lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Song Fight!

message: I've had a lot of experience with SF, and I vaguely recall the fuss on their boards when this article was posted and duly rejected. The original editor(s) didn't really "get" Wikipedia, I think, which isn't so much a problem in itself as it was a confrontation waiting to happen. I'll be working on this shortly, since it seems some NPOV matters need to be resolved (in addition to layout and just about everything else). The WP-significance of the site is indisputable to anyone familiar with it, I think, but it needs a lot of cleanup work. Fearwig 19:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikification 

message: When was there a SFL in Australia? I can't find any information about it anywhere. It hasn't happend since 2003 and before that I think there were two Australians so I don't know how it could have happened.
It would have been pre-2003, but not by much. It wasn't "official", but then I'm not sure there's anything official about an SFL in the first place, other than that all the "official" ones seem to go up on the site and have an "Song Fight X and Y"-style name. There were certainly more than two Australians at that time, though I can't say I ever paid much attention to SF forum demographics... Fearwig 05:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live & Australia 

message: I'm reasonably certain he spells his first name with two Ls. I took the liberty of correcting the spelling in the first paragraph after the Table of Contents. If anyone can find a source to prove me wrong, feel free to change it back. 
-Jon Eric (I don't have a Wikipedia account)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.63.193 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narbotic's real name
Category talk:Internet Standards

message: There are Internet standards which are not IETF standards (e.g. some WWW stuff). It might have been good to keep Category: IETF Standards and make it a subset of Internet standards. Noel 15:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  IETF standards 

message: Why was this category moved from Internet standards to Internet Standards? As it is not a proper noun there is no reason to capitalize standards. Let's move it back. --EnOreg (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: Having future Internet standards collected in a category namend just "Internet Standards" is confusing and not really Wikipedia-like, I'd say: Don't we usually refrain from documenting what the world will be in the future for obvious reasons?..--Flugaal (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  future Internet standards
Talk:Orotic acid

message: not enough info. mention:
1) orotic acid is an intermediate in pyrimidine synthesis (C, T)
2) multi-organ tumour promoter
74.111.2.51 02:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It's not pyrimidinecarboxylic acid, the systematic name is 1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-2,6-dioxopyrimidine-4-carboxylic acid or uracil-6-carboxylic acid, but orotic acid is more common. -- 217.224.70.151 13:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Lemma 

message: The article states that "...it is not a vitamin, but is instead manufactured in the body by intestinal flora." By that definition, vitamin K wouldn't be a vitamin. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vitamin K is available via microbial action, but some humans still need supplements. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitamin? 

message: There is no proper citation of the rather serious claim that Orotic Acid, a necessary nutrient for humans to live, is a mutagenic compound.  A google search pulled up nothing except a few abstracts about 5-Fluoro-Orotic Acid, a different compound altogether.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.21.85 (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orotic Acid Mutagen? 

message: This article has been proposed for deletion.  However, otherwise non-notable salts of an acid should be merged into the parent article when feasible. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . The tricreatine orotate article was at best poorly sourced, but I claim no expertise in this area. Hopefully someone with a greater knowledge of chemistry can provide a decent source for the merged content. Euryalus (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tricreatine orotate 

message: Because of the unfortunate name of B¹³, I propose the correct pronunciation be added to the article to prevent confusion. 68.185.117.66 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is an acid with a rather funny name, but the correct way to say it is Or-ot-ic acid. I have no idea of how to use the IPA system.If someone can transscribe the name it would be a great help. Cadmium (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation
Talk:Wheel arrangement

message: When I first added material to the “EMD E6” page, I included 90 words about the A1A-A1A wheel arrangement. This was all right for one page, but I wanted to add the same wheel arrangement material to all the EMD E-unit pages, a total of nine pages. Text would be needlessly duplicated. So I moved the A1A-A1A wheel arrangement material to a new page, “AAR wheel arrangment”, and added material for several other wheel arrangements. That way, myself or anyone can internally link to the section within “AAR wheel arrangement” that corresponds to the desired wheel arrangement, and eliminate some text duplication. Rmeier 16:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: I don't see a point of adding a chapter for "Steam Locomotive Wheel Arrangement" since it is already covered in articles for Whyte notation and UIC Classification. Removed. Z220info 14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steam Locomotive Wheel Arrangement 

message: I found the initial article very confusing to read, especially given that to understand anything of the differences between the three main notation systems (AAR, UIC, Whyte) one had to click on each link in turn. So I set to work rephrasing several words and passages, and reordering the run of sentences etc. There were also some inconsistencies in the article - three bullet points at the end of the article contradicted statements in previous paras, causing reader confusion about whether or not Whyte notation is used in the US. So I checked all thoroughly while reworking the whole, so as to give a proper "overview" of the subject. Lastly I tried to find any decent sources - there are loads on the web describing the various steam wheel arrangements, but almost nil about the overall nature of wheel arrangements as a subject, ie. why and how they matter. Finally found one source that defined it reputably as "the distribution of wheels under (etc)", and referenced it accordingly. The article's still not great, but at least it's now a whole lot better to read / easier to understand. Hopefully others will agree. Pete Hobbs (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amended whole article 

message: So what happened to the quite useful and enjoyable table of all the different wheel arrangements that used to be featured on the bottom of like most or all locomotive-related pages? We just like ditched that? And this article is what we have left? 
To whoever made this article, there are actual images available graphically illustrating every wheel arrangement. You don't need to do the whole "ooOOOo" thing for every single entry. 
I can't believe a subject as popular as rail and this is the best we have after ten or fifteen years.  Idumea47b (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean Template:Whyte types? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Featured Albums Project

message: Hi, 
I've begun assessing these articles for the WP1.0 project, with a partial listing of assessments now here.  I wanted to make a couple of general points:
# The assessments are largely based on my rough judgement of layout, pictures, format, and length of content; it's hard for me to judge content, unless the language is atrocious.  I'm also not an expert in this field, although I am familiar with most of the albums, so please take a look at my assessments - if you disagree with any please feel free to comment, or change the assessment (along with an explanation of reasons, if possible). 
# Most of the articles do not list any references, and that limits their use. Most of these articles contain large nos. of facts, where did all this information come from?  With major bands like the Beatles, there must be many well-researched books that can serve as sources of information, surely? In most longer articles, an extra picture or two (besides the standard cover picture) would also be nice, for example a concert promoting the album, the (different) cover used in France, or fans lining up to buy the album, if any of these are available. 
I will try to complete the assessments soon.  Thanks a lot for putting this list together, it's a great help! Walkerma 05:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment of these articles for WP 1.0 

message: Since there is no Amount in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums guidelines, How many reviews are good?
For example:
*"The Dillinger Escape Plan - Miss Machine
:Albumbox may need more reviews, with rating directly on it."
::There are four with direct ratings on there...How much is "more"?  I just want to create the best type of articles I can for Wikipedia, and make them WikiProject Albums compliant. Antmusic 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since there is no Amount in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums]], How many reviews are good?
Talk:Linking Books

message: Linking Books was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to D'ni items
*An item from Myst, not worthy of an article Deus Ex 18:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Henry Lee Lucas

message: Question:  In the section quoted below,
 
"Arrest, confession to murders of Powell and Rich
Powell was put in a state shelter by the authorities after her mother and grandmother died in 1982. Lucas convinced her to run away with him and they lived on the road, eventually traveling to California, where an employer's wife asked them to work for her infirm mother, 82-year-old Kate Rich. However, Rich's family turned the couple out, accusing them of failing to do their jobs and writing checks on Rich's account.
...
In June 1983, Lucas was arrested on charges of unlawful possession of a firearm by Texas Ranger Phil Ryan. 'Later, he confessed to the murders of Powell and Rich',..."
shouldn't we (the readers) find out that Rich disappeared/was murdered/was deceased/something, BEFORE learning Lucas confessed to her murder?  The first paragraph says only that Lucas & Powell were "turned out" by Rich's family. 
__________________________________________________
and led the police to their purported remains, although forensic evidence alone was inconclusive and the coroner stopped short of positively identifying either of them. Lucas' participation in the investigation would serve to boost his credibility in later confessions to other crimes. Lucas later denied involvement, but the consensus is that he did murder Powell and Rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BKitteh (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Powell and Rich
Talk:Louis Desaix

message: the real name of Desaix is : Louis Charles Antoine Desaix not Louis Charles Antoine Desaix de Veygoux ! 
(You can see his birth certificate at the french page : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desaix)
: …As it also says on that page, "Selon l'usage de l'époque, afin de se distinguer de son frère, il prit pour nom Louis Charles Antoine Desaix de Veygoux…": "According to the usage of the time, in order to be distinguished from his brother, he took the name name Louis Charles Antoine Desaix de Veygoux…" - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: The name of Desaix is not Louis Desaix but Louis Charles Antoine Desaix. (As you can see on his baptismal certificate http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Extrait_acte_bapteme_desaix.jpg)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolege (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of Desaix
Talk:Wezembeek-Oppem

message: The words "radicals" and "coexist" should be changed in ordre tot maintain the neutrality in this article about such a delicat subject.
:Why do you feel these words are not neutral ? How should they be changed ? --FvdP 17:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The following paragraph isn't very clear:
:Many Flemings regard these measures as only transitory for the time needed for French-speaking locals to "integrate themselves in Flanders", that is to convert to using Dutch. Many French-speaking people however see these facilities as a permanent right, that compensates for the irreversible attribution of the commune to Flanders. This situation is made more difficult by this commune's satellite status to the Brussels-Capital Region, in which both French and Dutch are official languages.
How is the situation made difficult? What is difficult in the situation? Is this specific to Wezembeek-Oppem or should this be moved to Municipalities with language facilities? -moyogo (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jez, I agree with you. I think your edit is a good step, removing what appears to be WP:OR and providing a link to a separate article in which the language issues can be better discussed. Thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph on linguistic facilities "situation" 

message: I have re-written what seemed to be a somewhat misunderstood or biased version. I found some sources hinting at the current version, but it should be looked over by an expert on Belgium during World War II. --Sasper (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphanage during World War II
Talk:Worcester, England/Archive 1

message: Hi, we've been having some trouble getting a good image for Penda of Mercia (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Penda of Mercia), which is important for when it gets featured on the Main Page.  It would be great if someone could take a photo of this window at Worcester Cathedral.  Thanks for your help.--Pharos 03:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with featured article

message: User:Raime has reactivated the above debate, but with comments split across the old discussion.  I have therefore started a new section on this.
I disagree with the suggestion for a move.  As has been discussed above, there are valid reasons why this article is where it is, and why the American Worcesters are where they are.  For the record, while lots of Americans won't have heard of the Worcester in the UK, a similar proportion of British people have not heard of the one in Massachusetts either.  --RFBailey 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there are similar proportions in both countries (which I highly doubt, due to the United States' much larger population), then why is a disambiguation page not a good idea? The valid reason mentioned above appears to be history, but this is not any more valid compared to size (in which Worcester, Mass. is larger) or prominence (in which both cities seem to be about equal). History can not be regarded as the sole reason for a term to redirect to a page, as in this case any large city in the United States (which is much younger in history when compared to the United Kingdom) named after a UK city would have to redirect to a smaller (yet older) British city. A disambiguation page is simply the most logical solution. Raime 22:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that you don't understand what I meant by "proportion".  The reason for choosing the term was to make each country's population size irrelevant.  Of course a particular proportion of the US's population is a much larger number of people than the same proportion of the UK's. --RFBailey 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was simply saying that if you think that for every American who wants a Worcester, MA,. redirect, there is a British person who wants a Worcester, UK, redirect, and therefore a dab page would simply make sense. Even looking at each country's population sizes are irrelevant, just as many Americans will never have heard of Worcester, UK, and will expect "Worcester" to redirect to Worcester, MA or a dab link as British people who expect the article to redirect to Worcester, UK. Raime 12:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Massachusetts again (June 2007)
Talk:Major film studios

message: It's a member of the MPAA and brought in more revenue than any other studio in 2019. If that doesn't make them a major studio then I don't know what does. 74.96.86.95 (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Netflix is not a part of the major or mini-major film studios. Fortunewriter (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netflix 

message: What about Toho (Japan) and CJ Entertainment (South Korea)? Are they considered a major or mini-major? Fortunewriter (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign studios 

message: I just reverted a move to Major film studios of the United States by User:NDNSWMI on 14 October 2022.  It looks like that editor didn't bother to read any of the sources cited in the article or to review relevant Wikipedia article title policies.  Under WP:PRECISION, "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." 
The point of the sources cited in the article is that the term "major film studios" is unambiguous and adequately precise.  In the film industry, both within and without the United States, the phrase when not further qualified is always understood as referring to the five American media conglomerates which dominate the U.S. and global film markets.  Anyone who actually reads entertainment news on a daily basis would already know that.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just reverted move on 14 October 2022 by User:NDNSWMI which violated [[WP:PRECISION]] 

message: So if I'm understanding it, the Little Three were part of the Big Eight along with some of the Big Five who used to be the Something Six and the Terrible Twos? It's all so confusing. EEng 23:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers in abundance 

message: To be honest, I think the page needs to be renamed. I mean, its current name is "Major film studios", but it also talks about the much smaller, well-known film studios as well, which aren't exactly major. Whomever either came up with the title for this article, or decided to lump the mini-majors in with the majors, wasn't really thinking things through.
I mean, the article for the Big Three American TV networks wouldn't have information about the much smaller TV networks (MyNetworkTV & Ion Television) because that information doesn't/belong there, so why should an article about the 6 major film studios have information about the much smaller film studios? 2600:1700:C960:2270:E1A3:7CC3:E9E5:7D8D (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming the article... 

message: I am noticing that users keep using Walt Disney Studios and Sony Pictures for the images, maps, and link in articles. The studios are Walt Disney Pictures and Columbia Pictures. WDS and SPE are only entertainment companies that own the studios like NBCUniversal owning Universal Pictures and Paramount Global owning Paramount Pictures. WDP and CP are the major studios. 71.68.129.162 (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on major studios names
Talk:Toledan Tables

message: There seems to be some missing information on the development process for astronomical tables and how the Toledan Tables are set apart in their influence from other tables at the time. Cadillard1 (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Astronomical Tables

message: The end of the article has no cited sources, but makes claims about the descendants of the Toledan Tables and Copernicus using these tables. Are these claims or can these be cited to one of the sources on the page? 
There is also a source that is not used within the article. Was this source used within the article? Kbtkxh (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Talk:German modal particles

message: Additionally to "you know"/"everyone knows"/"I already told you" the particle "ja" (combined with an exclamation mark) can be used to express the speakers own astonishment or surprise:
::"Das ist ja transparentes Aluminium!" - "Wow, that is transparent aluminium!"
Maybe someone familiar with both languages English and German wants to add this?
--82.83.226.86 (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Ja

message: Maybe the list should be an article on its own.  It is incomplete - e.g. na is missing.
Should modal pronouns, e.g. mir go there too?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.37.153.181 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: List of German modal particles
Talk:William S. Pye

message: One point regarding accuracy in this article, easily confirmed: Admiral Pye did not dispatch the SARATOGA relief group to Wake Island.  He did not assume command in Pearl Harbor until 17 December, 1941, relieving Admiral Kimmel.  Admiral Kimmel sent the relief group, which sailed from Pearl on 15 December.  Admiral Pye, a very cautious officer, recalled the group after Washington advised him to conserve his forces, and then said the decision was his alone.
John Dill
CWO4, USN (Ret.)214.16.27.2 09:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
File talk:User-FastFission-brain.gif

message: I think it should be a multi-slice MRI video, rather than fMRI. Can anyone check that?
:Doesn't look like a fMRI to me either --WS 13:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was done here, if you want to check out the distinction. I'm not aware of the difference, personally. This animation was made by me from a file they gave me which featured many little slices of the brain on difference axis. --Fastfission 17:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fMRI? 

message: Good though it is, it's not wise to display a rapidly- changing, animated image without a warning; they're problematic for some people with epilepsy (and other conditions). It's also contrary to the W3C web accessibility standards, which we should strive to meet. Accordingly, I've replacing it with a link, on Magnetic resonance imaging. Others may want to do likewise on other pages. Andy Mabbett 11:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Animation can cause problems

message: I can clearly see you're nuts.  --Cyde Weys 01:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laugh