lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:San Juan Cacahuatepec

message: Al investigar la historia de la fundación y su origen, nos encontramos con que no existen documentos oficiales por tal motivo nos valimos de otras fuentes de información, con los seniles que nos relataron que sus antepasados comentaban que antes de la conquista, este lugar era un fuerte de un Rey Mixteco, que en esas épocas dominaba la región y varios kilómetros a la redonda, en este lugar existe un cerro de rocas grandes que hoy se encuentra ubicado dentro del primer plano del poblado, donde existe una construcción que fue ocupada como escuela (Patria) y actualmente como cuartel militar, en dicho cerro existía una gran roca que sobresalió de las demás, que cuando se fue poblando el lugar por mixtecos (aborígenes) era conocida con el nombre de YUCOSHIVA, que en dialecto amuzgos quiere decir Cerro de la Piedra (Yuco) cerro y (Shiva) piedra. Cerca de este lugar existe un pueblo al Sur desconociéndose su nombre antiguo, hoy se conoce como Pueblo Viejo, cuyos habitantes tenían como principal fuente de trabajo el cultivo del Cacao, sus huertas estaban en lo que hoy se conoce como Cacahuatepec.
Chris Chan.talk.contribs 13:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st paragraph in original Spanish:

message: From what I can gather from the edit history, this article started out as a text dump in spanish taken from a Mexican municipal government website, which has then been progressively translated into english by several other editors. The original (spanish) text is either some rewording of somebody's 1970s thesis, or a reproduction of it. There's no indication that the original text is released into the public domain or otherwise available under a free license. Is there any reason to suppose this article as it stands now is not a copyvio? IANAL, but I would reckon that merely translating it into another language does not extinguish the original author's copyright claims.--cjllw | TALK 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mere translations constitute derivative works. A new version has been put in place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio?
Talk:Yankee Doodle Dandy

message: The discussion of Cagney and Communism is really lacking. It currently claims that he couldn't've done the film to avoid the blacklist because the McCarthy era didn't begin until the '50s. The Army McCarthy Hearings didn't start until then, true, but the blacklist started with the HUAC hearings and the Hollywood 10 in '47. McCarthy is irrelevant. The article then goes on to say that, yes, Cagney did agree to do the film to dispel any lingering doubts about his patriotism. So the claim is true except for the part about the blacklist. But by starting with the implausibility of the blacklist claim, it makes it sound like the whole story is false. Anyone skimming the article will get the wrong impression.Seantrinityohara (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Great Train Robbery (1903 film)

message: I have removed the sentence: "This was Porter's most successful film." We do not know the gross or net this picture made for Edison. But given the economics of film exhibition in 1903 vs. those of the 1910s, it is more likely that the five features he directed starring Mary Pickford in 1913-1914 were more financially successful. Purpose-built cinemas were virtually unknown in 1903; movies were one act of many on a typical theater bill, and there was only so much of the box office that could be devoted to the cost of the films when live performers also had to be paid.—Walloon 09:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Porter's most successful film

message: There is a big section at the end of the first paragraph that is both uncited and contradicts statements made earlier in the paragraph.
"The film uses simple editing techniques (each scene is a single shot) and the story is mostly linear (with only a few "meanwhile" moments), but it represents a significant step in movie making, being one of the first "narrative" movies of significant length. It was quite successful in theaters and was imitated many times."
I'm gonna remove this section, if someone can cite it, bring it back--67.86.120.246 (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: uncited material

message: Does anyone have any sources for any score or presentation for how this film was originally presented to audiences? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Score or Presentation? 

message: Apologies to all for the sudden dump of new information into the article. I was initially just going to add some details and remove the more unreliable refs, but when I started digging up more trustworthy film history books (most of them freely available at the Internet Archive—hooray!), it became clear that some restructuring was needed.
As the article now indicates, the main problem is that a bunch of extraordinary claims keep getting made about this film in popular-audience books, even though reputable film historians have been debunking them over and over again for more than fifty years. What this means for WP is that we have to be very cautious, not only with the usual unreliable sources like IMDb and personal blogs, but also with most books that mention The Great Train Robbery in passing. A lot of them are just blithely recycling old claims. I hope the new prose throws some fairer light on the film and its context.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that some of the mistaken claims can even be found in other Wikipedia articles. I just corrected an image caption at Cinema of the United States that repeats the "first western" claim. There are likely others. The challenge is if such claims have cited sources which follows Wikipedia's rules but if the source are themselves mistaken... 136.159.160.121 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded article
Talk:Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory

message: I removed the following text. I could see some speculation on Blogs but some of the points seem like original research to me. If anyone has citations for them feel free to re-add. 
The film is widely cited as the first documentary film, an honor debunked by modern film scholars who suggest that several "takes" may have been filmed on the same day.
Arguments against the "documentary" honor include:
* Judging from the shadows, the sun is directly overhead. It is roughly noon; an early day?
* Are those really their work clothes, or did they purposely dress up, knowing that they would have their pictures taken?
* The workers on the left exit to the right, and vice versa (this suggests they were given direction -- not a "documentary" practice).
* No one walks toward the camera.
* A dog and bicyclist appear at the same time, from different parts of the frame.
* A carriage drawn by two horses is the grand finale, which would be unusual to find in the factory.--Amxitsa 16:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: I'm replacing the following with some hard facts from a non-internet source:
According to the Internet Movie Database the film was made in a 35 mm format with an aspect ratio of 1.33 : 1. [cite web |url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0000010/technical |title=Internet Movie Database Technical Specifications |accessdate=2007-03-18 |format= HTML] 1904.CC 01:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced text - technical specs 

message: Was this first premiered in a Nickelodeon 2604:3D08:EA8A:5700:94DB:D796:CAAF:23A9 (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickelodeon
Talk:Sherlock Jr.

message: Is Sherlock, Jr. a full-length or a short buster keaton film? Andrzejbanas 05:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In everything I have read, Sherlock Jr. is referred as a full-length film. I don't know how to change the Keaton box though. 199.74.103.242 07:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template Box changed.  SkierRMH 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Short of Full-length?

message: Why don't we add this film in the Template:HolmesFilms, in the group "Comedies and parodies" ? This is a SH's parody isn't it ? --ΛΦΠ (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not a parody at all. "Sherlock Jr" refers to the fact that he (Buster's character) wants/tries to be a detective. That's all. --Lobo (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on reflection you're right Lobo512 ! So there's nothing to change. Thank you for your quick answer ! --ΛΦΠ (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherlock parody ? 

message: I'd completed a request to move the name to a version without the comma. The poster lists this with a comma, but the common version of the name seems to be the title without the comma. If anyone wants me to revert this and would prefer a move discussion, let me know- otherwise I'm going to go with the common name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name move
Talk:Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

message: I'm sure this is not true. Does the editor mean it was the longest tracking shot yet filmed at the time of release? 58.164.100.91 (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Longest tracking shot ever filmed?

message: If the copyright was not renewed in 1995, this film would be in the public domain. Does anyone know if the renewal was done? If it is in the public domain, someone should place this on Wikimedia or in the Internet Archive as it is a fabulous movie even today. Ray Trygstad (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Renewal

message: Now THAT'S a spoiler-worthy plot summary, even if I didn't mention one single thing about Lichtenstein! :D Wilybadger 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: What is the basis for attributing names to these characters? Vidor (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Anses and Indre

message: Can we really call it a silent film just because there is no talking, when it was one of the first films ever made to have a soundtrack? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Silent film with sound?
Talk:L'Atalante

message: Is the title a reference to Atalanta?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.137.116 (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning
Talk:She's Gotta Have It

message: The last two paragraphs of the plot summary contain some pretty wild interpretations of the events.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdlla (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: Since the DVD was released in North America today, this section should be removed or altered to match that. RMThompson (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Availability 

message: I've shifted the focus slightly, particularly regarding the word depictions.  Depictions of African-Americans had already shifted in films such as Trading Places, 48 Hours, and The Brother from Another Planet but this was the first such film where African-Americans had creative control and no white person plays a leading role in the cast. DurovaCharge! 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: I don't know much about Nola Darling, but this interview seems to speak of her as a real character. Spike Lee says she became a Jehovah's Witness. They have a picture of her with a Watchtower. http://theurbandaily.com/1932891/spike-lee-nola-darling-mookie-redhook-summer/
Comments??? Thanks. Natural (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Nola Darling a real or fictional character? Spike Lee's comments about Nola Darling becoming a Jehovah's Witness

message: The "Themes" section reads like a poorly constructed undergraduate college essay. It is someone's literary analysis, not objective information. If the commentary is to be included, it should be attributed to the critics responsible for the commentary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.24.153 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the "Themes" section?
Talk:Ken McGrath

message: It says in the article that Ken was born in Mount Sion, wouldn't Ballybricken be more accurate as I don't think Mount Sion is an actual place. I do stand to be corrected here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.69.198.242 (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace 
Talk:Meshes of the Afternoon

message: Under "background and production" it says Deren and Hackenschmied wrote it, yet on the right menu it only lists Deren's name for having written it. So did they actually both write it or not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon822 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wrote it?? 

message: I added an original research tag to the analysis section because a lot of the discussion of the themes is written in a way that feels more like a school essay than an encyclopedia in style and quality. Acire93 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, the opinion of Lewis Jacob's is a bit confusing, saying about postwar etc while discussing a 1943 film. It also criticises the film for not following Hollywood ways of combining objective and subjective camera, which is irrelevant because Maya is an experimental filmmaker inventing her own language instead of following ready-made patterns. I would vote for deleting that section. Ilya Utekhin (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research tag
Talk:The Crowd (1928 film)

message: I've seen this film and
"They start a family, struggle to cope with marital stress, financial setbacks, and tragedy, all while lost amid the anonymous, pitiless throngs of the big city."
is hardly a complete or even accurate description of the film and its characters. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot?
Talk:The Big Parade

message: This line: "The film is the highest grossing silent film in cinema history, taking in $22 million at the box office." contradicts silent film, which states it only took in 6.4 * 10^6 USD. 68.39.174.238 07:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that both answers are true. According to IMDB, this movie grossed 5 million in USA by 1936 and 22 million worldwide by 1985. But at silent film, it should be better stated what exactly the numbers mean and where do they come from. Samohyl Jan 17:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradict

message: I have restored the original genre "War drama film" to the lead in preference over the recent change to "romantic war film". I have also added sources to that effect. WP:FILMLEAD states that the lead should give the primary genre or sub-genre under which the film is verifiably classified, in accordance to WP:WEIGHT. Both American Film Institute and Allmovie explicitly give the genre as "war drama". The British Film Institute simply scales it back to "war". Both the AFI and and BFI are considered fairly authoritative, and neither regard the film as "romance".
The alternative sources that were added (The Museum of Modern Art and World Socialist Website) do not corroborate romance as a genre. The Museum of Modern Art describes it as "at once a grand epic, an intimate romance, a comedy of camaraderie, and a savage polemic" while the World Socialist Website simply describes it as having "its fair share of romance and comedy"; neither of these descriptors even mention it is a war film. A film can contain elements of comedy and romance without being exponents of those genres. Betty Logan (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making and labouring a WP:POINT. Anyone who has seen the film will tell you that it is a romance, otherwise why is Melisande such a prominent and enduring character? It is also an epic – mainly because of the actual parade itself – and, as you do admit, it's a war movie. If all AFI can do is apply "drama" to their genre parameters, then it is not a reliable site. Of course the film is a drama – it isn't a documentary or a news report or a travelogue or whatever. All films and plays which employ role-playing actors are dramas. Do you honestly think you are helping the readers by saying the film is a war drama or should you not be telling them it is an epic war romance with elements of comedy and family conflict? Don't bother to reply. I've better things to do. NGS Shakin' All Over  05:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Going by the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_28#Category:War_drama_films you are clearly biased against the genre in general. I think readers are best served by Wikipedia categorizing the film in the genres that most of the authoritative sources do. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre
Talk:The Learning Tree

message: I haven't seen this movie, but isn't it one of the first 25 movies inducted into the American National Film Registry? I think it's also the first major American studio release directed by a black person. Now, I learned these things from a youtube video description (not a youtube of the film), so it's not like I have sources to cite. But if that gets someone going on writing about the movie, then fantastic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarlonBain (talk • contribs) 02:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NFR
Talk:A Woman Under the Influence

message: ...who ask "Why should I see this film?," I'd respond: "It will give you a chance to see Peter Falk playing someone other than Columbo!"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300B:703:A00:B450:982D:85E2:8E06 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  To those... 

message: In the beginning of the film Mabel Longhetti sent her children to her mother's house.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.216.158 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot
Talk:Dodsworth (novel)

message: I have split the two concepts into the film and the novel. User: Northstop  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Little here on the novel to split - otherwise "Yes" :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously not an urgent need, as nothing's been done since 5/2006. So ... I would concur with moving this article to Dodsworth (film), if (and it's a critical "if") some material is added for the Lewis novel. How to start? Add a section about the novel. I honestly don't know what's more notable, the novel or the Wyler film adaptation. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would support three articles - novel, play, film - and will take on the project ASAP. MovieMadness (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Project completed. MovieMadness (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split novel & film articles
Talk:Killer of Sheep

message: Apparently, the original version with Dinah Washington's "Unforgettable" was available at one time on videocassette from Third World Newsreel (in New York, NY). I watched this version today. peace – ishwar  (speak) 19:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original version

message: I see that IMDB credit's Jack Drummond as "Stan's son" but in the movie he's referred to as "Stan Jr." (I remember explicitly that when the mother is angrily calling for him at one point she calls him that). However, IMDB lists him as "Stan's son". Should the cast listing here be changed to reflect his name in the movie, or should I check the credits of the movie to see how he's credited there?--Mr Bucket (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Stan's Son"
Talk:Love Me Tonight

message: As Jeannette MacDonald spoke perfect French, she was able to co-star with him in the French-language version of the film, titled 'Aimez Moi Ce Soir'. I believe that this version was destroyed by enemy action in Paris during the war, and all that remains of it is the audio of her singing the French words of 'Isn't It Romantic?' ('N'est Ce Pas Poetique?'). If anyone has a source for this, it might be a suitable item for the article. Valetude (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  French version 
Talk:Ninotchka

message: Can anyone explain this paragraph to me... I think it needs some serious editing:
"The musical Silk Stockings was written with this film as the source of its book. It also provided the basis of a 1957 film directed by Rouben Mamoulian and starring Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse."
I *think* a reasonable translation would be:
"The musical Silk Stockings was based upon this film, and was adapted into a 1957 film directed by Rouben Mamoulian, starring Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse."
But it's so far from actual english that I'm not sure if that's what the intended message was.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.209.176 (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is the only film after "Dracula" that was a non horror/mystery role for Bela Lugosi. Can anyone out there confim what I read years ago that director Lubitch gave Lugosi the character role of  Commissar Razinin so he could break out of his type casting? MBG 203.171.196.49 (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bela Lugosi in a Lubitsch Film?

message: I miss a mention of Garbo's immortal line "I vant to be aloan".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnhaupt (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: classic quote

message: Ninotchka certainly used and parodied The Forty-First (1927 film) as a source, but I can't find a WP:RS to say so. Can anybody? --Nbauman (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Forty-First  

message: This is a false information. In 1939 USSR had no satellite states yet, and as the film was released that year it was shown in European countries everywhere, including eastern EUROPEAN COUNTRIES, which at the time have not been made into USSR's satellite states, and continued to be either independent sovereign states or states under German occupation at least up to the end of 1944.
The film's rights have never been acquired for distribution  in the USSR, but this means simply this - not acquired and therefore not distributed.
There was never a ban on this film or any others that have not been sold to the USSR. "Gone With The Wind" for example was acquired for distribution only in 1989.Aspalex (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ninotchka" was never banned in Soviet Union and its satellite states.
Talk:Trouble in Paradise (1932 film)

message: Note on screenwriters: Grover Jones has a credit only due to a contractual agreement. He did not participate at all in making the movie. The screen play was written by Samson Raphaelson in close collaboration with Lubitsch. It was based very loosely on the older Hungarian play "The Honest Finder" by Aladar Laszlo. They did not work from the script of the Honest Finder, just from a basic story outline.
This information can be found in the Raphaelson book Three Screen Commedies and in other sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.255.216 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode."  --79.223.23.68 (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  MarnetteD 