lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:SMS Scharnhorst

message: The lead paragraph is rather confusing; I'd delete the first mention of Gneisenau as it is easy to think that the latter was the lead ship of the class. Just move the link to the next mention of Gneisenau.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded it slightly, is it more clear now? Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: In the Outcome section of the Battle of the Falkland Islands, it states: 
Out of the 765 officers and men from the Scharnhorst, only 7 survived.
Which clearly conflicts with this article and the DYK mention out front. Who's right? --Cantthinkofausername 07:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the figure of 765 officers and men is wrong; that figure is roughly the standard crew of a Scharnhorst class cruiser (38 officers and 726 enlisted men). As the squadron flagship, Scharnhorst carried an additional 80-odd officers and crew for the command staff. Second, that claim isn't sourced in the other article, and it is here (to quote Gröner: "All crew lost"). Parsecboy (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were there survivors or not? 

message: Pardon the ignorance, but was this ship a Dreadnought?  The article doesn't say, and the evidence is a little unclear... --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, dreadnoughts were "all-big-gun" warships (as a general rule of thumb, anything under 10 inches is categorized as medium caliber for warships). Parsecboy (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreadnought? 

message: "A squall prevented the Germans from discovering Monmouth, but she eventually capsized and sank at 20:18"
:I think it was the Good Hope which sank undetected. Monmouth capsized at 21:58, after being shelled by Nürnberg. --Andreas (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Macedonia was the auxiliary cruiser, that has reached the Falklands with Sturdee, not the demoralized Otranto.--Andreas (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  False ship 

message: It currently claims that Scharnhorst visited "southwest asia",  apparently in 1913,  and the admiral met Chulalongkorn,  the King of Siam.    He died in 1910,    so this part of the  chronology would seem to be out of sequence or just plain wrong.Lathamibird (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The "southwest" bit was a typo - but I'll have to check Hildebrand later when I have it in front of me. Presumably they have the wrong name. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected - thanks for bringing this up. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  visit to Siam
Talk:SMS Schlesien

message: The final line of the article remarks that she was still visible as late as 1970, what happened between then and now that she is no longer visible today?Yoenit (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: She may still be there; I haven't been able to find anything about the ship post-1970 (Groner's book was originally published in 1966 and updated subsequently by the editors). Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The German version of this article states, in the final sentence of the ship's history, that still in 1980 there were remnants to be seen, which were "broken off" in the following years. I'm not a native speaker and can't determine whether there's any implication that this breaking off was done by wind and weather, or by people, but the suggestion is that nothing remains to be seen. Laanders (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened between 1970 and now? 

message: I changed the Staff references according to what the source actually says. Who ever entered the data simply looked in the wrong column. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed up 

message: the table of the armament in 1939 seems to miss the 15-cm guns
I feel that some weapons are called alternatively "40 mm" and "37 mm"
pietro151.29.25.24 (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments
Talk:Rock glacier

message: This article has repetitive and sometimes contradictory statements. The entire thing needs editing for cohesiveness by someone familiar with rock glaciers.Bob Webster (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Quaternary Science Reviews 312 (2023) 108147, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2023.108147  "10Be exposure ages and paleoenvironmental significance of rock glaciers in the Western Tatra Mts., Western Carpathians"
Some slight differences over terminology.
Last line of the abstract reads "However, the lower limit of the rock glaciers is well above regional
paleopermafrost features from the same periods, which suggests that rock glaciers may underestimate past permafrost extents and temperature declines disputing their regional validity for paleoenvironmental reconstructions."
The paper contains various potentially useful parameters for temperature modelling. But I'm not an expert in these things so I'll leave it here for someone better informed than me to incorporate into the article. AKarley (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New (2023) paper
Talk:SMS Weissenburg

message: NIce article.  There were some clarity points in the text, which I fixed.  It's not going to hold up the GA, but for the next stage, you'll need to explain what it was the Ottoman ship did that caused Russia to declare war, etc.  Also, the use of "notes" in the lead is very distracting, so if it's important enough to include, include it, otherwise, consider saving the note until later in the text.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: This vessel is listed as a Dreadnought, though it clearly isn't. I don't know how to fix this, but she should not be listed as such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.230.253 (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in this article, it isn't; it clearly says "pre-dreadnought", which is what this ship was. Now, if it's being called a dreadnought in other articles, they need to be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Ahh, I suspected it was on another article, I just didn't know where. I removed her (and Nassau and Oldenburg as well), as she actually was never transferred to Japan, I don't know why someone thought that. And even if she had been, including her on the list implies that the Japanese got some service from the ships, which is certainly not the case, quite unlike the Russian ships captured in 1905. Thanks for bringing this up so I could fix it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Not A Dreadnought

message: here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo
Talk:Gladstone Park Secondary College

message: First, to the editor here who claims to be editing on behalf of the college: Read WP:NOT. Wikipedia does not provide home page type provisions for any other organisation.
Secondly, the notable students list is in dire need of references. If theses are not added, any unreferenced entry will be removed on grounds of breaching WP:BLP and similar. LinaMishima 03:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed the section, it had quite a few potentially libelous entries. Please include references if you replace any. Kappa 04:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable ex-students and claims of vanity editing 

message: 1500 matriculated students, eh? What's that mean?
HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matriculated students? 
Talk:Jakobshavn Glacier

message: http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/14/video-time-lapse-photography-proof-extreme-ice-loss-james-balon-ted-conference/
The above link mentions the glacier and has some very cool video. I think it would fit into the article somehow, just not exactly sure.Matthias5 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video of Calving events 

message: The band to the right on the article page toward the bottom should read "status: re-advancing" instead of "status: retreating"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja07041976 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested changes to inforgraphic on the right on the article page
Talk:Tepēyōllōtl

message: I just removed the following sentence from the article, on the grounds that it is neither appropriate in tone nor meaningful to people whose only language is English. What's a "nahual"?
It's safe to say, Tepeyollotl is no more than a nahual for Tezcatlipoca
--Proginoskes (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence
Talk:Aletsch Glacier

message: I'm not entirely sure where to fit it in, but I think this closeup might be a handy addition:
left|thumb
--Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: So why are all the glaciers on the southern side of the Bernese Alps,  while there isn't on the north-facing side which would be expected to be shadier and colder ?Eregli bob (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The north side of the Bernese Alps is much steeper compared to the south side and lacks longer, elevated valleys (more than 2000 m above sea level) which are a prerequisite for the large valley glaciers. Most larger  valleys in the north (e.g. Lauterbrunnen, Kander and Aare valleys) have been cut so deep into the mountains (funnily by glaciers) that the valley ground is nowadays too low and consequently too warm to retain glaciers. On the other side of the Rhône river, in the Pennine Alps, the situation is the other way round: There the south face (towards Italy) is very steep and has almost no significant glaciers. The large glaciers of the Pennine Alps (e.g. the Gorner glacier system) also drain towards the north into the Rhône. --Johnny.m76 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why on the south side ? 
Talk:Škorpion

message: Please add these references to the two pages List of firearms in films and List of firearms in video games. Wikipedia is not a list of trivia and unless these appearances in pop culture form an important part of the firearms history (perhaps like the PPK and James Bond) then it can be mentioned, otherwise it does not belong here. Deon Steyn 07:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uses MP5k PDW's. 71.245.76.111 (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keanu Reeves does use a pair of Skorpions in the lobby shoot-out. http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Matrix%2C_The Koalorka (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture

message: Why doesnt Klobb redirect here? The Klobb IS a Vz-61, and im sure many curious to find out what the Klobb is called wiki it and find Ken Lobb, instead of the gun. :| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EatMyCar (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the redirect to go to GoldenEye 007 (1997 video game) instead. I can't find any reliable sources which definitely say that the "Klobb" is the same as this firearm. Rezin (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klobb redirect... 

message: Does the name of the gun come from the appearance of the gun itself? The folding shoulder stock does look like a scorpion's tail...I suppose it would be difficult to find evidence that the gun got it's name from it's design.--Dreammaker182 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name... 

message: As far as I know, the Škorpion vz. 61 E and the Yugoslavian M84 Škorpion are externally identical. Am I right at all? Did the Škorpion vz. 61 E copy the external shape of the earlier Yugoslavian version? If I am right, I think it would be a good idea to note below the image of Škorpion vz. 61 E that this image belongs to the Yugoslavian version as well. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.51.69.179 (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the Škorpion vz. 61 E and the Yugoslavian M84 Škorpion externally identical?
Talk:Athabasca Glacier

message: This article barely mentions the glacier itself - why it's significant, its geological history and other natural and social history, how it relates to other glaciers in the region, etc. It seems to be written from the perspective of a tourist guide. The fact that there's a Starbucks there or that tourists and workers have been killed in bus accidents in the parking lot are completely extraneous, however tragic, to the significance of the topic. It's kind of embarrassing to look this up because one wants to learn more about the glaciers of the Canadian Rockies only to find out that the author thought the existence of a Starbucks is more important than the actual reasons why this glacier is notable! Thanks. Bruxism (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information
Talk:Joshua Logan

message: This article states that he was married to Barbara O'Neil from 1939 to 1940.  The article on Barbara O'Neil states that she was married to him from 1940-1942.  The conflict should be resolved.John Paul Parks (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict in Dates of First Marriage 
Talk:Mike Adams

message: The link to Mike Adams the 'pornstar' actually links to the chess player Mike Adams.(which is what I was looking for, honest :)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to log this, I hope so.
Not sure how I would edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.27.44.149 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong details
Talk:Eyjafjallajökull

message: Currently the article reads as follows:
"The crater rim has three main peaks (clockwise from the north-east): Guðnasteinn, 1,500 m (4,900 ft); Hámundur, 1,651 m (5,417 ft); and Guðnasteinn, 1,497 m (4,911 ft)"
Two of these "three" peaks have the same name and are only 3 m apart in height: these seem to be duplicates with the height rounded differently. What is the first peak actually called? Was information duplicated improperly from multiple sources? 58.141.206.230 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Icelandic WP the three peaks are called Hámundur, Goðasteinn and Guðnasteinn, but I can't tell which has which height. However, further research has revealed that Goðasteinn is lower than Guðnasteinn. I shall edit the article accordingly. LynwoodF (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three peaks with two names 

message: The chapters 1944 to 1952 eruptions and 1996 to 2008 eruptions make no sense. There were no eruptions then and there are no citations that imply that.
--Berserkur (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1944 to 1952 eruptions? 1996-2008 erptions? 

message: I believe that paragraph six of “Geography” is unprofessionally written, and should be revised. 184.97.124.159 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble identifying your  though I do see some dodgy writing. Can you please be more specific about where you mean, maybe with example text to help nail it? Maybe your system is showing paragraphs differently from how mine is, or something. Thanks, DBaK (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, why not revise it yourself? If you prefer, you can submit a draft here. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic voice 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Volcano E and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  MB 02:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Volcano E" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 3rd paragraph of 'Geography' is unprofessionally written and has multiple uncited claims. Should be rewritten or removed but i do Not know enough about this volcano to do so  Whimsikl (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly written
Talk:Let Go of Your Bad Days

message: In the course of rewriting this article to conform to standards, I deleted most of the following (leaving what I thought was a good quote about album content; however, it remains sourceless at this time):
:A compact, energetic and joyous barrage of guitar-pop punches, snappy lyrics and sing-along choruses, served up over a set of jubilant melodies that will reside in the back of your brain for days on end like a soundtrack to spring fever. This sophomore record has all the same measure of quirky energy and invasive melody lines that you'd expect of your favorite pop band.
:"At a mere 28 minutes, the album is a compact, energetic and joyous barrage of guitar-pop punches, snappy lyrics and sing-along choruses, served up over a set of jubilant melodies that will reside in the back of your brain for days on end like a soundtrack to spring fever. Boppy, bouncy riffs and keyboard swirls intertwine with soupy veils of '60s strings and swells of rolling horns, twinkling in silvery layers over frisky basslines and fluid, playful percussion" - Splendid
Article no longer reads like the liner notes to the album, but could still use some attention from anyone knowledgeable about the band and/or the above quote. I removed the worst of the cleanup tags, but left the standard because I feel the article could still use some help. Skybright Daye 07:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikified
Talk:Schlitterbahn Kansas City

message: As of 7-06 construction has not started the timetable for Schlitterbahn Kansas City is tentative and subject to change. Check the website for updated details and press releases. --Moonraker0022 07:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timetable 

message: Why not mention in the article that the park's owners lobbied the state of Kansas to lighten regulations of parks, and that in Kansas (unlike many other states) such rides are self-inspected rather than being inspected by state officials? It seems relevant in light of the recent death, which was probably preventable. 66.61.82.12 (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add 

message: He was so young too he loving caring and kind hope the Schwab family is doing well right now 2600:8800:518F:AC00:F7:935C:A741:4E61 (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caleb schwab
Talk:Hofsjökull

message: The article mentioned that there is another glacier called Hofsjokull, in Vatnajokull. I am not sure  whether this is correct.  There is one there called Hoffellsjökull and perhaps this is meant? See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vatnajokull_map.svg: it is one of the eastern outflow glaciers.
ABZebra (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The other Hofsjokull
Talk:Rohm

message: This article is a mess. I'd like to expand on Rohm firearms, but don't want to screw this article up any more. Perhaps a disambiguation is in order? --Professor London 07:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was probably badly translated from the Japanese original. Strange none in PR at the company has tidied it up. 95.223.46.232 (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is good for them to avoid. It might lead to a conflict of interest. --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Yikes.

message: I was interested to find out when the company went public on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. I couldn't find the information here, but found it on this website and would like to add the information. 
The firm went public on 1989/01/25.
https://www2.jpx.co.jp/tseHpFront/StockSearch.do?callJorEFlg=1&method=topsearch&topSearchStr=6963 Honge (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: Where do you want to add it? Lightoil (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2023
Talk:New York State Route 49

message: *by 1926: 49 assigned to current alignment from Central Square-Rome
**Volney-Central Square unnumbered
**Rome-Utica (River Road) part of 11 (76 in 1927) from Rome-Marcy
*1930: 49 extended west to Volney and east to Utica
*Later rerouted onto the Utica-Rome Expressway between said locations - however, the transition was gradual --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 09:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History notes
Talk:Professional life of George W. Bush

message: Just saying, this looks like a democrat wrote this. Kinda anti-Bush if you ask me.
Craz Horse (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What the crap is this? I'm nota OF LOVE
fan of Bush either, but this article seems to be pretty anti-Bush. It seems like it should be retitled "Bad things from Bush's past" or something like that. 128.12.195.100 07:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: When George W. Bush's articles got too long, it was a wise idea to split the materials up onto new pages.  However it leaves them open to vandalism on these daughter pages.  Would anyone concur to agree with locking down the page with sprotect2 like it is used on the main page? ViriiK 07:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locking down 
Talk:Thetis-class patrol vessel

message: I have moved the page from Thetis class frigate to Thetis class ocean patrol vessels. I didn't notice/remember the previous move history (from Thetis class patrol frigate => Thetis class frigate by User:Bellhalla on  and from Thetis class ocean patrol vessel => Thetis class patrol frigate by User:Mnh123 on ) so I have fouled things up a bit (I'll work my way through it though). The Thetis-class are OPV's today (not sure when the reclassification happened though) and when participating in exercises also submitted as such. Also if I'm reading WP:NC-SHIPS#Ship_classes correctly the current name (vessels vs. previous vessel) is the right form, but please challenge this. --Heb (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I moved the page 
Talk:Mýrdalsjökull

message: The image Myrdalsjokull2004.jpg looks to me like Gígjökull, which is an outlet of Eyjafjallajökull rather than Mýrdalsjökull.  Thought I'd post here before doing something about it.  Rhyolite (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: =Comment
Talk:Rhône Glacier

message: وvvjfvkznxlvk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.33.111 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  river rhon  

message: There is no indication what the axes or lines represent.  Xuehxolotl (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What does the graph represent?

message: Sigh, shows how dumbed-down by the NWO we all our. English-speaking wikis are sadly oft spiked with this kind of sly Frenchification and thusly lessened. Anyway, please coud someone overset the French (or is it  Romandy?) name with the English name of the river: Rhone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:79F5:9EE6:C8DD:21AD (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In English the heading should be: "Rhone" not: Rhône
Talk:East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873

message: Acknowledging that I'm not exactly experienced here (and have probably gone about this the wrong way), it seems to me that this article contains more or less no actual information about the Act in question. The notability of the Act is undoubtable and the main British East India Company article does not contain specific details on the Act. Somebody who knows a fair bit about it needs to go in and write this thing from scratch. - Moralis 07:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article (currently) has little information on the act itself, but I find it interesting that an act to dissolve a company in the 19th century is repealed. Could someone in the know explain or point to somewhere where it explains how this works? Tigre200 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the statute repealed?