lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Brigit Pegeen Kelly

message: The article originally stated, with-out ref., that she was the dau of X; now it has been edited, with-out ref., to say that se is unrelated to X.  Which is correct?  Please give a ref., since there is a disagreement. Kdammers 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Heinrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 00:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Can someone improve the dreadful English, please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written in Gerlish 

message: Removed the sentence:
: It is one of the pieces of evidence used in support of a non-static Universe such as the current Big Bang model.
The non-static universe has been recognized since the 1930s from redshift evidence, not darkness of the sky.
Chris C 11:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Olber's Paradox predates this by over a century. I don't agree with the removal of that text.—RJH (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Bang and Olber 

message: Also need to include Olber's_paradox
101.175.183.220 (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the history section already. --Stone (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honors 

message: I can see that early versions are written in US English, but it does not seem appropriate to me to leave it that way.  What do others think? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning the use of US English for an article about a German astronomer 

message: Changed the first sentence under the heading "Life and career" from "Olbers was born in Arbergen, today part of Bremen"  to  "Olbers was born in Arbergen, Germany, today part of Bremen".  This makes it clear to the reader not familiar with cities in Germany where Olbers was born.  Although it has been declared at the beginning of the article he was a "German physician and astronomer", it doesn't establish he was actually born in Germany.☉Qψîδịzഴⓧ•—>Quisizyx talk 10:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarified first sentence under heading "Life and career" 

message: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1090251 One paragraph in this article, might be of interest to someone. jayoval (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a news article
Talk:Henry Tye

message: Thank you to all th editors of this page : it has now been translated into french. Thanks again. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks
Talk:Anopheles gambiae

message: Hello  Are An. coluzzii and Ae. coluzzii synonymous?  is about an Ae. coluzzii that is difficult to distinguish from Ae. detritus. Berger does not mention Anopheles. Invasive Spices (talk) 31 March 2022 (UTC)
* Ooooops! That was clearly an error. Now undone. Thank you for mentioning it.Jeanloujustine (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''coluzzii''
Talk:Antennal lobe

message: I added three references (reviews) of antennal lobe anatomy. The existing references are fine, but focus on olfactory coding (I checked them all), and so were lacking for someone primarily interested in physiology or anatomy. SteelSoul (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Antheraea polyphemus

message: How rare exactly is this moth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.227.229 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rarity

message: Hello Wikipedians.
I thought it would be apt to recommend that a distribution and habitat section would be very helpful. It would allow readers to understand the habitat of the species and where they can be found in the world. Additionally, a distribution map of the species can be included to be a visual aid for viewers. It will also help answer the comment above regarding how sparse or rare these moths really are. This information can also be evolutionarily important as it provides information about the species' environmental niche.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkrishnan2 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution and Habitat Section 

message: I believe that the title, Conservation is not appropriate for a section talking about other organisms that hunt or parasitize this moth.  Instead this section should be named Predation and Parasitism and another section could be titled Conservation if there is indeed endangerment in this population.Sahilmehta97 (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation Section 

message: The "Response to threats" section contains a large amount of trash and a small amount of good material. It seems as though every second word in there has been converted into a link to something obvious, some of the section is duplicate information from the rest of this article, and a great deal of the section is off-topic; lessons on frogs, lessons in general biology, and so on. I knew if I started cutting, with the mood I'm in, the section would end up with only four words. So I'll leave it to someone with more brains. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Response to threats" section
Talk:Anthomyiidae

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Anthomyiidae sp.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 28, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-04-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Anthomyiidae sp.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: The classification section needs a source because classification of Anthomyiidae has changed radically over the past 50 years.  I have not seen any modern works use subfamily names.  Hennig and Griffiths recognized groups of related genera.
The description is incorrect at least in part, the statement "except in Chelisia Rd."  This paragraph is a close paraphrase of a regional treatment, Keys to the insects of the European Part of the USSR.  In modern terminology Chelisia is the Anthomyia monilis species group, and Acridomyia, the New World Coenosopsia, and possibly a neotropical genus also have incomplete anal vein.
Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed 
Talk:Honorius Augustodunensis

message: This line hardly seems appropriate. Perhaps list some of Flints works in the bibliography?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.112.71 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A major scholar of Honorius is Valerie Flint," 

message: Coming across this image, the description, added by  reads: initial illustration of Lucidarius in an early 15th century German (Alsatian) manuscript. In spite of the filename, this picture is probably intended as representing Honorius of Autun, a French theologian of the 12th century and author of the Elucidarium (and not a "Gaelic poet"). Wonder if the image would be suitable in the article. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  image
Talk:Aphididae

message: Hi  In this edit you added a simple text ref to . I was able to quickly find a scanned copy of this work but it is not OCR'd and therefore I can't just search for Aphididae in there. Can you provide the page number? Invasive Spices (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: de Réaumur 1737
Talk:Apodemia mormo

message: Hello! My name is Emily Haussler and I'm part of a Behavioral Ecology class at Washington University in St. Louis.  I have been assigned to investigate Apodemia mormo and improve this article.  So far, I have made the following changes: 
1. Add Tribe and Conservation Status to the Taxobox
2. Create overarching outline and add new content, with specific focuses on habitat, geographic range, conservation, genetics, life cycle, physiology, oviposition, and feeding habits.  
3. Removed old content verbatim, and reincorporated it into the new article, preserving references
Please let me know of questions, concerns or improvements I could address. 
Thanks! Emilykh26 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi Emily, your article was very well written and covered a wide variety of topics well. I added a small section on a parasite, made minor edits with wording and grammar, and added some hyperlinks for easier browsing. I could find no inconsistencies with the information presented even after checking through sources. This article could benefit from a section on interactions with humans, as you touch on that in your conservation section. Nice job! liu.emily (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits 

message: It appears the tribe Emesini Stichel, 1911 (based on Emesis) is preoccupied by Emesini Amyot and Serville, 1843 (based on Emesa).  See here. In any case, Apodemia seems to be regarded as a genus incertae sedis at the moment. I think the taxobox for the species will be fine without a tribe parameter. William Avery (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribe Emesini
Talk:Apoidea

message: An editor has been making multiple changes to the taxonomy in this and related articles without providing any sources. I've reverted these for now; obviously we'd like to have an up-to-date taxonomy and phylogeny, but since uncited changes cannot be verified (WP:V) this is not an acceptable approach. It will be fine to have the changes reinstated supported by suitable reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited changes to taxonomy

message: The claim that Spheciformes has been has been abandoned doesn't seem consistent with the entries at the Spheciformes page, which is based on the relevant entry on the NCBI taxonomy browser. Suggest removing the claim of abandoned. I agree that the use of the term has changed over time. Klbrain (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spheciformes
File talk:Metung-Wharf-Pano,-Vic.jpg

message: not happy about this being a featured image, and meant to be one of the finest images on wikipedia! im sure im not the only one who can see where it has been stitched due to the movements of the water not lining up with both images taken, pretty amateurish??
looks fine to me Viva43 10:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Appias (butterfly)

message: Are we sure this genus is called "the Whites"? According to Wikipedia people say that of half the clades in Pierinae, according to funet it's mostly just Pieris. We should probably drop the uses "Whites" as common name we postulate that we can't find citations for. Noym (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lede was changed to reflect your comment.  Dger (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whites?
Talk:Appias wardii

message: There are 5 books/journals listed in the references section but the article has just one sentence (!), excluding the infobox... Any ideas why this is? ScarianTalk 00:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guilty as charged. The references are part of my stub format. I first did the Indian Papilionid list by making stubs first then  adding material. I then took up the Indian Pierid list thinking I would do things the same way but got bogged down in the remaining butterfly and moth lists due to demand for red links and stubs to place the huge backlog of images available. Somwhow I'm still stuck there and never got back to date. I'm deleting the refs but will revert them when I get back to stub development. AshLin 09:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References but no information...
Talk:Aphthoroblattina

message: An incredible fact like this deserves a scholarly citation. Google searches turn up this page or blog posts. Can it really be true?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.225.166 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This could perfectly be a hoax article. Citations needed! --Koala (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have move the article to the correct genus spelling and added what I could find.  A G Scholar search under the misspelling returned no results.  The correct genus name brought up ~7 instances none of which actually listed anything close to 50cm.  I have therefore removed the 50cm sentence.--Kevmin (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find the proper length, could you please put it on the article?--The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added the length for the paratype of A. johnsoni which was 43MM, and the wing length for A sulcata type which was up to 45mm if complete. I think what may have happened is someone wasn't careful and misread the millimeters as centimeters thus exponentially increasing the size.--Kevmin (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  50cm? Really? 

message: I wish the article said were the fossils were found. The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the countries where the fossils were found. The last species was described in the 1930s so I don't think they are very common.--Kevmin (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for that and adding the reference. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossils found
Talk:Arachnomorpha

message: I'd like to propose that we merge Arachnomorph into this and make Arachnomorph a redirect to here. My thinking is that unless I've missed something they are the same thing with this being marginally less stubby. WereSpielChequers 19:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: we should make Arachnomorph into a redirect to Arachnomorpha.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree: Merge, but keep content & references from both articles. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I've done the merge, would you guys mind running an eye over it to check that everything I put in makes sense? The old Arachnomorph article is still viewable in its history, but I can copy it here to talk if that's easier. WereSpielChequers 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Archaeognatha

message: For a behavioral ecology class I was asked to comment on some articles. My comments are as follows;
This page does a good job introducing the background information on the Archaeognatha order. The author briefly discusses the history behind the naming of the organism; the author describes the Greek roots of the organism’s scientific name. It also estimates the number of different species of this order and briefly comments on the level of study that the order has received. The author then begins the description section where the author talks about the physical features of the insect, discussing the parts of its body and typical body sizes. In the final section, biology, the author briefly discusses its habitat, feeding habits and sexual habits. This entry is very brief and could be expanded upon. The article also doesn’t mention any of its behavioral tendencies in depth; it also doesn’t mention its social organization, altruism or selfishness. The author mentions that this order is not studied very much; this could be the reason why the entry lacks so much information and detail. Overall, I don’t think this wiki page is effective because it doesn’t give enough background information about the organism that you would expect from a wiki entry.--Jeremy.winkler (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 
Talk:Archimylacris

message: was the bug huge
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.151.195.132 (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone know how big it was? The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some other page suggested that these guys were ~3x as big as the largest roaches today, so that would suggest ~9-10 inches. Obviously, this article is a stub. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the "A Monograph of the Fossil Insects of the British Coal Measures"  the species seem to average between 2-3cm.  I think these species are a victim of the same conversion error that moved Aphthoroblattina from 45mm long to 45cm long.--Kevmin (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind adding that to the article? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, never mind, I did. But thanks for the reference. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Size
Talk:Jean-Daniel Colladon

message: … 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:ADB3:20C:96AD:6E0F (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colladon or Collodon?
Talk:Jeffrey Weeks (mathematician)

message: The link to his personal website doesn't work. I cannot find a working link anywhere so I conclude the website is down. I hope it's not for good...
Jeffwack111 (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Personal Website

message: ... to all the editors of this page, which helped completing the [fr:Jeffrey Weeks|french one]]. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks
Talk:Armadillidium

message: In some places in the southern U.S.A. Armadillidium vulgare is also called "doodle-bug" as well as "roly-poly".  I had not previously heard it called "woodlouse" or "pillbug".  I'm aware that "doodle-bug" is also a common name for the ant lion.
I'd like to get some feedback from others about the dialect areas where these names are used and eventually add that to the article.  I think I might have picked up the term "doodle-bug" as a child living near New Orleans or I might have learned it earlier while living near Atlanta, but I'm fairly sure "roly-poly" is the more common term in Georgia. --Jim Henry 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also "doodle-bug"; dialect areas for various common names? 

message: If anyone can explain the enormous traffic spike for this article on April 27, 2012 (> 150,000 page views), I'd love to find out the cause (please drop me a note on my talk page). --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic spike 

message: Why are there so many listed species with practically no info on the web, besides "it exists"? Does anyone have access to these obscure resource sources? MDaxo (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I found one of the older ones, but it's in Latin.  Each species (in this source at least) has a brief description and categorization information that might be useful for anyone who both speaks a dead language and wants to make sub-pages so I'm leaving it here...  maybe someone can track down an English translation?    https://archive.org/details/crustaceaisopoda00budd  --A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  So many species 

message: We should probably verify all of the pictures in the gallery. I can say for sure that the Armadillidium nasatum picture is not of the correct species. I've been breeding and trading different species of isopods for about a year and they are often misidentified. There are plenty of examples here: http://bugguide.net/node/view/55219/bgimage  Oddjobhat (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armadillidium nasatum? 

message: I tried to make articles but I couldn't find any information about these hundreds of species besides listings in taxonomic databases.
MDaxo (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to find more popular ones, I just made an article for Armadillidium maculatum or “Zebra Isopod” which is incredibly popular among hobbyists. Major Wd (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there so many species with no articles and no info about them?
Talk:Ashworth's rustic

message: It is not plausible that only four species of moth are native to Wales. It is possible that 4 species are endemic to Wales, but Ashworth's Rustic would not be one of them; in the UK Xestia ashworthii is confined to Wales (an endemic subspecis), but three other subspecies are found elsewhere in Europe.
The external link is currently broken. Lavateraguy 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Johannes Franz Hartmann

message: Johannes Franz Hartmann = Juan Hartmann ???
--Jean-François Clet (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The two articles have now been merged.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Juan Hartmann ?
Talk:Blattella asahinai

message: I reorganized this article to group topics together, updated distribution and other information (provided references), and somewhat qualified its diet. 
Someone added the information that this species eats lepidopteran eggs and provided the reference. However, the sentence gave the impression that this is the roaches only food, when actually it is omnivorous. Under certain conditions it does eat certain lepidopteran eggs. We had a seminar at my entomology department at UF where this finding was discussed by the investigators. Apparently, this cockroach is "beneficial" depending on existing pest-predator relationship in a field. I remember that if the red imported fire ant (RIFA) is present, the Asian cockroach does not do well in that field. This is because RIFA will defend aphid colonies it obtains honeydew from and thus attacks Asian cockroaches searching the foliage for food. The cockroaches will then not search the foliage and seek food on the soil surface. Trfasulo (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning Up

message: Whoever originally added the "(Snoddy and Appel 2007)" reference to the article should link to it or provide the journal source. Trfasulo (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Reference

message: — Assignment last updated by Awh33 (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: General Entomology

message: I removed this sentence because it contradicts this article and several others that say the two are nearly identical and that they can be distinguished visually:
: The Asian and German look identical to the naked eye as they both have tan and dark features as well as two parallel stripes behind the head. 
Atkinson (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a sentence
Talk:Rock Star Supernova (album)

message: what number on the billboard did this album debut ?
This album is not a piece of "crapo".
it's very good.
In reply to the above unsigned random comment(s) and to quote The Big Lebowski "Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man." The elites on this site have determined that the opinions of music critics are more worthwhile than those of the average Joe, so don't buck the system, shut up, and color. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  debut ?
Talk:Johannes Rydberg

message: the pdf in the references is gone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.196.206 (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could provide greater detail.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.184.222 (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Telegonus fulgerator

message: See . Concludes that cryptic species may exist (are indeed likely to exist given the vast range), but that Hebert et al have tweaked their data to prove a point, and that most of theirs cannot be accepted at present. Dysmorodrepanis 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Disputed" tag

message: Even though several species may hide behind the A. fulgerator name, it is still a binomen and should have author and year of description behind it at least in the taxobox.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.138.111 (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I just added the author and year of it being described. Thank you for pointing it out. Megan|talkcontribs 13:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy? 