lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ligule

message: Not sure about the move to Wiktionary suggestion, but the creation of this stub is timely, in that yesterday it was a red link Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 14, 2005 which is due to appear on the MainPage on Sunday. If someone were to create an article for receptacle in the plant biology sense, I could avoid removing another link too. -- Solipsist 19:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would still have a link once moved to Wiktionary. The word or "article" is not deleted from Wikipedia. - Marshman 18:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mike Inez

message: Submitted for your approvalas promised, a new and fleshed out article. The guys resume reads like a Who's Who of rock music. I remember the rumors of him slotting into Metallica back when Newsted quit. I think the citation concerning that is valid. Thanks for taking the time to read this! Hamster Sandwich 20:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Multi-purpose vehicle

message: Would there be any objections to merging this article with the minivan article?  It's just that to expand this article the history and properties of the design etc would have to be included...all of which is at minivan already.  The only difference between this and the minivan article is the claim that whereas minivans have to be large, MPVs can be any size, which a) isnt even really true as cars like the Scenic and Touran are usually called mini-MPVs, and b) which could easily be included as an aside in the minivan article, and c) which aren't really NOT minivans either just because they haven't been launched in the US and havent had the chance to be classified or not classified as a minivan. If the Touran or Scenic was launched in the US it would get called a compact minivan or a mini-minivan or something; the reason these cars dont get called minivans is because they're only sold in Europe. And in fact, the Touran, Scenic and Zafira ARE listed as minivans in the minivan article.  --Jamieli 20:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?
Talk:The Charlotte Observer

message: Could someone please put the Observer masthead and/or a picture of the headquarters on the page? 69.134.50.153 20:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Masthead or other image

message: I added the marker for questionable neutrality to the statement "Generally, The Observer takes a liberal editorial stance, and usually endorses Democratic candidates." This statement should be substantiated by a reliable reference, or removed. Rturnham (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Questioned

message: On Monday, June 16, 2008, The Charlotte Observer announced a staff reduction of 123 employees, through a combination of voluntary and involuntary layoffs. As an employee of the Observer, I will not take it upon myself to update the article, but this may be of passing interest. I will provide the update if another Wikipedia editor (non-employee) recommends that I proceed. Rturnham
On Monday, May 5, 2008, The Charlotte Observer offered buyout packages to an undisclosed number of employees, as reported by The Business Journal, and confirmed by this editor (a non-journalist employee). Is this of sufficient interest to add it to the article? Rturnham (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking News
Talk:Sphaera Mundi

message: *This article contains material from the JnanaBase article at jnana.wikinerds.org/index.php/Sphaera_Mundi Sphaera Mundi written by NSK under the GFDL.
:I am reinserting the source in the article according to the requirements of Wikipedia:Cite sources. However, it may be edited to remove extraneous info. — Joe Kress 02:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
:: I don't believe that jnana.wikinerds.org really qualifies as a useful, citable source because it lacks authority.  The "citation" was added by the operator of the wikinerds.org web site primarily as an effort to obtain publicity and a higher Google page rank.  Take a look at wikinerds.org and decide for yourself.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have a Google PageRank of 6 and many JnanaBase pages have a higher page rank than Wikipedia's pages. We have been slashdotted four times. We do not get higher Google PageRank from links in Wikipedia because Wikipedia includes the nofollow value in the rel XHTML attribute in all external links, which means the links are not visible to Google. We joined Wikipedia to help this wonderful project and we only receive bullying from you. Www.wikinerds.org 04:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This Wikipedia article is copied from my wiki, and therefore we require an attribution and a link. Wikipedia requires other sites that copy its articles to have a GFDL notice and a link back to Wikipedia. We require the same. Www.wikinerds.org 13:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I did not realize I was stepping into an edit war. But regarding the article itself, there are many points which require correction. For example, NSK states that it was first published in 1482. Actually it was first printed in Ferrara, Italy in 1472. Ratdolt's version is much later. Indeed, it was published hundreds of times over the next two centuries. While 1472 may be its edito princeps, it was first written in 1232 by Sacrobosco in manuscript form. Furthermore, when written by Sacrobosco, it was not a collection. But by the time it was printed over two centuries later, many authors had added their own commentary about the cosmos. NSK's version does not even mention The Sphere of Sacrobosco and its Commentators by Lynn Thorndike. As implied by Thorndike, its usual title is De Sphaera, not Sphaera Mundi. But I would prefer a total rewrite, which would eliminate any need for attribution. I also think the material should be in the Johannes de Sacrobosco article, not in its own article. — Joe Kress 19:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
*Very good! Please add that material to the article. Content is more important than the existence or non-existence of a single external link. Radiant_>|< 20:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've done a total rewrite and placed it at De sphaera mundi. I then deleted this article to remove the attribution issue, and recreated it as a redirect to the new article. --Michael Snow 05:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your action now resolved the issue about Sphaera Mundi. Www.wikinerds.org 07:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism
Talk:Myle

message: There is no such word as Myle in an English dictionary (SOED on historical words). The article contains discussion and is unworthy of being an article as it currently stands. Please explain when and how this article will be justified and improved. Otherwise, I will propose for deletion. Ian Cairns 20:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete??

message: the image on this page is registered with wikipedia
its copyright specifically contains language that allows it use
Millaria Scotia Regnum 1595
Copyright
"Screen prints may be made of these maps for non-commercial educational and private purposes."
:What image?  Zoe 19:46, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
::That release is incompatible with GFDL, as we have no control over what downstream mirrors may do with it.  And again, I have to ask, what image?  There is no such image on the page.  Zoe 23:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:I've reverted this image - since the question of the copyright has not yet been dealt with. 'Non-commercial' use is not good enough permission for inclusion - as per Drini's previous comments. Please follow the links he has provided for the appropriate Wiki policy in this area. Thanks, Ian Cairns 01:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: image

message: Myle  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1513:4700:8DD0:6F19:EA7F:1200 (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Myle
Talk:FC Akhmat Grozny

message: DimaLevin (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: FC Terek renamed to FC Akhmat
Talk:Healthy Forests Initiative

message: Rkevins82, thanks for the much needed addition.  Unfortunately, I don't think that it really fits the paragraph.  I think your addition is much needed for NPOVing the article but could you see if you can separate the ideas out into two paragraphs?S.N. Hillbrand 20:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to rework the aims of the law into the first paragraph.  Let me know what else you think it needs. Rkevins82 05:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: I've updated the pro HFI argument. I'm not sure if the previous argument was an intentional straw man, but the focus on large trees did not line up with the very wording of the Healthy Forest Restoration. It also did not address many of the points in favor of HFI. 166.5.164.45 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The anti-HFI section needs more citation, but at least it has one.  What you've added is totally unsourced.  Can you provide citations for the supporters' arguments (here's where this supporter makes this argument) and for the assertions about the contents of the bill (section ___ with a link to the text of the bill as enacted)? JamesMLane t c 15:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-HFI argument
Talk:Doctrine of Addai

message: I had created this page because User:Wetman had wished to comment on the subject.  It needs to be done in a way which respects Saint Addai, however.
Ephrem the Syrian did not have any knowledge of the letters Christ sent to Abgar. He does not once mention it in his writings.
Doctrina Addai only deals with the Abgar letters, and expands on them, the discovery of the cross by Protonike, and anti-Jewish correspondence Abgar had with Tiberius. xx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.222.44 (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation
Talk:Consolidation bill

message: In what sense is the word "bill" used here?  Is a consolidation bill a type of private bill? (Please pardon my ignorance of UK government.) — Ringbang 20:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bills

message: One, not necessarily insurmountable, obstacle to this merger is the fact that a consolidation Act is not a consolidation Bill, because an Act is not a Bill. James500 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge: a bill may or may not become an act, but they are sufficiently similar that I think that they can reasonably be discussed together. I'd recommend listing under Consolidation Acts as it is the act that is final product, whereas the bill is more transient/ephemeral. Having said that, it doesn't much matter which is chosen. Klbrain (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum to my last comment; I see that Consolidation Act had been redirected some time ago to Consolidation bill, so it seems reasonable that the same decision should be made for Consolidation Acts. Klbrain (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 
Talk:Molecular engineering

message: As discussed in the archived talk pages this article does have a lot of overlap with Molecular nanotechnology. Moreover the term 'molecular engineering' is now being used to describe an emerging field of design and engineering at small length scales using knowledge and abilities gained from all branches of molecular level science, rather than Mechanosynthesis specifically. (It may also have meaning in terms of chemical synthesis as discussed in archive.) Could the current content be merged into Molecular nanotechnology so the article can be written to reflect the other usage(s)?
Jmidje (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: New field of molecular engineering
Talk:Life.Church

message: The title of the page should be Life.Church as this is the new name of the church, noted in the opening sentence of the summary  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.253.66 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out.  The church's website does reflect the new name "Life.Church", so I have moved the page accordingly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I recently added third-party sources to help improve the Life.Church article. As I understand it, it would be appropriate to remove the template stating "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." I have a conflict of interest, so I will not remove it myself. I'm asking for a fellow editor to review the article and remove the template, if appropriate. If more needs to be done to further improve the article first, I'm happy to help. Thanks for the feedback. Rachelnicole617 (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Template 
Talk:Mizuki Kawashita

message: I've made some miscellaneous additions to the article such as a bibliography and the common misconception that she's a guy--Secretwanderer 23:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc info

message: please someone update!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.163.169.233 (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UPDATEEE 

message: Does anyone have a verifiable birthdate for Mizuki Kawashita?  I've seen August 30th, May 1st and November 26th, 1965.  I change the article to use the November 26th one, since it seemed that source seemed the most credible, but it would be nice if someone knew for sure. --MakiMakiMachine 05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: Just where did this bit of information come from? And what reliable sources verifies this claim? So far, I can't even find a single review. And given that it only lasted for 6 months in WSJ and was compiled into 2 volumes doesn't indicate that it was really that popular. --Farix (Talk) 14:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Lilim Kiss'' most popular? 

message: Chris, Dream Focus, 76.116.247.15 said we needed to have that information there, Doceirias said it was good compromise, while AnmaFinotera and Farix said it shouldn't be there.  The consensus seems to be to have it there. Dream Focus (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In YOUR call for "help" at the civility board, another person also said "no, it doesn't belong" while others told YOU to stop the forum shopping and being disruptive. In discussions at the project, two others agreed "it was merged, now hack it down to what should be there: publication date and title". Which was done. The Biography guidelines also firmly support that a plot summary does NOT belong in a biography article. An admin told you the same thing on your talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  consensus on summaries
Talk:Grand Central Station (Chicago)

message: designed by Solon S. Beman, construction began October 1888 and formally opened December 8, 1890, headhouse was L-shaped, great clock tower, three huge arches to covered carraige court, built by WC at southwest corner of Wells and Harrison, demolished 1969 --SPUI (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Info from ''A Guide to Chicago's Train Stations Present and Past'' by Ira J. Bach and Susan Wolfson

message: I'm of the opinion that wikilinking is hard to read, and redundant wikilinking, especially to the same page within the same paragraph, is unnecessary.  To wit, I removed the most recent edit.  However, I'd be happy if it was put back.  I'm even happier that there are other people willing to work on this article! Gws57 01:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant Wikilinking
Talk:Nikki Hemming

message: WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD debate link
Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

message: Eliza Dushku was also considered for Catwoman in the film. Sources:  201.188.144.240 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another actress was also considered for Catwoman 

message: I would like to add on this page how the director's cut was far more acclaimed than the original theatrical cut of the film, which is true, since there are a lot of people who say that the film is a masterpiece in the director's cut rather than the theatrical. JonSnow05 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ULPS (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023 

message: , as indicated on your talk page, the recent change you made to the article is unsourced. Critics were not polled again on the Ultimate Edition, and while some found it to be a significant improvement, others still suggest the improvements may not have changed its overall reception. The Home media section describes this in more detail. Unless you can bring valid sources to the table, this claim should be removed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews of Ultimate Edition 

message: Should the ‘who’ at the end of the introduction be ‘whom’? 173.73.140.206 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically yes, but it's acceptable either way. DonQuixote (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar Q 

message: An IMDB link for the director's cut, named Ultimate Edition, was added in early 2022. That IMDB entry was recently merged with the film´s regular page and both links now lead to the same (theatrical release) page. The separate link is now dead weight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.147.133 (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDB External link
Talk:Tripartite alignment

message: If all languages of the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European family are tripartite, it does not make sense to say that tripartite languages are "rare" as this is a pretty populous language subfamily.  But I'm not sure it is actually true that all those languages are tripartite. --Jim Henry | Talk 21:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's true either, but even if it is, there are several thousand more non-Indo-Aryan languages than there are Indo-Aryan ones... In the grand scale of things, its still pretty darn rare. --Krsont 22:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's plain wrong, so I changed it. Together with Georgian, the Indo-Aryan languages are the most famous examples of split-ergative languages: they use the nominative in the present and the ergative in the past, and lack an intransitive case. David Marjanović 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Could Hungarian be considered tripartite? True, in the pronominal system, there is only nominative-accusative, but when you look at the verbal system, there is a partial distinction between absolutive and ergative subjects (e.g., látok ‘I see’ vs. látom ‘I see (it)’ vs. megyek ‘I go/am going’ - the ek/ok distinction is part of vowel harmony and doesn't matter here). It breaks down in that there is no ergative marking for subjects with “indefinite” third person or with first or second person objects, but the Hungarian verbal complex sure looks a lot like an ergative-absolutive system from some angles and a lot like a nominative-accusative one from others. I wrote an article about this about ten years ago, but haven't really followed up on it since.
-Fenevad 18:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does látok mean "I look" (no object) rather than "I see" (implied transitive object that can be dropped outside of Chinese)? If so, you have a point. If not, I just don't understand it… :-) David Marjanović 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian 

message: Brazilian Portuguese is evolving to be a Tripartite language, because it has Subject-Verb-Object (or Subject-Object-Verb in some sentences) word order in phrases with an object, but Verb-Subject when there is no object. Example:
Quebrou a   janela (The window broke)
Broke   the window
João quebrou a   janela (John broke the window)
John broke   the window
But it is no ergativity, as:
Pago eu (I pay)
Pay  I-NOMINATIVE CASE
So, the subject still is in nominative case but is treated as an object.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.52.220.111 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazilian Portuguese 
Talk:COMPSTAT

message: I have merged this article with the CompStat article and updated What links here to go to that article.  There is debate among law enforcement agencies, as to whether it's COMPSTAT, CompStat, COMSTAT, etc.  The New York Police Department website  inconsistently uses both COMPSTAT and CompStat.  To me, CompStat seems more consistent with Wikipedia style and formatting. --Aude 21:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Talk:William Morgan Shuster

message: Merge as these two articles seem to be the same guy.  Just wondering how his last name is actually spelled so that they can be merged into the right spelling.  The bibliographies I've seen suggest Shuster with no "c".  Friejose 21:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: there's a good photo here if anyone wants to upload it. - 76.68.72.151 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo 
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bubble Bobble Revolution

message: I have to agree with  Andrew Lenahan - Starblind on the issue of Vaporware. The comment he made compelled me to study the textbook definition and I must accede to his point. My apologies. This article was my first VfD nomination from doing RC patroling for new items. One of the things about Wikipedia I like is the way debate serves to progress my knowledge. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 21:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Minishogi

message: Hi.  I'm curious on a matter:  Is this variant a recognized Shogi variant?  And is it possible to buy minishogi sets?  It seems kind of hard to find much information on the game, although not that it's that much more complex than regular Shogi.  I'm just curious is all.  --Sivak 21:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Variant
Talk:Brad Winchester

message: Any pictures out there? I found one of him as a Dallas Star, but i do not know how to upload.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusted AutoParts (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: He's not a flipping Canuck, I don't know why people keep insisting he is one.  I know many say they are privy to insider information that he has already signed but he's a free agent and the page should say that shouldn't it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.180.55 (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canuck 
Talk:Nöther (crater)

message: Why is this not Noether (crater)? - the English spelling of the eponym's name is clear, and the German spelling seems clear enough (her father was one of the editors of Riemann's Nachlass). Septentrionalis 21:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The name is based on the official IAU nomenclature. — RJH 18:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Rudolf Mössbauer

message: The name of "Rudolf Ludwig Mössbauer" is Rudolf Ludwig Mößbauer (Rudolf Ludwig Mößbauer)
:Moved. Icek 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The spelling Mössbauer is English, the spelling Mößbauer, to put it quite simply, is not.  English-language publications from Britannica to even the English-language version of the Nobel prize website, use the English spelling.  This is Wikipedia policy, regardless of Anglophobic attempts to assert otherwise. Unschool 03:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP: UE 

message: "Rudolf Mössbauer was an excellent teacher." This seems a highly subjective and opinionated statement. Are there any references for this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.253.153 (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teacher