lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Cyril Scott

message: Beware the "so far"- so far, Chandos has released several of the symphonies and piano concertos- so far should be "as of (date of writing)" :) Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: thank you to whoever wrote this article, it was great to be able to learn about cyril scott.
to improve it i pose a couple questions...
are statements like 'which one can only deplore' appropriate for wikipedia?
the assessments of his poetry, eg 'vacuous' appear to be opinion, are there references for this? i mean, it might be true but it sounds like the opinion of whoever wrote the article.
cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.5.238 (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole "music" section should be deleted and replaced with material from published sources. 173.247.191.211 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  opinion? 

message: Why does this entry make absolutely no mention of his lunatic writings about quack medicine and the paranormal? Not to mention his dubious views on the sexuality of children.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.21.91 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crackpot Activities 

message: Please explain or expand the trade or profession of 'shipper'. Was he connected with maritime transport, or an exporter of goods? Or what? 124.150.81.3 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shipper? 

message: This article is completely inadequate. This man lived for over 90 years and was writing music up into the 1960s, yet the latest date in the biography section is 1903. And the ONLY work mentioned in the music section is from 1909. His music has been revived quite often since his death and he has pretty much regained his status as the significant composer that he appeared to Debussy to be. 
This was a case where somebody wrote a lengthy article with lots of info, but did not source it correctly, so, one of the gatekeeper editors who are ever watchful for a missing reference but completely indifferent to quality or content came in and deleted material before it could be re-edited with proper references. The original writer should source his or her original text which was considerably better than this colorless stub of an article that we have now. Pascalulu88 (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography
Talk:Ftn (TV channel)

message: Shouldn't QNL have its own page instead of taking up all of Ftn's? In my opinion it should have its own seperate article with more information. I don't see how an endemol produced quiz show with complaints to Ofcom has got anything to do with Ftn, as they do not run the programme. It should be breifly mentioned on the Ftn article with links to its own page. -- QC06 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quiz Night Live

message: What is this QuizLive programme that keeps being placed into the article? A search on Google brings up nothing relevant to Ftn and the schedules for Ftn on the Radio Times website shows that Quiz Night Live broadcasts on a Saturday night, this stuff really needs deleting with a rocket launcher! --tgheretford (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, as it is considered a hoax and vandalism with no chance of it ever being verified, I'll treat it as vandalism as per guidelines and revert it. --tgheretford (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section keeps being added, rather than end up in an edit war, is there anyway that I can deal with this untrue information consistenly being placed into the article? --tgheretford (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to revert the last change regardless, but no doubt this hoax will just keep being added back again and again --tgheretford (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Answers.com rips half of its content from Wikipedia. - Lee Stanley 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  QuizLive - what the..? 

message: Due to persistent hoax vandalism from a variable IP address this page is semi-protected. Durova 20:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Ftn mixes gritty reality, celebrity gossip, full on talk, hard hitting drama, and real life fly on the wall documentaries, although its most well-known shows are a selection of Most Haunted, Street Crime UK, The L Word and The Crystal Maze.
Is this paragraph necessary? Aside from the fact that it reads like an advert, all it seems to be doing is adding a few bytes to the article. Delete or rewrite? Rubberkeith 16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ftn claims to "mix gritty reality, celebrity gossip, full on talk, hard hitting drama, and real life fly on the wall documentaries", although its most well-known shows are a selection of Most Haunted, Street Crime UK, The L Word and The Crystal Maze.
Its just a direct quote from the Flextech website, just needs editing like the above /Marbles 16:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like an ad... 

message: I think this article needs an expansion and a rewrite, anyone wanna help me? ViperSnake151 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to find anything to expand the article is something of a struggle, I think there is more in this article than I can find via Google! One thing I do need to say, as it goes against WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR, the programme list needs to be converted to prose or be removed. --tgheretford (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite time
Talk:Test Stand VII

message: Who called it "arena" — the Germans, or Allied intelligence? Should it be capitalized? Also, can someone interpret the bit about the bombing damage? (Does it mean that the damage was cleared and testing restarted in Nov '44? Did the massive '43 air raid mentioned in the Peenemünde article also damage it? Is someone confusing the two air raids?) Finally, is "close-in television" supposed to mean "closed circuit television"? Please help with the cleanup. — B.Bryant 21:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've just assessed this article as B-class. The only thing it was missing was structure, so I split it into three sections with logical titles, and then passed it as B-class. Comments and corrections welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessed as B-class 

message: The aerial photographs of Test Stand (Pruefstand) VII cannot be correctly titled. The stand appears heavily damaged on 12th June 1943 and in perfect working order on 23rd June 1943. Either they are not showing the same Test Stand or the captions are incorrect.
188.223.182.41 (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerial Photo Query 

message: The aerial photographs of Test Stand (Pruefstand) VII cannot be correctly titled. The stand appears heavily damaged on 12th June 1943 and in perfect working order on 23rd June 1943. Either they are not showing the same Test Stand or the captions are incorrect.
188.223.182.41 (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerial Photo Query 

message: The quote uses imperial units, like feet and yards. Since Dornberger was German it's pretty unlikely he used them in 1943. Although the text is of course translated measurements shouldn't be converted. --StYxXx (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch Description 
Talk:Province of Ourense

message: Now, the Castillian name is also Ourense
--134.212.178.10 21:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a section that can hopefully clear this up a little bit, although it goes by Spanish language standards and not English language stands. Not sure if that even matters.--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Thomas Crapper

message: thomas crapper was one of the inventers of the toilet 142.227.81.157 (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2020 

message: * The cited book "Flushed with Pride" is a fictional work written by a humorist. --Dystopos (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Reyburn

message: I would like the date that Simon Kirby acquired Crapper & Co to be listed on the Wikipedia page. The year was 1999 when 
Kirby bought the business as shown in the Crapper & Co website: https://thomas-crapper.com/cool_timeline/1999/ Mochaboi (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023 

message: Please correct the year of marriage to Maria from 1837 to 1860. 1837 was her date of birth. 80.189.232.176 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2024
Talk:Wang Gungwu

message: It seems odd that there's no mention of this prize (actually three prizes every year), which is funded by a large donation from Professor Wang. 90.197.127.165 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wang Gungwu Prize

message: I have resumed the tidy-up of the Bibliography section (which I began in 2009, but have long neglected):
* Cite templates will be used where possible.
* I prefer capitalization and punctuation to follow the standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, rather than "title case".
* Links (either direct or indirect) to potentially unreliable or incomplete digitised copies and to booksellers may be removed. 
This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sunwin1960 For a prolific writer/author, perhaps we should do a selected listing of important or highly cited works only. Currently the bibliography is longer than the article about him. A curated listing will benefit the reader as well, instead of having a long list of every single work which a reader might just skip it. Thanks. JASWE (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  I have created a separate Bibliography article for him.  The Bibliography section in his main article can now be culled. Sunwin1960 (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sunwin1960 Thank you for the split into another article! JASWE (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography
Talk:Lawrence Lindsey

message: Unwikified. I abstain on whether the article has merit to remain on wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft 22:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: When lindsey tried to be truthful as possible about the cost of the Iraq war, he was beaten into submission and shown the door with a boot at this behind. So much for truth in government. I applaud him for speaking the truth..regardless of cost. Nice to know that principle stiil counts for some in Washinton. You will be missed!--Ozymandius2 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The truth shall set you free. 

message: This article should be merged with the Lawrence Lindsay article - they're the same person. I propose that that article be merged into this one, as this is the correct spelling and form of his name. The two articles both have comments, and independent content and links, so careful thought would need to be given to format. (I noticed this as I was researching for a blog article)
: Merged the two articles. (The previous comment was also lodged by myself - sorry for lack of attribution!) Orderinchaos78 06:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved to Lawrence Lindsey. Consensus on the alternate title.  – robertsky (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawrence B. Lindsey →  – WP:COMMONNAME. Lawrence Lindsey would also work but most people seem to call him Larry. Either way, the middle initial is not necessary for disambiguation (both already redirect to Lawrence B. Lindsey). –CWenger (^ • @) 16:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

text: *Oppose. Looking at several RSs in the article (not to mention his own books), he seems to be consistently referred to as Lawrence.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

text: *:@Rja13ww33: Agreed Larry might not be warranted but I assume you would agree with getting rid of the middle initial? –CWenger (^ • @) 16:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

text: *::That would make sense.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 December 2023
Talk:Extension cord

message: The reference for coiled cords causing fires is now gone from the government safety tips. Reference 7
It seemed like an urban myth based on magnetic coils doing magic. The simple truth is overloaded and hot cords when piled or coiled together make more heat and thus possible fire and most fires involving cords are due to damage or overloading. A coiled wire used under a light load and not heating up is not an increased fire hazard as far as I can see.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.63.166 (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Coiled

message: Why shouldn't this article be renamed "extension cord"? Out of What links here, 9 of 15 links involve AC mains power cords, not computer cables. There is clearly an important distinction, so perhaps such cables deserve their own article, having little to do with AC mains.  Lupinelawyer 22:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, "extension cord" is used almost EXCLUSIVELY for AC mains, and "extender cable" refers to anything else. Technically, the electrical term "Power cable" includes less-flexible cable (e.g., building wiring), and "cord" refers exclusively to flexible cable. Since extension cables are always flexible, the term "extension cord" seems less ambiguous, and preserves "extension cable" to jurisdictions other than those dealing in electrical mains. Lupinelawyer 23:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm also in the uk and in my experiance the term extention lead is almost always used. Plugwash 23:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "However most European extension cables now include an automatic current cut-out to avoid misuse of the cable"
this is only true for reel types in UK. The more common reel-less leads dont incorporate these thermal trips.
Tabby (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutouts

message: I added some information and references on US extention cord specifications and standards to the "Restrictions" section.  It's very US centric, so please apply wiki magic as necessary. Bosef1 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Extension Cord Specs 

message: We need a reliable source for the statement that manufacturers (Woods and others) are adopting the standard. Ideally that would be an industry news piece. I can find manufacturers who claim compliance but primary sources like that are not reliable. Jojalozzo 20:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see how extension cords are special in this regard. Any manufacturer who wants to sell electrical equipment legally in the EU nowadays has to comply with ROHS. Plugwash (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RoHS compliance
Talk:TriStar Pictures

message: This article is so muddled it's difficult to discern even basic information from it. For example: Was Tri-Star's first release The Muppets Take Manhattan, The Natural or Where the Boys Are '84? The structure is confusing and the discussion of certain elements in different sections with different information (e.g. Tri-Star's relationship with CarolCo) makes the article difficult to follow. Relatively minor elements have entire paragraphs to explain them while major developments are breezed over in a sentence. Seemingly unrelated topics are combined into paragraphs with no indication of how they are related. Even the category tags are confusing: Why is it tagged as both Mass Media Companies Started in 1982 and Mass Media Companies Started in 2004?
Tri-Star was a fairly large presence in the entertainment world in the 1980's and 1990's. Surely there is enough information out there about them to create an entry more coherent than this? Viciouslies (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Work 

message: Thank you. I'm importing you. 2601:181:401:49B0:845:3119:46A2:A07A (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be rewritten.
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert Blair/Evidence

message: Most of the things that Jakew provided evidence of Robert Blair doing Jakew also did in the same articles during the same timeframe.  That has not been addressed yet.  Here are two examples.
* Jakew deleted the discussion of studies by O'Hara and Bensley from Medical analysis of circumcision
* Jakew deleted the discussion of studies Shen, Senkul, O'Hara and Bensley from the same article
I will present these and other examples on the Evidence page if requested. -- DanBlackham 23:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jakew did the most of the same things
Talk:KTXT-FM

message: This page needs extensive cleanup, the sections mark no sense and huge photos have no place in the middle of page. I will make it for cleanup and start cleaning up when I get the chance. --MarkRomero 20:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The Southwest Collection / Special Collection Library on the Texas Tech Campus has the records for both KTXT-FM and KTXT-TV dating as far back as 1957. This is probably a good place to get the history of the stations, as it appears that the majority of the information available is from the stations themselves. For more information check out this page  --MarkRomero (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Material 
Talk:Averroes's Search

message: The remark on Gould is very cryptic. What did Gould describe as an idola fori? The piece itself? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:18, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ulrich kinbote (talk • contribs) 27 July 2006.
Given that two of us cannot understand it, I've brought it here: "The paleontologist and essayist Stephen Jay Gould has commented on this Borges story, citing it as an example of Francis Bacon's idola fori or idol of the marketplace, noting that Borges was familiar with and admired Bacon's works." If anyone knows what this is about, can explain it better, and thinks it is relevant, please write a clear version in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gould
Talk:Barriss Offee

message: Anyone seriously interested in improving the article should consider adding some real world related info, e.g. regarding the concept, creation, and/or function of the character within the Star Wars narrative etc. Please consult our writing about fiction guideline, which also includes a list of exemplary articles.
There are currently three featured articles on Star Wars characters: Palpatine, Padmé Amidala, and Jabba the Hutt. What sets them aside from most of the other SW character articles is the effort to write from the real world perspective. Pay particular attention to paragraphs like Jabba the Hutt#Concept and creation, Palpatine#Concept and creation, and Padmé Amidala#Characterization.
Also take a look at Darth Vader, which despite its lack of reliable, published third-party secondary sources features interesting sections on e.g. #Character creation and concepts and Darth Vader as a #Cultural figure.
Even though reliable sources may be tough to come up with, any effort to introduce coherently written real world aspects will be greatly appreciated, because it contributes to the depth of the article and accurate coverage of the topic, and thereby makes for an improved reading experience and increases the encyclopedic value of the article.
—AldeBaer 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-universe
Talk:Pitchfork (website)

message: Over the last couple of weeks, I have completely rewritten and expanded this page. The one area I'm unsure about what to do with is the lists (albums of the year, song of the year, etc). 
* Is this article the right place for these lists? Does it put us in danger of turning the article into an indiscriminate list of stuff? I have no strong feeling here.
* I'm particularly unsure of the list of "albums rated 10 on release". It feels like a slightly arbitrary criteria that might be WP:UNDUE and depends entirely on going to Pitchfork and counting the articles, without another secondary source to demonstrate why we care about albums rated 10 on release.
Any opinions please, I'm all ears. Popcornfud (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I support removal. To me, it feels inappropriate to list. That feels like the sort of info Pitchfork should host, not an encyclopedia. But it could also be that I'm missing something too - it's not the first time I've witnessed lists like this on website articles (albeit I don't recall seeing it on articles that were actually in decent shape.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Let's remove the list of perfect 10 ratings. No WP:SECONDARY source discusses this aspect. The list itself was first added in 2010 by a Philadelphia IP editor, completely lacking a source. The primary sourcing does not show significance of this concept. Adding a bunch of sources together to imply a larger concept is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this has persuaded me that the 10.00 list at least is inappropriate, so I'll go ahead and remove that for a start. Thanks. Will wait for more opinions before removing any more. Popcornfud (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I have gone ahead and removed the other lists. Popcornfud (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists
Talk:A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again

message: 'Tour de Force'?  I think that phrase is more befitting a newspaper review.
I can't see any reason to include a footnoted definition of "bravura."  If it's intended to mimic Wallace's footnotes, such stylistic shenanigans aren't suited for an enyclopedia.  Footnoted definitions of words are not a convention of Wikipedia.  I'll cut it--please make a case here before restoring it (again).  BTfromLA 23:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It helps illustrate the point of the text. If you disagree further we will take it to request for comment. Stbalbach 03:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think the 1913 definition really does help to make a point clear; I'd be interested in the comments of others, though I don't want to make a big deal of it.  If your goal is to illustrate the tone or style of his writing, why not include an excerpt that has a footnote (or a footnote with a footnote), rather than engage in imitation?   BTfromLA 05:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Gary Scavone

message: On 28 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion.  The result was keep.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gary Scavone for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 23:30, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Furthermore, there were no votes to delete (some to merge).  For that reason I have removed the  tag. Chick Bowen 07:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: from Vfd