lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Fall of Eagles

message: To Marnette - while it's true that the information about the actors can be found on IMDB, the unique usefulness of including the cast list on wikipedia is that we can link to the articles about the historical figures.  I tried to get those as correct as I could, but wasn't really paying attention to the actor articles, for which I apologize. john k 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the few users who might read the above message john K and I have talked on his discussion page and have agreed on the usefulness of the many connections to other wikipedia articles that this series cast list can lead to. But, this is also a cautionary tale to those of you who  copy actor lists from IMDb, the DVD's or any other source. Simply putting the link brackets around an actor's name is only the beginning of your work. The link needs to be checked to make sure it goes to the relevant wikipedia page. The best way to do this is to click on preview page and then click on the link created. If it goes to a page about someone other than the actor, or a disambiguation page, or a redirect, you can correct it right then and there and then save your page. For example there were over 30 links for actors that needed to be fixed on this cast list. Fixing these is one of my favorite wikignome tasks, but for the 100's or 1000's (or tens of 1000's at the rate that editors are going here) of wikiarticles that I (or other link fixers) may never get to it is better for wikiusers to have the link go to the right spot to begin with. Cheers to all and happy editing here at wikiP/ MarnetteD | Talk 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article has no reputable sources cited. While I don't have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts presented, the lack of sources does seem to fly in the face of Wiki policy. On which note I am astounded that readers have given the article such a high rating on its sources, since it has none!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: I have removed this from :Category:Films about Grigori Rasputin and put it in :Category:Cultural depictions of Grigori Rasputin. My reasoning is a) this is not a film, but a TV series b) while Rasputin appears in the series, he is not the main focus and is not one one of the main characters. Dunarc (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal was proper for both reasons . WP:CATDEF is the policy for your second reason. Thanks for youe edit. MarnetteD|Talk 19:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories
Talk:Novocherkassk massacre

message: The following categories have been removed. Obviously, this article belongs to all of them.
*:Category:Riots
*:Category:Soviet executions
*:Category:Massacres in the Soviet Union
*:Category:Acts of Soviet repression
*:Category:Rebellions in Russia
Biophys 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any justifications??? For example citations from reliable sources? Vlad fedorov 03:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Category:Rebellions in Russia is not applicable, as it was not a rebellion and it did not happen in Russia. :Category:Massacres in the Soviet Union is warranted, because it was an archetypal massacre. Whoever wrote about Red Army in 1962, should read a couple of books about Soviet history in order to understand what is Red Army and when the term was in use. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Term "KGB" (besides "Red Army") seems questionable. Suppressing internal riots or revolts and "maintaining domestic order" was the job of Ministry of the Interior´s (MWDs) Internal Troops, wasn't it ? --129.187.244.28 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Internal Troops]] ? 

message: I have a serious problem with the title being "Novocherkassk riots" because right away the impression is given of maniacs out of control and any government response, even if it cost lives, being completely justified. I have a feeling that's exactly why someone changed the title from "Novocherkassk massacre" to what we have now. The most important aspect of this event is the violent loss of life, and it wasn't the "rioters" doing the killing, but the security forces of the Soviet government. Therefore it would seem that the former title is far more appropriate (plus doing a Google search on both, "massacre" gets more hits than "riots"). I'm reverting it back.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Riots

message: "and approximately hundreds of others"
What does that mean?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsipouro-Sipper (talk • contribs) 10:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange mathematical concept
Talk:DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2006

message: Wouldn't this require a constitutional amendment ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raphfrk (talk • contribs).
:Excellent question.  Article I section 8 clause 17 permits Congress "[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District."  It seems that it could do so by granting it a legislator.  But the sticky part is that Article I section 2 permits only representatives from a "State." ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States," "No Person shall be a Representative . . . who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.")  If there are legal discussions of this, it would be appropriate to include them on the main page. Zz414 22:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:János Arany

message: It was said that he taught himself English in prison by comparing an English version of the Bible to a German one while imprisoned for his role in the Revolution.
He was never inprisoned. He learned English before the Revolution.--ResetGomb 20:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

message: It mentions in the article that he wrote 40 ballads (i.e. songs), but nothing is mentioned about what those ballads / songs were, nor is he described as being a songwriter. Was he a songwriter? or has the term "ballad" been incorrectly applied to this article? Simon Rashleigh Simon Rashleigh 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ballads?
Talk:All Russian Co-operative Society

message: The article is very interesting, but it alludes to the fact that Arcos ceased trading in 1927 after causing (what appears to be) the First "Cold War." This is not the case as the company is still very much in business according to Companies House, with the correct founding date of 1921. Also, I have mention of Arcos requesting a visit of delegates to Chance Brothers Ltd in Birmingham, in 1934, for which permission was granted. One assumes from this that the kerfuffle subsided and "normal" relations were resumed. Addiitonally, there are three court cases: Joseph Green v Arcos Ltd (1931), Hillas And Co. v Arcos Ltd (1932) and Arcos v Ranaason (1933) that prove the company was still operating. GlassyEye (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The Story does not End Here
Talk:HMS Venturer (P68)

message: GOing on the name alone, I would suggest this submarine was V-Class rather than U-Class. I know wikipedia currently lacks such as category but going by naming convention if nothing else, it seem improbable that this was a U-class boat - PocklingtonDan 20:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely right! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.180.109.78 (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't think this is U-Class

message: Instead of telescope, last word of antepenultimate paragraph. Ricky cosmos 18:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Have altered. Galloglass 18:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Periscope?

message: Article says 4 minutes, yet TV show "U-864: Hitler's Last Secret" says 2 minutes. ??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.255.247 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Torpedo Time

message: This article makes mention of solving a 3D targetting problem, this is not the same as a 2D surface target problem that was typical for WW2 and I shall make a note of this in the article.
Damwiki1 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fire Control

message: There seems to be a contradiction at the beginning of the article. It says the Venturer sunk the U-771 then the article only mentions U-864 from then on. Which is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.18.217.131 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: U-771 or U-864

message: Was this ship flying a Norwegian flag, or was it a ship owned by a Norwegian company and commandeered by the Germans and sailing under a German flag? As it stands, the article seems to imply some sort of friendly fire incident with no context. 2603:7080:9207:AD00:617A:EEE4:A9E7:35F9 (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vang
Talk:Pokemon Gold and Silver Remake

message: I say this article is completely useless.
1. A lot of information in this article is incorrect. For example, the S.S. Anne Ticket never appeared in any game other than Diamond and Pearl (it was always called the "S.S. Ticket"); furthermore, the S.S. Anne didn't appear in G/S/C anyway (that was the S.S. Aqua).
2. Non-notable. The G/S/C remake movement is completely fan-driven, has never made it out of a forum, and doesn't have as much support as the SOVA campaign did during its brief lifespan.
3. Pure speculation. There's been absolutely no hint by either Nintendo or Game Freak to make a remake of G/S/C. "several websites have discused" (they haven't, except on forums) and "Hints of a remake have been mentioned in multiple Pokémon games" (no examples given). What's more, it says vaguely that these hints were prominent in FR/LG, but... they weren't. In fact, I can't think of any.
I say this should be deleted... EllipsesBent 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The administrator A Man in Black replaced this page with a redirect to Pokémon Gold and Silver, and you (essentially) accused him of vandalism, then restored the article. I'd just like to point out that putting the warning on the article and then editing the article makes it easy for him not to see it (I didn't even notice it until I went through the page history). You'd be better off putting the comment on people's talk pages in the future.
I've put a delete template in this article, by the way. This belongs on Bulbapedia, not here. EllipsesBent 22:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete this article?
Talk:Rubric (ecclesiastical)

message: Unless someone can think of a good reason why these articles should not be merged, I think that they should be. Badbilltucker 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Badbilltucker, I agree, they need to be merged.....all they do is repeat the came material.DaveTroy 19:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with merger. There's little which separates them. Ohconfucius 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merger 

message: This should be merged with a renamed Rubric (typography).  As it stands the article is very short, and the first sentence misleading, as it only refers to one of several meanings. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another merge
Talk:Kremlinology

message: "Putin may run Russia from the sidelines", Yahoo! News, 2007-06-15.
-BStarky 18:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reference article

message: What is the name of the Soviet and Russian counterpart of Kremlinology, i.e. the study of American politics?  Potomacology?
Krohn is such a wit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whitehousology, of course. - JohnnyWiki (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Maybe Americology. 89.245.157.175 (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet counterpart? 

message: Edward Crankshaw could be seen as a Kremlinologist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert Conquest is another.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crankshaw 

message: *Almost no sources
*Why these sovietologists are listed and not the others
*What was the value of the Cold war sovietology? 
*Nothing about institutions and printed texts.
Xx236 (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is a disaster 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Post-Soviet studies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 18#Post-Soviet studies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   —Michael Z. 17:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Post-Soviet studies" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Law on Cooperatives

message: Not only is most of this essentially directly ripped from this article's only source (which I'm not sure is a reliable source to begin with), but it is literally word for word the same paragraph in the corresponding perestroika article. Doesn't seem to be much of a point in having a separate article if it's just going to be the exact same words from another article.  Not only does this article need to be expanded with the content elaborated upon, but it also needs multiple sources with higher credibility and should be rephrased so that it doesn't plagiarize its sources. Similar consideration should be given to its paragraph in the perestroika article. PatrioticProletarian (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism/over-reliance on source
Talk:WXZO

message: On September 16, 2008, WXZO changed to a new format of oldies as "Dot FM 96.7"
though Imus in the Morning continues. The talk format remains on WEAV 960.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.59.170 (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format Change
Template talk:Miami Neighborhoods

message: The current list of neighborhoods considers at the same level neighborhoods and their subdistricts, resulting a little bit confusing for the reader. My proposal (already implemented, but undone) is to split the list in two groups: the first one with the main neighborhoods and the second one with areas included in the previous ones. As main neighborhoods I suggest to use the list by the City of Miami Neighborhood Enhancement Team, depicted in the City of Miami Neighborhoods Map. Pietro (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighborhoods and Subdistricts
Talk:Laurie Puhn

message: The only thing that needs clean-up is the article title.  Puhn should be capitalized.
:Done. Tschild 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After a second reading I pruned the opinion sentences and left a short section that in my view still does not merit inclusion.  Since there is so little about this minor media personality in this article and other wiki articles link here I chose to leave what remains in the work section for someone with more knowledge and interest to build on.  Veriss (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Sandpainting

message: Should add this guy's sand paintings on the beach:
http://www.viralnova.com/beach-art/
122.176.242.224 (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: why the timespan`?! "Navajo sandpainting from ~1890–1908" Stjohn1970 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q: image timestamp
Talk:Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics

message: New Union Treaty () is widely known, but rather an unoffical name. The offical name of the new union was to be the "Union of Sovereign States"(), and the last draft of the treaty itself was offically known as (). --KPbIC 19:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: In the article is written: 
:Six of the fifteen Soviet republics however did not participate in drafting of the treaty: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Georgia and Armenia, i.e. the non-Slav, non-Eastern Orthodox of the fifteen republics. 
That's not correct, since central asian republics and Azerbaijan were also neither slavic nor orthodox. --Ljowa 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remark 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect USSR 2. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  USSR 2 listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: ok, what is the problem now, let discuss it here Gooduserdude (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not re-add the flag unless sourced that this hypothetical state would continue to use this flag. The listing to show the pre-existing republics who would compose this state is not a source or reason to declare the previous USSR flag to be the flag that it would have used. --Havsjö (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: you are right, flag and coats do not belong here, let alone an entire infobox Gooduserdude (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  flag and coats 

message: Question: Should the infobox be removed? yes or no? Gooduserdude (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: infobox
Talk:Sexual ritual

message: I don't think this article is coherent enough to really understand much less is true.  Why are they "abstraction of behaviors" or "the incarnation of species development"?
Logicnazi (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm WTF? 

message: Please explain the quotes, since they are taken out of context. And as far as worship, there are probably much more credible sources that chick lit (I would hope!) USchick (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: More input on "wedding-as-orgy" would also be appreciated see talk#Traditional rituals Jacobisq (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes and chick lit
Talk:Skete

message: The link to the monastery is broken...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.181.239 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sancti Angeli 

message: Some attention should be placed on the fact that the skete order is still in place besides the outside link to one site.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomstrange (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new skete orders 

message: In the second paragraph under the heading "Notable early Skete leader Saint Macarius," the first sentence needs correcting.  It does not make sense as it is.  Something is missing. I do not know enough about the subject to correct it.CorinneSD (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable early Skete leader Saint Macarius 
Talk:Health law

message: This is an important legal topic. I don't like redirecting it to a category, but it really needs some work.Mneumisi 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginings

message: Health legislation appears to be basically the same page, just written by someone else. I think that they should be merged into a single page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I propose merging Medical law into Health law and rewriting the article to cover the subject matter of both articles. In my experience with health law, I do not recognize the distinction currently upheld between the two articles, where health law supposedly refers to "macro" issues (e.g. "operations, regulatory and transactional issues") whereas medical law supposedly refers to "micro" issues such as the duties of clinicians and the rights of patients (the latter definition appears to be based exclusively on an American instead of an international, comparative context). Instead, the terms "health law" or "medical law" are synonymous and refer to a legal field dealing with both issues.
Examples are legion. For example, the content of The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Health Law cuts across both of these issue areas regardless of being a book on "health law". Also, readers of the European Journal of Health Law and the Medical Law Review will know that neither journal is restricted to one issue area specifically.
The choice of health law over medical law for the name of the article is based on my – admittedly anecdotal – experience that medical law is often used in the UK, whereas health law is more prevalent in international discourses. Crucially however, the point is that both terms refer to the same thing, and thus, we don't need two articles. Which title is used is less important to me.
I will notify WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Law about this discussion. InsaneHacker (💬) 20:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A merger would also require dealing with the . InsaneHacker (💬) 20:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I just noticed that "latter" in my original post should in reality be "former". InsaneHacker (💬) 11:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

text: The synonymousness of health law and medical law is also noted by Hervey and McHale in European Union Health Law, p. 10. InsaneHacker (💬) 20:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Those areas of law aren't the same. Health public law is directed towards people. Medical law is about patient care. Here is the article that shows the difference: As I understand, medical law is about patients and health law is about society. For example Health law may promote public health. D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:John Derek

message: Why the heck does Pati Behrs redirect to John Derek. She was a person in her own right, not an alias for Derek. Nicmart (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about her. Do you wish to start an article? YellowAries2010 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pati Behrs

message: Proposed improvement-  I was attempting to change "an unregenerate killer" to "an unrepentant killer".  I'd estimate that I've heard the word "unregenerate" twice in my life at most.  It's an obscure word.  Typically, wiki articles (outside of really technical stuff) are written at or below newspaper level in my experience browsing, and last I heard newspapers shoot for about an 8th grade reading level.  There's nothing inherently wrong with using a "fancy" word per se, but the word is a poor choic ein the context- unregenerate has a religious/spiritual context, like referring to souls and whatnot.  Unrepentant is less profound, and merely addresses the level of remorse of the person.  Yes, they are synonyms, but unrepentant is the better word in this context.
Alas!  My change was reverted in the blink of an eye, being deemed "major" by someone.  I admit I am not schooled in Wiki-ways, but if changing one word is major, aren't all changes major?  As I look at the talk page guidelines mentioned at the top (I don't think I've posted on the talk page before) I see the instructions "Please do not bite the newcomers".  I feel bitten, frankly.  I researched my edit to make sure I wasn't in error, and I gave a (slightly shorter) justification when I made it, and for it to be so quickly reverted is demeaning.  Since I see that newcomers to Wikipedia editing are told to "be bold", I'm going to change it back to the better word once more, in hopes that it will be kept.  But if not, so be it.  I won't participate in an "edit war."  Further, since I am new to all this, I have no clue where else I could have put the above personal appeal (which I edited more than once in the effort to abide by the guidelines to not be sarcastic and not so lengthy).  Hopefully I did OK, and forgive me if not...  hoping good sense will prevail...
2604:2D80:5504:F100:60FA:1322:2334:525E (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to make an improvement, but...
Talk:Livin' It Up!

message: What is a "semi-based lifestyle album"? -- Mikeblas 18:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-based