberri (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

message: I'm starting on a significant expansion of this article.  There's a sort of nasty presentation issue that may be worth mentioning.  On one hand, the SC is a structure found in all vertebrates, but in non-mammals it is universally called the "optic tectum" instead of superior colliculus.  However, the structure and function don't change all that much in spite of the change in name.  I think it's important to present a unified view of structure and function.  It's quite tricky to handle the name issue when doing so, but I'm going to take a shot at it, and hopefully any problems that arise will be fixable. looie496 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the basic source -- there are a few other papers that touch on this, but no good review that I'm aware of. Looie496 (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Why is it not labeled in the figure!?  This is frustratingly the case with so many of the anatomy articles in Wikipedia.  Is there a good reason for this (copyright?) or it it something that just takes time and effort to accomplish? Savonnn (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really such a great figure to use, is it?  The superior colliculi are the two humps at the top of the section -- they're not labeled simply because nobody has done it.  The Gray712 image in the Additional Images section shows a label, but isn't all that nice aesthetically. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labeling 

message: Merge optic tectum material to Superior colliculus - already covered there and intent to redirect the limited material on Tectum to Midbrain Iztwoz (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Tectum]]
Talk:Mr. Anderson (Beavis and Butt-head)

message: What was Mr. Anderson's wife's name?
:I don't think she was given one other than the ocassional pet name. Jonny2x4 20:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One Question

message: There's a trivia section... Isn't that bad joojoo?  68.2.156.214 (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia
Talk:Costs in English law

message: At common law, what duty does a solicitor have to recover the fees of counsel? Are counsel's fees limited to what can be recovered on taxation? If counsel charges a certain amount, part of which is not allowed on taxation, does counsel still have recourse against the solicitor to recover the balance?--shtove 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: where there is no contract between solicitor and barrister (as used to be the norm) the solicitor is supposed to ensure they have funds for counsel's fees which they pay regardless of whether they are reduced by taxation. If there is a contract (which is becoming more common) that would govern what happened. I have only twice (in 6 years of practice) seen counsel's fees reduced on taxation. On both occasions in very unusual cases: one was a charge for time spent reading emails that seemed unusual and excessive by counsel for an interested party, the other was a case I was in where two counsel represented similar parties: one had over 10 more years of call than the other. The more senior barrister did all the talking (the other never said anything beyond "I agree"). On taxation it transpired that the junior counsel's fees were higher, which was easy enough to oppose. Usually counsel's fees seem reasonable by comparison with those of the solicitor (I'm just getting to the stage where I charge more than a paralegal doing the photocopying, though not always even now). Francis Davey (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrister fees 

message: How can it be said that a cost draughtsman could be as essential as a barrister or solicitor to the success of litigation? A costs draughtsman does an entirely different job once the litigation has been successful.  A more accurate expression could be that "a costs draftsman (person) will often play an essential role in maximising the gain from successful litigation, by ensuring the winning party recovers as much of their costs as possible." 85.234.151.89 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Costs draughtsman 

message: Over the past week or so, I've taken time to have a general re-write of the piece.
I've massively expanded it, to cover the new CPR costs rules due to the Jackson Report, and attempted to clarify and re-word the other sections.
I've also expanded the references and external links sections. 
I think I've covered everything, but will be taking another look for spelling/grammar/formatting/etc.
If anyone else can do that too I'd be grateful. D-Notice (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  General re-write & massive expansion of the piece
Talk:Himalia (moon)

message: The literary English pronunciation of the nymph Himalia from Greek mythology seems to be hye-mal'-ee-a, with the accented syllable rhyming with pal. However, the moon Himalia is sometimes listed in astronomical sources as hi-mahl'-ee-a or even him'-a-lee-a. This appears to be by analogy with the familiar Sanskrit mountain name Himālaya, which is usually him'-a-lay'-a but etymologically hi-mahl'-a-ya (cf. the OED).
However, you'd expect the a to be long, as in Saturnalia (sat'-ur-nay'-lee-a). This is not a common name, and should be followed up. — kwami 06:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: A lot of other sites are using NASA's close-up photos of this object - with no ill-effects, apparently. I suggest Wiki does the same. NASA's excursions/existence is paid for by public taxes, and its results are supposed to be 'free' for all - the spread of knowledge. I see no valid argument to keep it off of Wiki Commons, except for confused readings of copyright. 50.111.61.118 (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of any close-up photos as no spacecraft has ever come close to Himalia. Ruslik_Zero 17:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  better photo 

message: I don't understand how the article can state that Himalia is hard to see given its proximity to Jupiter when all the photos and orbital graphics show it to not even be close to Jupiter.
Plus, wording in the article gives the impression that the moon is larger than any of Galilean moons; which I do not think is correct.
Or, am I missing something? 2600:8800:785:9400:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that Himalia is larger than Galilean moons? Ruslik_Zero 20:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How close ? 

message: The redirect Himalia(moon) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Himalia(moon)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Honda Domani

message: The second picture (rear view of a grey car) is not a Domani I reckon, but more a MB3 (European model).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.121.173.240 (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: from SJN

message: "The Honda Domani has a very close relative in the Rover 400 saloon, with which it shared virtually all its main components. Renamed the Rover 45 when facelifted in 1999, it was also sold as a saloon, called the MG ZS, from 2001."
This sentence does not make a lot of sense in terms of bodystyles.
As can be seen from the Rover 400 and MG ZS pages, both of these related models were available as a hatchback or a saloon.
The sentence could be better phrased as:
"The Honda Domani has a very close relative in the Rover 400 hatchback and saloon, with which it shared virtually all its main components. Renamed the Rover 45 when facelifted in 1999, it was also sold as a sportier variant, called the MG ZS from 2001."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.203.9 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rover 400/45
Talk:Schwabacher

message: Could someone who knows please rephrase the following sentence? I can't make head or tail of it at present!
 The difference between the Schwabacher and other blackletter scripts is that in 
 the small-letter o, both sides of the bow are broken, but the right part is not.
rossb 13:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rephrase

message: The section about Nazi usage is about Fraktur, not Schwabacher what the article is about. Shouldn't this part be moved to the Fraktur article? 
Sevcsik (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraktur vs Schwabacher
Talk:Luoyang

message: Coordinates are bad, more where Kaifeng is. Those are better: 112.4 34.66 (taken from German Wikipedia). --Equestenebrarum (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do so. Down here things happen faster if you make them. :) --Plastictv 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I cleaned up the English and put the information in the history section into a more logical chronological order. Doudja
218.103.216.150 13:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We probably should, if we can find a reputable source for that statement. _dk 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is a nothing in the History section after the 5th century. UncleMatt (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History is Lacking

message: There are several ancient cites all called Luoyang in the prefecture level city of Luoyang. Some are built atop each other but not continuously inhabited; i.e. a city was built then abandoned then several centuries later another city was built atop the ruins.  Some are several kilometers away put still within the adminstrative division of modern Luoyang.  Some are built on top of each other AND continuously inhabited.  It seems misleading to have several different urban settlements sepearted by both time and space listed together in the history section AS IF they were one city.  To further add to the confusion some were originally called by another name but listed in histories as Luoyang because of the proximity.
I suggest the article called Luoyang refer only to the modern city, and separate articles be created for each of the other settlements:
*bo
*chengzhou
*luoyi
*Han luoyang and Wei luoyang (treated as one city)
*Tang luoyang
I am using the article on the other chinese captial as a precedent
*xian
*Han changan and Tang changan
*xiangyang
if no objections I will make the split
--Gurdjieff (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article 

message: Per , this edit established the usage of the page as  and  and should kindly be maintained pending a new consensus. — LlywelynII 16:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ERA]]

message: Similarly, this edit and the use of American English. — LlywelynII 16:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ENGVAR]]

message: Why isn't the Yibin District (伊滨区) mentioned in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing district
Talk:Jane Margaret O'Brien

message: This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jane Margaret O'Brien.  The consensus was to merge it.  dbenbenn | talk 15:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Due to Wikipedia policy changes, photos of are needed of her that have no copyright (or re-use) restrictions whatsoever.
When uploading his photos. please include a description with her name, or no one will be able to do a search for it.
Upload here-- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard
Many thanks! :-) 
:Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos are needed
Talk:Jane Dornacker

message: The helicopter didn't "stall" there was a mechanical failure of the main rotor.  The NTSB accident report is available at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X35064&key=1
Better wording might be to say: "when the helicopter sufferend mechanical failure in mid broadcast and crashed"
--Boren 18:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helicopter accident 

message: The entire article appears to contain most of the same text as this page. --Zippy (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright violation
Talk:KKOB (AM)

message: KOB wasn't moved off of 1030 "to make way for" WBZ; in the post-NARBA allocation plan, KOB and WBZ were to share 1030 as class I-B stations. Before NARBA, KOB had shared 1160 kHz (IIRC) with KEX. Broadcasting magazine of this era is a good source. I suspect KOB was not able to remain on 1190 kHz (where KEX ended up under NARBA) due to the proximity of WOAI in San Antonio; originally planned to be on 1210 kHz, with WCAU in Philadelphia downgraded to a class I-B on 1200 kHz, the two stations arranged a swap of allocations, allowing both to be class I-A stations, but this would result in unacceptable adjacent-channel interference if KOB had been permitted to go to 1190. Westinghouse was able to use its muscle to protect WBZ (which since 1940 had been directionalized to the west, away from the Atlantic Ocean), which is how KOB eventually ended up on 770 kHz. 121a0012 (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History
Talk:List of Cathay Pacific destinations

message: Recently, there has been what seems like one user but perhaps more editing the start date for Dublin service from 2 June 2017 to June 2 2017. While there is nothing wrong with doing so, it does not match the format listed for other destinations or the established norm, so I would suggest to the person(s) behind this edit to cease changing the date format for one destination and take up with relevant authorities if they feel something is wrong. Yny501 (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: We don't include codeshare destinations in this list. Or destinations operated by other airlines in the one world alliance. This list is for Cathay Pacific destinations only.CHCBOY (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinations total  

message: On  and . Many if not all of these destinations were previously served by Dragonair/Cathay Dragon. Yes they were transferred from Cathay Dragon to Cathay Pacific, but then were they ever actually operated by Cathay Pacific before they are "terminated" because of China's coronavirus policies? 58.152.59.185 (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese destinations
Talk:Battle metal

message: Battle metal? Does this term even exist? And what has Bathory got in common with Manowar? Manowar is definately not Black metal, they are more in the Power or Heavy Metal genre. Isn't Folk or Viking metal more appropriate titles for this article? Shandolad 16:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: I've edited (anonimously, 82.58.106.137, forgot to login) the Epic Metal article and moved the merging tag to the subsection about battle metal: lots of the Epic Metal bands don't have anything in common with Battle Metal, and a merge in this direction does not make any sense. 
Maybe there could be a merging of the Battle Metal article in the Epic Metal one, in its own section: I don't listen to Black Metal, so I don't really know how close the two subgenres are. Or the Battle Metal section in the Epic Metal article could be changed to a line like "Influences from this genre and Black metal gave birth to Battle metal." and move the text in here.
Valhalla 15:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with Epic Metal
Talk:Raptor heavy fighter

message: Was the Raptor really used in the Enyo Engagement? I believe to recall it was used in the McAuliffe Engagement according the the "Voices Of War" manual from "Wing Commander: Armada" not the Enyo Engagement. I'm not sure if this a discordance between  "Voices Of War" and the cited "Claw Marks" anyway since I don't have a copy of the latter to check out. Anyone can shed some light?
Berserker79 16:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Doug Holyday

message: FYI, the statement about Holyday being nominated as Toronto's worst councillor is tied to the previous sentences. Therefore it doesn't stand on its own but provides context for Holyday's 'voting record'. While the article doesn't specifically call him 'Toronto's worst councillor' it does put him at the top of a top ten list of the worst councillors and labels him as 'Public Enenmy Number One'. IMO that's enough to label him as the worst councillor. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct to note that Now Magazine's ranking of the 10 Worst Councillors in Toronto is not an academic listing.  This, however, is quite beside the point.  It's a journalistic ranking, and is suitable for inclusion in the article accordingly.  CJCurrie (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A tabloid ranking is not suitable for inclusion, period. GoldDragon (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

text: NOW Magazine is hardly a tabloid. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with GoldDragon so since this is a BLP and we have no consensus for it to remain in I will remove it for the time being. Even if it were to be in the article, since it does not specifically say he's the worst then we certainly should not be synthesizing that conclusion. NOW's claim is really not a notable assessment, more like a smear, it seems to me. May122013 (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The NOW claim does seem a bit harsh.  It's also 10 years old.  I agree it should be removed.  Richard Apple (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOW arrticle 

message: Out of fairness, the photo on this article should be removed.  It shows Doug Holyday with Rob Ford, who has received significant negative press over the past year.  Again, this is strictly out of fairness to Holyday.  Magnolia677 (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove photo 
Talk:Carrie Nuttall

message: This article was voted on, and avoided deletion. In one of the votes, a voter mentioned that Carrie Nuttall published a book, though this article does not yet mention it. Perhaps a re-vote should be considered? Jimcripps 01:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Five years after the fact, I agree with the above writer. Other than marrying a rock star, what real fame or notability does she have? 68.225.171.64 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion
Talk:Charles Hardwicke

message: Moved by --Ykraps (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits removed from article and transferred to talk page
Talk:Vadim Yefremovich

message: Russian Mathematical Surveys, unfortunately, does not provide a table of contents in the original Cyrillic, and as someone whose Russian is mostly limited to sometimes reading mathematics papers and book chapters, I won't vouch for the accuracy. I believe I can spell "Vadim" correctly, I googled "Arsenevich" in Russian, and I have Cyrillic print references for the last name.
The obituary does not list a birth year. It merely stated that Efremovich died "in his 86th year". In English, that phrase is normally interpreted literally, meaning he was 85 years old at the time. It could be Russian idiom, though, and I might have even known that long long ago.
I went with an unsophisticated transliteration for the page title, since "č" is not available, and there seemed no point in being fancy about the soft sign if the "ch" is not fancy. I'm not sure if there's a WP convention here or not.--192.35.35.34 16:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Jewish History, Jewish Religion

message: 1) Removed 'verbatim' - same reasons as on Shahak's page, also Radio Islam only reproduce excerpts of the book (it would be interesting to see what they've omitted).
2) Removed reference to 'Islamic fundamentalist websites', I was under the impression that Radio Islam was one of these.  Are there any that actually quote the book?.
3) Added Mezvinsky's criticisms.
4) Changed reference section to 2002 edition.
Conch Shell 08:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 04 May 2005 

message: In the article, Werner Cohn is described as a "Jewish professor".  Is his religion really relevant here? Michael Voytinsky 00:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant in that it shows Cohn isn't an anti-Semite, unlike others who have copy-edited Shahak's work. Conch Shell 09:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: His criticism of Shahak suggests that the is not anti-semite.  But I do not see how him being Jewish shows that he is not - after all, Chomsky and Shahak himself have been accused for anti-semitism, and they are Jewish.  In any case, is Cohn's putative anti-semitism relevant to this article?  Michael Voytinsky 13:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Critics' Religion Relevant?

message: Why is that specific part of JHJR important? Please review WP:NPOV. Also, please review WP:NOR; you can't make up your own arguments to support Shahak's claims (or refute them, for that matter). Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read JHJR? -- DLH 66.82.9.80 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Because I would think that if you had read JHHR, it would be obvious why "spitting, etc." is an important part of JHJR, and I would think that if you had not read JHJR, you perhaps should not be asking me why I think those allegations are an important part of JHJR. So let me return your question to you, since you have read the book: why is that specific part of JHJR not important? -- DLH 66.82.9.80 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And when the underlying thesis is that sensational aspects of Jewish tradition are part cause of antisemitism, then are not sensational claims important? Please answer the question. -- DLH 66.82.9.82 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edits about "spitting" etc. 

message: Jayjg, I've copied a question (and background) from earlier that may have gotten buried, in the hope that you will answer it. -- DLH 66.82.9.58 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And when the underlying thesis is that sensational aspects of Jewish tradition are part cause of antisemitism, then are not sensational claims important? Please answer the question. -- DLH 66.82.9.82 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Spit on the ground as a sign of disgust"
Talk:Eponymous archon

message: It is not actually stated what an archon is, which makes the whole article pretty much useless.
:Good point...I added some background info. How is it now? Adam Bishop 19:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: "The historicity of any of this ancient list may be reasonably doubted by the layman and capable of different interpretations, but where there may be no doubt as to historical documents." huh? That does not English! Is something missing? Also what is the source for this list? Furius (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense

message: Athenian tyranny currently redirects here. It seems more suitable to have it redirect to the page on peisistratos
Snevet888 (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  athenian tyranny redirects