lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board/ICOTW

message: From WP:IWNB:
We need to decide how to pick an aticle for next week. I'd suggest that we select something from the todo list. As I proposed this week's article, maybe someone else could pick a juicy one from the list and pop it here: 
Then if we have consensus by Friday Sunday (propose that silence = assent), lets go with it. If anyone objects to the choice, let them propose an alternative. Filiocht 07:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps seeing as we only really started on Monday, we should stick to switching on Sunday as usual. I agree that we just make suggestions, see if there's consensus (silence = no opposition!). P.S. I hope I haven't opened a can of worms on WP:COTW :-) zoney ♣ talk 08:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, I think it was a can of worms worth opening. So many COTWs have turned out really quite disappointingly. Filiocht 08:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: Do we need to prune? If so, how? JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 10:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Fine, be like that, ignore me... JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 20:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Considering there's only a few of us, and not so many votes or candidates (page is not ridiculously long), how about we begin with a conservative approach. I suggest removing candidates not seconded by anyone within two weeks (or one week, but I think we can afford to be generous). zoney ♣ talk 11:28, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was thinking. I don't like the main COTWs style of only the very fittest surviving, because lots of good nominations (like my ones Signature and K'nex :-) don't make it. Not seconded within 2 weeks sounds fine to me. Too relaxed is better than too strict. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pruning

message: I propose, that seeing as we aren't weighed down by bureaucracy, we extend Ireland for another week. There is MOUNTAINS of work to be done still! We perhaps need a plan / better to do list. I don't know about ye, but I would like to see this as a really good article even if not FA.
So, anyone else in favour of working on Ireland next week too? zoney ♣ talk 20:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, why not, it seems like a good idea. Ireland is the kind of article that needs to be a FA, so I'm all for it. IMHO its not too far away from FA, though. Whatever mountains of work there are to be done, they're the Wicklows, not the Himalayas :) JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 20:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Agreed, but we must make this a serious article - it must represent Ireland, history and culture in a coherent sense - the best of Irish and what "Modern Ireland" is - those photographs have to be presented in a way that makes this article look like an encyplopedia entry and not a glossy brochure of a fair way land (in which it never rains, nor is cloudy) Djegan 21:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland as a ICOTW 

message: Please  on my River Shannon map. 
Seabhcán 00:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rivers of Ireland]]
Talk:General Security Directorate (Iraq)

message: Does anybody know/understand what the relationship between the GSD and INIS is? Was INIS renamed to GSD, is one part of the other, or are they seperate agencies? I couldn't find out from the sources I've got although I suspect that the Jane's article might shed some light on this. Unfortunately I don't have a subscription to that. - pir 12:15, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I'm sorry no one has responded over the past 3.5 years!  I haven't been able to find much of everything except the news reports announcing the creation of these two organizations.  I'll see if Jane's has anything. Joshdboz (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Update: I did find one Jane's article proving that INIS is still in existence as of July 2007.  Either the General Security Directorate never got off the ground or hasn't generated any news since the announcement.  I'm going to split the articles up for the time being. Joshdboz (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Croydon Canal

message: How can a canal have an inclined plane? What does inclined plane mean anyway in the context of a canal?
See this article Canal_inclined_plane (I'll add a link to the croydon canal article)Geni 13:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Question
Talk:Fort Victoria (Isle of Wight)

message: Article reassessed and graded as stub. --dashiellx (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: In this edit, I have removed the DYK credit given for this article. Following the link to the 16th June 2007, there is clearly no article about Fort Victoria. There is however an article about Fort Victoria in the early hours of the 17th June but that is about Fort Victoria (British Columbia). Even in 2007 I can't imagine hat this unreferenced stub could have made it to DYK. Ranger Steve Talk 06:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK credit 

message: Please dont roll back or delete edits to the current attractions sections as "SPAM" , there is no longer an aquarium or an archaeology museum at the fort, in place is a Reptilarium and a visitor centre. As operator of said attractions it is most annoying when people visit expecting to see attractions that closed a long time ago thanks to outdated wikipedia info.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:8B40:2567:0:5D04:851B:1D55:F230 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attractions
Talk:White Tree of Gondor

message: There are a few details that I feel would be appropriate for inclusion in this article. However, I'm no Tolkien scholar and lack suitable literary resources for verifying such details, so I won't be editing it myself based solely on information I found in other Wiki pages.
The Timeline of Arda article lists the Second White Tree being planted in T.A. 2. This article should also mention that date, provided that someone can confirm its accuracy. (Oh, I see now that it does appear on the geneology chart, but is absent from the text.)
This article mentions the Third White Tree being (trans)planted by Tarondor in 1640, but does not indicate the source of the sapling. If the First Tree was destroyed when Sauron first captured Minas Ithil and the Second Tree died during the Great Plague, whence came this third seedling? 
Nor does the article text say where Tarondor planted the Third Tree. The location is mentioned in the in the geneology chart, but should also be named in the text. However, the chart names it "Minas Tirith", but, according to the Minas Tirith article, that would not become the city's name until some three and a half centuries later.
It would be helpful to the non-scholar if there was explicit indication that Minas Anor and Minas Tirith are the same site (as the latter name is much more widely recognizable to readers of LotR).  Perhaps "planted at Minas Anor (later known as Minas Tirith)" or somesuch.  This would make it more obvious to readers that this Third Tree is indeed the dead tree in Denethor's courtyard. 
Also, the text gives 2872 as the year of the Third Tree's death, but the chart indicates 2852.
The text offers little context for the geneology shown in the chart prior to the First White Tree. I feel this article should provide some brief explanation of what the White Tree of Numenor is, as that ancestory is essential to understanding the significance of the White Tree of Gondor in Tolkien's works.  (Indeed, "White Tree" redirects to this article, there being no separate overview article of Tolkien's White Trees. Such a distinct overview article should exist if this one is to deal exclusively with the WT of Gondor. However, I feel the material would, instead, be better presented by simply placing a short "White Tree of Numenor" paragraph at the beginning of the History section to provide a little more background on the pre-Gondor origins of the line.)  
Starling2001 (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second? Third?  When and where?
Talk:Harry Altman

message: For a second VfD vote from October 2004 see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harry Altman
----
from VfD:
Wow! this chap can spell, and has even 1 IMDb entree becos of it.  (mesmells vanity). (For some reason this was on my watchlist, so was it deleted before?) Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Overlay network

message: I've heard the latter form much more often.  I would recommend moving to that form and redirecting from Network Overlay to there.  Justification:
* On Google: 6,810 hits for "Network Overlay", 81,400 hits for "Overlay Network".  Similar results in Google Scholar.
* NSDI, one of the major networking conferences, uses "Overlay Networks" as the subject matter of one of their tech sessions .
Any disagreement? -- Nethgirb 07:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Network Overlay or Overlay Network? 

message: "For example, distributed hash tables can be used to route messages to a node having specific logical address, whose IP address is not known in advance."
The DHT is a good example of an overlay network, but this statement gives the impression that there is a distinction between a logical address and an IP address (an IP address is a logical address). Baxevanis (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  logical address and IP address  

message: It might make sense to have one better-quality article instead of stubs for one-time projects like Resilient Overlay Network and End System Multicast that might not meet notability standards. Any objection? W Nowicki (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I need some help, can you please give your opinion on how and where to add these 'overlay network' concepts/protocols to the current article:
* VXVLAN: Virtual_Extensible_LAN
* NVGRE: Network_Virtualization_using_Generic_Routing_Encapsulation
* STT: Stateless Transport Tunneling
* NVO3: Network Virtualization Overlays 
* Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation
And of course to: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc/ and http://etherealmind.com/usage-of-overlay-and-underlay-networking/
Thanks! --Never stop exploring (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encaps 

message: Why on earth isn't the World Wide Web listed as an overlay network?!  It's easily the most widely know network that runs on top of the Internet!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.95.2 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The WWW isn't a network; it's a protocol for transferring data through an existing network, along with a format for such data and the collection of data thus transferred. Xnft (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Wide Web?
Talk:Prince Álmos

message: I'm not sure it's right to call him Álmos II since it implies he was a king. Wouldn't it be better to name him "Prince Álmos"? Alensha 13:43, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, but nobody calls him Álmos II. "Prince Álmos" would be just as good, since there aren't too many others by this name... and actually, George II Rákóczi was a ruling prince of Transsylvania, even though he wasn't a king, technically he was a ruler. Alensha 22:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, then move it to Prince Almos (although I personally like the "II"). But maybe you should ask Joy first, whether they do not call him Almos II in Croatia... Juro 19:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think since the first Álmos wasn't the king of Croatia, this one is either Álmos I of Croatia or just plain Prince Álmos of Hungary. I'm gonna ask Joy. Alensha 17:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text:  Nah, he wasn't actually a king of Croatia as an entity back then, only of today's Central Croatia and Slavonia. We don't give him the numeral, he's only mentioned in history books as Almoš, Ladislaus' nephew who was instated during the dynastic struggle. The title "Prince Álmos" would work too, and so would "Prince Álmos of Hungary" -- I haven't commented previously simply because I figured you guys would agree on a solution and I shouldn't need to interfere. :) --Joy [shallot] 19:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In our history books he's only "Álmos, brother of King Coloman". I checked the List of rulers of Croatia article where he is called Duke Álmos. I think I'll move the article to Prince Álmos. Alensha 15:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've also noticed that the first Álmos was a fejerdelem and given that he was before Arpad there should theoretically be no numerals (like with the Gezas), so I've moved that one to High Prince Álmos, too. --Joy [shallot] 20:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  Álmos wasn't a king of Croatia.. Between 1084 and 1091 he was the duke of Slavonia; between 1091 and 1095 he was named King of Slavonia (eastern Croatia). In 1095 Kálmán (Colomon of Hungary) dethroned Álmos, making him the duke of the apanage Nitrian duchy (Tercia pars regni) instead.
Álmos, supported by Germany and Bohemia, came in conflict with Kálmán in 1098, after Kálmán had declared himself the king of the whole of Croatia in 1097 (crowned in 1102).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.82.115 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Mieszko III of Poland

message: I removed the link to Elizabeth of Hungary because it refers to a different Elizabeth. Alensha 14:04, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:D'Armond Speers

message: from VfD:
Probable vanity case (original author has seven edits on Wikipedia in total, all on this page), and lack of notability. --DMG413 14:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: AFD just ended, merge with Klingon language. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD ended
Talk:Social Distortion (album)

message: Alternative?? I've never heard of Social D being considered alternative. I'm going to remove that unless I hear back. Downstream 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre??

message: ...why is this album under "controversial albums"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.44.59 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This category must have been removed. You should sign your comments using four tildes (~), by the way. Downstream 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: The article indicates that the cover was considered controversial and several chain stores refused to carry it. Can anyone provide sources for these claims? 162.210.1.125 (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial album cover?
Talk:Mulefa

message: Should the mulefa be categorised as fictional aliens? They inhabit Earth, and fill the space occupied by humans in other sentient-life worlds; maybe they even share some genetic heritage, albeit before the radical diamond skeleton development in their evolution.
--E03bf085 15:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They are parallel humans that have developed along a different evolutionary path, and Mary realizes quite quickly that they are not "creatures" but rather "people". It also depends on what you mean by "alien".  If you mean "not from earth", then they are not aliens, because they exist on a parallel earth.  If you mean "not from our earth" then that makes Lyra an alien as well.Rglong 03:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aliens

message: By the way, somebody edited this article saying that the Mulefa are not behind humanity. It is blatantly obvious that their technology isn't even close to ours. If, for whatever reason, there was a war, we would win in a matter of hours.
:Being able to win a war is not a sign of technological process.  More often it is a sign of bloodthirsty and violent cultural values and sheer numbers.  Calling the mulefa's technology "backward" is very loaded.  Their technology hasn't developed along the same path.  Evolution isn't a one-way street, and progress doesn't follow a straight line.  We can do some things that mulefa can't, and they can do some things that we can't.  Right now the article reeks of the same kind of racist judgments that Europeans had applied to African cultures for centuries, accusing them of being "backward" because they didn't develop the same kind of weapons and machines, even though upon closer inspection there were a great many technological advancements made by non-European cultures that didn't necessarily have to do with motorized mechanisms and war.
:Bottom line is that the mulefa are not "behind" humanity because A.) they are contemporary with humanity, and B.) they aren't following the same evolutionary path to begin with.  You can't be ahead of or behind someone when they aren't even on the same road.Rglong 03:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technology
Talk:British Rail

message: The text "Anglia Region: split from Eastern Region in 1988" is cited to Baker, 5th edition. This atlas confirms the existence of the Anglia Region at that date, but I cannot find where it shows that the split actually occurred in 1988. A page number would be useful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Given as page 40 in the original cite Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. But all that page 40 shows is a short red line between Peterborough and Whittlesea with "ER" one side and "AR" the other, denoting a regional break. What it doesn't show is when that split occurred - nor does it show that the area shown as Anglia Region was previously Eastern Region. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Gourvish's British Rail 1974-97 (p. 132) gives it as April 1988 (link). Lamberhurst (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I get an error message in Dutch, which isn't copypastable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglia Region 

message: I'm looking to create a section on Hotels, catering (and the British Rail sandwich), as well as station and rail Buffets; any thoughts? --✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you know about this - British Transport Hotels - and all the articles it points to. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Also, this is a great read 10mmsocket (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @10mmsocket, I do indeed thank you! and thank you for the link... very interesting and mindful of your good self, I will look to add the section over the next few days Take care ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hospitality section
Talk:Saar (river)

message: Translation of the de-Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Saar&oldid=2674707 --Ludger1961 16:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation

message: Until 2007, the term Saar (valley) was part of the above named wine region in Western Germany. --Kolya (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mosel-Saar-Ruwer]]
Template talk:Middle Ages by region

message: Why merge these? The ideal and the standard is the long template in the upper right of the article. This doesn't work for many articles as they are already part of another series. (e.g. Medieval Britain is already part of the British histroy series). Thus a template at the bottom is sometimes required. - SimonP 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion closed as no consensus for merge, after more than three years. Debresser (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Added Crusading movement under WP:BOLD. This young article covers the ideology and instituitions. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This got reverted without discussion, I have restored in the absence of any rationale. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Now Good Article, this gives a much more rounded coverage of the institutions of medieval Christian Holy War Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Crusading movement]]
Talk:Network SouthEast

message: I have changed some of the names in first column of the franhcises table. this column should contain the original franchise names, which should not be confused with the trading names used by the first franchise operators. For example, the franchise now branded Southern is (or was originally) called Network South Central. Connex South Central was Connex's rebranding. Flagboy 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franchise v company Names 

message: I believe the Jaffa Cake livery referred to at the top of the discussion page was used by the London & South East (LSE) sector of British Rail which existed from 1981 (I think).  As I recall the Jaffa Cake livery was applied to Kent Coast and Clacton/Walton on the Naze EMUs as they were refurbished.  As such Network SouthEast may have inherited stock in Jaffa Cake livery but I don't believe they actually applied the livery to any of their stock - as NSE was effectively the brand launched in 1986. 195.92.101.11 11:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jaffa Cake livery 

message: Just published last month is a very interesting and in-depth work on NSE: The Network Southeast Story 1982–2014.  It was co-authored by Chris Green himself, and there are vast expanses of facts and figures as well as all sorts of useful info.  My copy has now arrived, so I'm happy to be involved in a rewrite of this article accordingly, but it won't be a quick job because of other on- and off-WP commitments!  The citation template is below: I'll copy it across to the article at some point.  Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New high-quality source 
Talk:Academician

message: Maybe an Academicians takes the place of the philosopher kings of Plato?
I find this utterly improbable. The title of Academician can be understood only if seen from the historical viewpoint. As enlightened rulers (e.g. Catherine the Great of Russia, Fredrick the Great of Prussia and Gustaf III of Sweden) founded national Academies modeled after the Academie Francois, the members of these academies included the most notable scientific and cultural persons of the nation. In former Soviet Union such an organization was useful as a tool of streamlining the nations intellectual elite. This explains why such an elitistic title is mostly used in former socialist countries.--81.197.78.196 21:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Talk:The Phenomenology of Spirit

message: Response to third opinion request:
I concur with  in this case; , you might want to read WP:SYNTHESIS. (In addition, you have seriously violated WP:3RR.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 13:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: I removed the following unsourced section for now, if we find references for it, we can include it again. 
 Mvbaron (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced section 

message: G.W.hegel 117.220.120.205 (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawing and painting 

message: I was reading this article to get an idea of what the book is about. The "Structure" section is very helpful. But it doesn't go past the Introduction. I know some of the book's content is covered in "Important concepts," but it would be useful to have summaries of the 6 sections of the book. What do the editors think? Andy Mohebbi (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  More summary in Structure section?