lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Slash (punctuation)

message: In the History section, the article currently reads
Can anyone verify that against the "long" OED? Because the only reference in New Oxford American Dictionary (3 ed.) entry for "Slash" accessed via the Wikipedia Library says:
{{blockquote|
2. an oblique stroke (/) in print or writing, used between alternatives (e.g., and/or), in fractions (e.g., 3/4), in ratios (e.g., miles/day), or between separate elements of a text. 
■ [usually as modifier] a genre of fiction, published chiefly in fanzines or online, in which characters who appear together in movies, television, or other popular media are portrayed as having a sexual (especially homosexual) relationship.
[1980s: from the use of an oblique stroke to link adjoining names or initials (as in Kirk/Spock and K/S. ] 
[ ... ]
–  late Middle English: perhaps imitative, or from Old French  "break in pieces". The noun dates from the late 16th century.https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/view/10.1093/acref/9780195392883.001.0001/m_en_us1291295?rskey=5Cn7US&result=4 .
Comments? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. TBF, the current text does say "earliest attested". TBH, what drew my attention to the current citation is that it looks amateurish and thought surely we can do better than that. I'll try later on to see if I can a form of words to cite the 1947 manual without a WP:OR vio. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slash: history of the word
Talk:Zeng Guofan

message: Should this be changed to Pinyin? WhisperToMe 14:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 23:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem
Talk:Sparkle and Fade

message: :That would be granted to their follow up, "Santa Monica," which effectively put Everclear on the map. 
What does this mean, exactly?  I get that "Santa Monica" was Everclear's first big song, but "that would be granted to their follow up" sounds like gibberish to me.  Anyone care to enlighten?  --67.185.75.254 (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear sentence
Talk:Young Finnish Party

message: User Duncharris made a suggestion of deletion. I oppose that suggestion.
Duncharris´ suggestion was made without his any comment or criticism on this Talk page.
Further, there might be good reasons to delete user Duncharris, if he continues with a policy of deletion in minutes after beginning of work by others. 213.243.157.114 16:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:National Progressive Party

message: User Duncharris made a suggestion of deletion. I oppose that suggestion.
213.243.157.114 16:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion for deletion was made because the created page was empty, and subsequently I deleted the page. It is unfortunate that you lost an edit in progress as a result of this. You could either write new articles or long edits in a text file on your computer or create a sandbox for yourself to create new articles, for example User:213.243.157.114/Sandbox, so this does not happen again. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:Absolute sex

message: Absolute sex has survived Wikipedia:VFD. I don't see any agreement on any alternative (keep, delete, merge), so I've left the article as it stands. Feel free to merge it if you are thus inspired, or to relist it on vfd. For the record, see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Absolute sex -- Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 08:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're understating the consensus.  No one voted to keep it.  I took account of the calls for merger by adding this sentence to the Unification Church article: "The Unification Church uses the term 'absolute sex' to refer to its teaching about sexual morality, which is essentially abstinence before marriage and fidelity thereafter."  Anyone who can find anything else of substance in this article should add it to the Unification Church article.  Assuming that merger has been accomplished, the only disagreement was whether, after deleting this Moonie tract, we should leave behind a redirect.  Only -- orthogonal spoke against redirect.  At this point, I'd say the consensus is to delete the current text and substitute a redirect to Unification Church. JamesMLane 15:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: It seems to me that the decision to make it a separate article, rather than a section of Unification Church ought to entail one of two trigger events.  1. If the doctrine is so famous that people will hear of it outside of the context of the Unification Church, it needs a separate article. 2. The existing article on Unification Church is so large, dense, and long that editing it triggers warnings about file size, the docrine needs a separate entry.  It seems to me that neither of these criteria is met here, which is why the Redirect votes.  Also, at the time I listed the artilce, it was a substub that simply didn't tell the reader anything except that he'd be better off reading the Unification Church entry. Geogre 16:44, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Nash Motors

message: Did they really have air in '38?  I'd always heard Packard was first in '39.  RivGuySC 19:21, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air conditioning 

message: Did anyone ever wonder why American Motors' date of incorporation was 1918?  Nash and Hudson did not actually merge, that was a fabrication designed to make the public think Hudson was an equal partner in American Motors.  Legally Nash-Kelvinator Corporation changed its name to American Motors Corporation and then a stock exchange was made for Hudson Motor Company stock.  The surviving corporation was Nash-Kelvinator, Hudson ceased to exist.  AMC was not a new company.  Very similar to the purchase of AT&T by SBC Corporation.  The current SBC, incorprated in 1983, uses the name AT&T, Inc.  The real AT&T Corp./American Telephone and Telegraph Company, exists as a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc. In realty American Motors Corporation existed from 1918 to 1987.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.93.180 (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nash never did not become defunct in 1954 

message: I believe Nash bought out this Racine based uto company? can someone add something about this? Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[ Mitchell-Lewis Motor Company]]

message: ...the heating and ventilation system which is still used today.
:Nash's successor, AMC, went belly-up in 1987. How can said system still be used "today"?
:(In encyclopedia articles, present-time constructions such as "today" and "currently" should be avoided, as they may become outdated at any time.) Sca (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?
Talk:Felix Draeseke

message: Some contents of this entry are reproduced from the Felix Draeseke Society Web pages by permission. Visit  www.draeseke.org
Could you provide details of the permission, and who gave it? Thanks. Secretlondon 02:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But unfortunately, when you(?) added the material, you neglected to cite what you did, so now the article stands almost completely unreferenced. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: hi - i see you black listed the draeseke entry. i am also the webmaster for the draeseke society; could you please provide the evidence you would like to see? thanks
What we would like is some proof that you do actually have permission - that you are acting on behalf of the society. I'm not saying that I don't believe you - it just that many people claim that they are when caught copying text. I presume that you know that you would be releasing text under the GFDL i.e. not just for Wikipedia, and that it will be edited. I'm sorry this seems difficult but it is to protect everybody. Secretlondon 21:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sent an e-mail to the e-mail address given on their web page, asking for confirmation. If I don't get a reply until Aug 9, 2004, I'll delete the article. Lupo 11:14, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  felix draeseke pages 

message: (So of course delete if inappropriate even to a talk page!) Just wanted to give my opinion that Draeseke's muse (uneven to be sure) produced wonderful results in his chamber music, string quintets & viola sonatas, particularly.  (And I find the melody opening the A major quintet very difficult to forget.) (In his orchestral music I am taken with his 2nd symphony, enjoy the rest I've heard and hope to catch that buzzing fly of a  Comica.) Schissel 16:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct, you had no business posting this as the Talk Page is not a Forum. We need discuss only RS's for the improvement of the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quite entirely offtopic to the preceding, and very subjectively and extremely POV 

message: There are several NPOV issues in this article. I'll try to deal with them tomorrow. --Toccata quarta (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: At last it has been done.—Toccata quarta (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: From what I know and have read about the composer, the material is more or less accurate, but when adding material to Wiki articles editors are required to add referenced in-line citations - I've tagged the article and sections for the need for this.  I don't have the proper reference material in the local university library to do this properly, so if SME's could please help fix this article ... ?  Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is virtually unreferenced - tagged
Talk:1933

message: As per discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years the year in topic paragraph is scheduled to be deleted as it largely duplicates the links in the top box, and is not consistent with other year. Any objections should be made on that page please --BozMo|talk 19:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year in topic 

message: I deleted the date of occupation of Shanghai as unsupported by any reference I could find, including Wikipedia's and Brittanica's articles.  Shanghai was occupied in 1937, not 1933.Robert A.West (Talk) 23:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Japanese occupation of Shanghai]]? 

message: [See: Talk:1950#Format.  -Wikid77 13:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: the same event - the foundation of the gestapo - is dated to 2 different dates -- one in april and one in june. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.230.72.33 (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone fix this?! 

message: Two official 'end of the gold standard' dates are given (April, June). Checked the Gold Standard article, it was unhelpful. Twang (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold standard

message: It kind of bothers me that it is varying between 'Franklin D. Roosevelt' and 'Franklin Delano Roosevelt.'
I was wondering if we could make it consistent?
Thanks,
A random person  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:7100:7024:5BD:4D25:17B:ADFD (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  D. Vs. Delano
Talk:Anglican communion

message: On what basis are these churches called "Protestant".
Where do they officially refer to themselves as such?
I appreciate in WikiPedia where there are, according to Meta, twenty times more Roman Catholics than Anglicans this is not going to be a popular line but the CoE commonly uses "Catholic" of itself and not Protestent --BozMo|talk 20:05, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Talk:List of railway stations

message: This is VERY sparse, and should really only link to lists by country/city. I just created it to house content moved from Train station. Zoney 21:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sparse 

message: Aside from moving stuff off of Train station, what is the purpose of this page ?  Should we go to [www.amtrak.com] and get a list of all the passenger rail stations in the United States?  This list could get very silly - I might mention Cary, North Carolina which has a train station that serves as a prominent landmark for navigation and a whistle stop, I could mention Raleigh, North Carolina which even has a ticket window, and I could mention Huntsville, Alabama which has a train-station-turned-museum from before the United States Civil War complete with Civil War soldier graffiti protected behind plexiglass on the top floor.  Yes, the list is very sparse, and I can't figure out the value of the list except to reference stations worthy of articles.  -- ke4roh 00:49, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
:It's a valid question - why have lists, but the current policy seems to be to tolerate them - I believe "categories" were introduced to do away with the need for lists - but so far lists haven't been stopped. As for this list specifically - it's no sillier than manys another list on Wikipedia. I would suggest that some sub-articles will be required for the US. (For example, there was already a list of London railway stations).
:Finally - it is indeed here to stop people populating train station with a big list. Like list of European cities with alternative names, it keeps certain editors amused. <B>zoney</B> ███ <B>talk</B> 01:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of this page 

message: The article for railway stations in Japan that starts with the letter M sits at 71 KiB, 1,676 lines long. While the concept behind this article may have sounded like a good idea at first, it is actually impossible to indiscriminately list all the railway stations of the world in a single article.
While there is no hope for this particular article, I don't believe it should be salted like List of anime, but rather be redirected to something that would be useful as a starting point. Perhaps expand on Lists of railway stations, a meta-list, in hopes that it would one day be as awesome as the Lists of countries article. Just my 2¢. —Tokek (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously "no consensus": serious rethink may be required ([[WP:NOTDIR]])
Talk:Sorcery

message: Is it really true that there was a version of Sorcery (or more likely Sorcery+) for the Amiga? I'd have thought it was a Spectrum/Amstrad only game (possibly with a C64 version as well). Can somebody please provide a link to a page that substantiates the existence of an Amiga version of Sorcery or Sorcery+? --Peter Knutsen 21:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorcery/Sorcery+ for the Amiga?
Talk:Jeffersontown, Kentucky

message: Found a charge on my bank account,I didn’t purchase a pizza at 5022 club road Little Rock, or anywhere on this day 173.216.20.240 (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn’t make purchase on 5/23/23 at 5022 club road
Talk:KKK

message: Do we really, really need this page to disambiguate the Bold textku klux klan from "Kataastaasang Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan"?
Given that "KKK" refers the overwhelming majority of the time to the Ku Klux Klan, I vote to replace this page with a redirect to the Ku Klux Klan and include something like this on the Ku Klux Klan page:
:KKK may also refer to the Kataastaasang Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan.
...and then include the rest of the info on the Kataastaasang Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan page.
Having this redirect here makes it more difficult to link to the Ku Klux Klan, since now one has to type KKK instead of KKK and frankly, I don't think it's worth the effort.
-Lalala 22:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold text

message: Why was this added a while back?  What is Kylmä, Koho, Kompressio?
More importantly what is it?  A google search returns all non-english results.
* I believe it is a Finnish phrase to help people remember a sequence of steps when performing CPR. --Dystopos 20:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is Kylmä, Koho, Kompressio 

message: From WP:MOSDAB: External links should rarely, if ever, be given entries in disambiguation pages. Including them as comments or on a talk page is a way to mention URLs that might be helpful in the future. And also, Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject.
I don't see that this is the case. Regarding the comment, "It is notable to European falconers, and this is about the only way for them toi find this information as web search for KKK drowns in refs to the KKKlan." First, they can be very easily found by Googling for KKK falconry; www.falconclubs.fsnet.co.uk comes up in the first page of search results. (Fewer than 1K Ghits, BTW) And second, Wikipedia is not a business directory and does not exist to enable obscure firms to be found more easily. If this falconry firm want to be found more easily, they can change their name. Unless they have been written about in the newspaper or in history books multiple times (e.g. for having the same name as the KKK, or some other reason), I don't think they deserve to be here; I don't see any reliable sources about them among the Ghits, and their page makes them look extremely non-notable.
(This has been discussed before; don't see that any response was provided that time to justify the inclusion.) cab 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish firm which sells falconry supplies 

message: I've read through the Kool-Aid article, and there is nothing along the lines of 'Kool Kids Klub' which would refer its exemption under the search category of 'KKK'. Thanks, Aeryck89 18:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kool Aid
Category talk:Politicians of the Republic of China

message: (I apologize in advance for the semi-argumentative nature of my comments, which is not usually a good thing for a RfC, but I think given the situation here, an advocacy for a proposal is necessary.  Also, I realize it's relatively unusual for category names/inclusion to become subject matters of RfC, but again, given the situation here, I think it is appropriate rather than for me to just unilaterally carry out a reorganization.)
Apparently, in 2007 a semi-consensus (I hate to call it an actual consensus given that apparently no one discussed it, although that was not the user's fault) was formed that this category would include politicians of pre-1949 ROC politicians, while :Category:Taiwanese politicians would include Taiwanese politicians of all periods, including ROC politicians after 1949.  This might have appeared as a good idea at that time, but since then, I think it's partly due to this division that both categories have become a major mess, with intersectional subcategories that really shouldn't be subcategories of either.
I am requesting comments on a new proposal I am making to reorganize — in which I'm believe trying to take in the concern of the neutrality needed on the Taiwan status question while trying to make the category names more accurate and more logical:
* :Category:Politicians of the Republic of China will include all ROC politicians, from 1911 to the present.  Current intersectional subcategories (such as, for example, :Category:Presidents of the Republic of China) will be subcategories of this category only.
* :Category:Taiwanese politicians will include all Taiwanese politicians, during the ROC period and before (Japanese rule, Republic of Taiwan, Qing Dynasty, Ming Dynasty).
* A new "super subcategory" will be created: :Category:Politicians of the Republic of China on Taiwan, which will be a subcategory of both :Category:Politicians of the Republic of China and :Category:Taiwanese politicians.  Most of the current subcategories of :Category:Taiwanese politicians will become subcategories of this category.
I believe this more logically and accurately characterizes the politicians involved.  Due to the potentially contentious nature of this, however, I am asking for comments and potentially, alternative proposals.  --Nlu (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objections over a course of nearly three weeks, I think I'm going to start implementing this setup.  (Except for the part of "Most of the current subcategories of :Category:Taiwanese politicians will become subcategories of this category" part; that part has turned out to be not quite true based on what I am looking at with the two overlapping categories' subcategories.)  --Nlu (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

text: In addition, due to the size of the membership of the categories, I believe I will also diffuse by geographic origin.  --Nlu (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Recasting of this category
Talk:Thomas Bragg

message: first try to put a little space between the tables with a  tag showed OK in preview but not in the "real thing" -- then I put   after the break and it showed lots of space, probably too much.  Hmmm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebear422 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 July 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Agent Pleakley

message: Pleakley is the gender-fluid Alien we all know and love from the Disney classic, Lilongwe and Stitch – they have been seen wearing both masculine and feminine attire.
As for sexuality, it's very possible they're asexual.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.68.237 (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

message: It is quite obvious that Pleakley is a transsexual, but I agree that there has been no indication that he is homosexual (he might be......asexual?). Transsexuality is commonly--and often mistakenly--associated with homosexuality. Although the thought of Jumba and Pleakley having sex is amusing, I don't think either of them is gay. I am suprised and delighted that such an overtly transsexual character plays a major role in a big-studio children's cartoon; I think it's a step in the right direction! Pleakley would be my favorite L&S character, if Stitch wasn't so damn cool. Still, I hold Pleakley in special regards because of who he is and what he represents. As for the possibility that Pleakley is either a female or androgynous (and thus would normally dress in women's clothes): on one episode of the series--in which they are trying to catch an experiment that causes amnesia--an amnesiac Pleakley says, "Who am I? And why am I wearing a dress?" It seems that cross-dressing is something that Pleakley got into once he found a home on Earth; being away from his family and others of his kind, he was finally free to express himself.
I think that Disney would never put a transsexual or an homosexual in a children's show. He dresses has a woman probably because that makes kids laugh; it's just for comedy reasons. that line "why am I wearing a dress", is also for fun.--Midasminus 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transsexuality vs. Homosexuality 

message: The infobox says he's 31, is this official?208.3.110.254 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Age?