lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Marianopolis College

message: The article has been expanded and cleaned up. Possible improvements:
* More information about the move to the new campus
* More information about student clubs and government
* More information about special events during the year
* More information about how the boys team plays in the girls league for multiple sports (except ping pong).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.203.235 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "The Marianopolis College mascot is the Calculus Demons Marianopolis is regarded as the worst of the Québec cégep in athletics" - vandalism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.226.47 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I do not see how one ongoing lawsuit about alleged sexual misconduct needs to be included in the History section of an encyclopedia article about a school. One isolated instance does not need such undue weight. I have reverted and attempted to initiate discussion, only after voluntarily committing an infraction against 3rr has the editor decided to involve themselves on my talk page. I leave the discussion to the community to achieve consensus.--ZooFamily (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Uh...Montreal is called Marianopolis in Latin (e.g. Archdiocesis Marianopolitanus). You might remember that the original (colonizer) name for the city was Ville-Marie. 142.198.148.19 (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It changed its name to Marianopolis College (from Greek City of Maria) (since the teaching congregation has another much older nearby secondary school named Villa Maria [1854])."
Talk:United States Naval Observatory

message: Calling the listed phone numbers for the master clock in NPA 202 on 1 September, 2022 resulted in a few rings, then a click. On 2023.04.09 the time service at +1 202-762-1401 once again answered with the time announcements.
Boteman (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Phones Temporarily Dead
Talk:Lamu Island

message: This is a bit confusing: mixing up "Lamu" and "Lamu Island": it is "Lamu" (ie the town) which is a World Heritage Site; not the whole of "Lamu Island". Huldra 01:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixed 

message: Shouldn't the Shirazi people be mentioned in this article, if only briefly, in order to help make this article more properly encyclopedic? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Shirazi people]]
Talk:Jorge B. Vargas

message: The article lacks any content about Vargas' actions during the Japanese Occupation of the Philippines. I have added two items to a new further reading section, so that a reader can get more information on that. Both seem to be pretty well balanced in giving positive and negative views of the subject of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: Please see the discussion at Talk:Prime Minister of the Philippines#Prime Minister office assertions prior to 1978 appear problematic and comment there as appropriate. Thank you. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime Minister discussion
Talk:1950 Monaco Grand Prix

message: I just wrote some information regarding the race itself, specially the big pile-up during the first lap. - Marcos2006 01:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Sheldon & Rabagliati's "Black Book" lists the entrant for Pozzi as "G Grignard". Are there any reliable sources supporting the current value of "Ecurie Rosier"? DH85868993 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entrants 

message: www.formula1.com says 3:13:'16.7; Mike Lang's Grand Prix! Vol 1 says 3:13:'18.7 - any support either way? -- DH85868993 11:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winner's race time
Talk:Min and Bill

message: This is listed as having won an oscar in 1931, yet it is listed as a 1930 film, are both correct?Ionesco 18:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Film Date
Talk:Smilin' Through (play)

message: The play, and each film adaptation is its own seperate entity, and each deserve their own page.  This would also clear up any confusion between the different versions, as I have experienced in my work with the yearly list of American films.Eaglebreath (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and separate them! Something like: Smilin' Through (play), Smilin' Through (1927 film), and so on. I suggest that you leave "Smilin' Through" as a dsambiguation page for the other four articles. Markhh (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Separation completed. I hope readers will be pleased with the results. Markhh (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, thanks you Mark! Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Markhh (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1941's Smilin' Through
Talk:Arthur A. Schuck

message: The page on Chief Scout Executive says that Mr. Schuck was the #3 CSE, not #2. No idea which is correct though.
There was one guy that was briefly before James E. West, where there is a mention on his page. Chris 16:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one in question is Mr. Fretwell who the CSE page says was 1943-1948. Mr. Schucks page says he started in 1943... Naraht 19:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  #2 or #3? 

message: I've rewritten and expanded this article, correcting some serious errors in the process. For example, the edit by anon IP136.182.158.129 in 2006 stating that Schuck died in 1959 while in office as chief Scout exec. According to his New York Times obituary of February 25, 1963, Schuck died three years later. Also, he first started work at the national office in 1922, not 1931.  JGHowes   talk 18:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite
Talk:Bernal Díaz del Castillo

message: The article previously asserted that the work was begun in 1568.  But see the introduction by Miguel León-Portilla to his anthology of the Historia (Conaculta, Cien de México, 2nd edn. 2000):- p.16 for putative date of commencement (around 1553-1557), and p.29 for date of completion (1568). The introduction to a previous edition of the work (1943) arrived at the same conclusion:-
"Bernal debió trabajar largo tiempo en su libro. Testimonios anteriores a 1557 nos indican que lo tenía empezado. En 1563 lo daba por concluido ya. En 1568 lo pone en limpio. En realidad, no lo concluyó nunca. No veía de un modo claro la manera de darle fin." See "Introducción al estudio de Bernal Díaz del Castillo y de su verdadera historia". Ridiculus mus (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of composition of Historia verdadera 

message: The article describes Bernal Díaz as coming from a "poor family," but at the beginning of his first chapter, Bernal describes himself as the son of Francisco Díaz del Castillo, "el Galán," regidor of Medina del Campo.  Seems unlikely that a poor man would have been a regidor of a town as important as Medina del Campo was for Castile at the end or the 15th century.  Unless someone has some supporting evidence for the statement, I'd delete it.
Isidorpax (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to know stuff about this topic. Please don't hesitate to make the changes you find useful to the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernal Díaz's "poor"family 

message: How could he have died January 11 if his son announced his death on January 3? An explanation in the article would be welcome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.174.122.180 (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death date 

message: The reference given for the following sentence is dated 2001. I'm not sure how long we should leave it in its current wording without asking for something a bit more up to date, but I would have thought probably not much longer. 
"Bernal Díaz's account has not yet been fully utilized as a source for conquest-era Mesoamerican culture." Liamcalling (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not yet"
Talk:Marie Antoinette (1938 film)

message: I am the last survivng cast member.  At 8 months old I was the baby on the back of the peasant woman at about 1hr 30min in.  I can prove this in case you are skeptical.
I have read that this was Evita Peron's favorite film in all the world.
70.41.221.231 (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast member of Marie Antoinette
Talk:Pride and Prejudice (1940 film)

message: It seems to have had a fairly good reception among general reviewers, but its reputation among serious Jane Austen readers is more dubious.  As alluded to several times in the article (but never clearly explained), the film-makers did a drastic shift from 1813 fashions to styles mainly based on late-1820s fashions, using a lot of eye-hurting fabric patterns that were semi-authentic for the 1820s (though greatly enhanced and adapted for black-and-white film cameras) but completely anachronistic for 1813 or earlier.  It may seem trivial, but it adds a constant visually-jarring discordant note for those who know what the clothes should look like.  Also, much of the plot and dialogue was fairly heavily "Hollywoodized". Churchh (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception
Talk:Jim Lovell

message: For an explanation of how Lovell qualified for the WWII Victoy Medal though he joined the Navy after the war see:
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/001896.html
It was approved for people who served to Dec 31, 1946. This part is backed up by the wiki article on the medal.
In it he says he thinks he never wore it.
Consequently I think the medal's status should stay as is, he was entitled to the award but should not be listed as a veteran of the war. Seven Pandas (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a WP:RS that he received that medal? I don't think a guy posting on a collectspace forum saying he contacted Lovell qualifies. TJRC (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Victoy should be Victory. Simply a typo, otherwise not an issue.  JonR99 (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII Victory Medal 

message: Second paragraph, 
"He was then assigned to was assigned to Electronics Test, working with...."
Is this grammar correct or needing fixing? I think "assigned to" is accidentally twice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.85.17.230 (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks IP, the repetition has been fixed. JennyOz (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request / Double-Check 

message: Question: Is it correct that, as stated in the article, that Lovell "gave the ok" to empty the O2 tanks using the new procedure? Wouldn't it be more accurate to attribute the responsibility of the O2 tank emptying issue to the team that devised the new procedure and certified the tank?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.240.94 (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct. The article apportions responsibility. Lovell approved the action taken. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo 13 

message: Isn't Timber Cove east, not south, of the Space Center? GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timber Cove location 

message: Now that Marilyn Lovell has her own New York Times obituary, maybe she should have her own page instead of redirecting to her husband's? Jsnell (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to create an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marilyn Lovell 

message: As of the death of Tom Stafford, Jim Lovell is the last surviving member of Astronaur Group 2. 99.196.135.189 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last living member of Astronaut Group 2
Talk:Sweet Tooth (Twisted Metal)

message: I added a cleanup tag, as this article really needs it. 199.126.137.209 14:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a second cleanup tag because the article becomes increasingly confusing toward the end. It appears to have been written by one user, and then hastily corrected by another. Instead of re-writing the section in question, only a single sentence was added, and it degrades the quality of the article. Since the storyline is slightly different depending on the game in question, the article needs to clearly reflect that. At the moment it's pretty confusing to read. Needles-Kane 06:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I'm not quite sure about the clown's name. Obviously, the name of his vehicle is "Sweet Tooth" and many game players also refer to the clown as this. Is "Sweet Tooth" the actual name of the driver of the ice cream truck acting as an a alias to his real name "Needles Kane", or is it just a broadening of the name created by fans? Is the clown (separate from his vehicle) ever officially (ie in the actual games) referred to as Sweet Tooth or is the character only exclusively known as Needles? Sorry if this sounds a bit confusing. --Mysterious Bob 21:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You posted a very good question there, Mysterious Bob.Should his official name be Sweet Tooth or Needles Kane? MKguy42192 (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The design team calls him Sweet Tooth in Head On PS2's extras, and he is refered to that in Black (and oddly I don't think they ever call him Needles there). He's refered to as Sweet Tooth in his Twisted Metal 2 ending as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not named Needles in Black, but its pretty much hinted in Yellow Jacket's intro and ending (the whole "bad Kane's son" thing). Besides, he's called Needles in his bio for Lost, which is also the Black world. He's only named Needles Kane in the driver info of TM1, TM2, TM3, TMHO and TML; and "Needles" is used by Calypso as he speaks to Marcus in his HO ending (probably to mock him). In TM4, Small Brawl, Black and the endings he's only called Sweet Tooth, which does seem to have become his pseudonym as a serial killer by now. Needles, as used in the latest driver info, is likely his "real name". 190.172.80.5 (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needles Kane 

message: War Of The Monsters Needle Kane Cool 2400:AC40:610:5FD8:F9FD:CCBF:8DFF:12FE (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agamo Style Needle Kane 

message: Talk about his appearances in the first 4 games, the 2012 reboot, and the spinoffs. Currently it only talks about his appearance in Twisted Metal Black and guest appearances. 88T3 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add more to Appearances section
Talk:Battleground (film)

message: The most notable part of this movie for me is the final scene, where SGT Kinnie encounters replacements marching toward the front. Despite being battered and disheveled, the unit squares its shoulders, gets itself in step, and proudly marches away from Bastogne. THe effect on the replacements had to have been incalcuable. 
RangerJ (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is worth adding to this Wikipedia page the fact that the producers of this film were damned clever in their scripting.  There was a need to preserve verisimilitude without violating the sensibilities of surviving veterans of the 101st Airborne Division who would naturally come to view the movie in 1949.  Would there be someone who could say "I was in Item Company during the fighting around Bastogne, and no such thing ever happened"?
Nope.  Because at the time of the battle of Bastogne, the 327th Glider Infantry Regiment didn't have an Item Company.  It didn't have an official Third Battalion.
When the airborne divisions were conceived early in World War II, the Army brass decided that the glider regiments should consist of only two battalions each.  The first battalion would be made up of Able, Baker, Charlie, and Dog Companies.  The second contained Easy, Fox, George, and How Companies.  No Item, Love, King, or Mike Companies.
When by 1944 it became evident that these two-battalion regiments were not suited to combat operations, certain Glider Infantry Regiments were broken up and their battalions attached to other glider regiments.  The 327th was assigned the First Battalion of the 401st Glider Infantry Regiment, getting "doubles" on Able, Baker, Charlie, and Dog Companies.
It was not until 1945 that the 1st/401st was disestablished and its personnel formally assigned to the "new" 3rd/327th.  
Thus "the 2nd Squad, 3rd Platoon of Item Company, 327th Glider Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division," did not exist at the time of the 1944 Ardennes campaign, and no "I wuz there!" problem could possibly happen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucci78 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like 2/401's companies (E, F and G) were redesignated as I, K and L companies prior to D-Day ( http://www.6juin1944.com/assaut/aeropus/en_page.php?page=82 ) but that 1/401's were not. Regardless, my understanding is that members of the 401st thought of themselves at that regardless of what the Army wanted to call them. --76.100.129.126 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonexistent American small units in ''Battleground''
Talk:Where the Boys Are

message: The author of the article describes this as a comedy.  One of the characters in the film gets sexually ambushed and attacked and raped, and then she gets hit by a car ... and it's a comedy?  Can anyone else who has seen this film describe it?  ````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by L. Thomas W. (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedy
Talk:Far and Away

message: Paragraphs, please 130.220.79.178 (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ==
I was curious as to the time period the movie portrayed, THat was why they showed us the film junior year in high school. I thought it was around the mid 1800's, but i just wanted some support. can some one postthat?
At the beginning of the movie, it shows the date as 1892. Mr.Morose 01:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My eyes, the goggles, they do nothing 

message: No doubt Far and Away deals with a land run, but I am disputing which land run.  I've seen 1889 mentioned as well as 1893.
* amazon mentions 1893
* half.com mentions land run of the 1890's
* imdb.com user mentions 1893 in his plot summary
Honestly, it seems the real date is 1893 and not 1889. This error might also be present on Land Run of 1889 Ash Lux 17:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and change it now Ash Lux (talk | Contribs) 14:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the more pressing issue is the fact that their accents were awful--just bloody awful.  <B>Erikeltic</B> (Talk) 23:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in Dublin when this film was released, and Irish friends were absolutely pissing themselves about the accents and general Oirishness. I guess they weren't the target audience though. --Ef80 (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 
Talk:Cocoon (film)

message: Please include my father DAVID SAPERSTEIN as the author of this incredible film!!!!  He worked for several years to create this fantastic film and it took him 5 years to sell it to a movie studio, I think he deserves his name mentioned here at the very least!  Thank you,   Ilena
And in my opinion, the book was far better than the movie. See Talk for Cocoon: The Return Graywriter (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In my last edit just a few minutes ago I changed the ending. I have just watched the film and I thought it was wrong.
Originally it said the spaceship approached a bright planet. Watching the film ending carefully, I saw that the bright ball appeared much brighter when the spacehip approached it. After engulfing the spaceship, the ball started collapsing. That didn't look like a planet but more like a portal / hyperspace entrance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heimdall1973 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of the film 

message: Why is this plot synopsis so long? 108.17.79.134 (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot
Talk:Gung Ho (film)

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 

message: Since the content under the Synopsis isn't really a Synopsis summary, I've changed it to About instead. M173627 (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: Besides the Fiat Regata the other type cars that was used are not Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon but rather Fiat 127 Series III. See also conflicting information on the fiat 127 page. Comment added by floris1978 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filming 
Talk:Night Shift (1982 film)

message: Including specific mention of this scene is definitely notable, particularly since it occurred during a time when gays felt vulnerable and underrepresented in media. It is frequently cited by gay people in film retrospectives as a hurtful scene.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.204.30 (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jail scene often described as homophobic 

message: I did a Google search and the only two places in the entire internet the phrase "working at a brothel as a towel boy" are in this article and in the Steve McQueen Wikipedia article. Only those readers who know the job titles of brothel employees with have any idea what a towel boy is; male prostitute? boy prostitute? scantily clad male dancer? porter who cleans rooms between customer visits?  So I removed it, as the sentence without that is as informative as with it. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towel boy 

message: I have removed the so called "controversy" section.  The only sources provided are two articles written by two people who feel that a scene is homophobic.  Obviously this does not meet the standards for controversy anymore then two people calling Opera and Barack Obama racist and then us allowing a controversy section on their pages with that nonsense as well. (Or insert two people you like and respect)  Two people's personal opinions does not a controversy section make.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReggieTheGreat (talk • contribs) 05:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Controversy section