lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Gryposaurus

message: I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 18, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: On balance this is well written.  Occasionally the language is perhaps overly dense, almost as if it was copied from an academic journal by someone who didn't know exactly how to rephrase for a general audience.
:2. Factually accurate?: This article is exceptionally well-sourced.  Bravo!
:3. Broad in coverage?: An area for improvement is certainly the paleobiology section, if more is known.  I'm aware that sometimes many aspects of prehistoric creatures are simply unknown or unstudied.  There's relatively little in this article about what the life of a gryposaurus would have been like.  This article would probably not reach FA status without a bigger paleobiology section.
:4. Neutral point of view?: I sense no bias
:5. Article stability? I sense no instability
:6. Images?: More images would be great if they can be found, but a lack of images (or in this case, one image) is not a reason to deny good article status.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. 
— JayHenry 03:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination
Talk:Guaibasaurus

message: Guaibasaurus is actually the most basal theropod, thereby being the ancestor of the Neotheropoda.
Its actually a basal sauropodomorph.  Magnatyrannus (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is a basal sauropodomorph based on the most recent papers. The only ones still recovering it as a basal theropod are the ones using old matrices and scores. The same occurs with Herrerasaurus, Eoraptor and so on. It seems that almost every basal dinosaur was initially thought to be a theropod, it's funny. --Maurissauro (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of Guaibasaurus 

message: Given that Saturnaliidae is now considered a separate family, and that no other taxa definitively belong to this clade, I'm making a merge proposal that involves Guaibasauridae being redirected to Guaibasaurus, due to it being possibly monotypic. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Maurissauro (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  After 3 months with no opposing comments, I think it's safe to merge the articles. Joyous! | Talk 11:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can do the merging; I am currently on my phone, meaning that I can’t do it in one edit. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 13:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually rethinking it, maybe it's better to just update the Guaibasauridae page and leave it separate for now. Since we are recovering Guaibasaurus next to Unaysaurus and Macrocollum, Unaysauridae could be synonym of Guaibasauridae, and therefore the latter would not be monotypic. Maurissauro (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Closing; withdrawn by proposer (Maurissauro), without opposition. Klbrain (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Bureya Dam

message: More info is available (in english and more in russian) at the company's official site. --Jowe 03:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official page 
Talk:Hagryphus

message: Right now, manus in these dinosaur articles do not have anywhere to link to. To me it at best can point to a definition on Wikidictionary, but if someone thinks an encyclopedia article can be made for Manus (hand) or Manus (dinosaur), then go ahead and create it. Please do not link to the disambigation page at Manus. --- Jagged 11:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manus linking 
Talk:Marcionites

message: Useful quote:
The story proceeds to say that he asked the Roman presbyters to explain the texts, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit," and "No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment":  texts from which he himself deduced that works in which evil is to be found could not proceed from the good God, and that the Christian dispensation could have nothing in common with the Jewish. Rejecting the explanation offered him by the presbyters, he broke off the interview with a threat to make a schism in their church."Wace, Henry, Commentary on Marcion
Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Category talk:Landlocked countries

message: What does User:Serhio/Moldova represent?  Should this not just be Moldova?
Robef 03:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Note that Chad is the only Featured Article that falls under :Category:Landlocked countries. As such, it should be an example for other country articles to follow, not the other way around. Those other pages that have namesake categories should be removed from those categories their namesake category is already a member of. — Dulcem (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove country pages from this category?
Talk:50-Miler Award

message: I can't find a reference for when the award was created.  Anyone know? Johntex\talk 03:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date created

message: Yes, the yellow patch is obsolete, but I love it and despise the new one, which I find totally ugly. So, let's stick with the yellow one-;) Rlevse 11:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noted that the new BSA requirements pages are using the old patch.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patch

message: As an award, it should be in caps.  Although gramatically correct, there is no hyphen.--Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: The award may also be earned by cycling and horseback.  The new patch shows this by inclusion of a bicycle wheel and horseshoe.  Also, not sure the reason for the repetition about 'provisional units'.  ALL scouts are members of chartered units.  Provisional units are meaningless in regards to this award.  --Emb021 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other notes

message: I just did a re-write to make this more concise.  There really is not much more to add on the requirements.  Some suggested improvements:
*A new section on the impact of the 50-Miler on Scouts
*Opinions on the new patch; this must have references
*History- when this was created
:The 50-Miler is in the 6th edition of the Boy Scout Handbook (1962) but not the 5th (1955).
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write / improvements
Talk:Homalocephale

message: I have a picture of a complete (illustration) of a Homalocephale skeleton, 
should i replace the skull picture with it, put on the page extra or not
upload it?
Paleontologist.piczo
:Are you sure you have permission to upload the pic? Unless it's public domain, you created it yourself, or the person who did gives you written permission, you can't use it. Dinoguy2 08:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 
Talk:Huabeisaurus

message: Huabeisaurus is getting closer to being a GAN but there are still things anyone who wants to help me can do. First of all, the description section needs to be looked over by user without a good knowledge of dinosaur anatomy. Secondly, if anyone has access to the full Pang and Cheng reference with the original description of Huabeisaurus, it could help when it comes to broad coverage. I will simplify the article based on any comments about complicated sections, but if anyone else would want to, I can use all the help I can get. Thanks to anyone who tries to help. IJReid (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments
Talk:Hypacrosaurus

message: Article passed. Congratulations! Verisimilus T 19:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA: Pass 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Corvus coronoides talk 14:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps
Talk:Félix du Temple de la Croix

message: Let's be real and Neutral Point of View.  It should be written "sometimes credited", not "often".  For example if you do a Google search of "first flight", you will get a very low percentage of mentions of Félix.  136,000 hits versus  531 hits. Hu 04:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some of quotes regarding this claim, although I agree it is a little known fact, hence the small number of hits PHG 04:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sometimes", not "often" 

message: 1848: John Stringfellow made and flew a model airplane that is said to be the first power-driven machine to fly. It flew 120 feet at Chard, England. Just stirring up trouble... The Real Walrus 12:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right for the model powered plane (of course unpiloted). Corrected.PHG 13:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An earlier but unpiloted flight
Talk:Sillustani

message: I'm not an experienced editor (as in have none at all), but there are several factual errors here. I was just at Sillustani a month ago so it's mostly fresh in my mind. 
* The openings all face WEST not east. I took this picture in the mid-afternoon. The sun is SSW and you can see by the shadow it is in fact to the west.
* Only one chullpa has a lizard on it. Another has a snake. A different explanation of some sort of family iconography was given by our local guide (and at the museum next door).
* There are pre-Incan chullpas with very rough stones and post-Incan towers with smooth stones (as pictured). It's strange to compare the stonework to Incan as the specific chullpas they are referring to are "Incan" (or under Incan rule). In fact, you can see from the picture on the page that the stone work is substantially inferior to other Incan work such as at Qorikancha where the stones are perfectly mated all the way through (and "rectangular" in shape too though all are actually trapezoidal for seismic stability). It's pretty clear that the smooth walled towers are very heavily influenced and almost certainly made using Incan techniques.
67.183.18.223 (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Fact Check...
Talk:Ajancingenia

message: There was a rumor that "Ingenia" was named after the InGen cloning technique deployed in Jurassici Park, but this rumor proved to be incorrect. [1]
[1] http://www.users.qwest.net/~jstweet1/oviraptorosauria.htm
:Ingenia was named 7 years prior to the publication of Jurassic Park by scientists working in the Soviet Union with, presumably, little access to Western techno-thriller novels. So... yeah. An unlikely rumor ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ingenia urban legend 

message: Is there a paper in press that will provide a replacement name for "Ingenia"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Ingenia
Talk:Ischyrosaurus

message: Hi guys,
Have to say I was a little taken aback to see blogs, the DML and the Paleobiology database being used as references here. Not that I have anything against any of the people who undoubtably known their stuff, but these really aren't suitable references. I've already removed the references made to Darren's blog, and I'm going to move to to the others the now. Just to let you know. Mark t young (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing blogs, Paleobiology database and DML are references

message: I went on Google Books to examine Hulke's (1874) paper and there is no mention of the name I. manseli in his work. Therefore, I. manseli was clearly intended for BMNH R41626 without ever being published. The name Ischyrosaurus was never given a diagnosis, and thus Ischyrosaurus and its type species I. manseli are nomina nuda.
Hulke, J.W. (1874). Note on a very large saurian limb-bone adapted for progression upon land, from the Kimmeridge Clay of Weymouth, Dorset. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 30:16-17.
Lydekker, R. (1888). Catalogue of the Fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I. Containing the Orders Ornithosauria, Crocodilia, Dinosauria, Squamata, Rhynchocephalia, and Proterosauria. British Museum (Natural History):London, 1-309. 68.4.61.237 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen nudum status of Ischyrosaurus 

message: Barrett et al. (2010) assign Ischyrosaurus to Neosauropoda incertae sedis because the holotype has characters present in both rebbachisaurids and basal titanosauriforms but lacks characters that would permit referral to either group.  
Paul M. Barrett, Roger B.J. Benson and Paul Upchurch (2010). "Dinosaurs of Dorset: Part II, the sauropod dinosaurs (Saurischia, Sauropoda) with additional comments on the theropods". Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society 131: 113–126. 72.194.120.176 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update text
Talk:Janenschia

message: Are those really the holotype bones, covered in stones and dust at the Naturkunde Museum, or are they just casts (maybe  knows)? Seems like a bit haphazard way to store them. FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a dsiplay showing what the excavation looked like in the field. Nopthing haphazard. HMallison (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean they're covered in stones, dust, and equipment, doesn't it damage the bones (if only slightly), by scratching or withering them? FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All that is around them, not on top of them. HMallison (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well alright, just wondering! I guess it's similar to this Stegosaurus display (isn't it a holotype as well?), though it seems a bit less "gritty". FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, it's not the holotype, a right hindlimb in Stuttgart! From Bonaparte (2000), it's clear that the humerus is identical to MBR 2095.7 excavated at Site P. But the picture in that article shows a bone covered in a thick layer of shellac, its parts connected in a continuous restoration. So either this is a cast or someone has removed the varnish and the connective filler in the shaft...--MWAK (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the photos in 2009 and 2012, so perhaps something was done in the meantime. The bones certainly looked real, but who knows... FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To me too, they do not look like a cast. It's puzzling.--MWAK (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holotype display
Talk:Anurognathus

message: This article is fairly accurat and I put a reference in too verifyEnlil Ninlil 03:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Where was the eyes placed? On most reconstructions I've seen, the eyes are small and behind the biggest hole in the skull, don't know what it's called, like here:. But DiBgd has drawn it with the eye in the biggest hole, while using this as reference: So eh, which one is correct? FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DiBgd looks correct, using the Bennett skull.  The skull of Anurognathus was only known as squashed, incomplete specimens until recently, and it's a weird-looking skull.  The antorbital fenestra is actually small and shifted to the front in a very wide, short skull. J. Spencer (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It looks like the specimen is published, but it's in one of the German journals that don't get out my way very often. J. Spencer (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye position 

message: The article states that the name means "without tail jaw", "in reference to its unusually small tail relative to other "rhamphorhynchoid" (i.e. basal) pterosaurs", and cites a popular encyclopedia. Will have to track down the original paper, but surely, this was named in reference to Anura due to the similarity of the skull with a frog...? Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; compare the closely related genus Batrachognathus. And the ref cited for that claim doesn't say anything about why it's called Anurognathus; all the ref says is that the Latin means "tailless jaw," end of story. So I'll fix the article. --Quuxplusone (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I have a book, Michael Benton’s Dinosaurs: New Visions of a Lost World, which depicts Anuroghathus quite differently, much more bat-like. I feel that this inaccuracy should be mentioned on this page and any page it is used on, thought i doubt said book is enough of a citation. I’ve removed the image for nowMRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite a bit of leeway in how to depict most prehistoric animals, so one restoration looking different doesn't mean the one we have is inaccurate, and I'll put it back. This restoration shows hair-like covering as well, which is bat-like already. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy
Talk:Go-around

message: Recommend adding a subsection explaining specifically what a missed approach is as it pertains to instrument flight. —This unsigned comment was added by Heinous (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missed approach

message: There is a suggestion template to merge that article into this one. I strongly disagree, for at least 3 reasons:
#Missed Approach, as well as Missed Approach Point (MAP), are both important instrument flight rules concepts. They each warrant a separate article, and certainly should not be confused or merged with Go-around, which is a mechanical maneuver which simply relates to aborting a landing and effecting a climb.
#The MAP is only indirectly related to missed approach, as it simply requires the runway (or its environment) to be in sight at that point to continue the landing, or else a missed approach must be executed
#The suggestion template on the MAP article is linked to this discussion, where there is no mention of any rationale to remove it.
If anyone disagrees, please comment. Thanks, Crum375 12:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Missed approach point]] merge 

message: I have removed the missed approach redirection from this article, to focus on the actual go-around maneuver itself. I tried to fix up the language in general; comments and improvements are welcome. Crum375 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of [[missed approach]]

message: Overshoot links to Go-around but it is not mentioned in the article. Please, could anyone tell one from the other or state they mean the same? Is it a slang term? (I'm not native-English-speaking and I would like to know). Thanks, Kriplozoik 19:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overshoot?
Talk:To Paint or Make Love

message: When visiting Adam and Eva the husband William puts on a record. The wife Madelaine goes to the record shelf, pics up the sleeve and explains to Adam and Eva 'This was the song they played when we met'.
One can clearly see that it's Genesis': Wind & Wuthering sleeve she's holding in her hand.
But the song we hear it's Nature Boy sung by a female voice... Kiujm (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack
Talk:Helmet fire

message: I thought about it, and what I should have done is write this article as the task saturation article, then put in a section or a redirect for helmet fire. I'll do it later.
While I agree 100% with the definition of the term here, it is not clearly aviation-specific. I learned the term from USMC tanker, and apparently Marine Corps armor types believe this term belongs to them. I have multiple FAA civilian ratings and had never heard the term until I heard it from the former Marine armor guy, so the suggestion that this is an aviation term is very questionable. There may be thousands of military aviators out there using the term every day for all I know, but generally military aviation terms find their way very quickly into the civilian aviation world and equally quickly into the GA world. Yet I've never heard any pilot use the term "helmet fire." Seems a bit odd, don't you think? What probably needs to happen is for this term to be moved into a much more general military terminology page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerrr (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Edward William Lane

message: I revised the article using White's introduction to the Dover edition of Lane's first book. I removed the bit re his marriage to a slave, for which I can find no references. White says that he married a Greek woman in 1840 -- I'll put this in the article. Could she be the "slave" in question? Zora 22:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete revision 

message: User DÜNGÁNÈ today inserted the following eight links to books.google.com, which link to volumes of Lane's Lexicon. I have deleted them for the reason which I now state.
http://books.google.com/books?id=f7r8y3dKzfkC = No download or preview available. Don't even know which volume it is.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3R7g2U0l9-8C = Volume One. Downloadable. Okay.
http://books.google.com/books?id=NiwwAAAAYAAJ = Volume Two. Downloadable. Okay.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8yswAAAAYAAJ = A duplicate of Volume One: The very same thing as id=3R7g2U0l9-8C above.
http://books.google.com/books?id=k-c3qv6tbMQC = No download or preview available. Don't even know which volume it is.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DAgbV0aGKNwC = No Download or preview available. Don't even know which volume it is.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4J0OAAAAYAAJ = Illegible snippet view only. Effectively unviewable online. Not downloadable.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3p4OAAAAYAAJ = Illegible snippet view only. Effectively unviewable online. Not downloadable.
Out of the eight volumes of Lane's lexicon, only volumes 1 and 2 are available from the links to books.google.com above inserted by Dugane. Meanwhile all eight volumes are already downloadable at the link already being given in "External Links" section of the page. Thus even if the above books.google.com links were going to viewable and downloadable copies, they would still be unneeded. Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links to Lane's Lexicon.
Talk:Rotary Connection

message: I removed a passage in the main article which would properly belong on the discussion page.  It was a couple of contrary statements about whether the Peace album cover depicts a "bruised and bloody" Santa.  IP address 66.234.66.146 had first added a passage disputing the statement in the existing article that the cover just had a hippie Santa, saying that it was a bruised and bloody Santa.  S/he had then retracted that statement (having checked the album cover) but did that in the article, and above the previous passage, making it seem like the first passage was correcting the second one.  So I just removed it all, since the article was correct as it was originally.  Btw, I have a copy of the album too, and it's just a hippie Santa.
I kept the part about Montgomery Ward cancelling the shipment instead of removing it from their shelves.
--193.71.196.238 03:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Peace album cover

message: Minnie riperton is the best singer of all times she had just a short happy life. I believe it was not her time to die. She was such a good mother and person ,wife and insprirer to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.254.219.77 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best group ever besides Earth, Wind ,and Fire