lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Submarine-launched missile

message: Until we have more than a couple of See also items, the standard way of doing it seems to be just to put that(/those) link(s) on a separate line. However, I moved that line up to right below the stub text itself (instead of below the 'List of stuff' section); that's more immediately accessible, I think/hope. --Wernher 23:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No separate ''See also'' section for one link
Talk:Giovanni Antonio, count Capo d'Istria

message: The sentence which reads:
:"The murder of the Russian agent, Kotzebue, in March, had shaken but not destroyed Alexander's liberalism..."
However, Kotzebue links to a disambig page, and I am not clear as to if it refers to one of the Kotzebues we have articles for.
Can you clarify?  Kevyn 23:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kotzebue?
Talk:AC power plugs and sockets

message: This section looks very OR-ish to to me and lacks any sources. I can confirm that those plugs existed in the USSR and also were unreliable and dangerous. However this style of plug is in no way unique to the Soviet Union. It is called piggyback plug. This style of plug was much more common in the yesteryear when power outlets were often in scarce around average household(1). Such plugs still exist today - see this Type E version can is sold in Poland(2). It appears that these days they are most prominent in New Zealand where they are often featured on extension cords and power strips among other things(3). Google image search also indicates that USA Type B version of such plugs does at least exist.
1. https://www.plugsocketmuseum.nl/ContEUR_multiPlugs.html
2. https://www.plugsocketmuseum.nl/French1.html
3. https://www.mattmillman.com/omg-its-a-uk-bs1363-piggyback-plug/
schmalter // 92.124.22.95 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet adaptor plugs 

message: Technically the standard allows 10/15/20/25 and 32A connections. 10 is by far the most common, especially domestically, but 15 is reasonably common with most households having one of these for a stove or pool or larger aircon. 20A is also not hard to find, though less common domestically. 115.64.232.253 (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ratings for aus/nz plugs 

message: hi, I didn't see anything about how peruvian Outlets combine type a and c plugs, see articles and pictures. https://howtoperu.com/electricity-and-plugs-in-peru/
Is there any way to add this? 184.148.163.85 (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peruvian Outlets
Talk:Water dog

message: In this sentence: Strong swimming desire is distinctive within the various breeds. did you mean to say that the swimming desire was instinctive, or that it was a distinctive feature of these breeds?  Bit of both?  Something entirely different?  Quill 01:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd use 'instinctive' unless you mean to imply that it's a distinguishing feature in water dogs that isn't present in other breeds  Quill 09:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Hi.  I came across this page after hitting Random. Just wondering, is this page really still a stub? I'm sure the regular editors/watchers of doggie articles can answer this better than I can. My instinct is to de-stub it, though. cheers. pfctdayelise 14:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should be de-stubbed.  When I created it, I was hoping some others might include more about water dog training, and some action shots of water dog breeds at work.  I can appreciate the addition of the image, (nice looking Poodle, BTW), but it might make more sense to have one of a dog that is actually around water, since the article is about water dogs.  I have [this] one, but in my opinion a better photograph would be one of a water dog actually jumping or swimming in water.The Dogfather 18:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a stub?

message: I deleted the Bedlington Terrier and the Puli. The first's wiki page and an internet search do not mention water work at all. The Puli wiki page specifically says they were NOT water dogs. 
67.160.138.240 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations
Talk:Alfred North Whitehead

message: This edit removed the very interesting comment giving Victor Lowe's opinion: "His childhood was described as over-protected", with the edit cover note "Correct POV".
Sad to say I don't have access to volume I of Victor Lowe's book, so I cannot criticise Lowe's comment.
But it seems to me to seriously detract from the article that Lowe's comment be removed. A man of such extraordinary virtue and great character as Whitehead is of great interest. Any inkling of his childhood would be of great interest. I don't know, even if it is possible to know, what policy of Wikipedia has to say along the lines of "POV" as applied to this particular case. My feeling is that removal of the comment is over-zealous or officious policy application.
Thoughts?Chjoaygame (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of so-called 'POV' over- zealous 

message: Having just finished Process and Reality, I notice how influenced Whitehead is by Descartes.  This manifests itself in many ways, not least his mission to develop a system that does away with the original Cartesian subject-object dichotomy. Given such, I was thinking it would be highly relevant to include Descartes in Whitehead's list of influences. The rest seem to be there (Hume, Locke, Kant, Bergson, ...), and it seems the addition of Descartes would complete this picture. 62.28.166.121 (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The influences of Whitehead
Category talk:World War II military aircraft

message: The text for this category says "These are articles related to aircraft of World War II." which is rather vague.  I propose that we change it to "This category is for articles about aircraft that saw service in World War II." and then apply that inclusion criterion.  The main effect of this would be to remove articles about aircraft that had not progressed beyond design/experiment/prototype at the end of the war (e.g. de Havilland Vampire).  Such articles should still be in a country-role-decade category and/or an abandoned projects category (example) - as well as in any relevant lists (example).
In some cases this will result in most or all of the articles in a category being removed from the category). Note: ultimately this category tree should either be fully brought into the aircraft categorization scheme or replaced by lists/templates; this change would be a step towards either of those objectives. Please let me know whether you agree or disagree. DexDor (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont have a problem with your change as it makes the category more specific, as it is one of the last aircraft by war/campaign cats left it may make it more useful and more importantly differently from the decade cats. MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to tighten up inclusion criteria
Talk:Party game

message: Anyone think we should ditch the list of games, and simply point people to the "Party Games" category? BeakerK44 02:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a paragraph on what a party game is, plus the section for children's party games.  Also there are links to articles not yet created, which a category page doesn't have, right?  In the future there may be more such meta information added, and even now it is slightly more than just "List of Party Games".  I would vote to keep the list rather than linking to the category, but maybe it is the new convention to replace all lists with categories. --Fritzlein 06:59, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to keep this article, but I think the :Category:Party games (not Party Games) is valid. Once all the party game articles are linked to the category, we'll see where we stand. -- Netoholic 23:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: I'm not sure if the edit by the IP address was vandalism or not, so I just undid my own edit and removed my warning from the IP address' talk page. I'll let someone else determine if it's vandalism or not. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party game. 

message: the results this time are not very good..the highest is very high but the number of students this time are'nt that high..the highest in girls is 97.4% while in boys is 98.something..
we only have the results of queen mary school
the highest is khushboo gala with a very high 97%
mumbai is proud to have her
after that is akanksha and then mallika..all  of them above a 95%..
apart from studies these girls are very brilliant and impressive and evn look very nice..
we are proud of this school..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.190.218 (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICSE BOARD results
Talk:−40 (number)

message: Should this really have its own article?  Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numbers suggests that facts about -N should be mentioned on the page for +N.  And this is a particularly short and stubby article. 4pq1injbok 02:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable ? 

message: I just did some real work. Superm401 03:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't 

message: My understanding is that rather than reading "Minus Forty", it should read "Negative Forty" since minus is a binary operator and negative is a unary operator.  "Minus forty" is certainly dominant in common usage, but I believe it to be incorrect.  Anyone?  Macho Philipovich 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minus/Negative 

message: Firstly, see WP:NUM, and secondly, see WP:1729. Having only 1 interesting property (which is already duplicated at Fahrenheit) is not enough for -40 to merit a separate article (and besides, the style of writing is very unencyclopedic). I think this should be merged with 40 (number). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged (it was even already duplicated at 40 (number)). Negative numbers are usually just not notable enough (the exception probably being -1). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge (2011) 
Talk:Mermaid

message: In the article it says  "mod. German "meerweib"". I believe this is are rare and obsolete word. The usual modern word for mermaid is Meerjungfrau. --JonValkenberg (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly archaic, but it's in Cassell's (though not in Wiktionary or the German Wikipedia article), defined as "mermaid or siren".  Cassell's also lists the diminutive Meerweibchen.  Books of or about folklore often use older or archaic terms.  It might be a good idea to make sure both (or all three) terms are included, since readers might encounter any of them.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  modern German? 

message: Request change:
"Although traditions about and sightings of mermen are less common than those of mermaids, they are generally assumed to co-exist with their female counterparts."
to 
"Although traditions about and alleged sightings of mermen are less common than those of mermaids, they are in folklore assumed to co-exist with their female counterparts."
(existing text is written as if sightings and existence are actual fact) 2A00:23C8:7B0C:9A01:7CE5:FD55:FD59:E88 (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I used "reported" rather than "alleged", however. —ADavidB 00:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024
Wikipedia talk:List of lists/uncategorized

message: Table of Ranks is not a table of ranks, it's an article about a(n) historical thing called the Table of Ranks. I'm not sure how to deal with such "misunderstandings" in this list, since it's (apparently) auto-generated. - dcljr 00:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really an uncategorized list/table 

message: This is a redirect to Aeromexico destinations which is included in :Category:Airline destinations which has a ton of xx destinations pages, none of which are in a Lists category.  I put :Category:Airline destinations in :Category:Transportation lists so I don't think there is any need to give them all Lists categories.  So how do we get this one out of the list?  Could someone change the criteria to exclude Redirects?  --JeffW 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Aeromexico destinations 

message: Hi all, I'm working on the Wikipedia:Orphaned_Articles. Very few seem to be listed on this project page. There about 170+ here. Before I move any over I'm going to make sure they are not orphaned.
My reason now for posting is to make sure the transistion goes smoothly. Any pointers or help beyond Wikipedia:List_of_lists/uncategorized/How_to_update would be nice. (This page is on my watchlist) meatclerk 07:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From looking at some of the 170 articles you mentioned, they (or the most of them) already are categorised in :Category:Lists and it's subcategories. So they don't really seem to belong here. Garion96 (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Lists to process

message: List of trains in films has been moved to List of films featuring trains, which is in :Category:Lists of films, subcategory of :Category:Arts-related lists, subcategory of :Category:Lists. So instead of resorting it, I removed it completely from the list. Hoverfish Talk 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  renamed list
Talk:Zombies Ate My Neighbors

message: "Dark Adventure", an 1987 arcade game by Konami, preceded and was very similar to Zombies Ate My Neighbors in terms of gameplay and ironically featured an unofficial clone of Indiana Jones. Check the related wiki article.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:208:4130:9C10:6B5B:70D4:816E (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark Adventure by KONAMI (1987)

message: Why isn't the huge baby mentioned in the enemy/semi-boss list? Jraregris 17:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The huge baby is missing!

message: It even says so on the top of the page. The enemy descriptions should be shortened. I will probably do so later. This is an encylopedia site; not a game strategy site. We don't need to hear about every move an enemy has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamstillhiro1112 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The page is a mess...

message: I recently heard Blizzard Entertainment bought the rights to this game from a member of the Something Awful forums. He said it was confirmed, but I haven't been able to find anything regarding it while searching Google. Etni3s 02:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rights bought by Blizzard Entertainment?

message: I noticed the giant ant enemy is mentioned in this regard:
Old movies like "Empire of the ants"(1977) inspired these enemies---when giant insects result of nuclear waste contamination was a popular theme.
I'd say it's just as likely these ants were inspired by the original "nuclear giant ant" movie, "Them!" from 1954. Jodamn 20:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Giant ants

message: Something interesting I will use later. EVAUNIT神の人間の殺害者 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: AUS
Talk:Durex

message: Is the word durex really classed as a portmanteau?  Isn't it an acronym? 86.10.86.139 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is

message: : "Durex condoms represent around one quarter of the global market for prophylactic sheathes, manufacturing around one trillion units per year in 17 factories worldwide"
That number sounds high to me.  A total of four trillion condoms a year is more than a thousand for each male, of any age.  Should that be "around one billion" (but that sounds far too low)? Molinari 04:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about manufacturing volume

message: If there are six billion people (average) in the world, three billion of them must be male. So actually, a quarter of three billion is more than four trillion. Also, all the condoms that are produced and put to market may not all be sold.
: How is a quarter of 3 billion more than 4 trillion? A trillion is one thousand times a billion. So indeed, if one trillion condoms a year are a quarter of the entire global condom production, that would mean that more than one thousand condoms are produced for every single male in the entire world. That seems to be quite a lot. And initially, the article said "one billion" until this anonymous edit:
:09:07, 6 February 2006 66.243.238.209
:Now I have changed it back. Of course, if Durex production is one billion condoms a year that yields an overall production of 4 billions condoms, or 1,3 condoms for a male per year, which seems to be very small, but I guess it could be realistic, since condom use is much wider spread in the developed world than in the rest of the world. Blur4760 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion re: manufacturing volume 

message: I tried to get the Template:Infobox_Brand to work, but it looked green and hideous... Maybe someone with more skill than me could figure it out... --Tomhannen 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Infobox_Brand should be fixed now--DataSurfer 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox ?? 

message: The recent edits did cite www.information-condom-source.com/Durex.asp as a source, however this does not justify copying word-for-word from this source.  Further, this is not a reliable source, so it shouldn't be used. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits and copyvio

message: From the recent edits
*Four USA Today articles on Durex
*Coverage on Durex growth across the sexual landscape
--Ronz (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential refs

message: 'In August 2007, Durex announced that it expected to launch a new line' - Well; did it launch them? Or not? Is this useful info any more? --82.70.156.254 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pondering the same thing. 80.223.182.224 (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of date?

message: The brand links here and there is a short reference, but is there a current status on the line?  It might be worth adding. Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 01:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status of Ramses brand?
Talk:Joel Minnick Longenecker

message: Looking for my original sources on this, will add ASAP.
::In a secondary case related to the Cronin case, a leader of the Clan-A-Gael group appealed his jury-packing conviction, and in the appeal, the plaintiff in error, was convicted in April 1890 of conspiracy to pack a jury favorable to the defendants upon the charge of murder of Cronin.
Cheers, C. Richard Cryer 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing uncited secondary jury-packing case until proper research is done 

message: *Cronin's Bitter Enemies New York Times May 24, 1889. P.1
*Result In The Cronin Case New York Times December 17, 1889. P.1  
*Cronin Murder Unsolved New York Times March 11, 1894. P.17
Caltrop 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storing unlinked references here for the time being, removed from article. 
Talk:General Electric Theater

message: GE's The Incredible Jewel Robbery (March 8th 1959) was the last film appearance together of the Marx Brothers although only Chico and Harpo are billed. Groucho appears unbilled as he was contraced to a rival network at the time (with You Bet Your Life). MBG 119.11.19.129 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Incredible Jewel Robbery

message: The long quote concerning the TVA is definitely not from this famous speech. I couldn't find the actual source, but reading the transcript or watching the video footage (available from the source link or the Reagan Library website) will verify this fact. It's true that the "Time for choosing" speech did catapult his political career and that it certainly did contain government criticism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.122.112 (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quote is not from Reagan's "Time for choosing" speech 

message: The sidebar lists the program as having had 302 episodes, but the main text of the article lists 209 and 208 as the numbers in two different places. IMDB here:
* https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045395/
seems to support the two hundred episodes estimate. As does the two citations listed in the article write up.  So how many were there?  Do we know if it was more, but maybe only some 200 survive, or was it only 208 or 208?    If anyone knows for sure, please update the article accordingly.  David Reiss (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Episodes
Talk:New Town, Tasmania

message: I plan to do some major updates tomorrow.  I'll give this article a go as well.  --Chuq 05:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the interest of accuracy I have linked new locality articles to all of their constituent LGAs regardless of the size of each portion, so far with no complaint from anyone. I recently identified about 40 existing articles with no link to their minor constituent LGAs, including this one, and commenced to make the links. If you are not happy with this approach please organise a discussion in a suitable place rather than reverting individual changes without reference to the facts as available in the List of localities in Tasmania. Regards, Downsize43 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not seeing any references supporting New Town being in Glenorchy. If there is only a tiny bit, it would be better to explain in text, rather than a misleading statement in the infobox. I assume your data comes from here: https://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map?layout-options=LAYER_LIST_OPEN&cpoint=147.43,-42.85,10000&srs=EPSG:4283&bmlayer=3&layers=149. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Localities with a small portion in another LGA
Talk:United States Department of Energy

message: The budget section here is significantly outdated and I question the value of even including it without updates. I'm a DOE employee and so won't make updates. The latest DOE budget proposal can be found at https://energy.gov/cj (where CJ stands for congressional justification), which will redirect to a page specific to the fiscal year of the most recent budget. Prior year budgets can be found by just changing the fiscal year in the URL that the CJ link redirects to. Within the budget page, the Budget in Brief file presents an overview of the Department's budget, with both tables and (relatively) short narratives. Other files on the site go into more detail. 
The last paragraph in the budget section starts out saying "In March 2018, Energy Secretary Rick Perry testified to a Senate panel" and later has some quoted text that seems to me to imply it is quoting something Perry said at the hearing, but looking at the citation, the quote is from the article's summary of the budget request and not from Perry (and to my mind, it is at best a poorly written summary, since starting a new office is not, in itself, an innovation). I think showing it as a quote is misleading. The hearing transcript is at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg29771/pdf/CHRG-115shrg29771.pdf, if anyone wanted to confirm whether Perry did say it. —Salton Finneger (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget