lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Washington Navy Yard

message: This article should be expanded to include a section on Navy Yard's history as a Superfund site (the District's only current Superfund site), the specific activities that led to it being listed on the NPL, the pollutants that exist at the site, the cleanup activities thus completed, and the future scheduled cleanup activities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.91.18 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy Yard and Superfund 

message: Since many sections of the text appear close if not identical… dm (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The link does not work at this time. Probably that first. But should be provided a reference - NO problem with that to my level of KNowledge - as a MIL/ Government site information - openly provided to general public it is ok to quotes it. Wfoj3 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  which came first this article or [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq52-1.htm http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq52-1.htm] 

message: Collating sources in open url citations at the moment. Update: Seems to be a scare rather than an incident, I'll leave the citations up for 24 hours then remove. Twobellst@lk 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the officials from the press conference today, it was just a scare and that after an investigation, there was never a shooting.  They said the worker did the right thing; "Saw something suspicious and alerted authorities"    Only problem I have with the incident was that she was the only person that supposedly heard something that sounded like a gun shot.  ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, that seems to be the prevailing facts, shall I delete or leave for historical purposes? Twobellst@lk 10:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just leave on the talk page for historical references. Other wise we'll be adding updates every time someone pops a balloon or has a field day with bubble wrap in and around the Navy yard.  And if you've ever read a security/duty log at a facility like this, you would spend the rest of your life writing it up for Wikipedia.  ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Shooting 2015 

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33367626http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/park-police-mobilized-after-reports-of-shooter-at-navy-yard/2015/07/02/7d56bbfa-20af-11e5-bf41-c23f5d3face1_story.html Twobellst@lk 13:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial reports
Talk:Vice Chief of Naval Operations

message: Here's a list of the 35 VCNO's and their previous and subsequent 4-star jobs. Despite being nominally the number 2 job in the Navy, VCNO seems to be an entry level 4-star job whose incumbents are being groomed for more prominent commands. Morinao 16:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VCNO careers
Talk:Unrestricted line officer

message: Engineers are part of the Restricted Line community, not Unrestricted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigen III (talk • contribs) 08:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what you mean by "engineer."  If you mean "Engineering Duty Officer" then that is a true statement.  If you mean to refer to an officer who stands engineering watches or serves in the Engineering Department on a ship, then they are likely a URL officer. (Sonlee (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A  ref copied from Bureau of Steam Engineering. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Following up on the previous comment (from October 2007), this article currently suggests that naval engineering officers are RL ("Examples of RL officers include Engineering Duty Officer, Aeronautical Engineering Duty Officer, ..."), but the "History" section says that engineers were amalgamated "into Unrestricted Line Officers in 1899." I still think that there is a contradiction (or at least the potential for confusion) here. 74.71.72.223 (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The article explains that URL officers can command a ship at sea. This is also what I was taught in Naval Science at The Citadel. What about ships not at sea? Can a RL officer command a ship when in port? What about a pre-commissioning unit? (I neglected to think of this question when I was a cadet.)
Axeman (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Command of a ship not at sea
Category talk:Augustinian Order

message: -------
I forgot to put an edit explanation to a change I made before. I changed the sub- category "Augustinian nuns" to just the category "Augustinians" on two pages (Anne Catherine Emmerich) and Rita of Cascia. I work in the area of religious journalism, and I reacted to what I saw as anachronistic terminology. The reason being that "Augustinian" is not gender specific, and the term "Augustinian nuns" is quite a narrow category as it excludes Augustinian sisters (who are "Women Religious", but not enclosed). I was looking for female Augustinians (not by the category page) and found them difficult to locate. My suggestion is that all Augustinians (male and female, enclosed or not) appear under "Augustinians" (like Actors or Priests - not gender specific). The other current category I see "nunneries" is positively Shakespearean - and an English speaking nun would laugh to see it. It is almost pejorative now. "Augustinian Women Religious" would also be a way of categorising without sounding arcane - but Augustinian covers them all, and at this point there aren't so many that they need breaking up into sub-groups. I wouldn't die in a ditch over this distinction- but there aren't all that many recognized (for whatever reason) and historicaly prominent Augustinian nuns, and I thought it unecessary to sub-categorise them away from the male religious.
Cor Unum 07:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Desert Eagle In Popular Culture

message: Why is this page up for deleation? To me, it looks like it needs a revamp, like the FN P90 in popular culture
Keep and do not merge'.  This page was created because the list of movies and video games was as long as the rest of the article.  It was moved here to keep the DE article on-topic.  If you delete this page, the information will start appearing back in the DE page again--I'd estimate that 90% of the edits to the page were people tweaking the games and movies list--certainly this qualifes as "notable"?  Certainly the audience of the article thinks so...  scot 20:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Niño Rojo

message: someone please take care of this mess.. psych folk rocker? it reads like the some blurb in a magazine
I'm sure 'At The Hop' was used in an TV advert for Cathedral City cheese in the UK. Anyone else remember this? It could be added to the trivia section. Pineapplegrapefruit 19:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Marlton, New Jersey

message: It seems to me that this article should be merged into the Evesham Township article.  To quote that article:
"Marlton" is often used in place of the township's name, even when referring to locations beyond the boundaries of the CDP.
Evesham is not one of those NJ townships that really has more than one distinctive CDP or "town" within it.  "Marlton" is commonly used to refer to the entire township, so the two articles seem a bit redundant.
Legalskeptic (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger
Talk:Srbe na vrbe!

message: The tone of the article and some of the claims are problematic. --Elephantus 04:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: ...doesn't qualify for an article. --PaxEquilibrium 20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be merged into the article Anti-Serb Sentiment. That article already covers instances of its use extensively. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This.. 

message: This is wikiPEDIA, NOT Nationalistic-mythsPEDIA!
The neutrality of this article is disputed, and contains unverified claims! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.29.142.49 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I never heard of granate na Hrvate so I doubt it's relevant. But, that doesn't imply this slur deserves an article of its own, either. AFAICT we could easily merge this stub into Serbophobia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The neutrality of this article is disputed! 

message: Giving this slur a standalone article gives the whole idea undue weight. People who anonymously spout hate speech shouldn't be given excess attention because they're not an encyclopedic matter, rather they're a law enforcement issue. Indeed, the content of this stub mostly already exists in the other articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is no claim of standalone notability of this particular slogan, and apart from WP:UNDUE, the article also appears to be discussing something else. GregorB (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge
Talk:Parkside Community College

message: NPOV "greatest".  Novangelis 04:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

message: I have tagged :File:SchoolFront.JPG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:SchoolFront.JPG]] may be deleted 

message: was this edited by a cheeky student? 82.5.236.148 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  " with 6 places for children aged 1-50, "  is wrong
Talk:M80 Ring Road

message: I suggest that the person who stated that "The freeway then changes its name to the Metropolitan Ring Road  east of the interchange with Sydney Road" check again, as the name (Western Ring Rd) has been extended to the Hume Freeway. The Metropolitan Ring Road signage currently at Sydney Road predates the opening of the Hume Freeway and therefore has not been updated to reflect this. --Sk-4 (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Note: There is a proposal at WT:AURD#Move_articles_to_bracket_disambiguation to rename this article (and others) to conform to the WP:AURDNAME guideline – specifically, using brackets instead of a comma for disambiguation. - Evad37 [talk] 08:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation style 

message: Despite how much I love the sound of calling this road the "M80" (matey), it is rarely, if ever, referred to as the M80 Ring Road. It is most commonly known as the "Western Ring Road", which is acknowledged in the article ("more formally known as the Western Ring Road"), and occasionally the "Ring Road" for short. What's the justification of this article's naming convention of the "M80 Ring Road"? 
It doesn't align with the style of other major Melbourne roads/highways/freeways, such as the Tullamarine Freeway, Calder Highway, Sydney Road, etc.
I propose that the article's title should be "Western Ring Road"
203.217.56.174 (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Ring Road 

message: Hi all, I think that there are grounds to move this page to “Western Ring Road/Metropolitan Ring Road” as the name of the article (M80 Ring Road) doesn’t really make sense as no other Australian freeway articles have the freeway designation. I think that, if there is no argument to move this page then I will just do it myself
Thanks, √I.Osiar (Talk with me) 22:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to “Western Ring Road/Metropolitan Ring Road”
Talk:Moorooduc Highway

message: I noticed that some of the new signage near Pen Link interchange has (poorly attached) coverplates for the highway part.
Does anyone know if there is a public plan to rename the road to Moorooduc Road once Pen Link opens?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonkernan (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming?
Talk:Calder Freeway

message: * Shouldn't this article be moved to either "Calder Highway" (since the highway component is longer than the freeway component), or at least something like "Calder Highway/Freeway"? Also, what about the sections pertaining to the Silver City Highway and, more recently, the Thomson Developmental Road in Queensland? Should they be a separate page each, or should this article be reference to Highway 79 in general? I have added Thomson Developmental Road to the article for now. MJK 15:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I wondering if the person who added the NR79 shield realises that it does no longer exist along the Tullamarine Freeway? --Sk-4 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: National Route 79
Talk:Eastern Freeway (Melbourne)

message: Some of the roads approaching the Eastern Fwy (eg. Victoria Pde) still show To 83 Eastern Fwy, can this be clarified that the Eastern Fwy is officially M3?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article name shares same name with other freeways(Eastern Freeway Mumbai), Its very common name, I think we should move this article to Eastern Freeway Melbourne, and create one disambiguate page for Eastern Freeway, as common page. KuwarOnline Talk 08:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sensible to me. Go for it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming this article 

message: This article should be renamed M3 (Victoria Australia) and then merged with both Eastlink and the Frankston Freeway as it seems ridiculous to have three separate articles for the same motorway (M3). These three sections would then form sub sections in the main article. Anderch (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea. It would also seem appropriate to turn this into a broader discussion about all of Melbourne's freeway routes in a similar situation, e.g. Monash Freeway and Citylink. One point to discuss would be the problems in determining the scope of such articles. For instance, given that the M1 route goes across Victoria, do the West Gate Freeway, Princes Freeway, CityLink, Geelong Ring Road and Monash Freeway all become the one article? Takerlamar (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Article with Eastlink and Frankston Freeway
Talk:Monash Freeway

message: As this has happened for the second time, I have had to either remove it or revert the article back to a state where it wasn't mentioned. As previously explained, as the Monash Freeway name officially ends at the Princes Highway, Berwick (Alt-1/C101) intersection and continues south-east as the Princes Freeway - and the Pakenham Bypass is an extension/continuation of the current Princes Freeway around Pakenham - this information does not belong here. Even after a brief explanation in the article history, it has re-appeared. As the editor is effectively anonymous (only their IP is recorded, both times), I have deleted this again.
Thanks for your understanding. Lordstorm 19:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Pakenham Bypass (removal) 

message: Some information regarding the planned upgrades under the $1 Billion Monash/City Link/Westgate project to the freeway should be added. --Jixor 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Planned Upgrades

message: The entry claims 160,000 cards use the freeway yet the transurban site claims "ver 160,000 vehicles, including up to 20,000 heavy freight vehicles, use the Monash Freeway, CityLink and the West Gate Freeway each day" if 160,000 are using all three I think it's unlikely 160,000 are on the monash alone. I vote it be deleted. --210.84.22.221 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 160,000 cars
Talk:Maroondah Highway

message: Can someone provide a source for the western terminus of the Maroondah Highway? Currently its says it's at Cotham Road, but I'm not sure if that is correct.--122.107.178.246 (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Terminus of Maroondah Highway 

message: Last time I checked, the sign has been fixed; it now says State Route 34. 2001:8004:1580:1E95:8D15:68:76C:2BD (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section 

message: Just writing to let everyone know that the area pictured in Lilydale no longer exists. It has recently been part-levelled directly in front of the camera as part of level crossing removal works, where the station was moved and the pedestrian crossing was moved west into an urban interchange between the Highway and the bus terminal underlying the new station. Jordf32123 (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lilydale
Talk:Participatory theory

message: Needs checking per WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:VAIN. 
This seems to be part of some kind of effort to put a philosophical basis under astrology.  See . Unclear how much of this is original research, or how much is accepted by anyone other than Richard Tarnas.  The article needs review by someone with a real background in philosophy who can tell what's nonsense and what isn't.  --John Nagle 04:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a step forward.  Can you provide some jargon-free explaination, and some links that don't come from the California Institute of Integral Studies but reference participatory epistemology?  They do have a tendency to go off in their own directions; I've been over there briefly.  --John Nagle 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nagle, I'm not really sure what "jargon" you're talking about.  Everything in the article is a reference to the well established discourses of Poststructuralism, Transpersonal Theory, and  Hegel scholarship.  Also, in terms of usage, if you type "participatory epistemology" into Google, you get 106 entries from a wide variety of sources.  Finally, could you clarify what you mean by the statement that the people at the California Institute of Integral Studies "have a tendency to go off in their own directions"?  Do you mean that "they" are outside of mainstream philosophy, that is, that CIIS is often construed as counter-cultural?  I wouldn't necessarily argue with that claim, though I fail to see how this issue would have any relevance to whether Participatory Epistemolgy belongs on Wikipedia, which it clearly does.Murgy 21:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I rather agree with Nagel on this, and note that the quote from Wilbur seems to argue for the relative unimportance of this concept, ever within the claimed paradigm of integral thought.  I'd say that your writing a dissertation on this topic represents COI, rather than philosophical expertise in general. Third party attention would seem to bevery much in order. 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of citations available. — goethean ॐ 22:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to astrology 

message: I'm thinking of moving this to Participatory framework, Participatory theory, or Participatory philosophy, as that would be a wider, more general topic. Any thoughts? — goethean ॐ 18:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. Based on the following search results, I will leave it here.  — goethean ॐ 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move?
Talk:The Barchester Chronicles

message: Am I dreaming, or was there an earlier TV adaptation of Barchester, c.1968-70, which encouraged them to adapt Trollope's other saga, The Pallisers in 1974? Valetude (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier series? 

message: this plot summary should be the model for all plot summaries.  All it is missing is "hilarity ensues".--2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:89E4:B3DB:7CD7:65FD (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  plot summary
Talk:Photo emulsion

message: Is photo emulsion used to transfer photos on cups and t-shirts? Can it be done at home? Use sunlight 
for UV light? THANKS -- Michael Janich 04:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

message: There are two sections: photo emulsion and photographic emulsion. They describe different materials that have the same goal, being photosensitive. The pages should be consolidated and described under separate headings for each material.
Phototech21 (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should merge with photographic emulsion
Talk:1st Reconnaissance Battalion

message: Has this unit served in Afghanistan?  If it has it would be nice to have a section stating this and summing up how the battalion's tour(s) of duty progressed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.156.124 (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2010
Talk:The O.C. episode plotlines

message: Why do we need this? The episode list is much better. I deleted the plotlines from the main O.C article not because they were too long, but because they are convoluted and difficult to write properly, since people come and go, and the best way to write it is on an episode to episode basis. Iorek85 04:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominate it for deletion then. --DragonWR12LB 03:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to see if there was much support for keeping them from the people who write them first. Iorek85 08:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Great idea.Iorek85 07:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why
Talk:1938 British Empire Games

message: See Talk:All-time medal tally of Commonwealth Games for discussion on this and other related merges. Kevin 04:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: The flag representing Northern Ireland is incorrect. This flag was adopted in 1953. Prior to this the flag of 9-county Ulster was an unofficial flag of what would become Northern Ireland. Prior to 1953, the Northern Irish was officially represented by the Union Jack. Please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Northern_Ireland. -Patrick 
Well, according to that article the flag was designed and granted as the arms of Northern Ireland in 1924, but wasn't in offical use until 1953. Sports events might lend themselves to the use of unofficial flags. In particular, I doubt that the Northern Irish would have used the Union Jack to identify themselves at Commonweath games. Official flag of Northern Ireland though it might be, it was also the official flag of Canada, for example (the unofficial Red Ensign is used here) and of the British Empire in general.
I guess what I'm saying is, those are the flags that were most likely used at the games, and they're the flags that enhance the readablity of the article by distiguishing the countries involved in from each other. There's no point having a long vertical collumn ofUnion Jacks on the table....
Stevecudmore (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland flag wrong 

message: See Talk:All-time medal tally of Commonwealth Games for discussion on this and other related merges. Kevin 04:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge