lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Kerb crawler

message: I have removed the redirect to Prostitution's Talk page. Seems counter-productive to redirect there. They've got more than enough to talk about already. Their Talk page has seven (7) pages of archives, in fact! Why shovel whole other article topics into that? Who's going to care about a specific "Kerb crawling" comment when they're grappling mightily with the overwhelming topic of "Prostitution"? 
If there's going to be an article on a topic, there should be a Talk page for that article, period. 
Having done that . . . I just wanted to say, if our article about curbs/kerbs is going to be named "Curb" -- and it is -- then it seems this article, in the interest of consistency, should be named "Curb crawling", shouldn't it?
--Ben Culture (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what is the WP:Common name for the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  had redirected the article to Prostitution as well as the talk page. When I undid it, I forgot to undo the talk page's redirection - my mistake. That said, I'm pretty sure 'kerb crawler' is UK usage.--Launchballer 12:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Curb"/"Kerb" and a Talk page of its own! 

message: What purpose does the illustration serve? 2.96.244.92 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration 

message: The Sexual Offences Act 1985 article says that it criminalised kerb crawling in 1985.  This article says that it was first criminalised in 2001.  Both cannot be correct, so which is??  2600:1004:B12B:F5F8:85D8:CB7E:CE27:C24C (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1985 v. 2001
Talk:Extraordinary general meeting

message: what are the criteria for conducting of extra ordinary geneal meeting?
STRUSTURAL ANALYSIS OF EXTRA ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING
JUDICIAL ANALYSIS OF EXTRA ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABOVE MATTER I NEED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.152.221.14 (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just (2013) added the general procedures in Common Law countries. While I don't have any references I have been to several EGMs and this is what happens. Note that different countries, companies and organisations can have different rules on EGM procedure. The main question from the floor is - why call an EGM for this issue, why can't it be dealt with at the next AGM? EGMs can be expensive in terms of postal costs and office time, so the issue for discussion has to be urgent and important. A series of EGMs could indicate bad management or decision-making.78.19.255.81 (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraordinary General Meeting

message: The redirect Emergency Meeting has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 12:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Emergency Meeting]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Oids

message: This was not my first video game, but it was the first of my favorites. I'm glad to see Wikipedia has this article!  I think what you have so far is pretty good. Root4(one) 05:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yay! 

message: The article says that Oids got a 5 mice rating from Macworld. It was originally linking to an unofficial history page (is the source reliable) and there was a reference to the Macworld online article about the revival that also said the game had a 5 mice rating. (I did this edit)
Then I went to try to locate the review in Macworld (all the issues are on the Internet Archive) and couldn't find it. However I found the 5 Mice review in MacUser: https://archive.org/details/MacUser9106June1991/page/n95/mode/1up
Also the "Mouse rating" was an actual trademark from MacUser / Ziff Davis... that Macworld acquired when they absorbed MacUser in 1997. Source 
So I think the rating originated from MacUser, that "The Un-Official Dungeon Master Web Site" may have gotten this wrong, and that the 2002 article in Macworld online either got it wrong too, or assumed/affirmed it was Macworld since the two publication had merged.
And that's the edit I am proposing.
hub (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Mac version rating
Talk:Renewable electricity in New Zealand

message: The article currently has too much of a focus on electricity.  There is good data and other info at the MED website that can be used to give a better overview. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much of a focus on electricity 

message: The article is misnamed as it makes no distinction between renewable energy and renewable electricty. It conflates energy and electricity though electricity only accounts for about 35% of NZ's primary energy consumption. 60.234.218.116 (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Renaming is a good idea. I will do it and remove the section on biofuel. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should be named Renewable electricity in New Zealand
Talk:Bruce Woodcock (boxer)

message: : Initial posts copied from Talk:Bruce Woodcock (computer games analyst)
It is distressing to me to find that Bruce Woodcock's famous name has been co-opted by a young modern computer games programmer with a website. Google his honorable name and see what you get!  This is just one reference to him . The late Bruce Woodcock was England's most famous heavyweight boxer, and fought for the world heavyweight title endorsed by the British Boxing Board of Control when he lost to America's Lee Savold in June 1950. His boxing record is a piece of boxing history, and I think that this Mr.  Woodcock should graciously concede and re-title his page in some way, and let the famous Bruce Woodcock be the simple name belonging to the boxer. And if a technical reason needs to be given, Bruce Woodcock's name appears in several other boxer's pages, but is not linked, because you, sir, keep popping up!  I've no doubt that someone will write him up, but I don't have the time. - JohnClarknew 07:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the boxer is notable.  He's already referred to on such pages as Abergele, Freddie Mills, and Lee Savold, among others.  I'd recommend making a stub page at Bruce Woodcock (boxer), and then we can work out later whether Bruce Woodcock should point to one or the other, or just be a disambiguation page that points to both equally.  :) But until there's an actual page on the boxer, it's moot. --Elonka 07:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see that this has already been worked out to everyone's satisfaction so quickly. Bruce Woodcock was my boyhood hero, famous for his "glass jaw". Now he has the start of his own page. Thank you for the intervention. JohnClarknew 15:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope others will add supported memories to the boxer's page and help improve it. JohnClarknew 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening the Page 

message: Note that the first professional fight listed at Boxrec (a 3 June 1941 defeat to Alfred Ford) was in fact in an amateur tournament in Sheffield in to raise money for the Sheffield Newspapers' War Fund. He made his professional debut in 1942 as per the record from boxinghistory.org.uk. --Michig (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First pro fight
Template talk:The 77s

message: A couple months ago, someone changed this template's category from bands templates to Christian rock groups templates. I'm not sure this is accurate. The '7s certainly don't view themselves as a Christian rock band. As Michael Roe (posting under the handle "Doctor Love") said on their message board: "Christian Rock Band: We have never called ourselves that."  Now, they did release a few albums on CCM labels, but that was a long time ago. These days, I think very few people in the CCM subculture would even know about the 77s. If they are Christian rock, they're very much a fringe element. — 71.147.52.209 16:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are they really Christian rock?
Talk:Contingency, Hegemony, Universality

message: The article has three sections on disagreements; what, however is it that they agree on?  67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: paragraph added from Zerilli review. --  SashiRolls  🌿  ·     🍥 10:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of agreement?
Talk:Catamount, Massachusetts

message: User NHguardian, previously referred to as Anonymous user (IPs 47.234.0.59 and 71.181.51.206), continues to remove link to site that provides content and photos, including that used on the article.  Link is not a store and is not in violation of Wikipedia:External Links avoidance category, section 5.  Link in question is basis of article and provides additional relevant information not necessary for direct inclusion in article. Jrclark (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Pocumtuck Mountain

message: Link continues to be removed by user now registered as NHguardian, previously referred to as Anonymous user (IPs 47.234.0.59 and 71.181.51.206).  Link is not in violation of Wikipedia:External Links policy.  Further reinforced by Anonymous user 24.128.200.27.  Jrclark (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Breeze (Portsmouth)

message: This article should be merged with The Breeze (South Coast) - it no longer warrants having its own article. Oxfordmale (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Please help to merge The Breeze (Portsmouth) to The The Breeze (South Hampshire). It no longer warrants having its own article. Make it happen. Thank you to other users.Steveojavano 04:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard3120 (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help merger of two articles as one
Talk:Prince-Bishopric of Worms

message: Was Worms actually the capital?  Didn't the bishop have a seat in some nearby town that was actually within his territories? john k 16:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: What a mess.....The Diocese of Worms on one hand, and the Prince-Bishopric of Worms (which was smaller than the Diocese), on the other hand, were two different things and territorially, they did not coincide.
Since this article deals exclusively with the Prince-Bishopric (a political principality) and not the Diocese (an administrative religious unit), the title should urgently be changed from Roman Catholic Diocese of Worms to Prince-Bishopric of Worms.--Lubiesque (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Srnec (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see the change has been made. Thanks Srnec and TonyBallioni. --Lubiesque (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible confusion!
Talk:Hits Radio Staffordshire & Cheshire

message: From what I gather the Signal Radio Media Academy is just a single college course at Stoke-on-Trent College run with signal 1  and not a specialist training academy like the BBC Academy, therefore including too much information can look a bit WP: Advert and can contradict WP: Notability. Also please could editors add references to edits, Cheers. C. 22468   Talk to me 18:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Signal Radio Media Accademy
Talk:Heart Sussex

message: I'm probably posting this in the wrong place but the Southern FM page has been vandalised and it's not letting me undo the bad edits. Anyone else want to have a go? I'm pretty new so still learning, sorry for any problems. 
Ruggle (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have undone the vandalism, but the article could still do with some re-wording. Bhorsfall (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Heart 103.5 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 29#Heart 103.5 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Heart 103.5" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:List of shipwrecks in 1999

message: 1 October 1999 — Rachel Harvey, fishing boat, later refloated (Isles of Scilly).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 
Talk:Mount Sugarloaf State Reservation

message: Hello folks, it seems that this article has generated a lot of strong feelings, so I wanted to take the time to explain why I split the information into Mount Sugarloaf State Reservation and Sugarloaf Mountain (Franklin County, Massachusetts).
First, the content of the original article seemed more inclined to informing the reader about the mountain vs. the state reservation (for instance, a "mountain" info box was used). 
Second, those searching for the mountain would not necessarily know to look it up via the name of the reservation.
Third, I had a significant amount of new content ready to be posted about Sugarloaf Mountain and a number of other mountains in the Connecticut River Valley. The information I had didn't seem to fit under an article simply about the reservation, therefore I split the content. 
Fourth, I decided not to simply redirect from Mount Sugarloaf State Reservation to the new page and bundle them together, under the new title, because (as it was pointed out to me by another user), continuity of article history is lost. Furthermore, along these lines, it's true that the reservation differs significantly from the mountain (the reservation has river frontage AND mountain peaks; the reservation has a history of its own; the reservation article could one day include details about reservation operation and management).     
Fifth, I used the original images for both articles, as seemed most appropriate for the new formatting. (It would be great if someone had an actual shot of the mountain itself from the bottom).
Finally, I decided NOT to write separate articles for South Sugarloaf and North Sugarloaf because both peaks are part of the same geologic mountain mass (South Sugarloaf is the lower shoulder of North Sugarloaf, however, South Sugarloaf is more notable). 
Let me know what you think.
--Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article split
Talk:Liz

message: Liz is the abbreviation of Elizabeth and became popular in the 'Elizabethan' period. The oldest recording of the abbreviation came from the early 1600's at Cedar Hall registry.
Liz became popular again in the 21st century as people refered to people as 'Liz' when females or female looking males had big blonde hair and very 'drag' like make up, people would claim 'Its Lizz!!'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.169.209 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Template talk:Francesco Cavalli

message: I've edited this template to a collapsible navbox format. These "Opera by Composer" templates were designed for readers to navigate between operas by the same composer. They are not infoboxes. A copy of the old template is in the history. See: WikiProject Opera  – Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New format
Template talk:Christoph Willibald Gluck

message: I've edited this template to a collapsible navbox format. These "Opera by Composer" templates were designed for readers to navigate between operas by the same composer. They are not infoboxes. A copy of the old template is in the history. See: WikiProject Opera  – Voceditenore (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New format
Template talk:Ernst Krenek

message: I am again ordering by dates of creation.   Using the frequently belated premiere dates obscurs the fact that Krenek's English libretti were all written before German theatres became available to him. Sparafucil (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All other 40-odd opera navigation boxes are ordered by date of first performance. It's a disservice to the reader to create deliberate and unexplained anomalies. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Template:Prokofiev operas gives dates and order by composition, and Template:Adams operas, recently held up as an exemplar, gives 1985-7 for Nixon- surely not a premiere date!  Have I missed other examples of belated premieres?  In any case I dont think it's will be as disruptive as you seem to fear. Sparafucil (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you been checking through all 40 navigation boxes? If so please tell me what errors you find. That will be useful. Performances of the Prokofiev operas were all delayed, so it was an exception to the normal rule. As explained elsewhere, we haven't been listing by posthumous/delayed performance dates. -- Kleinzach (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your point from the beginning was that premiere dates are used except when the premiere is belated, this all must be a comic misunderstanding! ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have misunderstood the policy then kindly restore the template to its correct, standard order as used by every other contributor to these articles and don'r carry on these WP:Point attacks. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: dating
Talk:Karl Gannon

message: Bearian 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Unreported World

message: Would it be possible to fill in the missing series?  Thankyou Stefanjcarney 17:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased 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, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their 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.  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:USS Centaur

message: There is no more ground to deleting this article than to leaving other articles about other space ship found in the Star Trek World..  A "real-world notability" is something somewhat hard to define... It may not be notable enough for a person who isn't concerned by the series itself. Now if this person wants Wikipedia to be a reflexion of what he or she thinks has a "real-world notability", it's a completely differente debate.
If the problem is that this article contains too much plot summary, then it's always possible to remove this part and add to an internal link to the page of the said episode. No need to delete this article. On this ground, the article about the USS Valiant (NCC-74210) is  of no more interest... Besides, contrary to the Valiant (which is a Defiant class starship), the USS Centaur founded its own class of spaceship.
For these reasons, I therefore plead for this article to stay on wikipedia along with the others and ask for the deletion tag to be removed, thank you. Amhantar 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of the article? 
Talk:Dining club

message: This article isn't about a particular club, rather it's about a type of club, very similar to gentlemen's clubs. It certainly doesn't merit deletion. The tag has obviously been placed without thought by someone who either hasn't read the article properly, or who is ignorant of the existence of such clubs. Grunners 18:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Delete Tag

message: "In the United States, such clubs are referred to as eating clubs."
Clearly not, if the entry at eating club is correct and they are university societies. Flapdragon 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added 'universities'.  - Crosbiesmith 22:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Having made the change, I now wonder if it shouldn't say, 'At Princeton University', as I'm not sure the term is used elsewhere. - Crosbiesmith 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but I question the extent of the term 'Eating clubs'.  Do they exist at Princeton only? - Crosbiesmith 22:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really same as eating clubs? 

message: I can't seem to find a reference for this club... --IainHallam (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio Kr3w 

message: Support the 2017 proposal to merge Dining club and Eating club, and have not proposed a direction. The two articles describe the same or similar concepts, sharing a common heritage, focussed on the UK and the US. It seems better to have a world-wide view of collegiate/fraternal dining, and Eating club is a long-standing stub. Perhaps the US experience could have a separate section under the heading of "Eating club", ensuring a clear link to Eating clubs at Princeton University. Klbrain (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the merger. --Jeonghyeonseo (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , some time ago it seems. Klbrain (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Eating Club
Talk:Antonio Carangelo

message: The article's creator (and virtually sole editor) removed all the banners placed by two other editors highlighting the issues which needed to be addressed in this article, without addressing those issues. Please do not do that in future. Those banners help other editors to find articles needing improvement and benefit both the article and Wikipedia.  As it is, I happened on this article by chance. It was written in unidiomatic (and in places grammatically incorrect) English, lacked proper punctuation, and had many link errors. I have now addressed these problems, but have added this banner:  
This article has as its sole source, the official web site of the subject.  This is not sufficient either to establish the notability of the subject or the truth of the claims made in the article. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please do not remove the banner from the article until this problem has been completely addressed. Note also that this article is definitely stub class in its current state. I have re-added the stub banner. Please do not remove it until the article is considerably expanded and improved and the referencing issues have been addressed. Thank you in advance, Voceditenore 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with this article
Talk:Alexander Sitkovetsky

message: Bearian 18:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Uyghur timeline

message: In the introductory paragraph, it is claimed that the timeline spans between 400-900 AD. But the first date is 546 and the last one is 763. This is quite surprising. Because most of Uighur history lies after 763. (Manicheism, end of empire, Turpan and Gansu states, Islam,  Karakhanids etc. So this time line seems to be incomplete. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete time line