lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:John Cheke

message: Where does the date of Cheke's appointment as Edward's tutor come from? I've never come across such a specific dating before. Hackloon 20:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possibly from the public domain 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica: "On. the 10th of July 1554, he was chosen as tutor to Prince Edward".  Thanks for bringing this to my attention so it can be properly referenced. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Have edited the statement to bring it in line with the more cautious assesment of the Oxford DNB article, and added a little detail. Hackloon 20:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have changed that BACK to "confirmed" as the evidence of when he began to teach Edward is confused. He may well have had a role earlier, especially given his close relations with Leonard Cox, and his relations with Henry VIII. It's also the word used by the DNB, and I think their caution is well-placed. Hackloon 21:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: (12 years later). The source of the date for his teaching of Edward is Cheke himself. That is what he told Girolamo Cardano in 1552 when having his horoscope drawn up: "Anno 1544 die decima Iunii, in Regium praeceptorum electus est." So he could have begun by 7 July. See the article for the reference. Nichols on the strength of the State Papers puts it a month later . Eebahgum (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've changed the disambiguation link to a scholarship type exhibition.  If it should be something more like an art exhibition please correct.  Given the funny redirect already there I'm sure this is correct.   LeeG 18:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Exhibition]] disambiguation

message: Details keep being added by variations of 'Lexy Cheek/ Cheke' (also 'Eliza'; the details at one point gave' Elizabeth 'Lexy' Cheek, so it's clearly the same person). So far I've found the following as having contributed/ modified the same irrelevant information: Lexy_Cheek; Eliza_Cheek; Lexy_Cheke; Lexycheek13. As noted, it seems to be this girl's household, and the clear conclusion is that she is trying to establish some connection to Sir John Cheke. Whether or not this alleged connection exists, these individuals do not appear to be in any way notable, so do not warrant inclusion. The claim is at any rate, additionally, unsubstantiated. Just a note for any editors who come across the details (which will, no doubt, be added again and again given how invested the girl seems to be in including them) and are justifiably confused as to the point; it is unfortunately rather at odds with the work put in by Eebahgum towards making the article a good one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.211.161 (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Known Living Relatives'
Talk:Mäntyniemi

message: ei copypaste is not bad in wikipedia, its useful. im wondering why the wood is renovated in Mantyniemi this year before elections  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.92.148 (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed most of the earlier version because it was basically a copy-paste from  with minor changes in some sentences. --Jonik 20:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: Article does not explain where it is.
62.78.240.22 (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where?
Talk:The Way of the World

message: "fortunately, she is a bitter lady who hates Mirabell and wants her own nephew, Sir Wilful, to marry Millamant."
"fortunately" or "Unfortunately" ??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.118.178 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Aunt... 

message: "The play is based around the two lovers Mirabell and Millamant (originally famously played by John Verbruggen and Anne Bracegirdle). In order for the two to get married and receive Millamant's full dowry, Mirabell must receive the blessing of Millamant's aunt, Lady Wishfort. Unfortunately, she is a very bitter lady, who despises Mirabell and wants her own nephew, Sir Wilful, to wed Millamant."
This seems to be taken almost verbatim of the back of a printed edition of the play (ISBN 10: 161720-624-5):
"The play is based around the two lovers Mirabell and Millamant. In order for the two to get married and receive Millamant's full dowry, Mirabell must receive the blessing of MIllamant's aunt, Lady Wishfort. Unfortunately, she is a very bitter lady, who despises Mirabell and wants her own nephew, Sir Wilful, to wed Millamant."
Shouldn't there at least be a source given if it is taken verbatim?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.62.129 (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters section of the article 

message: Act I makes no mention of 6000 pounds. That Waitwood and Foible were married is not revealed until Act II.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.164.45 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary
Talk:Nólsoy

message: I grew up on Nólsoy and I know that all sources say that Eggjaklettur is the only mountain in Nólsoy. But Eggjaklettur is only the name of the highest point. Walk some metres and you are not on Eggjaklettur anymore. The only mountain name that can be used is Høgoyggj, which means High Island. It is the name for the highest part of the island. Any other name for any mountain would simply be wrong.
--JJ-Hammer 20:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Jógvan! This sounds very reasonable. I have been on Høgoyggj twice, and ofcourse no one (of us tourists) cares so much about, which point has which certain name there. It is just the "Nólsoy mountain" in my mind. By the way, it looks impressive in the morning, when you arrive the Faroes for your first time - something like "wow, how high are the cliffs here! Great - oh look - a puffin!". Well, well, one learns quickly, that Nólsoy is quite "flat" and a cliff is something completely different here (not just an ordinary mountain rising out of the sea). But however, Nólsoy is one of the most interesting places in the Faroes to me. Hope, you write a little bit more one day... ;-) -- Arne List 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Mark Clayton (American football, born 1961)

message: The help mailing list received an e-mail from a user as follows.
I was reading your article on Mark Clayton, former Miami Dolphins wide receiver and noticed a mistake. Mark Clayton was born on April 8,1961, not October 13,1961. Therefore he does not share a birthday with Jerry Rice, unless Jerry's b-day is in April. 
A reference check of Who's Who confirmed this claim and the date has been changed. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth
Talk:Yolk plug

message: It would be helpful if you could briefly explain what the blastopore is and how it is formed in relation to endodermal cells/where the rest of the endodermal cells go. The function of the yolk plug should also be explained, as it goes unmentioned.
BASEDbio (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: If you need a source for this, I think a good one would be Gilbert, Scott F.  (2014).  Developmental Biology (10th ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.  p.247. .  Otherwise, it could probably be included in a larger article.
Mjurgens369 (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources?
Talk:Exclusivism

message: This article previously claimed that Judaism does not allow conversion to Judaism and that Judaism sees itself as the only true faith. However, contrary to this, Judaism generally allows conversion to Judaism and Judaism recognizes some truth in Islam and Christianity such as Monotheism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.91.208 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  vis-a-vis Judaism
Talk:Target cell

message: This page should really be replaced with a diambiguation and then split into three stubs. It is strange to have an article on thee things with the same name.
On such a disambiguation page, the target cell (erythrocyte) link should redirect to codocyte  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.35.59 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:George Devol

message: The present article seems to at least partly consist of two texts pasted in sequence. --Vinsci 21:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 'Closed as consensus is to not  merge. unimate is notable enough to have its own article This means that the main article is Unimate. I have put in the "Main" tag and now the section text needs to be moved to the Unimate article and a summary left here. I am unable to do this as my PC is broken and this smartphone is not so smart as it cannot cut and paste.
* Oppose. The Unimate and its siblings are sufficiently notable for an article of their own. Globbet (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Unimate]] 

message: Updated some links for the National Inventor's Hall of Fame.
 - William  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangthedash101 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Apparently a family member has been adding material to this article based on primary sources such as patents. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag (February 2024)
Talk:Albert VII, Archduke of Austria

message: Was the wedding date April 18, 1599 ?  His wife's Wikipage, Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain, has May 6 instead. Perhaps the earlier date was the engagement ? -- PFHLai 21:38, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
Albert and Isabella were officially engaged on the 6 May 1598. The marriage was celebrated by procuration at Ferrara on 15 November 1598 in the presence of Pope Clement VIII. Albert was present, the Archduchess Margaret - who married Philip III the same day - stood in for Isabella. Both marriages were confirmed at Valencia on 18 april 1599. Richardot 13:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wedding date

message: Is this the same Archduke Albert who had very strong links with Aodh Mór Ó Néill and all those who fled Ireland in the Flight of the Earls in 1607? If it is, there is a huge amount about him in the Irish Colleges of Europe, and he was intimately involved in the Flight of the Earls itself. 193.1.172.163 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish connection? 

message: This article's title suggests that this man was the [Sovereign] Archduke of Austria, but he is not included in the list of rulers of Austria, and there is no succession box indicating that he was an Austrian monarch. Furthermore, the Archduchy of Austria was at teh time held by Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor. If he was not monarch of Austria, then this article should be at Archduke Albert of Austria. Surtsicna (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albert VII, Archduke of Austria or Archduke Albert of Austria? 

message: Unless there are some clear and unambiguous guidelines concerning titles, I suggest they should be given according to and in the order that they were used by the princes themselves. In the case of the Archdukes Albert and Isabella that means: Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy (Philip II reserved the right to continue that title as King of Spain, but he did not claim an exclusive right), Duke of Lothier (a title that always preceded that of Brabant), Duke of Brabant, etc. It suffices to have a look at any ordinnance published during their reign to see that this is the case. Richardot (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles of the Archdukes

message: Did he have three children: Philip, Albert, Anna Mauritia, who died young? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children
Talk:AUT

message: Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but why does this redirect to Austria? 
Due to AUT standing for the Association of University Teachers in the UK, I'd suggest this page redirect to that or become a disambiguous.--Myfanwy 21:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the only reason i've been able to uncover is that 'AUT' is the 3 letter country code for Austria. Given that out of 15 random codes searched on here, only GBR and USA came up with a country (and GBR was a disambiguous) and that I consider this a extreme unlikely search term, I'm redirecting to Association of University Teachers. If you consider there is still a need to AUT to go to Austria, please feel free to put a forenote on Association of University Teachers. --Myfanwy 23:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is less about the likeliness of search terms, but rather if articles (unsuspectingly) link here, or might link here some day. If you look at "What links here", you'll see a number of Austria-related links, well, the code is an ISO standard. I'd say this TLA should be disambiguated properly instead of redirecting. If you really think that your meaning of the acronym is much more important than any other, you may want to move the disambiguation to "AUT (disambiguation)", redirect to your meaning and include a link to the disambiguation on top of the article. Though in my opinion that doesn't really look good. More importantly, people who unsuspectingly follow a link that relates to a different meaning will have a longer way to get there. --Nikai 14:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Daniel Coit Gilman

message: No mention of his connection with opium? It's mentioned in the "Fleshing Out ..." book - Sparky 21:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What is the source for his second wife? The Franlkin book has the 1877 date for Elisabeth Dwight Woolsey, but the New England Dwight family sources say Theodore Dwight Woolsey's daughter Elizabeth Woolsey died in 1843.
Would be odd if he named another daughter "Elisabeth" spelled that closely while this one was still alive. Might be a mistake in that book, but have not yet found vitals of this one. Need research. 
:She was the niece of the Yale president, with whom Gilman was long acquainted. Fixed in text. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second wife vitals? 
Talk:Breed standard

message: Pointless WP:CONTENTFORK, verging on a WP:POVFORK. About 95% of it applies to breed standards in general, and should be rewritten a little in this way, at Breed standard, which should then simply have a short section on the dog-specific material, which is very slim.
This content was largely original in the Breed_standard article, but was forked out in 2008 (see old thread above), just because a pigeon-focused editor didn't like that the lead veered quickly into dog-specific details. That was a bad idea and is not how we do things. The correct solution in such a case is to move the sub-topical detail to a subsection to clean up the lead. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Breed standard (dogs)]]
Talk:Pramiracetam

message: This is utterly incoherent. Did the author take the drug?
:If he or she had, it wouldn't be incoherent.  It's not that kind of drug.
The external link leads to a rather strange "better living through chemistry" kind of website...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.85.137 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: comment
Talk:DBA

message: ----
Perhaps Dba should point here and the Dba article should be renamed Deutsche BA. -- Wgsimon 22:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that DBA should redirect to Database administrator. However, pointing here (to the disambiguation page) would be preferable to redirecting to the airline ( DBA (airline) ) as it does now!  Kace7 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

message: I wonder if the dance music artist dba should be added to the list.  I don't think they have a page, or at least I haven't found one.  I'm trying to find more info about this artist, so maybe I'll get around to creating a page myself.
Matthiashess (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dba - artist
Talk:Patricia Kennedy Lawford

message: "Patricia Kennedy" or "Patricia Kennedy Lawford"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.93.71 (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Her page on the website of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum is titled "Patricia Kennedy Lawford", which leads me to think that form is appropriate for this article. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title 

message: At the time of her death there were several living siblings, not just Jean Kennedy Smith.--User:Brenont (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siblings at time of death 

message: Removing "For other people named Patricia Kennedy, see Patricia Kennedy (disambiguation).", because that "disambiguation" page is just a redirect to Patricia Kennedy Lawford. --EarthFurst (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing "disambiguation" 

message: Recently 204.148.173.64 changed article so birth date of  James Peter McKelvy, Jr was changed from April 4, 1985 to December 6, 1985. I did a brief search for birthdate of James Jr, but only birthdates I found were in copies of this Wikipedia article. --EarthFurst (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  birth date of James Jr? 

message: Where was the discussion to merge? normally a new york times obit is enough for notability? are people being extra critical on relatives of famous people again? GuzzyG (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Category talk:Fictional demons

message: I think this category should be merged with :Category: Demons. After all, all demons are fictional.  →  JarlaxleArtemis 22:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
* Well, that sorta depends on how firmly you believe in a given religion/mythology.  Besides, I believe the category of "Fictional Demons" is meant specifically for demons included in works such as comic books and roleplaying games, rather than ones seen in various Abrahamic religious legends/myths/teachings, or in other non-Monotheistic religions. Dr Archeville 19:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  someone believing in demons doesn’t make them non fictional, it makes the believer delusional. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Haha, the fist thing I thought when I read the title of this page was: "Huh" and then I just had to see if I were the first to report this in the talk page.
If you abandon reality to believe in mythology then yes you may have the delusion that demons are real.
Calling some demons fictional and others not because some are part of religion and others are not is silly. There is just as much evidence for the existence of both. Both are equally fictional. That's just handling the facts differently because you are afraid to do something religious people may choose to find offending.
--80.56.36.253 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:CFD]]
Talk:Joan I of Navarre

message: I'd like to see a source better than an internet genealogy page for the other children -- Missi
Please make a date to your comments.
Kindly go to a really good reference library and find the book series "Europäische Stammtafeln".
The couple had the following children who died young:
# Robert, *1297, +St.Germain-en-Laye VIII.1308, bur St.Louis, Poissy
# Marguerite, *1288, +1300
# Blanche, *1290, +1294, bur St.Denis
I am of the opinion that children who did not reach adulthood, are not necessary to list in encyclopedia article, with the exception of child or children who had a clear role in history. Such as having succeeded underage, or being a nexus of inheritance dispute, or having delayed some succession by wait of the birth or having been an alternative successor.
The internet material of http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ obviously is the rendering of Europäische Stammtafeln into internet using English, and is highly reliable. Please check the list on page http://genealogy.euweb.cz/capet/capet5.html  62.78.106.199 15:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: There's an error when talking about the age Joan had when she got married to Philip.
If she was really born in 1273, she was 11 in 1284.
If she was 13 in 1284, it means that she was born in 1271.
I do not know which one is correct, so I cannot change the error myself
Thank you
AndreGolf4 (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: This paragraph has been added twice to Joan's article,
"Philip III wanted the young queen of Navarre to marry his eldest son Louis, but they were within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, which required papal dispensation. The Kings of Castile and Aragon opposed this scheme, and represented to the Pope, that since a French prince is already ruler of Sicily, it would be unreasonable to add Navarre unto the dominions of the King of France. On the other hand, Pope Gregory X did not wish to offend the King of France. As a compromise, he granted the dispensation, not to the king's eldest son Louis, but for the second son Philip."
I am not seeing this depict Joan as the first person, considering this article is about her. Perhaps with a proper rewrite, which depicts Joan as the primary individual within the paragraph, and a modern source, this could be added to the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable addition
Talk:The Rolling Stones, Now!

message: "Sittin' in my bedroom late last night 
Got into bed and turned out the light
Decided to call my baby on the telephone
All I got was a 'Busy' tone..."
How could he dial his girl's number (this was 1964) in the dark?
Maybe he just got a wrong number?
"Back into bed, started reading my book..."
Reading? In the dark?
Been worrying about this since 1964, but Mick won't return my calls. 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:69CB:1E2B:3B63:E1B9 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off The Hook
Talk:Artúr Görgei

message: Isn't it spelled "Görgey"? Alensha 23:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he changed the spelling from Görgey to Görgei during the revolution (the former being too "aristocratic" for a revolutionary leader - the ending "y" usually indicates that the holder of the name is (was) a nobleman). The reason for using the form "Görgey" is that he did not oppose this when the first edition of his memoirs was published in 1911, under the name "Görgey Artúr". Vay 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling?

message: He was not only a military leader, but a professor in chemistry, and he was the first, who succeeded isolating an industrially important organic acid. 84.2.192.236 (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other aspects of his life should be added 

message: G'day, I have done a bit more copy editing following a request on my talk page. I've probably done all I can at this stage, but I have a couple of suggestions:
* there appears to be some inconsistency in naming (some "Görgey" but mainly "Görgei")
* for the citations, the titles of works not in English should be translated (some have already been done, some have not)
* the 20th century research mentioned in the lead, doesn't seem to be mention in the body?
* not all of the information in the Notes section of the Summary appears referenced
* there are a few "citation needed" tags that should be replaced with citations
Ultimately, I think that this article has good potential if someone wanted to take it to some of the higher levels of assessment (such as GAN). If you are considering this, I'd suggest putting it through peer review first. Anyway, thank you for your efforts and good luck. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, to clarify, my concern is the way in which the lead uses both interchangeably without clarification or chronology. For instance, "In his youth Görgei" followed by "Görgey's relationship and conflicts". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Some other suggestions