lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:County Judge/Executive

message: Support: Although I believe the spelling with the slash is used in the Kentucky Constitution, I see the one with the hyphen used more often. Regardless, we only need one article. Acdixon 15:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably should go with the one in the Constitution, as that should be considered the most trustworthy source on this matter. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess you're right. I've performed the merge. Acdixon 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from County Judge/Executive 

message: Drugs and alcohol in jail 50.25.59.45 (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drugs and alcohol  think you in jail
Talk:In-group and out-group

message: Outgroup is presently an article on classifying species, IMO an odd choice since the soc'y term is IIRC older than the whole cladistics approach, and IMO far better recognized than the bio term. Those interested in the accompanying article may want to offer evidence at talk:Outgroup#Primary topic? talk:Outgroup (cladistics)#Primary topic?.--Jerzy•t 00:27, 17 & 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Outgroup" be a DAB or redir rather than a cladistics article? 

message: The paragraph on group homogeneity vaguely described different effects of group homogeneity, without giving reference to the names of these phenomenas.  In an effort to improve the clarity of this paragraph, I altered the paragraph, by replacing some of the content, to clearly include the name and a short description of the two effects of group homogeneity  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islahay (talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited the content for group homogeneity 

message: There has been extensive research on the topic of outgroup derogation, yet the topic has not been covered anywhere on Wikipedia. As this phenomena accompanies ingroup favoritism, a topic that is extensively covered on Wikipedia, I have added outgroup derogation to the Wikipedia page in order to improve the thoroughness of the ingroups and outgroups page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islahay (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added outgroup derogation 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 25#Neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by AngeAri (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23
Talk:Harderbahn

message: moved from my talk page. -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you point to something problematic, and posibly wrong aspects. There are two types of funiculars in English: cog railways and the ones Harderbahn is one of. In American English it is even worse, Harderbahn could also be called a cable car, but a cable car can also be an arial tramway. In German it would be obvious: Standseilbahn. And I wanted to make clear that it is not a cog railway, nor a cable car aka arial tramway. Do you have a solution? -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In English, a cog railway is definitely not a type of funicular, they are two quite different types of railway. Although a lot of English speakers probably don't know the difference as there are not that many cog railways or funiculars in the English speaking world. It is a confusion not unknown in Switzerland either; quite a lot of local publications describe the Dolderbahn as a Standseilbahn!. I would simply use the term funicular, as the linked article is quite definite it isn't talking about a cog railway. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I mismatched something, indeed. I changed it back. No, in German there is no confusion possible; the terms are precise. It's either or. The Dolderbahn was actually a Standseilbahn until 1973! Then it became a Zahnradbahn. No surprise, when elderly people still describe it that way ;-) -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  rope funicular
Talk:Restrictions on the import of cryptography

message: This should not be merged with Export of Cryptography, which is almost entirely a discussion of the fight against US restrictions on exporting cryptography.  This article discusses the international situation with regards to taking cryptographic into other countries - something which may have far greater implications for those doing so than people who were battling the US government! Dunxd 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

message: As stated in my note, this is basically speculation and original research, or common sense depending on your point of view. If people feel this violates WP principles, it won't cause me any heartburn if it is deleted or replaced with something better. -Fuzzy (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale 

message: I live in Belarus and haven't yet seen restrictions of cryptography.
Reply to anonymous: Just because the goverment might not be enforcing their own laws - it does not mean they do not exist.
Read this to check  90.177.39.150 (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Red" in Belarus? 

message: There is a definition of Green, but no of Red and Yellow.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vi2 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "Red" and "Yellow"
Talk:Sangrita

message: I completely don't understand why almost every other cocktail has its own Wikipedia page yet Sangrita has been vaguely and confusingly redirected to Cocktail.  Especially considering that it used to have a perfectly good page.  Anyone care to explain?
16:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't understand 

message: I'm new to Wikipedia activity, so help me out here, but I don't like the use of the word "Real" on this page.  To me real is the difference between a  Quarter Horse and a Hobby Horse.  Traditional or Customary would be more appropriate to my thinking.  Perhaps even authentic.  Using Real seems to imply a quality judgment. --Femtorgon (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real 

message: Unless Mexico uses an unusual grammatical structure, it is impossible for "sangrita" to mean "little blood", so I removed it. A word ending in "-e" would need "-cito" or "-cita" added for it to become the diminutive. Thus, hombre becomes "hombrecito" and "sangre" becomes "sangrecita". If a Mexican can correct me, put it back, but I doubt it could be the case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.35.115 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Little Blood" 

message: I've never heard before of using pomegranate juice for sangrita, but asked my mother to clear things up for me, since she was going to Mexico anyway. Well, she's been to a lot of places there (and not just tourist ones) and everywhere she was offered sangrita made of tomato juice. I'm not saying the whole article is BS, but a clarification from a real Mexican would be welcome, even without any reference, just here, on the talk page. 188.134.8.72 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pomegranate vs. tomato 

message: in Jalisco the lack of tomato is even debated but ALL sangrita contains magi sauce, worcestershire and either hot sauce or chili, that seems to be omitted  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.45.204 (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  more ingredients 

message: FYI: I just was suirious and checked the english article...
... what a joke ;)
I dont have the time to correct it right now, but suffice to say: Contrary to the text which says that sangrita was unknow... until the 90ties etc etc...
... alone here in germany since the 1960ties (!) millions an millions of bottles of sangrita are sold yearly, you find it in the supermarket around the corner and - guess what - some 100s millions bottles and almost 50 years later its still - mainly tomatojuice... ;)
if someone wants to start to correct this text, for starters this is the owner of the BRAND sangrita in germany since 1965:
http://www.sangrita.de/produktinfo/herkunft.html /seems sangrita.com also redirects there)
85.179.165.61 (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This text is filled with mistakes
Talk:Battle of Grunwald (Matejko)

message: Someone could add explanation what persons are portrayed in the picture, and explain why they are important. It's a case of symbolism rather than realism.--Lokyz 20:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portrayals

message: I've reviewing the article for B class, and I had two comments.
* "in 1902 the painting was bought from Rosenblum's heirs and displayed in Warsaw." I added  after "was bought". If that information is available, please add it; otherwise, remove the tag.
* I would love to learn more about Wyspiański's parody of the painting, which is mentioned only in the caption. It would be better if something were said in the article's text.
Neither issue was significant, and I've promoted the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't recall the sources saying "by whom". Wyspiaski-wise, please note that the article already said "The painting inspired Stanisław Wyspiański, who mentioned it in several of his works.". I think the source goes into more detail, along the lines (IIRC) that the parody is critical of the original as "too complex". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from B-class review 

message: Is it worth mentioning that there's a Lego version of the painting  or is that just too much trivia?VolunteerMarek 20:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, would be cooler as a 3d diorama :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

text: * The whole massive set-up, under the towering inflatable tent, is clearly visible in this photo (very impressive indeed).  Poeticbent talk 19:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Lego
Talk:Caulkicephalus

message: Dinosaur Isle places Caulkicephalus at the Barremian-Aptian borderline, at 125 MA. Not sure if that's accurate but at least it's something. 75.211.160.25 (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as far as I know the Wessex Formation is from the first part of the Barremian, whereas the paper placed Caulkicephalus more to the end of the Wessex. So about 127-128 million years ago?--MWAK (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Earl of Ranfurly

message: To where or what do the Viscountcy of Northland and the Barony of Welles refer? Their territorial designations suggest they're not Irish places (otherwise they would most likely be named therein), but there don't seem to be any obvious candidates as to where else they could be. Proteus (Talk) 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would assume it must be somewhere in Renfrewshire I suppose Wells is possible as it's variously called Welle & Welles in times past. Alci12 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:VR Class Sr1

message: While the literal translation is "Wolf of Siberia", the word "susi" can be also mean a poorly made or defective object. The English language uses the word "dog" for describing a defective or inferior quality item.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.237.141.27 (talk • contribs) 13:29, June 2, 2007
:Ok then, I was unaware of that. Sorry. - Kjet 11:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siperian Susi
Talk:Tetrapharmakos

message: When "God" is a proper noun referring to a single entity, it should be capitalized. This is simple grammar, regardless of religious or cultural beliefs. Unless someone can explain how the author was being poetic and did something in Greek equivalent to deliberately avoiding capitalization, it should be capitalized.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.248.79 (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "god", lowercase and singular?
Talk:Ctenochasma

message: There is no way somebody could confuse a giant dinosaur for a modern tiny nematode, obvously.  But for some reason I feel like we should just mention "normally, when a biologist says C. elegans- they mean a particular model organism that is vastly studied due to its simplicity.."  I guess its off topic, though.  What do you guys think?
Know Einstein (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding mention of "the other C. elegans" may be worth it.
Talk:Dermodactylus

message: pterodactyl measn "short-tailed"? Sure seems like "finger wing" to me ... Debivort 10:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, pterodactyloid is shorthand for "short-tailed pterosaur", from the days before cladistics. J. Spencer 15:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, contrary to "Rhamphorhynchoidea", it is a valid monophyletic group, so it has gained, or perhaps kept, a meaning transcending simple phenetics.--MWAK (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  short-tailed
Talk:Dimorphodon

message: 1.The gallery belongs to the pterosaur researcher (Mark Witton) that, alongside Darren Naish, wrote the essay on azhdarchid paleoecology
2.The points given make sense (read the text for the info on the wing loading, claws and head size)
3.Dimorphodon, according to the article, was a descendent of Peteinosaurus, itself a terrestrial form; wouldn't it make more sense if Dimorphodon continued in that line?
I hope I cleared everything --Falconfly  —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons why the Flickr link is a decent source
Talk:Eopteranodon

message: Recent analyses (e.g. 1 and 2 have recovered Eopteranodon) as a tapejarine tapejarid. The article should be amended to reflect this at some point. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylogenetic position 

message: Does anyone have access the the paper "New pterodactyloid pterosaur from the Yixian Formation of western Liaoning"? If so, please tell me which subunit of the Yixian Formation Eopteranodon is from. Zach Varmitech (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Upper part". 128.189.217.112 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eopteranodon's subunit
Talk:Eudimorphodon

message: Dimorphism is a disambiguation page; the link there from here should be changed to an actual article describing this kind of dimorphism. However I can't tell exactly what "dimorphism" means in this context - is Polymorphism (biology) appropriate, for example? Someone who knows better than me will have to fix this. Hairy Dude 15:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It meant something else entirely (referred to heterodonty), so I changed it. J. Spencer 15:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguating link to [[Dimorphism]]
Talk:Babelsberg Studio

message: The sentence "virally anti-Semitic propaganda film Jud Süss" isn't right. Shouldn't it be "virulently anti-Semitic propaganda film Jud Süss?"
I'll make the changeunless someone objects. 
It is evident that this page was run through a translation service - try again.  82.83.122.53 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Since it was merged with Universum Film AG in 1921, probably these two articles should be combined. Twang (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, because the subject of this article is the production site, in which UFA has since 1945 no stake anymore. 2003:45:4543:E731:2C40:4925:F818:372B (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with UFA

message: I removed The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari from the list of films, since it was  made in Weissensee at the Lixie studios (formerly owned by Continental-Kunstfilm). Also rewrote the Metropolis pic caption - Homunculus (1916) directed by Otto Rippert with a script by Lang, predates Metropolis by several years, as does Aelita (1924). >MinorProphet (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of films made at Babelsberg 
Talk:Istiodactylus

message: It seems no one considers I. sinensis to belong to Istiodactylus, the question is rather where it belongs instead. In that sense, it is de facto removed from this genus, so since I am about to expand the article for promotion, I'm wondering how to treat that species here. It definitely warrants discussion in the history and classification sections, but should this article really go into detail about it's physical features and ecology, given that it is bound to become part of some other genus in the future? FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put info on it in its own article. Then if it ever gets a new genus name the title can be changed. In the mean time, since this is the only name it has, at least it's searchable. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, one thing about that is, in the unlikely case we write a long description of I. sinensis there, and it turns out to be a junior synonym of for example Liaoxipterus brachyognathus, how are the two descriptions of the same species consolidated? FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We've consolidated bigger articles before. And, if they are synonyms or even possible synonyms, there technically shouldn't be any differences in their descriptions anyway. Anything that had previously been different between them would have turned out to be based on misinterpretation and would be deleted anyway. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, it is so common that we split longer articles compared to merging them that I didn't really remember what the procedure would be like. But in any case, pterosaur taxonomy seems a lot more unstable than dinosaur taxonomy, so it's quite a mine-field... FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was working on some species in the Ornithocheirus complex he other day... (see Ptenodactylus). I think in situations like these we just need species-level articles titled with the original or most traditional name, then discuss possible alternative nomenclature in the text. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with ''I. sinensis''?
Talk:Three on a match

message: Contradictory statements:  The article says that the first mention of the superstition in the US is in 1916, but also says that it is reported to be a superstition in southern Texas in 1894.  (The fact that it was reported among the Mexican population doesn't negate the fact that this happened in the US!)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9000:C720:74CD:B0ED:CFF9:496C (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

message: I believe a simple photo of a soldier from one of the time periods mentioned, lighting a cigarette with or without others around him would help make this article look better.  Another idea would be to simply have a photo of a lit match or a Cigarette and a match side by side.  What do other editors feel?LiPollis (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: A Photo would add to the article

message: At the start of series 1, episode 18 of the "Twelve O'Clock High" series about bombers in WW2, a soldiers lights two cigarettes and takes a new match for his own, remarking "no use tempting fate".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.183.130 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: A additional mention in popular culture
Talk:Fala language

message: I don't know if that is of matter but I am guessing that the name of the language comes from the noun for 'talk'. In Portuguese language 'to talk' is 'falar'.--Nauki (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of language

message: "Nowadays, although the inhabitants of Jalama Valley can speak Spanish (and say that they can do it better than people from Cáceres and Salamanca), most of them are bilingual because at home and in other activities outside school they continue using the local language"</br>
Is this a mistake?--Adûnâi (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't understand. Where's the mistake? --Jotamar (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A style mistake? 

message: Trifólio (misspelt "trifolio" every single time it was mentioned in the page) is a learned borrowing from Latin "trifolium" (trefoil, clover). It happened at a very late stage of the language, when Portuguese was already deeply consolidated as a language. There is absolutely NO way "trifólio" could have become "trevólio", and "trevelho" is even less likely.
For "Trifólio" to become "trevólio", it'd have to have been a Latin word; the word would have to have been "trifólio" all the way back in the Latin Empire. The change from "I" to "E" happened when Latin was still spoken, during Vulgar Latin. The change from F to V happened later, when Romance was already separated from Latin, but still most definitely before "trifólio" entered the Portuguese language at all. This is seen in Portuguese artelho/artigo/artículo. All of them come from Latin "articulus", but entered the language at different stages. "Artelho" is the inherited form, it evolved from the Latin word directly. "Artigo" is a semi-learned borrowing which came later but still suffered changes, and "artículo" was a learned borrowing that came even later than that.
Note how the words came from Latin "-iculus" and how the inherited form ends in "-elho". This only happened precisely because the word was 'old enough' to have suffered that change; the more recent ones didn't become "-elho". "Trifólio" is a recent word, it's not old enough to have become "-elho", if that makes sense?
You could then argue that "trevelho" came from Latin "trifolicus" (small clover) or something, but I don't think that that's attested. Therefore, it'd be speculation, and that has no place here in Wikipedia, right? That's also why I removed the Leonese monastery thing. "Trifólio", as a learned borrowing, most definitely came from some place with educated people, but to say it was a Leonese monastery is speculation (there are no sources!). Also, why Leonese? Aren't we talking about a Portuguese word? Portuguese was never spoken in Leon.
I agree "trevellu" came from the same place as "trifólio", but it's patently false to say "trevellu" came from "trifólio" directly. 179.84.82.110 (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trevellu" supposedly coming from Portuguese "trifólio"