lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Soft currency

message: I'm putting a disputation tag on this article because it seems to be entirely original research by an anonymous poster: as of today there is not a single citation for any of the article's points, and its contents are highly idiosyncratic to say the least. The article fails to define the term, nor does it provide any discussion of the origins of soft currency other than the rather biased "Such poorer nations are condemned to employ other nations' currencies or soft currency of their own." Condemned by whom? "Nations unable to enjoy the rewards of hard currency without the penalty of inadequate consumption:" what are those rewards, who imposes the penalties, how does hard currency lead to them? The portrayal of hard currency as somehow inherently opposed to "human and environmental rights, civilized values, and often national defense," whereas "soft currency to motivate a successful war on want" is simply bizarre and certainly non-NPOV. I'd make a stab at correcting the article myself, but lacking an extensive economics reference library, I'd be unable to adequately cite anything beyond a basic definition, which would merely exacerbate the problems herein. Collabi 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual, neutrality dispute
Talk:Dissection puzzle

message: See also Talk:Tiling puzzle and Talk:String puzzle.  Restored because:
* Not listed in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karlscherer3, and therefore not properly deleted per VfD
* Google shows that "dissection puzzle" is a legitimate generic term, and therefore Wikipedia should have a spam-free article on it.
-- Curps 07:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

message: This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for Deletion

message: I have written a fairly decent page about this subject in the heberew Wikipedia. While doing so I have added a lot of pictures to wikicommons that can be found here. I am not going to translate my work into English, but I hope someone can use my stuff. Yoni טוקיוני (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For whoever wants to improve this page 

message: I make this edit to shift emphasis onto the actual requirement of the Haberdasher's Puzzle. The 1908 text of The Canterbury Puzzles demands four pieces, not three cuts. It's true that Dudeney's solution provides both but the requirement is the former. — Xiong熊talk* 22:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haberdasher's Four Pieces
Talk:Stick puzzle

message: See also Talk:Tiling puzzle and Talk:String puzzle.  Restored because:
* Not listed in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karlscherer3, and therefore not properly deleted per VfD
* Google shows that "stick puzzle" is a legitimate generic term, and therefore Wikipedia should have a spam-free article on it.  We cannot let a spammer decide for us that we can never have a Wikipedia article on a particular term which Google shows to be in relatively widespread independent use.
-- Curps 07:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

message: This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for Deletion
Talk:Double A-side

message: This article has survived a VFD nomination with the result of keep. --FCYTravis 07:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Chart success should have nothing to do with the terminology here; both songs being a top ten hit is by no means a requirement for the use of the term "double A-side", rather, it's all in the way the single is marketed, that both songs as equal, rather than a distinct "A" and "B" separation. John5008 | talk to me 04:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There's really no need for that sort of tone, please remember WP:CIVIL, even with a smiley that tone sounds abusive. Also, don't forget to sign your talk posts with ~~~~. That said, I think this article would benefit from some cites, especially for the term itself and for some of the singles placed on the list. It doesn't matter how they did on chart for the purpose of whether they were or were not Double A, but it does for the purpose of deciding whether to keep them on this list, only significant ones (charting, practice, cultural relevance, all are sorts of significance) should be retained, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Double-A sides are promoted as Double-A sides. It is not a retrospective designation (except in the case of Elvis, as mentioned). One of the strategies of marketing in the record bussiness is to give programmers a choice of songs from which to promote. In the case of Depeche Mode's "Blaspemous Rumours/Somebody" the idea was to allow programmers at Radio 1 to opt out of the more controversial single ("Rumours") and play the more benign ballad, "Somebody." While this campaign ulitimately failed (neither song received much airplay although "Rumours" has popular recurrent status on many AAA stations), the point is that the double-A side strategy is contrived well in advance of release rather than in retrospect.  72.132.36.31 23:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotion
Talk:Beta (Magic: The Gathering)

message: The information of Beta being more desirable to players and thus more expensive is outdated. Since Alpha and other card sets can now easily be mixed with opaque sleeves, Alpha is just as playable as Beta, and since there is less Alpha in circulation, the prices are higher. You can check http://www.magictraders.com/pricelists/current-magic for prices and see that most of the time, Alpha cards gather more calue than Beta ones. I'll change the paragraph somewhat. Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Values of Beta compared to Alpha

message: I'll remove the 'honorable mention' of Library of Alexandria in the Power Nine paragraph. Multiple reasons. First of all, this is highly outdated. For at least five years now, it hasn't been anywhere near the most powerful land. Currently most players in the know would list at least Bazaar of Baghdad, Mishra's Workshop, Strip Mine and Tolarian Academy above it. Secondly, it is not in the Limited printing at all! The definition of Power Nine has become universally accepted, but this 'honorable mention' of Library definitely hasn't. Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Library of Alexandria mention removed from P9
Talk:Unlimited (Magic: The Gathering)

message: As noted in the edit summary, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Psychatog is a good precedent that single cards just aren't notable enough.  There's already chatter about Chaos orb here, so this seems a reasonable merge.
As another random comment, should Alpha/Beta/Unlimited have a unified article?  There seems a fair amount of repetition of information. SnowFire 06:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with merging Chaos Orb. I very much disagree with merging A/B/U. While there is some repetition, they are different sets and there's enough new information on each to warrent the articles. --Khaim 00:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with Chaos orb. 

message: I'll remove the 'honorable mention' of Library of Alexandria in the Power Nine paragraph. Multiple reasons. First of all, this is highly outdated. For at least five years now, it hasn't been anywhere near the most powerful land. Currently most players in the know would list at least Bazaar of Baghdad, Mishra's Workshop, Strip Mine and Tolarian Academy above it. Secondly, it is not in the Limited printing at all! The definition of Power Nine has become universally accepted, but this 'honorable mention' of Library definitely hasn't. Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Library of Alexandria removed from the Power Nine parahraph
Talk:9th Edition (Magic: The Gathering)

message: I'm not at all sure the Jester's Cap is worthy of inclusion into the list with the four creatures. Be that as it may, its entry was not quite correct: Grinning Totem was in 6th Edition, and functions similarly to Jester's Cap. --Ashenai 22:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jester's Cap correction 

message: Can someone please provide info or a link to info about the cards contained in the Ninth Edition Core Game box?
:Not sure if this is what you are looking for - but here Ninth Edition Core Game --Mjrmtg 01:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core Game contents 
Talk:Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering)

message: On wikia Gaming there is small images available to be Picked
for exemple: http://mtg.wikia.com/wiki/Sets
Cqan someone That knows how to upload Images Do so using wikia Gaming  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usatoday69 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anvil Image 

message: A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion
Talk:Legends (Magic: The Gathering)

message: Feel free to comment at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion
Talk:Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia

message: Should this be moved to Inconsistency rule, given that is the most common name for s.109 and that Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws in Australia is ridulously long?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the article to Section 109 of the Australian Constitution, since the inconsistency is resolved entirely with reference to this section. This article has turned out to be basically about how the High Court has applied section 109. --Yu Ninjie 09:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, the new title is more appropriate and is consistent with other articles such as Section 51 of the Australian Constitution. Great work, by the way. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Perhaps the case of McBain v Victoria should be added? This is more recent than R v Licensing Court of Brisbane (McBain was decided in 2000) and covers the impossibility of simultaneous obedience. It was illegal under the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic) to give IVF to a woman who was not in a de facto relationship or married but it was also illegal under the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to refuse to provide services on grounds of marriage.... LudBob 06:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: McBain v Victoria
Talk:The Dark (Magic: The Gathering)

message: A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion
Talk:Fallen Empires (Magic: The Gathering)

message: Removing the statement for "the most token-intensive set" until some sort of criterion for this is explained. Recent sets (especially Fifth Dawn) have had considerably high number of token creature and counter cards. Token and counter are NOT synonymous in Magic, by the way. BinaryTed 19:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing to do would be to do a hard count of FE and similar sets.
--Bedford 23:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that fall under the purview of 'original research?' Asmor (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think describing Fallen Empires as a set making heavy use of tokens and counters serves very well. But if you want to add "the most token-intensive set" somewhere I can provide a source (original Magic Encyclopedia). OdinFK (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most token 

message: It seems worthwhile to note thtat this was the first set to feature alternate art versions of cards on a large scale; there is only a brief mention here. A few sentences of discussion on the distibution of these versions (e.g. equal numbers of each version, how many for commons/uncommons, etc.) and mention of other sets that use the same/similar art scheme, would be welcome. --70.135.167.62 14:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Art: First Set? 

message: A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion 
Talk:Chronicles (Magic: The Gathering)

message: A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion
Talk:Homelands (Magic: The Gathering)

message: From what I could find on Gatherer, Timmerian Fiends might be the last card to refer to ante.  Can anyone confirm or deny this?  If so it might make it a notable card.  --Mrwojo 16:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added this to the article. --Mrwojo 04:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last ante card 

message: I'm just throwing this out here (I don't want to make a major edit on my own since I'm a very inexperienced Magic player, I just inherited a lot of the cards when I was younger) but shouldn't the notable cards section include Baron Sengir, Eron the Relentless (I'm pretty sure he's from this set) and some others?
Are notable cards just good cards we like that are arguably notable or is there some official basis for this? Kiyae (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable cards

message: A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion
Talk:Mirage (Magic: The Gathering)

message: We don't need an article on every expansion set.  There's only a few sentences of encyclopedic information in each of these.  Doing it by block would be better. pbp 20:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would slightly prefer to have the information stay on separate pages.  That way when I click the link about an expansion, I don't have to spend the extra couple seconds scrolling past information on other expansions.  If you're doing a detailed write-up on each storyline, and there's only one storyline for each block, then I would see a slight reason to consolidate.  And if you have a strong reason to consolidate, then sure, be bold and do it.  But I'm not seeing one. I think it would be a better use of editor time to look up information to add, like the size of the print run for each expansion, the number of sheets in the printing, the number of boosters or starter packs per box, the number of each rarity in each booster or starter, the rate of printing/cutting errors, and so on.--Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like your only defense for keeping is to "[save time scrolling]." That's what a Table of Contents is for. Click on the item you want, and no scrolling is involved. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Visions (Magic: The Gathering)]] 

message: We don't need an article on every expansion set.  There's only a few sentences of encyclopedic information in each of these.  Doing it by block would be better. pbp 20:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, you should be bold and do a merger for every block. If you don't do it all in one fell swoop, others will undo your work, because it appears that things need "their own page." But I would allow for symbols of each expansion to be pictured. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Weatherlight]] 

message: A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion
Talk:Trunko

message: There was also supposed to be a story from China about a Trunko like carcass that washed up on a beach there recently.
Link: http://www.china.org.cn/english/Life/136739.htm
Sounds like it might have been an albino elephant seal.  Gentaur 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

message: I can't explain it being seen alive, but the carcass is a near-perfect description of a decayed basking shark (the gills and flesh of the head fall off leaving a long "neck" or "trunk", the muscle fibers become "fur").  The carcasses are sometimes called pseudoplesiosaurs because they have sometimes been mistaken for plesiosaurs by cryptozoologists.
:This would be a far more convincing explanation if the creature hadn't first been seen, apparently alive, doing battle with orcas.  Also, the one reported by the Pennsylvania newspaper (where was this sighting?  The town where that newspaper is located is in southwestern Pennsylvania, far from from the coast) was reported to have swam off again, after seemingly recuperating on the beach.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basking shark? 

message: When I get time I can add to it. I have some pictures in a book about South African tales. I want to point out what might be a problem, from the account I heard it was Sperm whales,and according to my knowledge Killer whales are rarely seen in South African waters. It could be a lost in translation scenario.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.213.212.37 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: Karl Shuker has recently posted a purported photograph of the carcass on his blog. His conclusion - dead whale (no real surprise there).71.161.233.214 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an interview with Hemmler. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph
Talk:Urza's Saga

message: This set broke magic, with more cards banned than any before at that point. Many cards and people were responsible. Shouldn't their me a mention how this set ruined pro-tours that year due to the broken cards?
The set was a learning lesson for development after they made such a huge mistake, that's fact and Mark Rosewater and others have reported it many times, yet why is it not apart of the article?
As an encyclopaedia wiki does a poor job due to too many people stopping each other. Find the word encyclopaedia in the dictionary, it may help to understand its point. I put so much effort into this last year and now its a shell of its former self due to people who don't even play the game. How sad. 82.3.48.129 (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sets importance to magic
Talk:Invasion (Magic: The Gathering)

message: A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion
Talk:Planeshift (Magic: The Gathering)

message: I'm not a deletionist, but this seems to be a very small topic.  Determine whether this should be fleshed out and do so, or work this material into a parent article and then delete.  IMHO (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you an admin? --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge or expand
Talk:Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering)

message: A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion
Talk:Onslaught (Magic: The Gathering)

message: A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion
Talk:Mirrodin

message: After reading this section I unpacked my Mirrodin cards. I don't see any difference between the artifacts from Mirrodin and 5th Dawn. Could this have been limited to a specific area, or one particular batch of cards?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.145 (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set history 

message: Is it notable to reference the Mirrodin Pure trademark? Or should we wait until there is more info? 24.19.97.37 (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirrodin Pure? 

message: A nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 16#Category:Magic: The Gathering blocks to merge Magic categories back to blocks from sets. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic categories to be merged back to block structure discussion
Talk:Darksteel

message: I think the thing about Darksteel Collosus is wrong. I remeber a card, Krosan Cloudchaser, or something for the like, being a 13/13. Maybe someone should change that to 3rd then. 
216.250.13.49 20:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: At present, we have articles on every Magic the Gathering expansion, core set or reprint.  Most of these articles are written in very in-universe language, with little or no sourcing aside of Wizards of the Coast-related websites.  Much of the infomation in these articles would be better served at [mtgsalvationwiki.com] or another Wikia-type site, rather than here.  Therefore, I propose that second, third, and fourth sets in a block be merged with the first set in a block, i.e. Darksteel and Fifth Dawn would be merged with Mirrodin; Morningtide, Shadowmoor and Eventide would be merged into Lorwyn.  Thoughts? pbp 23:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Articles on every set?
Talk:Champions of Kamigawa

message: Kamigawa had a lot of references to Legendary subtypes and creatures, even having a cycle of lands that supported legendary creatures. The Legendary count went up to 132, more than twice the number of any other set (Time Spiral "only" had 53).  Should this be mentioned? 122.106.222.64 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set "theme"
Talk:Portal – Three Kingdoms

message: According to its official page, this set's name is Portal Three Kingdoms, without a colon.  I also note that Portal Three Kingdoms is currently a redlink.  -- Grev 09:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Redlink? Not anymore! I fixed it. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 03:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title?
Talk:Monte Viso

message: I never once in my life (I'm 44) heard anybody call the mountain "Monte Viso". It's always been called "Monviso" and if a "Monte Viso" variant exists it's certainly secondary so this page should be called "Monviso". The article in Italian on this mountain is predominantly using "Monviso".
ICE77 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never heard of "Monte Viso"