lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Snom

message: I have created the page Snom, as they are a manufacturer of VoIP telephones. These telephones are widely used, and of high quality.
Aastra_Technologies is a comparable firm, manufacturing comparable products.
Can someone please explain the difference between the notability of Snom and Aastra_Technologies?
:Aastra is a private label manufacturer that builds products to spec and presents some products of its own.  SNOM is a technology company that has phones built.  There is a gray area in the middle I am sure but that should draw the out edges of the differences.. Lathama (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: SNOM is a notable company and news sources and even standards documents mention them.  We need to document some other sources. Lathama (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think you got the IPA right or do they really say /snʊm/ there? I'd rather suppose /snɔm/... Honigwasser (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

message: After re-reading Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Mixed_or_non-capitalization I'd like to handle snom capitalization like Adidas. Specifically:
* Remove the {lowercase} tag so the page title will become Snom
* In sentences, use Snom instead of snom in all cases.
Just like Adidas.
Pnm (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: After a quick check, I find that snom is correct as lowercase. eg... http://www.snom.com/en/legal/ Lathama (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snom snom snom snom (or capitalization of Snom) 

message: , please elaborate why you re-added advertorial content to this page, without explanation. Pratat (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing 'advertorial' about the history and the products in a company article. By this standard you'd have to remove almost all of all companies' content. Products are what companies are about. Kbrose (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of advertorial content
Talk:Susan Daitch

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/book/?GCOI=15647100984640&fa=author&person_id=1629. 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, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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.  VernoWhitney (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: leaving messages on an article talk page, about a users edit from 4 years ago, that is now a dead link, is somewhat dysfunctional, wouldn't you agree? 198.24.31.118 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Kilmuckridge

message: This article is more and more resembling a tourist guide. But Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. A thorough clean up is needed but at this moment that is prevented by an Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Help needed. The Banner talk 18:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourist guide
Talk:Harborne Railway

message: I've added a table of features, plus their coordinates, which can now be mapped. Please fill in the gaps, adding missing items, OS Grid refs, and mileages (in the "notes" column). Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features + coordinates
Talk:Pelvic cavity

message: Both greater pelvis and lesser pelvis should be merged here and each should get its own section; they are already mentioned here and having separate articles without the full context of how the cavity is defined is confusing. – SJ + 07:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge in greater and lesser pelvis
Talk:David F. Swensen

message: Wondering why this page doesn't mention Swenson as "inventor of the swap" in 1980s?  per http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2009/01/05/manager-of-yale-endowment-funds-blames-regulators-for-financial-crisis .  (As opposed to Credit Default Obligation swaps, invented by Blythe Masters of JP Morgan in response to Valdez liabilities.) --Gwengazorn (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article needs a listing of the longitudinal returns for this approach.   Obviously, a university has a limitless investment time horizon, so its endowment approach cannot easily be compared to individual investors, but nonetheless the article should contain information as to how Swensen's techniques have done over the decades.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returns? 
Talk:State Fair (musical)

message: Needs a plot summary before it should be upgraded to start class.  -- Ssilvers 13:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Graduated to Start.  Good work, Jean!  -- Ssilvers 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Boys And Girls Like You and Me is not derived from Oklahoma!, but rather from Cinderella. PBuG  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.0.249 (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this [], the song "Boys and Girls..." was an unused song from "Oklahoma!" Regardless of having a reliable source, I shall not change the reference to "Cinderella" which has recently been added.  Perhaps the editor knows something that the writer of the article (Ted Chapin) I referenced does not, or perhaps that article is incorrect. Or... JeanColumbia 10:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add: this article also states that the song "Boys and Girls..." was cut from Oklahoma!:  .
This is again, from the R&H site, perhaps there is a source independent of that site which can shed some light on this.JeanColumbia 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think i misunderstood the poster's intentions--so, I'll leave the item as is, since it now(another helpful editor rides to the rescue) clearly shows that it was cut from Oklahoma!. The question of whether it was also  cut from Cinderella is another question. (Confused? I am.)JeanColumbia 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the 1957 TV songlist.  As you point out, later productions, and indeed the vocal selections, include "Boys and Girls".  I really don't know whether it was originally intended to be included in the TV broadcast.  I'll make a weaselly edit that should be good enough.  -- Ssilvers 22:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boys And Girls

message: Why is it so crunchy 2601:445:601:82E0:107E:51B8:2A09:39EB (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image for poster
Talk:Maxilla

message: The lead sentence is missing words.  
Piratejosh85 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: lead

message: I have proposed this merge, between the 'ossification' page and this article, because:
* There is no need for the information on ossification to be hidden away on a separate article. This means the information is not presented as it could be, and it is needlessly fragmented.
* It is standard on Anatomy pages, and recommended in WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, for 'Development' sections to be displayed on the same page. 
* Additionally, this page is small and it would give more context to have the information displayed in a central location, rather than hidden on a separate article. 
* If necessary, the article on ossification could be expanded at a later date.
* As can be seen, by having two separate articles content is already duplicated and/or displayed on one or either article, rather than displayed in a central place on just one article LT910001 (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have completed this merge. --LT910001 (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Ossification of maxilla]] 

message: Readily merged into parent article, prevents needless fragmentation and centralises information for readers Tom (LT) (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Body of maxilla]] 

message: This C-class article has nineteen images with thirteen listed under the "Additional images" section. Six to eight of them can easily be removed as unnecessary and close duplication. Otr500 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images
Talk:National Hockey Stadium (Milton Keynes)

message: ... so if the article title is needed for another national hockey stadium, there should be no objection to the current content being moved to a new title such as National Hockey Stadium (former UK) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This building is no longer in use as the UK national hockey stadium, or even at all ... 

message: IMO, it is time to move this article to National Hockey Stadium (former English) and release National Hockey Stadium to be a disambig article. We now have National Hockey Stadium articles for Pakistan and Malaysia. After the 2012 Olympics, we shall probably have a new English National Hockey stadium in Stratford. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Conceptually I agree - it is silly for a former structure to take the primary title, especially as it not that well known, but not sure about your suggested title. <B>Warren</B> (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Indeed much of the content is already at England Hockey so could be merged with that... and the football related elements to Milton Keynes Dons F.C..<B>Warren</B> (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to make this a disambig article and move the present content elsewhere? 

message: So I have. This one is now 'former England NHS' (pun unintended but so true). National Hockey Stadium is now a disambig. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Be bold and just do it
Talk:Nene Park

message: After reading through The Darlington Arena article, I discovered that the ground there is now considered "defunct" even though it is still being used for Rugby League Matches.
Defunct in this sense means that it is no longer being used for Association Football. If a stadium is demolished, it is also "defunct", but in the meantime the term can be used both for former stadiums and for stadiums that formerly hosted association football matches.
As far as I know, Nene Park still exists and may one day host Association Football matches again. Until then, though, it should be considered "defunct" in the same way as the Darlington Arena is.
--One Salient Oversight (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Defunct"
Talk:Palatine bone

message: supporting club 197.211.61.138 (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: it is mandatory for students to wear uniforms to school because it will give them a sense of discipline 197.211.61.138 (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it mandatory for students to wear uniform to school
Talk:The Kirkby Project

message: Tenants Everton F.C. (after construction) - Are there tenants on the site at this point? Londo06 20:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I am following this page and I am concerned the above user is editing all things anti-Kirkby project, whether there is a KEIOC bias I do not know. However the page needs to be viewed balanced not every quotable anti-Kirkby under the sun. I have asked the editor to refrain from editing this page into something resembling 'keep Everton in our city' campaign. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 212.248.245.252 (Talk)

message: This article is riddled with unreliable sources and false sources quoting reliable sources on a "Toffeeweb" website. There needs to be a clean up and some reliable sources added. Dmcm2008 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: I am querying why my edit was removed that the location of the ground is a stones throw away from Kirkby's main bus terminus and also that Kirkby station is a similar short distance away as Goodison is from Kirkdale. The article needs a balanced view as as it stands it looks as if everyone thinks the public transport is inadequate etc but the points i have made make it balanced. agreed, perhaps the current rail facility might not cope. an everton supporter  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.103.125 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: location
Talk:New Meadow

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was consensus against move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the infobox, it says category three, but in the opening paragraph it says category four. Can someone clear this up please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbuchanan (talk • contribs) 14:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Category
Talk:Frontal bone

message: Why does the Borders section of the article on the Frontal Bone talk about the squama temporalis?  It just doesn't seem right.
The preceding question was left on the WP:MED talk page. --Una Smith 14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a mistake; I have corrected it. Axl (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article was saturated with images. I removed all the ones in the article as Wikipedia is "NOT" a textbook or repository for images.  Otr500 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images
Talk:Temporal bone

message: I have proposed this merge, between the 'ossification' page and this article, because:
* There is no need for the information on ossification to be hidden away on a separate article. This means the information is not presented as it could be, and it is needlessly fragmented.
* It is standard on Anatomy pages, and recommended in WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, for 'Development' sections to be displayed on the same page. 
* Additionally, this page is small and it would give more context to have the information displayed in a central location, rather than hidden on a separate article. 
* If necessary, the article on ossification could be expanded at a later date. LT910001 (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Ossification of temporal bone]] 

message: 117.201.227.31 (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Konsi  Maspeshi kaanpati ki haddi ko jabade se jodati he 

message: 117.201.227.31 (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Konsi  Maspeshi kaanpati ki haddi ko jabade se jodati he
Talk:North Road, Manchester

message: I'd place a bet that the National Archives and Manchester Cathedral itself are correct in referring to "Dean" singular and that the author of a book on football ground history is more accurate on his football than on ecclesiastical matters.  There is only ever one dean of a cathedral at a time - the dean is the head officer of the cathedral (the bishop is the head officer of the diocese). For the owner to have been the "Deans and Canons" of Manchester Cathedral there would have to have been more than one dean. The source is just wrong on this point, surely. BencherliteTalk 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing any evidence that the group as a whole isn't referred to as "Manchester Deans and Canons". In fact, I have more than one source that refers to "the Deans and Canons of Manchester", perhaps indicating that there was more than one Dean during the time that Newton Heath played at the ground. I'll get in touch with the authors of the sources and get back to you. – PeeJay 21:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the links says, "By the Dean and Chapter Act of 1840, the Warden and Fellows became Dean and Canons of Manchester", for example. There may have been more than one dean during the club's tenancy (and in fact Dean of Manchester suggests that there was), but the lease would have been with "the dean and canons" (or the dean and chapter) NOT the "deans and canons" because there was never more than one dean at the same time! As the first hit on Google for "Manchester Deans and Canons" is, err, this article (and all the other hits without Wikipedia are uncredited mirrors of this article), I think you're the one who needs to show that the cathedral website and the National Archives website are wrong. BencherliteTalk 21:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully my rewording avoids the problem. BencherliteTalk 21:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dean and Canons / Deans and Canons 
Talk:European slave trade

message: we need a European slave trade article or redirect. just like we have a big fat one on Arabs and Africans.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 13:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Atlantic slave trade, or Transatlantic slave trade, is the better-known name, but European slave trade should be a redirect. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No sane person will ever search for the trade of African slaves to the new world under "European slave trade", so there's no reason to leave a redirect. What's more, Halqh's statement and his way of moving the AST article here makes it all too obvious that this a case of WP:POINT. I feel that leaving this page as a redirect (which shouldn't be done for resons below anyway) somehow would encourage such actions. Malc82 19:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If there is an [[Arab slave trade]] and an [[African slave trade]]

message: (edit conflict) This page was created to make a WP:POINT. The term is not used anywhere to describe the Atlantic slave trade. The explanation given above is wrong because, for example, the Arab slave trade is called so because the slaves were transported to Arabia, not because the slavers were Arabs. The reason why it shouldn't be a redirect is that there were various slave trades in European history and a page about ancient and medieval European slave trades might make sense, so the title should be available. Malc82 19:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that the term "is not used anywhere" Google found nearly 18,000 uses, and the first 100 use the phrase synonymously with "Atlantic slave trade". — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't. I only checked the first three hits. The first one (the WSU page) refers to European trading of African slaves, starting with the Trans-Saharan trade, so it doesn't use the term synonymous with the Atlantic slave trade. The second and third ghit I found (my hits are those: , they will differ from yours because I unluckily get German google by default) is an Irish book which uses the term to describe contemporary slavery (in its colloquial sense) within Europe. Malc82 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. You're right. Many of the hits mention trading and slaving with the coast of Africa, and while most of them refer to the Atlantic slave trade (the Atlantic being the ocean by which ships sailed between Europe and western Africa), they did not all refer to the Transatlantic slave trade that is the subject of the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for CSD tag
Talk:Pirelli Stadium

message: Why is a citation needed for the club being built on the site of the social club?  That's a statement of fact, no need to cite anything - it's where the club was!  What do you want, a picture showing a map reference? ;) 194.3.130.128 12:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation for where club was built

message: It would have been sufficient to point out the supposed error (above) rather than be rude and sarcastic about it.
This is an encyclopedia service not a self-serving blog.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain McVitie (talk • contribs) 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: No need to be unpleasant

message: The ground has a capacity of 6,912.  
http://www.burtonalbionfc.co.uk/page/PirelliStadium/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference
Talk:Prenton Park

message: I don't think that the lowest away attendance is relevant to Prenton Park (possibly could be in Tranmere Rovers). It would be more useful to have highest and lowest attendances at PP in each competition. I think another section including notable games would be relevant - the Rangers v Shelbourne match was interesting, but info about a few other key games (Exeter in 1987, Crewe in 1989, Southampton in the FA Cup, Women's FA Cup Final, etc.) would be useful. Unfortunately, I haven't got all those details to hand, but I'll make the edit in future unless anyone else would like to update them. Mogsy7 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have made the changes you suggested. U+003F (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lowest away attendance
Talk:Saltergate

message: Can anyone provide a date and a source for when the terracing at the bottom level of the Main Stand was taken out of use? (See Structure and facilities - The Main Stand) Jaxban (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Information needed
Talk:Shoulder girdle

message: This page is in bad need of diagrams to explain the concepts  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.68.246 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagrams

message: The word "thorax" might better be sternum because thorax is all about the insects and its phylum arthropoda. Is that ok?Sky6t (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the use of words
Talk:Thoracic vertebrae

message: I think that adding a section on the movements that thoracic vertebrae can move well and cannot move very much in would make this article more complete and is a must for this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorK88 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movements of Thoracic Vertebrae?
Talk:Ta Khmau municipality

message: Surely we should have separate articles for the capital of the province and it's district? We do for the other 184 districts of Cambodia. If there are no ojections, I will split off the Takmau article as a town. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Split 

message: :Krong Ta Khmau District →  – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Gikü (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Procedural close: please include a reason why you think the move should take place if you are interested in initiating a move request. Dekimasuよ! 21:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I requested the move because the content of the article is about the city, not the district. PS: I haven't received the ping for some reason. Gikü (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 February 2018
Category talk:Former administrative divisions of countries

message: Per result of CfD 2007 Jul 2, the outcome of the proposal to merge this category (Former subdivisions of countries) into cat:Former country subdivisions, was to reverse-merge the latter former country subdivisions cat into the former former subdivisions of countries cat.... clear? --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD discussion 2007 Jul 02