lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Charlotte Transportation Center

message: There is a strong consensus (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2020#Closure of 2019 station layout RFC) that HTML table diagrams shouldn't be used to display layouts at stations. I think the prose description is sufficient and if anything is clearer. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platform layout
Talk:LiveOne

message: This article should be merged with "AOL Radio" since AOL Radio was just an AOL-branded mirror of this site.
They are now known as LiveXLive. The Mo-Ja'al (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for editing 

message: I propose merging PodcastOne into LiveXLive. I think the content in PodcastOne can easily be explained in the context of LiveXLive, and I don't believe that PodcastOne meets the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH because news coverage of the company consists entirely of WP:ROUTINE events, WP:SPS press releases, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples%20of%20trivial%20coverage includes "simple listings or compilations, such as: ... of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders ... of product or service offerings" as well as "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: ... of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, ... of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, ... of a capital transaction, such as raised capital." TipsyElephant (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The article was a mash up of content about Slacker, LiveXLive, and PodcastOne.  Slacker should have a standalone article;  it predated LiveXLive by 10 years, and it's historically significant. Obviously the article can be expanded but for now it is at least factually accurate.  JSFarman (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One step short of blowing it up
Talk:Wilhelm Harnisch

message: I have removed the primary sources tag oadded by another inexperienced editor, no doubt in good faith.  Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context ...  For the question of how long Harnisch has been with the MBA and the fact that the has been in the housing industry before that, a sworn statement to that effect before the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, even if the sworn statement is made by the person himself, and recorded in a published transcript of the Commission could be said to meet WP:RS.  No futher assertions are claimed against that reference.--Golden Wattle  talk 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of sources
Talk:Islam in Iraq

message: The first line of the paragraph under "Islam in Iraq" says:
"The Muslim population of Iraq is approximately 55 percent Arab Shi'a, 23 percent Arab Sunni and 22 percent Kurdish."
55 + 23 + 22 = 110% 
SlowSpeed 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no right or "false" here, just two conflicting sources, both of them by organizations that normally provide reliable information. According to WP:DUE, we have to present both. BTW: IPs have the right to edit. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: First line

message: Although there are sources aplenty - we are having non-accounts editing sourced material.
The percentages are clear and here is the latest source for that (Updated April 2021):
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/iraq/ JasonMoore (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This page should be protected, it’s constantly vandalised. All the given sources show the Shia population of Iraq at c.65%, while Sunni at c.30-35%. The CIA Facebook for 2021 even states that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:e003:868:e201:3c9d:40e5:c4a6:2d0b (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to have this page protected from vandalism.
Talk:Cavernous sinus

message: I haven't made any changes but the tributaries has an extra bullet and I would remove it but I don't know how (everything looks fine when I go to edit the page).
:Thank you for noticing. It is now fixed. --Arcadian 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: According to Gray's Anatomy for Students 2nd edition and Clinically Oriented Anatomy (Moore and Dalley) both state that the abducens nerve (Cranial Nerve VI) is not in the lateral wall of the sinus but in the cavernous sinus proper.
The article states that the abducens nerve is in the lateral wall.
Angavar (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structures in the wall of the cavernous sinus 

message: No changes were made, but I've been advised by my anatomy teacher that the order of nerves is as follows (superior to inferior)
Opthalmic Branch of V, III, IV, VI, Maxillary Branch of V 
(it was noted by the professor that it was debatable if the Maxillary branch of V was inside or outside the sinus)
Can this or the original source of which the structures listed be verified? I know, I haven't got any references, but would like to know what the general consensus is. 
I added a reference to a cadaver study done by Dr. Rhoton's group at UFL that confirms the relations as listed in the Wiki article. --danierrr
129.78.32.21 (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of nerves in cavernous sinus 

message: Shouldn't the second line In 'contents' read 'The cavernous sinus receives blood via the ophthalmic veins through the superior orbital fissure' rather than The cavernous sinus receives blood via the ophthalmic artery through the superior orbital fissure'?
JohnSF93 (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Edit
Talk:Norrington Table

message: The graph needs updating for the final 2009 table. 129.67.63.75 (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Graph was based on preliminary results, now corrected for the final rankings from this year after the appeals process. Minglex (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: {untitled]

message: The 2017 table is out -- it would be good if someone could find the time to update the article.  --87.112.244.29 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update
Talk:Upajjhatthana Sutta

message: After much deliberation over a couple of months, I decided to add core Pali text — the basis for the English translations — to this article.  I did so because I have seen several translations of the "five remembrances" and some of them (including one currently included in this article's "External links" section) significantly deviate from the original text.  This is a problem because some people may become enamored with a deviant translation, incorrectly thinking it represents the canonical words of the Buddha, and thus pursue a practice outside the Dhamma (the Buddha's teaching).  FWIW, though, as indicated by the side-by-side comparison of English and Pali, the Thanissaro (1997b) translation used appears to be very faithful to the original Pali, especially when examined using the Rhys Davids & Stede (1921-25) PED translations.
If someone disagrees with the recent insertion of Pali into this article, I would sincerely appreciate it if it were first discussed here prior to unilateral deletions being made.  
Thanks ahead of time.  With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Pali in this WP article 

message: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/ should point to http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer. This might be needed else where also hence it might be good to get a bot to do the URL change.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirinath (talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links
Talk:Satipatthana Sutta

message: Where is the background on the text itself?
What is known of the origin of the text?
If the discourse was originally oral, when was it thought to have been conceived, what evidence is there of that conception, when was it reduced to writing, by who, and how many different versions are there?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.189.31 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Background and origin

message: I bought and read both books after reading this Wiki lemma, only to discover the Pali text is word by word the same. This was not clear from the Wiki description, so I thought it would be useful to mention it. The relation between the two works was not clear.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexisderoode (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Satipatthana Sutta and Maha Satipatthana Sutta
Template talk:Csb-notice-pageincludes

message: When this template is transcluded by a bot, the result is a section on a user page with the warning notice. Unfortunately the "Edit" link that the user can click on immediately takes them to the edit page of the template, not the section on their own user page. This seems unnecessarily confusing for new users who may wish to reply to, or contest, the notice. --Fæ (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! That would be why it's been edited lately. Looking at the history, this doesn't seem to have been a problem before March. Any clue why or what to do about it, Fæ? :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Reported and fixed. MER-C 11:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, MER-C. (Read aloud, that sounds so redundant. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the speedy fix, pleased that I did not have to research it further.  --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading problem
Template talk:Csb-pageincluded

message: Hi, Sadalmelik had the idea here of trying to modify the wording of this template to better encourage contributors to rewrite the articles.  
Suggested changes to template:
*Move the instructions about rewriting to come first, to increase their prominence 
*At the end after "from scratch", append ", using web pages or other publications as sources of facts, but not as sources of sentences or phrases," similar to a wording I saw Moonriddengirl using.
*"Often a good solution is to make the Wikipedia article very short, with a link to the web page." 
*"Please don't delete this template without good reason.  Someone will be checking. If you delete the template, please explain your reason on the article talk page."
☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with your suggestions, except perhaps about the "don't delete" bit, which seems a little bitey to me.  — Coren (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Or should it say "add a note at the bottom of the page saying that it incorporates text from ..."  ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not; I find that most (if not almost all) of the cut and paste from withing Wikipedia are attempts at creating a disambig or moving a page that would be better served with an history merge or a genuine move.  Those always need attention from someone who is more familiar with the "right" way to do those.  — Coren (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I guess that means we should be listing a lot of those (from SCV) at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that sounds like the right place.  :-)  — Coren (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of template 

message: Can I suggest that this be removed?  If someone is creating copyvio pages, it's unlikely they understand how to create an article that's short but not so short it will be speedily deleted for lacking context or not indicating the subject's significance.  I just saw someone create a copyvio article and then create an article with the text "Link to Wild Hare Productions: http://www.wildhareprod.com/production.html" after it was deleted.Prezbo (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Often a good solution is to make the Wikipedia article very short, with a link to the web page."
Template talk:Csb-pageincludes

message: Coren, please consider including in the template an additional option, along the lines of :
*Ask the owner to consider giving a declaration of consent, as explained at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
Even though such donated text requires heavy copyediting, this helps to serve our goal of collecting free content.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting permission

message: I implemented some language changes based on a conversation with User:Aymatth2, who received a false positive and was understandably upset by this. Since I've spoken to many contributors who felt similarly, I think we need to be careful to soften the message...and I'm also concerned that the implication of deletion may be overly alarming for new contributors who receive false positives. Hope this won't be controversial. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Language changes
Talk:Majjhima Nikāya

message: The first paragraph includes the following statement: "Composed between 3rd century BCE and 2nd century CE.", with a reference to Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson. p. 25.
However, looking into the mentioned place one reads: "For instance, the Sutta Pitaka consists of five Nikayas—the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara, and Khuddaka Nikayas. The Jatakas—stories of the previous births of the Buddha—are one of the 15 books of the Khuddaka Nikaya, and their composition can be placed between the 3rd century BCE and the 2nd century CE.", i.e. the referred author clearly talks about the estimated dating of Jatakas, a part of Khuddaka Nikaya, not Majjhima Nikaya.
I won't make any changes to the texts on my own, but this is an error worth pointing out.
Karlo Mikić 90.137.137.210 (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating
Talk:University at Buffalo Stadium

message: The title of the article for the university is at University at Buffalo. I am fully aware of the official name of the school, however, Wikipedia operates on a policy of common names and the common name in both primary and secondary sources is "University at Buffalo", similar to Rutgers University, which is officially "Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey". Considering the name of the stadium is "University at Buffalo Stadium" and one of the school's primary logos is an interlocked "UB", it's not unreasonable to use "University at Buffalo" in the owner and operator sections of the infobox. And using "consistency" means that every instance of "University at Buffalo" would need to be changed to the full name, even though most sources never refer to the school as such. --JonRidinger (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "University at Buffalo"
Talk:Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

message: See article-version of 2 september 2010
The quotation from the writer Gombrich in the section entitled "Alternative Viewpoints" is especially lame.  I think it should be scrapped.  The author says that "of course" we don't know what the Buddha said in his first sermon.  But he gives no reason for thinking that we are worse off with respect to what the Buddha said than we are with respect to other historical figures whose words were recorded at one point or another.  Also, the claim that the sermon cannot be understood without reference to earlier doctrinal texts is argumentative.  Is the author saying that no text can be understood without the context of a literary tradition?  Is he saying that the Buddha's sermon is somehow more obscure than other texts, so that while other texts are self-explanatory and can be understood without reference to a literary tradition, the sermon is not?  Get real.  Yes, the sermon is hard to understand, but there is no reason to say that as an ancient philosophical text it is inferior to (less self-explanatory than, more obscure than) other ancient philosophical texts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.74.1.99 (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The section makes a good point, that the standard sutta as it is popularly known, is not self-contained, and almost by definition could not be the first discourse of the Buddha. For example, although the Buddha mentions that the Noble Eightfold Path completes the noble truth of the path that leads away from suffering, there is no clear instruction on what exactly the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path require. That is to say, it references teachings without explaining them, and therefore explanations are surmised to have existed prior to the authorship of the main sutta. It's not very difficult to understand, and it makes perfect sense. If the Buddha rattled off a list of requirements for enlightenment to his students such as "correct view", "correct concentration", etc., then anyone would logically still be left without any answers whatsoever as to what is meant by each of those things. This is why some scholars would be skeptical about this sutta being the actual first discourse of Buddhism. Tengu800 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  as always, thoughtfull comments. Hope to see you back at Wikipedia! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Viewpoints 

message: Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in the Four Noble Truths article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in the lede? 
Comments welcome. Please respond on the talk page for the article here:  RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths
I've posted here since the discussion is focused on the interpretation of this sutra. So editors of this article may have a valuable perspective on the debate.
Robert Walker (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for [[Four Noble Truths]]
Talk:Suttavibhaṅga

message: Some time ago I added a link to SuttaCentral. I am the developer of that site, so this contravene's wikipedia's guidelines, which I didn't know at the time. Nevertheless, this link should be there. It is an actual link to the full text and translation of the text. Currently there is only a link to Access to Insight, which does not in fact have the texts in question. It inaccurately claims to point to "selected texts" when in fact the page it links to has links to the Patimokkha—a separate text—and various modern studies. The AtI link should be renamed, and the SC link restored. This also applies to multiple other links to SC which I have added, correcting false links, removing broken links, and generally keeping the relevant pages updated. This was wrongly described as spam and self-promotion, when in fact it is critical site maintenance. I would appreciate someone's help in restoring these edits. Sujato (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Deepwater Horizon

message: In February 2020, there have been many articles reporting that we now know the spill was 30% larger. (sources: miamiherald, CNN)  － Cy21 ➜ discuss  14:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020 Update 

message: The following is noted in the Aftermath section:
"rejected oil giant BP's legal challenge"
The line should be noted as:
"rejected BP's legal challenge"
There is no need in an encyclopedia to describe BP as being a "giant oil". BP is obviously a big company involved in oil production, distribution and retail sales employing 1000's of people.   Descriptions such as "giant oil" or "big oil" are politically charged terms meant to be derogatory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.157.248 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Beagel (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of political adjectives.  

message: Can the depth of 11,000 m in the first sentence be correct? The seafloor should rather be 1,500 m deep. --Mister Pommeroy (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence
Talk:Edd Houck

message: I think this article has problems.  Perhaps and expert could help...--StevenL 02:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Senator Houck is a Democrat.  Edd Houck is a Democratic Senator.  See the difference?  I'm changing the article to reflect this.  --MathewBrooks 18:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrat vs. Democratic 

message: The last three paragraphs are completely unsourced.  I'm removing them and rewriting this article. --MathewBrooks 13:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: For some reason, there's a retirement date for Houck, 2010. He has not announced his retirement based on a few searches of Google News. I've changed the page to reflect his continued incumbency. GeoffreyVS 22:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement Date? 
Talk:Sub-commentaries (Theravāda)

message: Can we clarify in the article which texts are in Pali, which are in Sanskrit,
and which in, for instance, Chinese ? 
--InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The listing is from a Burmese source that doesn't specify, but I would be surprised if any of them are in anything other than Pali.  --Clay Collier (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Not sure what your question is re: link policy.  There is only one external link I can find in the article, and it doesn't contain any translations.  Are you asking if we are allowed to link to translations that are hosted at sites that might not be of verifiable scholarly quality?  I think it would be a case-by-case basis- if you find a linked translation site that seems to be hosting a poor or idiosyncratic translation, challenge the inclusion on the talk page for the related article.  A site like Access to Insight, for instance, has a lot of credibility for hosting Pali translations, but there are doubtlessly a lot of sites that have older or questionable content.  There isn't a lot of choice in free translation sites, but if you can find something that has side-by-side text you can always include it.  --Clay Collier (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language specification