lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Trademark law of China

message: I reverted changing everything to mainland China and a disambiguation header.  The first sentence limits the jurisdiction to mainland China.  It isn't necessary to preface China with "mainland" another half-dozen times.  In addition to the first sentence, the link to Hong Kong in the see also section makes it clear there is a seperate trademark law in that part of China.  And - even though this is about the mainland, and HK has it's own laws, many of the general statements about piracy and such are just as applicable in HK. SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the naming conventions, Chinese or China should not be used in place of PRC or mainland China. Similar notices are currently used in many mainland China-related articles. Not every reader would scroll all the way down to the see also section at the end of the article. Important information and disambiguation have to be provided in the beginning. Hong Kong has its own law and its own measures to tackle the problem of piracy. The general statements are just as applicable to many countries. — Instantnood 02:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
*there is no confusion about "which" China is being discussed here and there is no reason to disambiguate. you abuse a singular interpretation of the naming conventions in order to put forth your POV. knock it off. SchmuckyTheCat 05:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: revert
Talk:Fitter

message: This page originally redirected to Sukhoi_Su-17 however from my point of view the term fitter has greater relevance in regards to Machinist. I've edited it to allow the user to select which path to take.
Enlighten me if this should be done otherwise.
--Graibeard 14:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Constant Vanden Stock Stadium

message: :This article does not show in :Category:Stadiums. Something in subcategories inconsequent (cf other sooccer venues?). -DePiep 14:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but it appears in :Category:Football (soccer) venues which is a subcategory of Stadiums. It is not relevant that it appears in both sub and mother categories. Julien Tuerlinckx 18:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Reliquary

message: The introduction of the (nice) picture on the lower-left has caused the article to render rather badly on some browsers; the wrap-around text includes a header that is pushed to the right, away from the left margin.
Does anyone know enough Wiki image syntax to fix this up? For now, I'll apply the crude fix of just pushing this second image over to the right, but if anyone can do better, please feel free!
Atlant 15:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rendition problems

message: Not wishing to appear flippant, but are relics covered by the Human Tissues Act in the UK now?  Do the church have to have a licence for posessing them and putting them on display - did anyone consider this before the legislation was passed after the AlderHey hospital scandal?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.4.192 (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Side Issues

message: Shouldn't this page include some paragraph about the Ark and/or Tabernacle the Jews had for Yahweh as they wandered around the desert?
Also, temples in general maybe a fair inclusion.
 Liberty5651 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliquary in Judiasm 

message: — Assignment last updated by Elizabethhawkins21315 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ARH 371_The TransAtlantic_Cross-Cultural Representations
Talk:Jens Lekman

message: He has proclaimed that he will never again record a full album. I won't take it away, but being a fan, I would like to know the sources for this statement...
I have updated the page now. I have several sources from the Swedish paper press, unfortunately I can't find web pages to them. In an interview in Expressen, 2004-12-30 he says "Jag ska aldrig mera göra ett album. Det var så jobbigt förra gången. Att få ihop tolv låtar till en helhet är bara krångligt. Jag gillar inte såna skivor. Det får bli minialbum istället." which roughly translates I will never again do an album. It was so hard the last time. To get twelve songs together to form a unity is just troublesome. I don't like records like that. It will have to be mini albums instead. In Dagens Nyheter, 2005-01-22 he comments "Det handlar alltså inte om att jag ska sluta göra skivor, det är bara albumformatet som jag är emot för egen del." which translates to It is not about me ceasing doing records, it is just the album format that I am against. Ellipse 10:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: It should really say that he was born in Göteborg, not Angered, just for the fact that Angered is not a separate town, but a suburb of Göteborg.
Norum (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Göteborg 
Category talk:Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (historic)

message: This is going to be a rather big category. Why not split it into England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland? David | Talk 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a general debate in Wikipedia, with no consensus, about when it is appropriate to list an article in both a category and one of its subcategories.  In my opinion :Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (historic) does not need to include all the articles in :Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies in England, :Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies in Scotland (Westminster), etc. Having recently added :Category:Historic Westminster constituencies in Ireland, I am reclassifying the relevant articles, and intend removing them from the supercat.  If there is some good reason not to, let me know quickly.  I couldn't find any policy either way.  I have left a duplicate of this comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Historic constituencies: Supercat/subcat duplication. jnestorius(talk) 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split up
Talk:Armagh (UK Parliament constituency)

message: * Following discussions amongst persons interested in Irish political history the consensus was that Irish constituencies of the same name, in various legislative bodies, should have a single 'Whatever (constituency)' article. See List of Irish constituencies. This does cut across the attempt to produce uniform (UK Parliament constituency) articles. 
* I have attempted to leave (UK Parliament constituency) articles in place for current seats and provide links to a corresponding (constituency) article for earlier versions, see for example North Antrim (UK Parliament constituency) and Antrim North (constituency).
* As an interim measure, I have left the Armagh (UK Parliament constituency) article unchanged apart from a link to the Armagh (constituency) article.
--Gary J 15:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Caithness and Sutherland (UK Parliament constituency)

message: I believe in 1959 (8th October) David Robertson was elected as an independent candidate. The John O'Groat Journal of 16th October described him as a former Unionist. Laurel Bush 09:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He resigned the whip in January 1959 in opposition to the Government's Scottish policy but didn't have an official Conservative opponent in the 1959 election. He retired in 1964 but his supporters noimated John M Young. Timrollpickering 14:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Robertson  

message: I believe in 1935 William Bruce stood as a Scottish Nationalist candidate. It is possible that an abbreviation of 'Nat' was used and that this was mistakenly interpreted as National.
(Graemp 06:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Bruce
Talk:Londonderry (UK Parliament constituency)

message: I think this would be a bad move - although the name is the same, one seat was focused on Derry City and the other on the County. Timrollpickering 21:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to remove the template that I entered once agreed - I only entered it because I was not quite sure and politics can be a turn off - especially on Friday! Djegan 21:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with [[Londonderry (parliamentary borough)]]

message: It says Co Derry's nationalist vote was reaching 40% at some elctions.....at what stage did Co Derry first have a nationalist majoirty.
I read in some paper about a year ago that it now has a comfortbale nationalist majority.  Does anyone know when this change first took place and what the "demographs" of Co Derry are at the mnute?
(Derry Boi 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unionist majority 

message: Ridiculous to say Rayment, which is THE authority on UK election results, is not a good source, because it was authored by the same person as the author of the Wikipedia article. Yet another ignorant editorial comment - so typical of Wikipedia self-proclaimed editors. Learn about academic rigour before posting rubbish.  Stapito (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Rayment is a useful site, but it's not "the authority on UK election results"; it has some errors and is (so far as I know) not subject to editorial oversight.  Better to use reliable published sources which have been subject to editorial oversight, such as Craig, Walker and Rallings & Thrasher.  Incidentally, Rayment didn't write this Wikipedia article, and its authorship makes no difference as to which sources are preferred. Warofdreams talk 17:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rayment
Talk:Bosworth (UK Parliament constituency)

message: I don't understand how Woodrow Wyatt can win this seat in the 60s for Labour, but it be a Tory seat in 1979. Boundary changes or demographic changes? This needs an explanation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crooked cottage (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of demography?
Talk:Brent East (UK Parliament constituency)

message: Given that there is now going to be a new 2024 constituency called Brent East which is slightly different to the old Brent East in its boundaries, should we rename this one to indicate it is historical, and start a new page for the new constituency? Tdolphin (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the usual thing that is done is to add the information for the new seat to the old one and update the lede accordingly, for instance : Tottenham (UK Parliament constituency) which had two 'incarnations' with a thirty-two year gap in between. Lozleader (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change?
Talk:Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (UK Parliament constituency)

message: I am wondering where the Easter Ross area was before becoming part of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Which constituency or constituencies? Laurel Bush 11:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Boundaries

message: I have updated the Infobox to show the constituency boundaries that apply from the July 2024 election onwards. It may be reasonable to keep the map below that shows the pre-2024 boundaries (for the moment, at least), but I'd like to change the caption from "current" to something like "up until 2024". However, simply changing the text makes the map disappear. Can anyone help with how GeoJSON data is used on Wikipedia? Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre-2024 map
Talk:Cardiff North (UK Parliament constituency)

message: What is this Alter Change Party? Is it a prank? Where is the source? Unsourced/unverified information may be removed at any time. Senotshtooms (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's genuine. All you needed to do was check the BBC web site - here's the entry for Cardiff North. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alter Change 

message: Is the long quote from Nick Robinson in relation to the 2010 election really needed? It seems to be giving undue prominence to that particular election (and there have now been three contests since). Dunarc (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section
Talk:Carlisle (UK Parliament constituency)

message: I am thinking the change figures (except turnout) should sum to zero: something wrong with figures for 2001. Laurel Bush 09:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Change figures

message: This article relies heavily on citations to thepeerage.com, which has been discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN and determined that it is not a reliable source, and should not be used as references in articles. The citations have been removed, but not the associated text, and tags inserted for the former footnotes. Better sources must be found for this text; text that is not supported by in-line citation to a reliable source may be removed.Fladrif (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 
Talk:Cheadle (UK Parliament constituency)

message: I propose this is moved to the appropriate page, as given in the Wikiproject style guide - Maltaran 17:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
* I'm neutral Oppose. (I reverted an earlier move, but that was because it was done by cut and paste rather than using the move button).  AFAIK the style guide is only one person's ideas rather than official policy.  The official policy of Wikipedia however is not to over disambiguate, and unless there is more than one constituency named Cheadle the seems no need to make the move.  If there is more than one constituency I have no objections. Joe D (t) 18:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RM discussion 

message: I am not sure that the statement "The seat had safe Conservative majorities until the 1997 election" in the Members of Parliament section is fair or appropriate. This ignores the fact that in 1966 Michael Winstanley won the seat for the Liberal Party and when he lost it in 1970, the conservative majority was less than 2,000 votes. Admittedly the pre 1974 seat had significantly different boundaries and much of the Liberal's strongest area moved to Hazel Grove, which Winstanley did briefly hold in 1974. Dunarc (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some changes to the text in this section including prefacing the above by making clear that it was the redrawn (1974 onwards) seat that had safe Conservative majorities. I think this helps matters, but I am happy to discuss further. Dunarc (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable statement
Talk:South Dorset (UK Parliament constituency)

message: There are three other constituencies to be moved in the same way - please discuss all of them together at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Constituency_names. sjorford →•← 16:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article contains the statement:
:The constituency covers a similar area to the borough of Weymouth and Portland and the Purbeck district in Dorset.
Yet a comparison of the maps shown in this article, in the article Mid Dorset and North Poole (UK Parliament constituency), and in the article Purbeck (district), seems to show that a large swathe of Purbeck district is in the MD&NP consituency. And the article on the town of Wareham, the base of the Purbeck District Council, says it is in MD&NP.
I wonder if the author got confused between the local government district of Purbeck and the more geographically constrained Isle of Purbeck with its traditional northern boundary along the River Frome. Certainly as best I can tell from these rather small maps, the whole of the Isle of Purbeck probably does fall in the South Dorset constituency.
Any comments before I try and correct this. -- Chris j wood 15:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further examination of the maps also shows that this constituency also covers part of West Dorset district. Perhaps we should scrap the current boundary section and start again, as it is clearly not very accurate. -- Chris j wood 15:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same area as Purbeck - Inconsistency between articles 
Talk:Dumfries and Galloway (UK Parliament constituency)

message: I have seen this being edited several times.  I feel that it should be William that is listed on Wikipedia instead of McNabb because this is what the statement of persons nominated defines.  Whereas others have edited it to read McNabb as this is what the candidate goes by.  What are peoples thoughts - Going by what the statement of persons nominated defines or what the candidate themselves goes by? OrkneyLad1996 (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think common names probably beat 'official' names in this cases. As noted in the edit history, his campaign website [] uses McNabb, as does the BBC candidate page []. I see your point about having a uniform rule, but whether this relates to the SOPN or a reliable news source should be decided. PinkPanda272 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for starting this thread. I've not seen any paper election material, but his online presence encourages people to "Vote McNabb" (see links here: []). He is going by one of the first names listed on the statement of persons nominated, just not the very first one. People use Wikipedia as a source. I think it would be confusing to list one candidate by a different name to what they're campaigning with. The only way round it would be to list each candidate by their full name, but I don't think that's necessary. C1614 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  William or McNabb? 

message: In the section talking about the new seat having "a very slim Labour majority" due to boundary changes, would it not be better to say "notionally have a very slim Labour majority" as predicting what results on new boundaries is not an exact science and such examples are usually called "notional" majorities. Dunarc (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A very slim Labour majority"
Talk:Ceredigion (UK Parliament constituency)

message: A lot of the historical detail here is about the borough, not the county constituency, and really needs to be moved to a separate article. I will do so if nobody violently objects. Rgmmortimore (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is very detailed but it does not follow the style of other articles, and I believe we should move the results into a framework with other constituency pages to make it consistent. I'm also unsure if Rgmmortimore made the changes they hoped to. I may reorganise the page if there are no objections. --JMPhillips92 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a handful of UK Constituency articles that go into this sort of detail. In these articles I think it helps the reader to be able to easily see the relevant election table as they make their way through the story. Graemp (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article consistency

message: My substantial edit was just reverted. I am happy to discuss as I think I have a way through the issue.
Benawu2 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article detail 

message: I'm not sure why the results for Ceredigion and Pembroke North are included in this page. After all, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has a separate page to Merioneth/Meirionnydd, and both pairs had similar boundaries.
I agree with Ynys Môn/Anglesey sharing a page, as they are basically both versions of the same constituency, but am not sure why this has happened here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by YttriumShrew (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceredigion and Pembroke North
Talk:York (UK Parliament constituency)

message: What is the evidence that York was first represented at De Montfort's Parliament of 1265? I am aware that this was the first known Parliament to which borough representatives were summoned. It is very likely that York would have been amongst those boroughs involved. However I am not aware of a list of the boroughs prior to the Model Parliament of 1295, so usually the date of enfranchisement of the oldest parliamentary boroughs is taken to be 1295. --Gary J 07:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: York first represented 1265?

message: I added the acreage of each revised area, but now I've changed the 1997 figure, because I don't think the area had changed since 1983.  
Whereas 2946 ha (in the 1986 ref for 1983) is the total area including water, it's plausible that 2835 ha (in the 2001 ref for 1997) is the land area. SI 1995/610 footnote (5) says "For the limits of the existing wards of the city of York, see the City of York (Electoral Arrangements) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1968)" and IMO if there had been a change since 1983 there should have been a consequent revision to the 1976 wards. 
OTOH it's conceivable that 
* either there was a reduction of 111 ha and 
** I simply failed to locate the relevant boundary change SI and 
*** either the existing ward boundaries were unchanged, with the implicit proviso that any point removed from the district was ipso facto removed from the ward
*** or SI 1995/610 footnote (5) is incorrect
* or the 2946 figure was always incorrect and the correct figure of 2835 was not discovered until after 1986
* or I've misinterpreted any of the above
* or something else
TL,DR: WP:PRIMARY. jnestorius(talk) 22:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundaries 

message: is there a reason why the City of York page has been made to redirect to this one, York?! RyanPLB (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  City of York
Talk:Belfast East (UK Parliament constituency)

message: The article on David Alderdice has been nominated for deletion. Timrollpickering 14:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note of article for deletion 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.See footnote
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. 
See footnote
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto peer review suggestions
Talk:Edinburgh South (UK Parliament constituency)

message: I'm just going to do some research on this, but in case I don't find anything/forget to update here there appears to be an inconsistency in the turnout versus votes - sum of the five parties = 43800, turnout = 43801. --Neil (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: I could be missing something here, but to me it is not entirely clear here if the figures quoted are actual known vote numbers or estimates based on the wider result. For many constituencies the results stated for the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum were just estimates as the counting areas used did not match constituencies. The counting areas used  in Scotland - as stated at Results of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum - were council areas, but I know some councils did release data broken down into parliamentary constituency level. However I am not sure if Edinburgh Council did this or not. I think some clarification if anyone knows would be helpful.  Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016 EU referendum result details  - actual figures or estimates?