lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ranunculus asiaticus

message: For me the picture looks like a poppy, not the Ranunculus .. Kaidokarner (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong picture? 

message: It's not only the wrong picture, the description is also not of ranunculus Asiaticus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.184.46.49 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture, wrong plant 

message: I believe that this is, in fact, a Ranunculus asiaticus plant (wild form), even though it looks similar to a poppy.  I believe the wild forms of Ranunculus asiaticus have fewer petals than many cultivated forms.
--Jpartsch1cnl (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct plant photograph, I think
Talk:Aconitum anthora

message: The article says that the plant contains "volatile salt".  What is that supposed to mean?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.216 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Volatile salt
Talk:Kottonmouth Kings discography

message: I'm having a hard time finding the number of albums sold for each record if anyone can find that info, that would be fantastic. Fill in the info. as you obtain it and be sure to cite your sources. Or you can tell me where to find the info. on my talk page and I will add it myself. Thanks in advance. War wizard90 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Album Sales
Talk:Ranunculus lyallii

message: I emboldened the text Mount Cook Lily at the top of the article. Google has about 450 000 hits for Mount Cook lily or Mt Cook lily versus about 80 000 for Mount Cook buttercup or Mt Cook buttercup. Yes, we all know it ain't a lily but that's what folk call it. Mount Cook lily directs to the article, so for that reason also, in WP style, the alternative name should be emboldened.Nankai (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a lily, but everyone calls it that
Talk:Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.

message: I moved this page manually (i.e., cut and paste), and have just now looked at the Wikipedia rules for moving a page.  I'm sorry for my mistake, and will try to do better next time.  Again, my apologies.  If it's any excuse, it's past midnight where I am...  Hydriotaphia 06:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I moved this page manually
File talk:Wikipedia profile photo (User KoRnOnThEeKoB).jpg

message: Look its my photo. I put it on here as my personal pic on my name. Its of me. I dont know how to change the copright info on a pic that is already uploaded. I forgot to check the right box and didnt want to upload it again.
KoRnOnThEeKoB 06:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Theognis (statesman)

message: There should probably be a disambiguation page, as Theognis the poet is probably more notable than this guy. Also, there should be a page for Theognis the poet. His works, though fragmentary are substantial enough to warrant his own page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.249.205 (talk • contribs) 
:Quite right, and I've made Theognis a redirect to Theognis of Megara.  (Every existing link except for the one at Thirty Tyrants was meant for the famous poet anyway.)  Wareh (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments
Talk:1990 United States census

message: Why is every state except Connecticut rounded to thousands? —Tamfang (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: limited precision

message: Can someone please make a map showing the allocation of seats in the US House following the 1990 census and put it in the main article? After all, there are ones for the 2000, 2010, and 2020 censuses, and they are in their respective articles. Lexikhan310 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of change congressional seats 

message: In the first table, nothing happens when I click on sort by Change or by Percent Change. 170.142.177.115 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed it so that it sorts now. If I messed something else up in the process, please undo. 135.129.193.105 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table not sorting
Talk:1980 United States census

message: OK so I found the Census 80 logo here, and so I edited it into a web-friendly version for Wikipedia. I give permission to be used on the page--seeing as it's not my design to claim--but I don't know how to upload things to Wikipedia... so can someone help me with this?? Thanks! :) - 66.92.0.62 (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Census 80 Logo

message: The data on this page is incorrect. The state population data is not the census data that is presented in Table A of the census document that is cited.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:10A:2696:14AA:ED86:93D2:382F (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect data
Talk:1970 United States census

message: I found the Census '70 logo on the Census 2010 website here and here. Can someone post this on the Census 70 Wikipedia page? Thanks! - 66.92.0.62 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Census '70 Logo
Talk:Japanese gunboat Akagi

message: According to my information the Akagi (or any of the Maya Class Gunboats) never carried 12.7cm (or 12.7 in) guns, let alone four of them.  
According to Naval Institute Press the Akagi carried 4 x 4.7mm 40-Cal QF guns and 6 x 47mm Hotchkiss Guns.  She also had a top speed of 12 not 10 knots and only carried 60 tons of coal on board.
SOURCE: "Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945" by Naval Institute Press Copyright 1970.
Wulfram 99 06:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Kapuskasing

message: Good to see this page about my home town. I have long had an interest in the history of Kapuskasing. I have written a number of universuty level papers on Kapuskasing related topics and have done considerable reseach. I would be happy to chat with anyone who has an interst in this topic. My email is bobenns@gmail.com Bobenns 06:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

message: I propose that this article be moved to Kapuskasing, which is currently a redirect here, per WP:CANSTYLE naming conventions. There is no evidence of any other notable use for the name. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: An IP editor added this comment to the Demographics section today, "of course 68% + 36% is > 100%, so there must be a typo somewhere...."  Whoever added that has a point.  PKT(alk) 11:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics comment
Talk:1930 United States census

message: I think something should be added to this article concerning records and microfilm and how to get these records from the government. Most the of the info I've gotten has come from . Any ideas on how this should be put into the article? --71.58.29.180 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Microfilms, records, etc.

message: :conducted by the Census Bureau one month from April 1, 1930
What does this mean? Was it conducted in March? May? 70.51.193.44 (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: month clarification
Talk:1910 United States census

message: This section implies the listed sources have actual enumeration records. They do not. It ought to be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.186.229 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Data Availability"
Talk:1900 United States census

message: Many of the state flags in the table on this page (and the other 20th cenutry census pages) are incorrect -- they are flags as of 2020, and putting them on this list is ahistorical. If you're going to put the flags in this table, you should use the ones actually from the time period. --Jfruh (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  State flags in table 
Talk:1890 United States census

message: In New York City, the 1890 census was distrusted, and the Police ordered to complete a second census. Because of this mistrust, New York reinstituted the State census, which began in 1892. Is this worth mentioning? ThuranX 14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it worth discussing the substitutes and local replacements?

message: I made a couple of grammatical corrections in the article.
Kslall8765 (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammatical corrections

message: The following statement was unsourced for at least three years, so I'm moving it to the talk page.
::The public reaction to this tabulation was disbelief, as it was widely believed that the "right answer" was at least 75,000,000.
Ufwuct (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statement=
Talk:1880 United States census

message: Why does it take so long to count up to 50,189,209? --Abdull 09:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because tabulating complex demographic data does not provide a single number.  The census data contains a lot of different information and analysis.  Consider this quote from the US Census Bureau: The results of the 1890 Census are contained in 25 volumes, plus a three-part compendium, statistical atlas, and an abstract. The complete results from the special enumeration of survivors of the Civil War were not published (the schedules of which were turned over to the Bureau of Pensions); however, the special inquiry on Schedule 1 (general population schedule) regarding Union and Confederate veterans were published in the report on population.  (http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/pol02marv.pdf, page 133)  The census has become more and more complex with each passing decade.152.17.124.28 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Time

message: Is there a way to see what % of a counties' ancestors were from a given country in 1880? Modern US census ask people what their ancestry is. But can you find it in the 1880 census? Rakovsky (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestry

message: I have seen various different versions of this story.  "The 1880 census took 9 years, but with Hollerith's punched cards the 1890 census only took a few weeks to tabulate" or "The 1880 census took 6 years and the 1890 census 1 year", and various variations.  Can anyone point to an authoritative source on this?152.17.124.28 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hollerith and punched cards

message: I am trying to find the population of Greenwood, New York (very likely under 2,000) in 1880. I've been on the census.gov site and used the links in the article and can't find it. Is this not available online at all? I don't have easy access to the microfilms. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to find information in the 1880 census 
Talk:1870 United States census

message: The table's first entry is "True Population". This is risible. There is absolutely NO WAY to know what the true population was as of a certain date and time. Unless, of course, we redefine what "true" means.174.131.63.209 (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is interesting 🧐 to note that was added to the 1870 census after the passage of the 14thFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution R Dailey0001 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Population 

message: The repeated attempts to change the article led me to request protection, see here.Reason: Yesterday, an alleged error in the article was covered by a prominent Youtuber, leading to repeated attempts to "correct" the article (by IP and registered users), without giving a source (examples 1, 2, 3). The original value turns out to be correct (see the article talk page for details). The article should be protected, at least until the original spike in viewership for the video has passed. Renerpho (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection request
Talk:1850 United States census

message: The US Census Bureau states that "... the 1830-1880 and 1900 censuses were as of June 1..."
The image of the 1850 census return included with this article (and other 1850 census returns I have cited) all bear dates later in the year.  The only explanation is that the official record fails to acknowledge that "logistics" of that time meant that the census could only be carried out if it progressed over several months.   Twistlethrop (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official census date vs. actual survey dates 
Talk:1840 United States census

message: "Mentally Ill African Americans" doesn't really sound like 1844 terminology; I wonder if a description of the contents of the report has been conflated as a subtitle? -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: title of 1844 report

message: Per your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Assessment/Requests, I have assessed the article at C class.  The article reasonably covers the topic, but some statements that are likely to be challenged such as "The 1840 Census was the first that attempted to count Americans who were 'insane' or 'idiotic'" lack a direct inline citation. Winner 42  Talk to me!  17:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Stephen Jay Gould discusses the 1840 Census in Chapter 23 of his book (column collection) Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes... AnonMoos (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source 
Talk:1820 United States census

message: Looking at the section titled "Note to researchers", it is written in a way that makes it seem unfit for a place on a Wikipedia article. Facts regarding the irregularity of forms that were not pre-drawn or formatted may be something that is included on a page, but I see it as not appropriate for an article to make an actual note for researchers, which would belong much more appropriately on a genealogical wiki or a WikiHow article. EytanMelech (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to researchers is really necessary?
Talk:Nathaniel Ford

message: What were the boundaries of Polk County in 1870? Because I can find no reference to a Dixie there. Katr67 07:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found these great maps courtesy of the state achives. And found out Rickreall was called Dixie for a while but there wasn't a post office by that name.  Katr67 08:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had never heard of it before yesterday either. Aboutmovies 16:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dixie?
Talk:Pontiac Ventura

message: i beleive this requires some clean up, some 'weasel words' may be in use in reference to the AVON joke. also, i work at a gas station and there is person who pulls in with 1975 Ventura, it has one of the early catalytic converters and also uses fuel injection and carburation as another step to reduce emmisons in the designers used fuel injection and carburated the unburned fuel back in the cyclinders, probabally through a throttle body, and lastly but not least it has an oldsmobile 260 ci engine Oldsmobile_V8_engine#260. while talking about weasel words, i know i have some rather uncited sources.--Dieselweasel 06:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Bhadralok

message: Is it really appropriate to include this article in the category page of social classes along with those such as bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat? While there's no argument that a one must be of an occupation with social status and income above one of physical labour to qualify as a bhadralok, there's otherwise no defining means of livelihood or possession of wealth that defines the term. Furthermore, the term carries specific connotations of cultural, intellectual and, in some cases political, activities. Personally I think it's more accurate to conclude that this segment of Bengali society is a status group as defined by Max Weber. Brens (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A social class? 

message: This is an absolutely rubbish, self-proclaimed and nonsense, it is astonishing as how could such a page got its place in wikipedia. It has no basis. There is no Bhadroloke class or anything like this. This is just a cheating and diverting concept followed by only a handful few. Once there was Brahmo Samaj. But never there was any Bhadroloke class. 117.194.196.155 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A cursory search shows that Bhadralok is indeed a valid term used in academic journals and reputed publications . For example , please see ,  or Acharya63 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense
Talk:Mark Lunsford

message: I am not sure we need an article on this person. - NYC JD (make a motion) 06:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merge with Jessica Lunsford

message: I removed two lines:
"The autopsy produced unconclusive evidence that Jessica had been sexually abused before her abduction.  This implies someone in her family had assaulted her before."
The autopsy results are uncited, and the conclusion that this implies somebody in her family abused her is pure (flirting with libelous) speculation on the part of the poster.
"Recently however (May 18 2007), his 18 year old son, Joshua, has been brought up on charges of sexual abuse against a 14 year old minor.  This almost negates the very cause that Lunsford has championed for. "
The actions of Lundsford's son do not "negate" his father's work. Again, this is an opinion expressed by the original poster. I think the information is also more relevant to a separate article about Joshua, not his father.
Together these seem to be some kind of smear campaign against Mark Lundsford - wholey inappropriate.
Perhaps a smear campaign by the poster, but anyone who has read the court documents know what Mr. Lunsford IS, that being, a pervert and hypocrite to the highest degree.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.22.180 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed
Talk:North Star Hotel

message: This documents a one time (to my knowledge) squat news event, and on that basis alone-- is questionable in its merits for a hotel article, based on other article precedents. However, I'll try to dig up some historical information, and try to make it a more contextual piece re: the building rather than the actions on those few days last October. Any help in this is welcome.--Keefer4 06:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So far
Category talk:New Zealand Crown Copyright images

message: FYI Rebelguys2 appears to be listing all NZ crown Copyright images for deletion.  Sample very lengthy discussion, illustrating his/her reasoning is underneath - other similar arguments on the deletions page.   See also Wikipedia:Copyrights - I think a New Zealand section should be added. Winstonwolfe 06:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Volvocaceae

message: This was removed from the body
Originally it included all the colonial forms here grouped as the Volvocales, but since has been restricted to the spherical colonies, which form as a flat plate of cells and undergo a process of gastrulation before being released. These organisms have been studied by geneticists who hope that they may shed light on gastrulation in the development of other organisms, including humans.
1) Not all (do any?) form a flat plate before inversion, e.g. volvox forms a sphere, then inverts via a slit.
2) Gastrulation does not occur, as these are not even multicellular, let alone form an embryo. -203.171.67.232 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just expanded the article and it now states that simple Volvocaceans form flat plates and that more complex ones are truly multicellular and produce zygotes. However, I'm the first to admit my knowledge is very limited and my contribution to the article probably needs some help from an expert.  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A few incorrect statements

message: I've been reading "Elements of Stuctural and Systematic Botany" by Douglas Houghton Campbell (A Project Gutenberg EBook), published 1890. I know this is all very outdated material, but I'm trying to find out if what he describes as Volvocineae or "Green Monads" (characterized by being actively motile unicellular "plants" containing the group Euglena), is actually these Volvocaceae. The name seems similar enough, but I don't want to just guess.
DancingHorses (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick search.  Palaeos.org Volvocales gives us some information; and according to Volvox: molecular-genetic origins of multicellularity and cellular, p. 14, What "A. Weismann called "natural order Volvocineae" is "Now (in 1998) more commonly called the family Volvovaceae, within the order Volvocales...". --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Volvocineae?
Talk:Julian and Sandy

message: Homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967, so it wasn't illegal for the entire run of RTH. I know it's a minor point, and it's difficult to see how to rephrase the article without being clumsy. Apepper (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Homosexuality, as such, was never illegal. How could it be? It was homosexual acts (‘Gross Indecency’) that were illegal, and the law applied only to males, because when Queen Victoria asked the Prime Minister how two women could have sex, he was too embarrassed to tell her. So she declared that it must therefore be impossible, and she refused to approve that clause of the legislation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3020:1C00:FC98:924A:9B3E:1DF4 (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the story about Queen Victoria might be an urban myth, but you are right that strictly speaking it is homosexual behaviour, rather than the condition of merely being homosexual, that was against the law. But this erroneous usage has now become so widespread that I don't think it can be stopped. We pedants have lost the battle on this one. Alarics (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  homosexuality illegal? 

message: "indexing unhappy, ashamed identities..."
'Indexing'? Not a use of the word with which I'm familiar. In what sense is it meant? Stereotyping?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:D073:78A7:D4C1:E21F (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this phrase mean?
Talk:Streptophyta

message: I see there are two clades: streptophyta and chlorophyta. This series of wikipedia articles confirms this. And yet right here in strptophyta it says that it includes chlorophyta.
So for a person trying to learn the evolutionary/phylogenetic tree for plants, this page only adds to the confusion and fails to fulfill its purpose.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.40.209 (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The page doesn't make that statement. Are you perhaps confounding chlorophyta with charophyta? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Completely unclear classification here

message: Judd et al. in Plant Systematics makes a difference between them both. Streptophytina = Coleochaetales + Charales + Embryophyta. Streptophyta = Streptophytina + the rest of the green algae - Chlorophyta (Chlorophyta = Chlorophyceae + Trebouxiophyceae + Ulvophyceae). RoRo en wiki (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As do Lewis & McCourt in the paper referenced in the article. Streptophyta should not be a redirect to Streptophytina; there needs to be two articles. If no-one else does it first, this is on my to-do list. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Streptophytina is not Streptophyta

message: A 2018 paper by Mikhailyuk and colleagues, New Taxa of Streptophyte Algae (Streptophyta) from Terrestrial Habitats Revealed Using an Integrative Approach, introduces 2 new genera, Streptosarcina and Streptofilum. The cladogram at Plant curiously includes Streptofilum, still redlinked. It'd be nice if they were discussed here, and even nicer if the links could turn blue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two new genera (''Streptosarcina'' and ''Streptofilum'')
Talk:Sphaeropleales

message: Do not merge unless a reference is given showing that Chlorococcales has been removed from the scientific classification - ITIS still has a page for it I notice  sbandrews (t) 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with sbandrews - we must try to maintain concordance with ITIS Bobkeyes 02:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tag