lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Erythroplakia

message: This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article categorization 

message: I searched pubmed for both "erythroplakia" and "erythroplasia", and no of hits were 158 and 490 respectively. Should we change the article name based on this? 94.196.232.85 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article to "erythroplasia" ?
Talk:Benign lymphoepithelial lesion

message: On 29 August 2009‎  redirected the article Mikulicz syndrome to Benign lymphoepithelial lesion without actually merging its contents into this article. The task is still to be executed. DiptanshuTalk 12:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of [[Mikulicz syndrome]] to [[Benign lymphoepithelial lesion]]
Talk:Epulis fissuratum

message: This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article categorization 

message: *
*
I have a few textbooks to expand this article, but it would be good to use some other type of sources too, however I couldn't anything that meets MEDRS. The above are both primary sources but I will use them anyway in this instance. Lesion (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going to use the background section of 2 primary sources
Talk:Pyogenic granuloma

message: should perhaps add
"not to be confused with pyoderma gangrenosum" (!)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.107 (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these terms commonly confused? Lesion (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  not to be confused with 

message: Pyogenic granuloma can also appear on port-wine stain birthmarks. I've had two myself, both times after absent mindedly scratching the tops off mosquito bites on a port-wine stain on my arm. Should this also be mentioned in the text? Some info: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15074345/ & https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12921260/  156.22.3.1 (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyogenic granuloma and port-wine stains.
Talk:Peripheral ossifying fibroma

message: This article is about Peripheral Ossifying Fibromas, which are a distinctly different pathological process from Ossifying fibromas.  References to ossifying fibromas should be removed (or noted that they are NOT the same thing) and the title changed to Peripheral Ossifying Fibroma.  Jdpete05 (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --WS (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:
Talk:Torus mandibularis

message: My dentist believes that tori (which I have) correlate with
exceptionally good teeth (which I have).  However, PubMed
found nothing.  I searched for "Torus mandibularis, caries",
which it translated to 'Torus[All Fields] AND mandibularis[All
Fields] AND ("dental caries"[MeSH Terms] OR ("dental"[All
Fields] AND "caries"[All Fields]) OR "dental caries"[All
Fields] OR "caries"[All Fields])', finding zero results.
Wikipedia has no "evidence-based dentistry" article, and
there's no such thing as "PubDent".  Should there be an
article explaining how to search for evidence on this subject?
Google Scholar found
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119500118/abstract, but
the full text is not available; the abstract asserts that tori are
strongly positively correlated with number of surviving teeth in
people under age 50, which is not quite the same assertion.  I'm a
little uncomfortable basing encyclopedia assertions on "citations"
whose full text is not publicly available and which I therefore
haven't even read, so I didn't put this into the main article; but
perhaps somebody knows of publicly available evidence on this.
24.18.229.67 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bernard Buffet

message: Infobox say "Officer of the Légion d'Honneur, 1973". Article text says "in 1973...was named "Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur". A serious discrepancy: Officer and Chevalier are distinct ranks. They can't both be right. French Wikipedia article says "En mai 1971, il est nommé chevalier de la Légion d’honneur." So, another serious discrepancy on dates. Any ideas anyone? Emeraude (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Légion d'honneur recipient
Talk:Parry People Movers

message: The diameter and mass of the flywheel in imperial units look a bit approximate;  are they in fact 1 m and 500 kg in metric?  —Sladen (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is now  and . Peter Horn User talk 17:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flywheel 

message: Apparently its one of the things excluded
©Geni (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the Parry People Movers are locked into a specific branch-line or section of track; so don't need "go anyway" signalling systems and full-on mainline crash worthiness, fuelling compatibility and the like.  —Sladen (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011

message: General meeting to be held Dec 14th 2023. Lawrence18uk (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Company was wound up by vote of shareholders Lawrence18uk (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , is there a URL link/report something we can easily cite?  —Sladen (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status of company
Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Eclipse from space

message: I stumbled upon this amazing photo from NASA (and therefore public domain) taken from outer space during the solar eclipse in March 29, 2006. I think this picture fulfills each of the criteria with flying colors. What do others think? Valley2city 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have this image, :Image:Eclipse fromISS 2006-03-29.jpg, which is being used in Solar eclipse of 2006 March 29. howcheng  {chat} 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I stumbled upon it there during a random wikipedia tangent. I just wanted to nominate it as a featured picture and damned If I know how to nominate it as such. I should probably have made that clearer. Oops... Valley2city 04:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Bertha Swirles

message: * The article consistently uses "Bertha Swirles", even for publications dated 1990. Did Swirles use her maiden name post-1940? The ODNB has her under "Jeffreys". Andrew Gray (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Betty Robinson

message: Are these the same people?  Could possibly be, if national spelling bee included older contestants then.
If so, should change disambiguation line to a mention of that in the text.
If not, should remove the spelling bee category here.
Gene Nygaard 01:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Athlete and spelling bee

message: Something is wrong here. The article currently states that Betty Robinson couldn't walk properly for two years. I'm looking at a newspaper article from April 28, 1932, 10 months after the accident, that already has her working out at Northwestern U. and doing some running. There is now a second published biography about Robinson, surely someone who has it can move this article a little closer to reality. It's a remarkable story -- no need to embroider. Biggleston (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts and Myths
Talk:Dental papilla

message: I think the description of tooth development does not belong in the See also section. That section is just for article titles themselves and people who want to read the description can do so by clicking the link. I don't think renaming the See also section to Tooth development is a good idea either because I think dental papilla is part of the description of tooth development but tooth development is not part of the description of dental papilla so a Tooth development section doesn't even belong in this article let alone a See also section containing a description. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much information
Talk:Cementoblast

message: Considering the topic to be on a cell (a little removed from the practical aspects of dentistry), I rated the article to be of Low importance, but since this cell is needed to create cementum (one of the 3 hard tissues of a tooth) I could be convinced that it deserves a Mid importance level. - Dozenist talk 03:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rating

message: This article is a good start but is most likely considered a stub due to conflicting evidence about the biological cell.  When comparing the cementoblasts to the bone-forming osteoblasts it would be helpful to reference the anatomy and histology of an osteoblast as well as the functions associated with it.  The links are valid and relate to dentistry textbooks and if there were any images of the histology of the cementoblasts it would be a good idea to post one to this article.  This page has the potential to be upgraded from a stub if more references from different sources could solve the mystery of the mechanism of differentation that seems to be controversial here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcham005 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits and clarification
Talk:Enamel knot

message: I've been slightly expanding it. There is a lot known on the function of the enamel knots. However, i wonder if it is worth the trouble since the main 'tooth development' page is based on the dated 'ten cate' histology book. From that perspective it will be difficult to make an integration with the main tooth development article. Tummers 13:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

message: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15861403  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.173.160.176 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper
Category talk:Lists of cities

message: This is a mess.  I think some form of naming convention needs to be decided on for all lists of cities in this category.  We've got good articles, but inconsistencies in how they are named.  The following are merely examples of a much larger problem: 
* List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants vs. List of towns and cities with 5,000,000+ inhabitants vs. List of cities in Japan over 50,000 population (2000 census) vs. List of cities in the United States with over 100,000 people. ("X or more inhabitants" vs. X+ inhabitants vs. "over X population" vs. "with over X people.")
:*If we ultimately go with the third or fourth, a sub-issue present is then "with over" vs simply "over."
:*Another issue here is "people" vs. "inhabitants." List of cities in the United States with over 100,000 people calls them people, but List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants calls them "inhabitants."
:*Another issue exemplified here is listing census dates vs. not.  List of cities in Italy over 20,000 population (2001 census), for example, includes it (as does the Japan list above).
* List of the 20 largest metropolitan areas of Italy vs. List of cities by population, where the latter list is worldwide, but terminates at 50 and doesn't specify a set number. (I realize that this is metropolitan areas vs. cities, but it still seems inconsistent overall.)
:*Sidenote: On the same point, there's List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population, which, like the worldwide list above, adds "by population," even though the other lists under this point are sorted by population.  Then there's List of the largest metropolitan areas in the Americas, which again doesn't specify a number.
* Cities of North Korea vs. List of cities in Colombia. ("List of" vs. nothing at all.)
* Under the subcategory for lists of cities in the U.S., List of cities in Nebraska vs. List of cities in Alaska, USA. Should we list the country, and if so, how should it be styled?
As you can see, these article titles are all over the place.  I don't have a specific naming proposal, because I was hoping people would discuss this here and reach an agreement on how to name these articles... to me, it doesn't really matter to me what they are named, so long as it's consistent.  I do intend on staying in this discussion, but for now, I just wanted to point out that it is an issue. --Czj 01:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions
Talk:Bingham Baring, 2nd Baron Ashburton

message: Seems to mainly notable due to relationships to other notable people, but notability WP:NOTINHERITED.  I had proposed a merge to Harriet Hosmer, but that was mostly due to the POV of the Louisa Caroline Stewart-Mackenzie article.  Verbcatcher proposed merging to Bingham Baring, 2nd Baron Ashburton, and I agree that makes more sense. GretLomborg (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge, she has adequate notability on her own, and in this case, having multiple relationships with notable people itself may actually defeat NOTINHERITED.  It would be rather ridiculous to redirect an article about a probable lesbian to that of a husband that she was only married to for less than a decade.  Montanabw(talk) 23:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge if she is notable enough to have a stand alone biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography  (subscription needed) why would we question that she isn't independently notable? SusunW (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge, mainly based on ODNB article and her having a notable art collection (which is close to being a notable art collector). We should probably follow the ODNB's lead and rename the article to Louisa Caroline Baring, unless we can find a source to establish that she used her maiden name after her husband died. It seems she was usually known as Lady Ashburton, but that article title would probably need disambiguation. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I agree on the renaming. All the sources I found called her Lady Ashburton. I found none that referred to her as Stewart-Mackenzie. SusunW (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge, based upon recent improvements and comments above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, her article is a fine stand-alone piece. Carptrash (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Close proposal - , Do you think we can close this out now, since 1) the votes oppose the merger and 2) there has been significant work on the article?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  sure - GretLomborg (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, thanks! Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Louisa Caroline Stewart-Mackenzie]] 
Talk:Jesse Glass

message: This is the beginning of a discussion page for this site.  11/5/2006.
The proper rationale for use of this image under Wikipedia's fair use policy has been properly given on the image page.  Further reversions to earlier versions of this page will be considered Vandalism and will be reported as such to the Wikipedia administrators using the Wikipedian's name.  Thank you, Jesse Glass
Is Jesse Glass writing his own article? Is this okay in terms of objectivity? The long list of PDF files lead to manuscripts of poetry instead of further reading. That PDF list needs to be edited. It does not follow Wikipedia standards.
Accuracy primo (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: He may have edited "Assembling" (the magazine is on "Independent Voices" with JSTOR), but not No. 3. Will look further...--Ralfdetlef (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assembling
Talk:Maxillary third molar

message: So the maxillary and mandibular third molars are the wisdom teeth, right, or am I missing something?  If not, should this be mentioned on this page?  Rojomoke 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wisdom tooth? 

message: I am rating this article as a stub.  Though there is some content about nomenclature, there is a lot of information absent, such as all the characteristics of the tooth.  I think the importance of the topic is high, considering it is an article specifically about teeth. - Dozenist talk 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rating
Talk:Maxillary canine

message: I am rating this article as a stub.  Though there is some content about nomenclature, there is a lot of information absent, such as all the characteristics of the tooth.  I think the importance of the topic is high, considering it is an article specifically about teeth. - Dozenist talk 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rating

message: *Frequency and causes of absence of this tooth. 
*Comparative anatomy of humans vs other animals.
--Una Smith (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content wanted
Talk:Periodontal fiber

message: The first sentence appears to not be complete: "It consist of cells, extracellular compartment of fibers."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboctok (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of the PDL 

message: What is the relation of Periodontal ligament/Periodontal fiber to Sharpey's fibres? ScotXW (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to Sharpey's fibres
Talk:Dental abrasion

message: I marked this article as a stub due to its length and as having mid importance.  A picture or diagram is needed, and further explanation will help improve the article. - Dozenist talk 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: Under the classification and external resources box on the right, the 'Specialty' is listed as Gastroenterology... Surely this is not correct??
Liam  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.48.58 (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Specialty

message: I have been going through recent literature and sifting through plenty of images displaying non-carious lesions but am yet to find an appropriate image showing Abrasion. [User:S.hannig96]]S.hannig96 (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Editing
Talk:Keratocystic odontogenic tumour

message: Lesion (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cochrane rv available... 
Talk:Whiz Comics

message: I'm not sure where the writer of the article got the idea that Whiz was given #2 because of a publishing schedule glitch. The Overstreet Guide gives the whole story and I have included this information here. 68.146.47.196 04:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Publishing glitch?

message: I'm curious why there is a hatnote to a couple of Viz comics, it doesn't seem an obvious error unless you had trouble pronouncing your "double u"s and I'm unsure if we should be using hatnotes for that kind of thing. Or am I missing something? (Emperor (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viz? 

message: ( I wasn't sure how - or where - exactly to fit this information in , but if someone else would like to , have at it. )
The racy "Captain Billy's Whiz Bang" is directly related to "Whiz Comics". The hero is CAPTAIN Thunder/Marvel , his alter ego is BILLY Batson , the magazine is WHIZ Comics , and when someone shouts "Shazam!" , the magic lightning goes BANG! 
( D.C.Comics made note of this in some editorial I read ages ago.)
Harvey J Satan (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial Connection 

message: The article contains a hotlink to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiz_Comics#2. I don't know if that page exists, nor how to get to it if it does, because pound signs are not valid in URLs, unless you are indicating a label within a page. This link is not looking for a page called "Whiz_Comics#2", it is looking for a non-existent label called "2" in the page "Whiz_Comics". WaxTadpole (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad hotlink 

message: Whiz 3 (April 1940), Captain Marvel is trapped on Venus so used the "Wisdom of Solomon" to build a rocket to get him back to Earth. A chariot I could understand but what did Solomon know about rockets?(94.76.177.115 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Right
Talk:Collections of ancient canons

message: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion
Wikipedia:Manual of Style
And Wikipedia:Copyrights since i have a hard time believing anyone could write like this anymore in 2006. --Espoo 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is public domain text, from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. As for the rest, you need to be more specific. Charles Matthews 15:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I removed the cleanup tag from November 2006.  If someone puts it back please note below what needs to be cleaned up.  RJFJR (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup
Talk:Scenic Rim

message: Since when has the Scenic Rim ever been considered to include any land in New South Wales?  I understand that vague regions such as this have various geographical definitions but if you are going to claim parts of New South Wales are now part of the area reliable sources are needed to support such claims.  I am re-adding citation needed for the definition of the area. Further, the visitscenicrim.com.au website in the external links section states that the scenic rim is north of the border. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New South Wales?
Talk:Traumatic bone cyst

message: Sorry, Im in a real rush right now or i would edit this page myself. this article has major flaws, mostly about the location and the causes of simple bone cysts. There is a good page on emedicine http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic642.htm which might help.
I wont be back at a computer for another week, so if someone could fix it til then 58.179.197.188 (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this stub using an oral and maxillofacial pathology book, and I did not notice that traumatic bone cysts may be found throughout the body. The current text will need to be placed under a heading when found in the jaws. - Dozenist talk 12:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Ambulance chaser

message: I added a little more detail so that the article is at least a decent stub, rather than just a dicdef.  I don't think this should be a redirect, as "ambulance chasing" is (unfortunately) a very real phenomenon within the legal profession.  If anyone else can add to this, please do so.  --Eastlaw 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement 

message: I agree with the first paragraph.  However, is there any evidence of the term being used in the ways described by the other definitions? thisisace (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other definitions? 
Talk:Priscilla Herdman

message: I am listening to Priscilla Herdman sing "And the Band Played Waltzing Matalida" on Pandora. I would have sworn it wss Judy Collins singing if I hadn't seen the artist identified.
Gary 01:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sure sounds like Judy Collins 

message: I've been to a couple of her performances, and I think the statement that she's written songs needs a source, because at the last concert I attended, she told me that she can't read music, and has to have a recording to work from.  She has had others write songs specifically for her. Erockett (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Priscilla Herdman writes songs?

message: Someone thinks Priscilla Herdman isn't notable? Really?? I guess someone wasn't paying attention to the folk music revival in the 1970s and 1980s.
I've added a reference to a New York Times article about her, which correctly calls her "one of the clearest and most compelling voices of contemporary folk music." Perhaps that'll settle this notability nonsense. NCdave (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability