lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Adisham

message: The page claims that the parish lies on Pilgrims' Way. This seems implausible, since Adisham is the wrong side of Canterbury for pilgrims coming from Winchester.  In any case, Wikipedia guidelines insist "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable".  I have googled on "pilgrims way Adisham" to try to find verification, but the only references I've seen have this Wikipedia page as source!   I'll wait a couple of days, and then, unless somebody objects, I'll remove the reference to Pilgrims' Way.  
Eebkent (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pilgrims' Way
Talk:Partocracy

message: delete. I suggest deletion of this article. The definition in the article is completely wrong. Partocracy is what is usually known as partitocracy or particracy or, most commonly, partitocrazia. See the Google: partitocrazia gives 96000 results while partocracy gives 1000. These articles should be merged as these terms denote the same thing. Topjur01 09:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Aylesham

message: The Jarrow March took place in 1936, so it is wrong to imply that those who moved in the 1920s from the older coal mining areas to the new Kent coal mines had "endured" the Jarrow March. TonyAustria (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted Le Deluge (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jarrow March
Talk:The Krypton Factor

message: I don't know who's responsible for this page, but it is great, with one exception. The trivia bit is POV. You can't say "that was a nice touch that should have been left in". CarlosUK 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The trivia section appears to have been lifted wholesale from the UKGameshows entry on this programme. 172.216.141.93 17:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: What's more, it's wrong. I am the 1992 winner, Andrew Craig. There was NOT a champion of champions show in 1993! Am I allowed to correct that, or would that count as original research?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manormadman (talk • contribs). 
After checking with Wikipedia administrators, I've now removed the erroneous reference to a 1993 Champion of Champions roundManormadman 18:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1992/3

message: That "revamp" completely killed it and it lost so many viewers that it was cancelled soon after. Nobody -audience or contestants- could ever understand what that end game was all about, and it took up so much of the programme that the previous rounds seemed pointless and worthless. I seemed to remember they removed more than one of the (excellent) original rounds too, it might have been the plane simulator one?? Walshie79 (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1995 revamp 

message: I think it would be wise to start a new article covering the revival instead of putting it here because I feel that the new shows will be completely different from the originals. --Marianian (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but until we find this out then it should stay. If the format is different then it would need a new article (e.g. Top Gear (original format) & Top Gear (current format)) --  21:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, it sounds like "Series 19" will be more like Series 1-17 than Series 18 was. 18 was a complete change from the format of Series 1-17 if memory serves correctly. Nrms (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Now the official press release is out it appears the new series will be following the format of the original series.  I've tidied up the article to move bits out of trivia and the introduction, part of which is now in a new 'history' section. Brollachan (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the new series... 

message: I watched the start of the new (2010) series last night and it appears that they've done away with the Intelligence round. Can anyone find anything to back this up? Given that the other series' rounds are explained in such depth, we may need to add this information. IndieSinger (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2010 Series

message: Emailed ITV and got the following response:
'Dear Mr -------,
 
Thank you for your recent email regarding The Krypton Factor.
 
There are no plans for a series this year.
 
Sorry to disappoint.' db1987db (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2011
Talk:Boughton Malherbe

message: "Pronounced Borton Mallerby" - presumably this means the "Bought" is the same as the word "bought" - that would make it   in the respelling system. Lfh (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 
Talk:Dog toy

message: Couldn't this fall under the broader topic of pet toys?  Others may like to write about cat toys, ferret toys, etc., but I'm not sure we need a distinct page for each. --LarryGilbert (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Toys

message: I don't have the time to do it myself, but the article has a tone problem.  It is written like a guide rather than an encyclopedia. Take a look at WP:TONE for tips. Malinaccier (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone issues 

message: I have reverted the edits made by Caninecritics as they posed a conflict of interest due to the use of their own website as a reference. Miyagawa (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted Edits 
Talk:Screenwriting software

message: This article was previously deleted (see log "deleted (Spam magnet)"), so contributors should check often the article and try to remove spam. Cate | Talk 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous deletion

message: A recent edit culled the list of software section considerably, removing "non-notable" entries. Looking at the removed entries and the remaining ones, I wonder by which criteria notability has been judged. Care to elaborate? 92.225.39.231 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a note on the page 
 Please note that the threshold for inclusion here is the presence of a Wikipedia article for the software. Please link to that page when adding a program, and don't use an external link. Without this limitation, this page would get filled with spam far too easily.
David.moreno72 (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

text: the threshold for inclusion is not the presence or absence of an existing wikipedia page.  The threshold for a list item is notability and encyclopedic value as per normal wikipedia practice.  The qualifier should be non-primary citations and normal sources etc as per usual entries.  I agree that the listings should be consistent and keep to the facts.  I really don't like the "professional" and "powerful" and other qualifiers unless it is supported with cited sources, ie, an legit article noting it is used by professionals or a (legit) review citing professional features.  As for the red links, if there is a notable item that does not yet have a primary article, create the article. --2606:6000:66D7:CE00:4D38:6E26:2AE9:1754 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add to this that I think each software item listed should have some kind of external citation supporting the feature-set claimed in the article.  Using the web site of the software or other primary source shouldn't be enough; look to third-party reviews, articles discussing the software, etc to show notability.  I won't add a "citations needed" template to each for now, but if editors can do this, it would be helpful --2606:6000:66D7:CE00:4D38:6E26:2AE9:1754 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Software notability criteria

message: Millions of dollars to help my kids and family Shaqcoldhart (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power ball 

message: a description of the structure or layout of the softwares, illustrated by screenshots, is missing! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure??
Talk:Mersham

message: Not sure whether this can be worked into something actually notable (as opposed to simply fun) especially as it's sadly soon to be no more (unless someone offers a lot of money to buy the lot, I suppose!), but the Knitted Village seems at least worth a mention on the Talk page! Loganberry (Talk) 20:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knitted village 
Talk:Cliffe Woods

message: "Suburb" is a misnomer. This modern development is certainly not part of the built-up area of the Medway towns, but simply a large estate in a rural area. ++++  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Shearan (talk • contribs) 07:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suburb?

message: Its all in the spoken folklore- does anyone want to try to rewrite it
, just before Hoo, and still retains much of its rural character, but has of late been built upon. The modern estate now situated just back from the B2000 road was built on a clay subsoil, and many of the houses had to be underpinned after having been sold, because they were noticed to have moved slightly, built on a hillside.
A petrol filling station was one of the few village shops here as early as 1925, and was rebuilt in the 1960s. Even then some of the properties in the woods did not have their own water supply, and had to visit the garage to collect their water. In the mid-1990s, the petrol station closed, and was not reopened; however the estate saw a community center, doctors' surgery and pharmacy open.
The railway station was never busy and very quaint.  Trains came from Waterloo at least hourly and were mainly of the old slam door type with drop down windows located with a leather strap.  There was a pub just on the corner from the railway, and it was usually quiet in the early 1960s.
In the 1950s and 1960s View Road was a bumpy unmade track and was lined with trees.  There was a small one room hovel/house/shed halfway up on the right, with someone living in it.  There were several very large plots nearer the top just at the base of the hill to the woods.  At least one was purchased before or during the war and used unofficially for living in until it was compulsorily purchased in the late 1960s.  The owner believed that there was council interest and could never get planning permission for a proper house.  The original plots were demolished about 1968/9.
At least some of the plots had electricity (from the early 1950s at least), mains water and a septic tank.  Most people had a paraffin stove used for cooking and also lighting when the electric failed.  The petrol station was still the only shop in the early 1960s.
In the early 1960s, at the top of View Road there were woods stretching almost to the river, with wild cobnuts, and chestnuts too.  There were wild damsons in the area, and apple trees were planted and mature by the 1950s.
ClemRutter (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this is too detailed housing/social/amenities development history, not worthy of a global encyclopedia. WP:NOTBOOK. Can be summed up with 'had a fairly primitive, mainly low-income progression to large modern village; eventually saw good state social support.'- Adam37 Talk 23:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay
Talk:Lyminge

message: "Various species of Bear" in Lyminge Forest?
I've searched all over the net for any corroboration that even a single bear (escapee or otherwise) has ever been reported/observed in Lyminge Forest. There is nothing out there. Unless some corroboration is swiftly forthcoming, I'm going to delete this nonsense. Plingsby (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the bears, but the current statement makes it sound like badgers, bears, and boars, in the forest are all escaped farm animals. I doubt the the bears and badgers are escaped farmed animals.  Swine, on the other hand, are farm animals, and easily go feral, resulting in populations of wild boars.  Sentence in text needs to be revised to make this clear. While there may or may not be bear in Lyminge forest, a feral population of wild boars certainly makes sense. I don't think it would be surprizing to find badgers living in the area. TwelveGreat (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bears and boars

message: It would be helpful to know what purpose the lead was serving in the church. It could be lead in the stainless windows, in which case the real lost would be the stainless windows.  Or perhaps the church had lead guttering?, TwelveGreat (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stolen lead
Talk:Sundridge, Kent

message: This was never an airport, only an airfield attached to a construction and maintenance facility: I have reverted this. While on the topic, can anyone source the popular story that Alan Cobham based himself here? It's in an anonymous "historical reminiscences" piece in the local paper, but given the straitened editorial circumstances of such organs, I can't imagine it received much oversight, a requirement for a Wikipedia:Reliable source. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sundridge "Airport"
Talk:Speldhurst

message: 'all have to down half a pint every time they pass the two drinks stations, one situated by the George and Dragon (sadly popular manager Victoria has left)' 
This is not exactly encyclopaedic language, and nor was she popular infact, quite disliked!88.108.170.174 (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits
Talk:Swanley Village

message: Most of this article is duplicated at Swanley and it would be sufficient to have a paragraph explaining the old village/new town split IMO. Crookesmoor (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested opposition and no support over move than a year. Klbrain (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Swanley]]
Talk:Chevening, Kent

message: I wonder about the meaning of the word "small" (parish is small, village is small). What does that compare with? And why is there no mention of the other inclusive places (Bessels Green, Chipstead) within the text? Peter Shearan (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative words
Talk:Great Culverden Park

message: I have moved this page from a stub article on Great Culverden House because:
* The 1803 house itself no longer exists, in fact the building that replaced it also no longer exists.
* The surviving Great Culverden Park is of greater interest to most people and it does not preclude the welcome addition of material on the House that gave the Park its name.  If sufficient material were to be found then the house could be a sub-section.
* Culverden House had very few sources available from which to develop the stub whereas there is quite a lot of material around on Great Culverden Park, which makes it far easier to develop the page.
* The page history seemed to show very little interest or activity in developing the article confined to the House.
I have subsequently started to build the page using material on the park.  Ex nihil (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move from Great Culverden House
Talk:Marley, Maidstone

message: If it is a hamlet, it cannot be a village! Peter Shearan (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: in fact it is not a settlement at all, now - just an area in which the Marley Floors are - see map here  occupying former manorial land. The map at that reference will show that it lies between Lenham and Harrietsham, exactly as shown on the OS map. There are at least two other places named Marley in Kent: Marley, Deal and Marley, Barham, Kent (the latter has no article yet). The previous reference to Marley Floors has been turned into a different article altogether! Peter Shearan (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Village?
Talk:Boughton Lees

message: The page states cricket has been played on the green for "over 250 years". I played here yesterday and their pavilion has a plaque celebrating the 200th anniversary of cricket on the green, laid in 1998. I have edited this to "over 200 years", if anyone changes it back could they please state their evidence here, cheers. EJBH (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cricket History
Talk:Heart of Ice (Batman: The Animated Series)

message: Did this win the Emmy?
*yes this episode did win an Emmy. Gman124 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Zeyrek Mosque

message: Have the royal tombs survived? --Ghirla-трёп- 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 
unfortunately not, since the imperial chapel is now a mosque. Anyway Cyril Mango could find trace of two of them. Alex2006 07:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have removed the following:
Here can be seen the building in year 1200.
because the link is a 404  --5telios (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I restored it, since the problem was only a 'c' instead of a 'k'. Kind Regards, Alex2006 (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: link in photo
Talk:Najaf bey Vazirov

message: "Shusha is in present-day Azerbaijan" is a POV statment. 
"Shusha is in present-day Nagorno Karabakh Republic" is also a POV statment". 
To avoid the POV issue lets just say what it was than. Because what it is today has no relevance to this article. Lida Vorig (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: *"Najaf bey Vazirov" -Llc 1 - 1 (WIKIPEDIA derived) = 0
*"Najaf Vazirov" -Llc 3
*"Najaf bay Vazirov" -Llc 2
-- Takabeg (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name
Talk:Chestfield

message: A few questions.
Does Chestfield really form a civil parish with Swalecliffe? As far as I was aware, the two were separate, and the name "Chestfield and Swalecliffe" was only used by the WI, etc.
Also, calling the Chestfield Barn a 16th century pub is slightly dubious. Sure, it's an old building, but it has only been a pub for 20 years or so!
And are the supermarket and DIY store really in Chestfield? The addresses of the two stores would seem to indicate that they are not - and if they are not, then neither is the medical centre. Gretnagod 12:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Hoath

message: Necessary to include this, since the articles on the various hamlets had not included their status as poart of the wider are beyond the village itself. All the hamlets are included on the village website Peter Shearan 06:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil parish

message: Seems to make sense to me to merge in the stubby article on Maypole into the main parish article.82.2.128.157 (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done since there were no objections. Le Deluge (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made Maypole, Kent go to Maypole (disambiguation), as there at least two location named Maypole in Kent, the other is in the Dartford borough, near Joyden's Wood. Both locations are small villages or hamlets and have no article at present. One is not hugely more notable or known over the other.  Carlwev  11:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge in [[Maypole, Kent]]
Talk:Kennington Stream

message: Does each part of the Stour NEED to have a separate article - however small they are? Peter Shearan (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article?
Talk:Westwell, Kent

message: - back in 2014, in this edit, you added "[Statistical civil parish overview - map]". I guess you intended to add a ref or exlink or something. Do you remember what it was you were planning to do?  (says me that can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday) -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 00:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical civil parish overview?
Talk:Plucks Gutter

message: It is difficult to say what is original research until references have been added, but kingfishers and Meneer Ploeg seem a good place to start. ClemRutter (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until refs are provided (any or at least a few), this article has to be a Stub. Acabashi (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Warnings
Talk:Richard Mason (novelist, born 1919)

message: The New York Times obituary (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E1D91E3FF93AA25753C1A961958260) differs from whoever wrote this article on 2 points:
:It gives the publication date of The Wind Cannot Read as 1947 rather than 1948 - could this be accounted for by different US and UK publication dates?
:It gives the cause of death as lung cancer rather than throat cancer.
Can someone help resolve these discrepancies, please?  
Rodparkes 10:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Queries
Talk:Bridge, Kent

message: I can find no reference to this "famous aviator"
anywhere, and presume the paragraph is vandalism.
Unless anybody objects (and, preferably, finds
evidence!) I'll remove the section referring to him.
Eebkent (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Steady Eddie" 

message: Not happy about revision by Gbestnorniron, marked as minor (which it isn't).   The revision removes what seems to me a pretty well-attested reference to "Bregge" as the name origin.  The replacement mentions Lewis Fieldkin of Reading University as a authority, but I can find no mention of him on the Reading Univ website.   I'm always reluctant to revert what may be a well-intentioned revision, but unless somebody can come up with supporting evidence I propose to revert this change.  In any case, I think some mention of the "Bregge" hypothesis is well worth including. Eebkent (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 
Talk:Cliftonville

message: heyya every1 if yu need questions to be answered about cliftonville ask me.x 
i need 1 question answered for me though will you find out about  history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.14.148 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  helpline.x 

message: If someone knows about uploading, the copyright on these photographs has expired:
:http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org.uk/search/detail.aspx?uid=78138
:http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org.uk/search/detail.aspx?uid=78151
pgr94 (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some copyright-free photographs 
Talk:Doddington, Kent

message: This article says "the area is designated as of 'outstanding natural beauty'" but I cant find it on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Could someone clarify which of the AONBs it falls into?— Rod talk 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it Kent Downs?— Rod talk 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? AONB 
Talk:All Saints Church, Tudeley

message: I'm happy with most of "Tishtosh20"'s revisions, but I don't think
the change of ref 1 from 
   http://tudeley.org/tudeley.html
to
   http://www.tudeley.org
is appropriate.  I have no real problem with adding "www" (though the
link is fine with or without it).  But the omission of "tudeley.html"
sends the link to the CofE/URC partnership rather than to All
Saints' Church, which is what is needed.
I'll wait a day or two to see if anybody else has views on
this, and will then add the specific "tudeley.html" unless
there are reasoned objections!
Eebkent (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to church
Talk:Staple, Kent

message: A slow-time edit war has developed here. Where exactly is the supposed "original research"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably wants an "unsourced" tag. I'm sure I can find a book in the local library that covers this, if necessary. This is the sort of stuff that  could source if he was doing a "Kent villages" editathon. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Original research"
Talk:Twydall

message: Suggest we move this form "Twydall, Medway" to "Twydall" as current convention is no need to disambiguate unless there is a) another Twydall anywhere ie "Twydall, Kent", and b) unless there is another Twydall in Kent we don't need "Twydall, Medway". Pickle 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Been bold and i gave you all a few days, page moved ;) Pickle 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name 