lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Sir Robert Menzies Lecture

message: There seems to be a problem.  I have a newspaper clipping from 18 May 2004 which reported on Tony Abbott’s lecture the previous night.  Yet we show him as being the 2003 lecturer, and Phillip Ruddock being the 2004 lecturer.  Maybe it’s like the Oscars, where the awards for films first shown in 2006 are made in February 2007, etc - and the awards made in 2007 are referred to as "the 2006 Oscars".  If that’s the way they date the Lectures, we need to say something about it.  --  JackofOz 02:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes. The dating issue arose as there was no lecture in 2003, and two lectures in 2004. I'm not sure why, because I only began with the Monash Liberal Club in 2004, but it was obviously some sort of scheduling issue that arose. Anyhow, the trust decided to designate Abbott's March 2004 speech as 2003, and Ruddock's speech (November, from memory) as 2004, essentially to make the labelling easier. Most of the speeches (recently, anyway) have been towards the end of the year. Aspirex 10:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  I think we really need to say something about this in the article.  On the face of it, a reader would quite reasonably think that Abbott's speech was made some time in 2003.  Do you have the relevant citations? --  JackofOz 13:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I don't have a citation - other than the fact that when the Trust publishes a list, it says 2003. The rest is just recollection. Aspirex 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  Thanks.  -- JackofOz 08:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating issue
Talk:Jamie Oldaker

message: I've taken the nonsense tag off because the article is capable of expansion - there are 23,100 Ghits for this person. --Rodhullandemu 02:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I reverted the page deletion for Jamie Oldaker. The subject meets the guidelines for notability, and if an individual feels otherwise, it should be taken to the talk page for discussion.
Vytal (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Deletion 
Talk:Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology

message: Note:  Project Banner with Orissa workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under :Category:Orissa or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag  TALK2ME 07:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Orissa Addition 
Talk:List of World War II military gliders

message: The US converted some light aircraft (Piper J-3/L-4, Aroncas) for military trainers.  These are not civilian models but custom made for the military.--Flightsoffancy (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see why not as long as they were given glider designations. MilborneOne (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Trainig Gliders for list? 

message: Why limit the scope to WWII, which is when the vast majority of designs originated, as there were some notable military gliders design and built after the war ended.Petebutt (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware of any save early design for the GAL Universal Freighter (before they stuck engines on it to give the Blackburn Beverley). Having had a look there is the Chase XCG-20 (2 built) and Chase YC-122 Avitruc (6 built), how many are there to add if we changed the scope? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

text: (ec) Not 100% sure why but I think it was created as part of a series of articles under :Category:Military aircraft of World War II, that said I see no reason why it cant be a list of all military gliders as they were not that many more produced, mainly just after the war. We could then create a :Category:World War II military gliders or something similar if needed. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: seems reasonable. Just like to clarify scope - that we are excluding gliders used by the military solely for training pilots. And where do we stand on unmanned gliders such as the Glombs ( glide bombs)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Military Gliders
Talk:Frederick E. Grine

message: As a biography, this would probably benefit from having a date of birth or year of birth in the heading.
:Why do paleoanthropologists always think they have to claim they have found the 'ancestor' of living humans? Wake up and do real science Mr Grine!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.173.23 (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bios
Talk:Top sirloin

message: I've been browsing about the different sorts of Brazilian and English cuts, and I came across this diagram.
I am not sure that top sirloin is really a picanha. It the diagram above, picanha seems to be at the very top of the cattle, next to the tail (the top part of the round). Toughts? --Pinnecco (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really picanha?
Talk:Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University

message: hi,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjay asari (talk • contribs) 08:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  psychplogy
Talk:MS Brahe

message: There seems some confusion amongst sources as to spelling of RN ship name. Is it: Kilchrennan, Kilchrenan or Kilchernan. Any definitive source? --mervyn (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is (drumroll please) - Kilchrenan!  The only confusion seems to be in the US website which has fluffed the spelling.  Definitive source = , but also see here as well. Her predecessor, of the First World War Kil class was also Kilchrenan. Both were named after a Scottish town or village in common with the other ships of their class, in this case the village of Kilchrenan.  Benea (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying - the Norwegian version of the page uses Kilchrennan and the current owner uses Kilchernan! --mervyn (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RN ship name spelling 

message: Ship is now named MS sunnhordland http://www.mssunnhordland.no/?lang=en  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulrikrl (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should change headline
Talk:Round steak

message: So, where exactly is eye of round???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.210.197 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

message: The article "Rump steak" redirects here.  However, that creates a bit of a mess, because "rump steak" and "round steak" are different cuts in Australia, as "rump steak" is from the rump, and "round steak" from the knuckle. http://www.biggun.com.au/pdf/BeefandlambcutschartscookingApr08.pdf cojoco (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with this. I am originally from South Africa, now living in the US, and "round steak" neither looks nor tastes like "rump steak", which is also popular in South Africa. In my opinion, the South America cut known as "rump cover" looks more like a "rump steak" than does the US "round steak". --Frankwm1 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Indeed, and the claim in the article that rump steak is tough is patently wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rump steak is a relatively chewy steak, but it shouldn't actually be tough. We really need a separate article for rump steak as there is no direct equivalent in American butchery. The term 'round steak' isn't common in the UK but it appears to be a completely different cut. --Ef80 (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rump steak" is a different cut from "Round steak" in Australia
Talk:Rib steak

message: I don't like this entry describing a rib steak.  My problem is, there is an inadequate distinction between this wiki description of rib steak and the wiki description of a ribeye steak.  
Anybody who knows steak knows a ribeye steak has a narrow area of meat that runs along the outside edge of the steak that's separated by fat.  I've always called this the "eyebrow" but that's my own invention.  The name of the muscle is the "Spinalis Dorsi" and it's also known at the "ribeye cap" or "cap of ribeye."  Fact is, (and this is somewhat of a secret among chefs), it's widely considered by knowledgeable beef lovers as both the tastiest and the most tender part of the cow:  it's even more tender than tenderloin - and it's marbled!  It's an extremely important part of a ribeye steak because a ribeye would not be a ribeye without it.  My point is, a ribeye has this eyebrow or Spinalis muscle.  And if the Spinalis is missing, then it's not a ribeye.  
So if a steak such as this is missing the Spinalis is not a ribeye, what is it?  
I suggest it's a rib steak!  
One might argue that a rib steak could by any steak cut from the rib roast including any ribeye (provided it's a bone-in ribeye of course since a rib steak must by definition have the bone attached according to this page).  But then there would be no distinction and no specific name for a steak that's missing the Spinalis muscle.  That doesn't make sense and is an opening for confusion.
In summary, both the descriptions in wiki's ribeye steak and rib steak are inadequate and in need clarification.    Mark The Droner (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Gradhiva

message: Something is wrong with the wiki syntax of the lquote block quoting the anthropologist Sally Price in The Museum Anthropology Review. I couldn't find how to fix the problem, though, so I hope someone else will do it... --Eunostos (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lquote block 
Talk:Bossacucanova

message: It was nominated for a Latin Grammy Award.  This meets notability. matt91486 02:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is found WP:MUSIC, rule #8 for ensembles. matt91486 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Natchitoches people

message: There's no discussion for user:4lepheus B4ron's proposal to merge Doustioni into Natchitoches, but I support the merge since it's unlikely the Doustioni article could ever be expanded much. Perhaps the Doustioni could have their own distinct section within Natchitoches. Yuchitown (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I too support the merging of the Doustioni article to this article since I feel like the information about the Doustioni can be read here. 4lepheus B4ron (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You proposed the merge in the first place; you don't vote. You might want to reread WP:MERGEPROP more carefully. Yuchitown (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Support as there is not much expanding that can be done to the already minimal Stub. Ktkvtsh (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'm not sure OP has merged articles before, so I'll go ahead and do it. Yuchitown (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Cooley Distillery

message: This article reads like a PR department press release. Is it?  --Dupea (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A PR press release?

message: I appreciate that this page needs citations, but most of the introduction was just removed by an IP-address user. He/she seems to be doing this to other whiskey articles as well. On the talk page, there is a suggestion this is a competitor. The new whacked paragraph has a broken link, so I'm inclined to just put it all back, but maybe a couple sources are in order. goodeye (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section whacked 

message: I did a rather severe rework of this entire article, hopefully maintaining a NPOV. All the information was gleaned from Cooley's main website, and the websites of their various products. Perhaps this moves it past a start-class article? Tthaas (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rework 
Talk:Tomás O'Crohan

message: The tone of this article is inappropriate.  It reads like a fanpage for the author, if such a thing were imaginable.  It also contains no inline references.  The object of this article is not to advertise the quality of Ó Criomhthain's work to readers who haven't read it yet, but to provide verifiable information about him and his work.  The reason for this is that the quality of his work is not seriously disputed.  We badly need secondary literature about him to back up what is said in this article, because right now it is in violation of WP:NPOV in the most obvious way.  I will do what I can, but my Irish is limited.  Hopefully better Irish speakers than I will come forward. Lexo (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs major cleanup 
Talk:Christina Aguilera in Concert

message: *http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2000-04-30/news/0004300051_1_aguilera-kelly-rowland-christina
— Simon (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Talk:Syntrophy

message: I think this definition is not correct. To my knowledge a syntrophy means the following:
"A biological relationship in which microorganisms of two different species or strains are mutually dependent on one another for nutritional requirements." (from the Free Dictionary).
--Ttreude 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: I've removed the template.  There is no further detail about it here on the Talk page.  It is now three years old and there now appear to be plenty of inline citations.  LookingGlass (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: — Assignment last updated by Envmicro22 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Microbial Symbiosis and Microbiomes

message: The wording of the definition seems a bit weird: specifically, "to cope up with the energy limitations by electron transfer". Should be reworded maybe? https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/566194/which-is-correct-cope-up-cope-with-or-cope-up-with Lyonskvn (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of the definition
Talk:Thomas Atcitty

message: It had come to my attention the tragedy of the 200 wild horses dying a slow and death due to famine anf dehydration at a pond in N.Ariz. Weakened horses got stuck in the mud and died.
     You,as stewards of this land and horses, had a responsibility to save these horses from a horrifying death..you could have had water and hay brought in . This is an outrage and any respect I had for your tribe is gone....just like the beautiful horses.
What exactly is it you actually do? Fastfilly (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild horses
Talk:Willie Hale

message: Spotify just recommended this musician, which I find amazing. Is it fair to "Legacy" be the title of a section with such content? Is more like "cultura popular" as we say in spanish. 181.9.190.159 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy?
Talk:Lie back and think of England

message: A while ago I added a "notable uses" section, thinking this would be a nice way of documenting the phrase.  The "notable" part seems to have been too easily missed, though, and it's become nothing more than an "in pop culture" trivia section.  I have therefore removed it. -- Rbellin|Talk 03:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes courage for a man to create something awful, and then admit his mistake and destroy it; I salute your boldness. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's questionable if Rbellin is saying he/she made a mistake or that what he/she created was awful. (I'm not saying he/she did or it was) Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Notable uses" section

message: she had more than one, so it is either one specific one that should be named, or it should read a daughter. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  victoria's daugther 

message: this phrase is used by more than just Brits, and is it necessary to mention expats? one would assume that expats use their native idioms. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  usage 

message: The quotation gives her husband's name as 'George', but in the article linked to on the Baroness, the 2nd Baron Hillingdon's given name is Charles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.183.156 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillingdon quotation discrepancy 

message: This page has been butchered and replaced with a redirect to a record album from 1983.  Aren't there bots that look out for wholesale content deletions like this?
At the very least, there should be a disambiguation page, that links to either form. (Slang phrase) and (Album).  The improper redirect was performed on
30 September 2012.  rhyre (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page butchery
Talk:Jal Fazer

message: I think its unfair to say she seems to have regrets about having an abortion.  I think its very vague and very much up to interpretation. Andral (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  regrets abortion?
Talk:Bee Movie Game

message: Why deletion? The game is real. I added source what more do you want? --Naruto134 00:00, October 1 2007 (UTC)
I support this article not being speedy deleted.  Take it to Afd if you want it deleted. John Vandenberg 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 
Talk:1:00AM-2:00AM (24 season 6)

message: I ademately am against the idea of merging these articles anywhere. MANY other TV shows have episode by episode articles. Also, if we added even small summaries to the article, it would make that article very lengthly. Mientkiewicz5508 03:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal
Talk:Wyvern Rhadamanthys

message: I very much doubt that this article meets the guidelines for notability for fiction. Can anyone find any coverage in reliable, independent sources??
From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT:
::Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
From Wikipedia:Notability:
::A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
For articles on fiction, reliable sources may cover such things as design, development, reception and cultural impact. This is real-world coverage because it describes the real-world aspects of the work. Fictional coverage describes the work's fictional elements, such as the setting, characters, and story.
Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However, notability for individual topics on fiction should be judged on a case-by-case basis while following Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view.
Fences and windows (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not notable
Talk:HMS Faulknor (H62)

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-22F-Faulknor.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:The "Human" Factor (1975 film)

message: It should be noted that the on-screen title of this film, in its opening credits is The "Human" Factor, with the quotation marks clearly visible. As of this writing, a print is available for viewing here. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (cur | prev) 22:11, 9 June 2015‎ Roman Spinner (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,791 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Roman Spinner moved page Talk:The 'Human' Factor to Talk:The "Human" Factor (1975 film): addition of parenthetical qualifier will enable film's analogous disambiguation from other such titles (The Human Factor (1979 film), [[The Human Facto...) (undo | thank) Yes I saw that edit summary. But that isn't a book. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter of the quotation marks in this film's title is basically unrelated to the currently-active WP:RM Talk:The Human Factor#Requested move 27 August 2017. Upon the submission of the RM, editors started examining all the other entries at The Human Factor (disambiguation) page and the seemingly unusual placement of the quotes in this title became the focus of attention. All I added in June 2015 was the parenthetical qualifier "(1975 film)", as well as changing the original single quotes to the current double quotes, per form used in the film's credits. For the record, those single quotation marks in "Human" had been there since the entry for this film was created in September 2007. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The "Human" Factor (1975 film)|''The "Human" Factor'' (1975 film)]], not [[The Human Factor (1975 film)|''The Human Factor'' (1975 film)]]
Talk:Mauritian passport

message: Does anyone have up-to-date information on whether Mauritians need a visa for Namibia ?
The IATA database and the Namibian embassy in the US say yes, while the High Commission in South Africa says no. It seems they either have just introduced or just abolished the requirement. Anyone know which is the case ? Passportguy (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namibia : Visa or not
Talk:Little Tough Guy

message: This page says that although the re-issue versions on this film refer to the kids as the Dead End Kids, they do not actually go by this name onscreen. 
I have the original theatrical trailer for this film, and sure enough the kids are referred to as the Dead End Kids. In fact, the trailer makes direct references to Dead End and Crime School. --Comedy3 (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Billing