lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Llaqtapata

message: The Llactapata studied by Thomson and Ziegler is not the same Llactapata pictured in the main article (the one in the Cusichaca valley). There is in fact another Llactapata much closer to the Machu Picchu ruins. There seems to be great confusion regarding this subject as the two names have been conflated.
In 2003, Thomson and Ziegler rediscovered a Llactapata site a mere two miles from the main Machu Picchu ruins. This site had been originally discovered by Hiram Bingham when he discovered Machu Picchu, but due to his inexact description of its locatin, it was soon lost. Thomson and Ziegler set out to rediscover it and did, as recounted in Thomson's book The White Rock.
Perhaps the Llactapata page should be made into a disambiguation page or a clear distinction should be made between the two sites.
:Just got back from the Trail. Have photos that document where some of the confusion comes from. Also have Bingham's book. Rewrite on the way. Steve Pastor (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I don't know how to fix an tipo in the reflist but there is a tipo in Ref. 4: Quote: "Malville, J. McKim; Hugh Thomson, Gary Zeigler (2004)." it is Gary Ziegler, not Zeigler. -- Hartmann Schedel  Prost  15:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  reflist-tipo 

message: I think this article deserves to be split. One for the Llactapata to the west of Cuzco and one for Patallacta that is to the east near Km 82. Even though Llactapata is used to name both the more common name for the latter very significant site is Patallacta. Dger (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article into two: Llactapata and Patallacta
Talk:Luitpold Gymnasium

message: The Luitpold Gymnasium was where twenty upper-class hostages were murdered in 1919 by the Bavarian Soviet Republic, according to the book "Beerhall Revolution."TDKehoe (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hostages murdered in 1919
Talk:Édouard Bouët-Willaumez

message: This is a very nice start, and I offer thanks for including a picture. However, it needs just a little clean-up. The introduction is very brief, and tells us (within the first sentence) absolutely nothing about Bouet-Willaumez except that he was a French admiral. The introduction should include at least a small reference to his significance or notability, and/or a mention of which conflicts he took part in. Also, the grammar of the entire article needs some serious reworking. LordAmeth 09:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment
Talk:School District 35 Langley

message: okay, so... the history section is self-contradictory. Which source do we accept? -- TheMightyQuill 15:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same problem, I didn't want to delete the other info but in my reading of http://www.sd35.bc.ca/general/about%20us/history/Page2.html doesn't claim it is the first school, just the first time grades 9 and 10 were taught. Wakemp 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I propose that the elementary school articles linked in the merge template on this article be merged with this article.  They do not appear to be notable.  I tried to redirect one of them to this article and I was reverted.  I then opened an AfD for that article and it was closed as procedural keep telling me to propose a merger on this talk page.  This is that proposal.  Enjoy.--Rockfang (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Adarsha Vidya Mandir

message: I am totally not understanding the dates here. Jessicapierce 04:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The date is in B.C. 202.52.243.122 (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a wikilink for B.S. so that anyone not understanding the dates (such as myself) has some further explanation. Coyets (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Years?

message: Adhikari is one of the major caste of Nepal. It falls under Brahmin category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramodi (talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adhikari 

message: I think Mission and Vision section should be improved. 202.52.243.122 13:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission and Vision 
Talk:Nigel Nicolson

message: Categories: 1917 births | 2004 deaths | British MPs | British writers | UK Conservative Party politicians | Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people | Bisexual writers
Was Nigel Nicolson bisexual? --Francis Burdett 15:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no reason to think so, and was shocked today upon my first visit to this page to find him so-categorized.  He famously wrote about his bi-sexual parents; I know of no reason to think him bisexual himself and am thus removing the link to "bisexual writers".  If and only if someone can provide proper documentation should this categorization be restored.  I am astonished that apparently it has been in place here for more than a year in the absence of any explanation at all. SocJan 10:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Mailbox baseball

message: Just because it has "baseball" in the name doesn't make it a game.  This should be removed from games.
:I disagree since a score of sorts is kept by the vandals in the vehicle counting up who hit more boxes.  Dismas|(talk) 13:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

message: I believe it should be merged with mailboxing (Lil Pun 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the merge proposal.  They are two terms for the same thing and there's no need for two separate articles. Dragomiloff 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  I think the article should be under the term "mailbox baseball" since that article was created first it seems to me that that would therefore be the more prevalent term.  Google search figures are roughly the same for each.  Dismas|(talk) 12:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will go ahead and do the merge now, since the merge proposal has been up for more than a month with unanamous support. Dragomiloff 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Abdelaziz Kareem Salim al-Noofayee

message: Replaced transcluded image with inline image -  tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption.  Geo Swan 12:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{tl|npov}} tag as per dispute on [[Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption]]
Talk:Abdul Aziz Al Matrafi

message: I'm pretty sure you can't use "sic" if it's not a direct quotation. I see no evidence that it is, but then again, it's not clearly sourced. So I guess we should remove the "sic" and the error (greengrocer's apostrophes), or put the sentence in quotes. 129.2.207.183 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar
Talk:Zabur

message: This page is merely the Psalms entry, from an Islamic perspective. It should be merged into the Psalms article under an Islamic subheading. I should really be revising for my exams so I won't actually merge it until the 10th - ample time, I think, to have a discussion if anyone objects. Dev920 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Proposal 

message: Hello, a question that is not answered in this article: Is the Zabur an actual, existing text that I could find at a mosque or in an Islamic bookstore? -- 84.130.61.148 10:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Islamic beliefs, the answer to your question is no. Muslims hold the view that the Zabur was a 'pure' (uncorrupted, unchanged) revelation, but that it no longer exists in that pure form. However, some people equate the Zabur with the Psalms as we now have them. MP   (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange enough, that we also talk about 150 chapters and five sections. For me, this structure indicates, that we talk about almost the same book. -- Arne List 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the article should introduce Zabur as a legendary book, see Talk:Injil#Confusing. Said: Rursus (☻) 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this an actual text?
Talk:Gu Li (Go player)

message: I'd like to expand this article further, because Gu is making history in professional Go terms. If anyone has any sources that could be used to help grow this article, please provide them. Thank you. Can 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bandar Ahmad Mubarak Al Jabri

message: Replaced transcluded image with inline image -  tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption.  Geo Swan 12:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{tl|npov}} tag as per dispute on [[Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption]]

message: I think default sort is a mistake for individuals with Arabic names.
People with Arabic names don't inherit a surname, like people with an European do.
Traditionally the closest thing they have to a "last name" is their father's first name.
And it is absolutely clear to me that it is a mistake to use default sort for the Guantanamo captives -- because the US Department of Defense can't consistently figure out what their names are. 
Therefore I just reverted an edit where a well-meaning contributor imposed default sort on this individual.
Please don't impose default sort on these guys without discussing it first. 
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I think default sort is a mistake for Arabic names
Talk:Heritage Commercials

message: A little lost here as I am a new user. My intention was to highlight the existence of a valuable journal for those researching and interested in commercial vehicles from a past era. I can see how the entry can be interpreted as an advert. 
My question is - how do I suspend the entry while I find a way to make it less advert like?
Thanks for any help in advance.
NikS 15:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Fort Boyard (fortification)

message: Article reassessed and graded as stub   --dashiellx (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Talk:Wikimedia in popular culture

message: sorry to split self-ref, but this started to become fluff.
"July 2006"? Since when can we see into the future? 58.169.32.1 02:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

message: This merger seems totally noncontroversial as they are essentially different articles on exactly the same subject. I suggest merging into "popular culture" b/c it's the full word. If no one opposes in the next few days, I'll just do it.--Chaser T 03:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good point. Should we take it to AfD to get consensus?--Chaser T 16:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *OK, done.  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia in pop culture.--Pharos 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger
Talk:Fort Vaux

message: This article claims that ther Germans poisoned the water, while the german article cites damage to the cisterns through artillery fire as the cause.
Which is right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.91.125.90 (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poisoning of the water 

message: I have a friend who's last name is Vaux, does that mean they are related to who made Fort Vaux? 2600:8800:5081:C500:113A:F554:7F83:3E9D (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who made Fort Vaux?
Talk:Boingo Alive

message: : There seems to be no consensus as to whether this should be classified as a live album, studio album or even a compilation album. For what it's worth, the album's [hype sticker], [promo ads] and a 1988 [Los Angeles Times article] all go out of their way to state that the album was recorded live. The Keymaster (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: How to classify this?
Talk:Georges Guynemer

message: I have fixed the sourcing problem; found 4 very reliable and objective sources on the web (see External links).  Removed the "Cite Sources" tag.  My next idea is:  Hey!  Let's all work to EXPAND this article and then get it recommended for a Feature Article on Wikipedia.  ProfessorPaul 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed sourcing problem

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Removed redundant URLs, consolidated References and External Links under the name of the former, eliminated URL to external porn site. Jun Kayama (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Source Update
Talk:Assabet River

message: I have never heard this river spoken of, only in print.  How do you say it?  A quick google says A-suh-bet.  My guess had always been as-SAB-it...
CSZero 15:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Locally, we all call it "ASS-a-bit".  Seriously.  I've never heard any other pronunciation (other than from those who aren't local and can't properly pronounce half the things around here.) --PatrickD 21:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: Added these sections. David notMD (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Average, Low Flow and Historic Floods

message: Needs a section on boating, fishing, swimming, nature watching, etc. Also on impact of invasive waterplant species such as water chestnut. The OARS website has a lot of source information that could be used to write this. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recreational Use

message: A 1775 map at this site has Assabet River as "Concord NR." Did this mean north branch of the Concord River, with the south branch already renamed Sudbury River?  The same map has Elizabeth River (for what now named Elizabeth Brook) as a branch of Concord NR. MAP: "The Seat of war in New England", by an American volunteer with the Marines. See:
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/revolutionary-war/maps/massachusetts-map.htm. A 1785 map also has "Concord NR": http://www.jch.com/sudbury/NewEngland1785Norman.jpg. An even older map, dated to 1753, has same: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3720.ar079600/. If this was still a known name in 1785 it suggests that "Assabet" is less likely to be a hold-over from a Native American name and more likely to be derived from Elizabeth. However, Sudbury documents in the Historical Society archives mention land as "beyond the Aisbeth" in 1648, which favors an Anglicization of an Indian name. A 1795 map shows "Stow River or the River Elizabeth" as a border between Stow and Sudbury. The 1830 maps of Sudbury and Stow both have Elizabeth Brook flowing into Elizabeth River, but by 1856 various town maps are all in agreement on Assabet River.David notMD (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of the River? 

message: ...not enough yet to justify the citations needed tag at the top of the article. David notMD (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations added, but...
Talk:Khalid Saud Abd Al Rahman Al Bawardi

message: I think default sort is a mistake for individuals with Arabic names.
People with Arabic names don't inherit a surname, like people with an European do.
Traditionally the closest thing they have to a "last name" is their father's first name.
And it is absolutely clear to me that it is a mistake to use default sort for the Guantanamo captives -- because the US Department of Defense can't consistently figure out what their names are. 
Therefore I just reverted an edit where a well-meaning contributor imposed default sort on this individual.
Please don't impose default sort on these guys without discussing it first. 
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think default sort is a mistake for Arabic names
Talk:Madawi al-Rasheed

message: Is she related to the Rashidi dynasty? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynasty? 

message: Hi @User:Smasongarrison, what did you mean by "non-diffusing"? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for asking! Non-diffusing subcategories are ones were the page can also be found in the parent category. Most gendered categories are non-diffusing WP:CATGENDER, so Saudi Arabian women writers belong in both the category about women writers and the main category about Saudi Arabian writers. Otherwise, only men would remain in the writers category, isolating women to just the "women writers". You can read more about it here: WP:FINALRUNG, but effectively "a person should not be categorized only by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability, without also being placed in other more general categories... the person should be left in the un-gendered parent category alongside the gendered subcategory until some other relevant sub-categorization criterion is in place." Mason (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:Smasongarrison, makes sense, thanks for explaining! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome! And again, thank you for asking :) Mason (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories
Talk:Mai Yamani

message: Hello, this BLP has no refs at all. How can that be? Isnt that a violation of the basic BLP regulations? Requested that some registered and senior editor kindly take note thanks. 39.54.74.128 (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: No refs

message: Saudi Arabian or Yemeni? --87.162.171.91 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality? 

message: The field in the Infobox says the entries should be "major academic tenures", not "student or part-time positions or postdoctoral fellowships". Not clear how a major academic tenure is defined (e.g. major in terms of the role or the institution)? I've reflected all of Yamani's roles in the Career section, but would appreciate a senior editor sense-checking. ~~~~ KTnow (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox
Talk:Saleh Abdall Al Oshan

message: Another contributor added a  tag.  They offered the edit summary: "Medical records: Yes it is the OR tag - because these interpretation are not in the source - '...were below the minimum healthy weight for his height...'... Not in the source at all"
May I point out that the instantiation of that tag says: 
The edit summary is not the talk page.  Interested readers who look to the talk page aren't going to read this contributor's edit summary comments.
I urge this contributor to actually read the text instantiated when he or she applies a tag, and to comply with the obligations incurred by their use of those tags.  Geo Swan (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No explanation being offered I have removed the tag.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  responsible use of tags... 

message: The image that i have removed from the article violates the basic rules of Wikipedia. It is the own work of a Wikipedia editor who took a primary source combined it with other sources and then interpreted it in the image description. This is a violation of WP:OR. The fact that these are mostly primary sources has also further problems as it does not comply with the policies of BLP's of living people. So i see this topic as taken to the talk page and the image should not be re-included until consensus has been reached. IQinn (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: explanation...
Talk:Gilley's Club

message: I have edited the page to reflect that Gilley's has reopened in Dallas, Texas.— SMULaw09 | (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilley's reopened in Dallas, Texas. 
Talk:Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]
Talk:Lister (surname)

message: I've looked on a variety of maps (and I live here), and I know of no suburb called Lister.  Lister Park and Lister Mill, are both otherwise known as Manningham Park and Manningham Mills, as they are in Manningham.  Can anyone prove me wrong, or should this article be deleted? Nick Watts 16:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed suburb

message: This article is vague. Parts need to be moved to disambiguation for Lister (surname). Exactly what is the article but a genealogy list it would seem. Student7 (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Before it became an occupationally based name, it was an occupation. This article should be about either the former (obsolete) occupation or the modern one of town lister, or maybe both. Student7 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Lister surname.  See Smith (surname) for an example.  The reason this does not need to be titled 'Lister (surname)' is that the occupation for the most part no longer exists under that name.  However, there are namy meanings to the word 'Smith' which require the modifier (surname).  Not sure what you mean by the article being "vague", it is exactly in the form of other surname pages. 70.70.160.153 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs drastic revision

message: For ideas on how to restructure article to resemble other surname articles, see Carpenter (surname). There are probably dozens of others. Student7 (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: See Carpenter (surname)