lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:91/Perris Valley Line

message: Does anyone have any information about the extension to Temecula?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Cousert (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any updates on the Temecula extension? Is it still in the planning stages or has it been cancelled?108.23.147.17 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Temecula

message: Is it me, or is naming a rail line after a highway some kind of insult to the train, and the towns along the route? Wlindley (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably a deliberate decision to attract ridership from commuters who would otherwise use that particular freeway. 69.42.17.116 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: The article states that the Perris extension could be running in 2010. Is this still correct?
Does anyone know if they stated what the operating hours and days will be?
Will there be connecting bus service to Murrieta and Temecula?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Perris Valley line extension was mentioned in the latest issue of "Metrolink Matters", with only four stations, and not really any other info.  Article updated.  76.168.213.17 (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Metrolink 91/Perris Valley Line is will be no weekend service on the from/to Perris and also will be open on Monday through Friday Service on 5 days a week of Riverside/Hunter Park, Moreno Valley/March Field, Downtown Perris and South Perris is opens on June 6, 2016.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.202.151 (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perris extension 

message: Should Commerce and San Bernadino not be included in this list since no 91 Line (700-Series) trains stop there.  The Metrolink schedule shows OC(600s) and IEOC(800s) on the 91 route, and includes other stations which 91 line trains do not stop at, (Anaheim, Orange, and Anaheim Canyon).  Source: Metrolink 91 Line Schedule. 66.245.192.101 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As of today, the schedule web page no longer lists stations that are not on the 91 Line.  I've updated the article, but kept a specific mention of the Commerce station. 76.168.213.17 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  stations
Category talk:School districts in Ohio

message: I've proposed a standard form for titling these articles.  See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ohio school districts).  PedanticallySpeaking 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've proposed a standard form for naming articles on Ohio school districts:  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ohio school districts), which could easily be extended to apply to districts in other states.  I'd welcome some feedback on this.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention
Talk:Waco Suspension Bridge

message: I noticed SamuelWantmans recent fixes to the article and I wanted to thank him. I get my numbers mixed up and had assumed feet instead of meters when calculating length of bridges.. Thanks again SamuelWantman.. glad you have an eye for these sorts of things!
--Aika 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: No bicycle traffis is allowed on the brigde? Not even a small tour onto the bridge with a unicycle, or a penny-farthing? --Helium4 (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bicyles? 

message: The picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WacoBridge02.jpg shows two pillars that on a first look seem to stand underneath the suspension bridge. Provocating questions occur ...
But the shadow - deep, hitting the water line - on the leftmost pillar reveals (together with the flat angle of sunlight one can see from the shadow of the span of the bridge at the right tower of the bridge in the right part of the picture) the fact that these pillars stand a certain distance behind the suspension bridge, As remainings from a dismounted bridge that led to a further pillar one can see at the shore. --Helium4 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 isolated pillars do not belong to this bridge
Talk:Olustee Battlefield Historic State Park

message: Two of the external links on this page, Absolutely Florida and Wildernet, are commercial links and should be deleted. Trfasulo (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial links

message: Box says "established in 1970" but Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials took over the site from the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1949. Doesn't this mean it became a Florida park then. Or even earlier? Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: When did Olustee become a Florida park?

message: I was informed that a new sign, or redesigned sign, is now at the park entrance. Someone should take a photo of it and replace the older image. Not having any type of camera, I can't do so. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign at park entrance
Talk:HPV vaccine

message: This article should be updated with this information.
VGX-3100, is a DNA-based immunotherapy that has the potential to be the first treatment for cervical HPV infection and the first non-surgical treatment for precancerous cervical lesions. Currently in phase III trials, preliminary results show a positive effect on decreasing cervical dysplasia and eliminating HPV infection. 186.15.12.15 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We are looking for a review per WP:MEDRS. There are currently none. We already have a section on the topic HPV_vaccines#Therapeutic_vaccines Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New VGX-3100 Vaccine 

message: We are a group of second year pharmacy students who will be working together to update and edit this article.  I will work to modify and implement current recommendations to improve this article. This includes discussing current controversy surrounding vaccine implementation with reliable sources, and to identify reliable sources for discussing age expansion and side effects.  Yalda22 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Yalda22 as mentioned on your talk page, secondary sources are required per WP:MEDRS. If you are not sure what these are please ask. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations II 2019 Group 2C Goals 

message: ""In April 2007, Australia became the first country to introduce a national government-funded human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program"[94].  Yet the page asserts that this paper references the fact that it was the "second country - after Austria" to do so. If it was the second country, a reference with dates for the start of the program in Austria is needed. MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference DOEs not substantiate the fact asserted
Talk:Projection (mathematics)

message: I did not understand this article at all, it was very hard to read for the novice.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.8.168.252 (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: For the Lay Person

message: Jon Awbrey 16:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes & Queries

message: In the lead of the article it says:
:a projection is any one of several different types of functions, mappings, operations, or transformations
This doesn't tell us very much.  Is there a better description/definition for projection that captures the general meaning?
pgr94 (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does projection mean? 

message: I suggest that the new article combining dimensions be merged here. The term combining dimensions is just a naive way of referring to projection. The entire content of that article is to say that projection is a way to visualize aspects of a higher dimensional phenomenon, as is often done by certain physicists. As a use of projection, it perhaps can be dealt with here in a sentence. On its own, it will remain a stub forever. Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this proposal is rather old, I support it. However, a better target for the merge would be Projection (linear algebra). By the way, Projection (geometry) would probably be an even better target, if the article would exist. D.Lazard (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wouldn't dimensionality reduction be a better target for the merge/redirect? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merge 

message: maybe better to split the artiicle up into
* projection (geometry) for the non-analytic geometry parts
* projection (analytic geometry) for the analytic geometry parts
* projection (mathematics) for the rest 
Motivation: many geometry articles are to much analytic geometry orientated (probably because most mathematics is now a days analytic /algabraic) while the average person is much more in the geometry of models.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.230.37 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 24 January 2014‎
:IMO, this article is not long enough for deserving to be split. Moreover, the different concepts of projection are strongly related, and a split would makes navigation difficult, and possibly confusing, for non-experts. On the other hand, I agree that presently, the article is confusing. It seems that the best solution would be to create clearly named sections, such that "In geometry", "In linear algebra" (with a template ), "In set theory and category theory", ... Such a structure would allows better explaining how these superficially different concepts are strongly related. Also, the lead is too long, and some parts of it, such as the definition of geometric projections, should be moved to the body.
:Are you willing for starting this rewrite? D.Lazard (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting it up?
Talk:David Riske

message: Random factoids, no structure, poor English and no cited sources. Encyclopedic? No. Delete it, it's 100% pure Wikiality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.48.223 (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This "ARTICLE" is a total Mess 
Talk:78th Academy Awards nominees

message: Why do we have the nominations here and in the main article?  There's no need to list them in two places. My recommendation is that we direct this to 78th Academy Awards -- MisterHand 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, what should be done with 76th Academy Awards nominees and 77th Academy Awards nominees. Merge them to 76th Academy Awards and 77th Academy Awards, respectively? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in two places?
Talk:USS Wisconsin

message: There is already a full article for the USS Wisconsin, thus, this incomplete article should be erased.
:This article is not intended to be a full article.  Instead it is a shipindex page which is designed to help users disambiguate between the multiple ships that may be refered to as the USS Wisconsin. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:R. C. Slocum

message: This article is seriously POV messed up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.75.213 (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are more than welcome to fix it. Make sure to follow the rules though. BlueAg09 (Talk) 04:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV
Category talk:Bacteria

message: The categories 'bacteriology' and 'bacteria' are messed up, incomplete and need an overhaul.
I believe that original intention was to place bacterial species in 'bacteria' and use bacteriology for subjects related to the study of the bacteria, such as diseases.
I'll start updating in a few day from now - any additional ideas are welcome.
Spitshine 17:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unititled commnet
Talk:TNA Triple Crown

message: Object. The existing triple crown article is already long and cluttered. McPhail 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merge

message: Shouldn`t the TNA Triple Crown be considered as what happened only in TNA. I think that if you win the X Division Championship and won the other 2 NWA before they were considered as a TNA title. --Soopafred 05:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple Crown pre-NWA 

message: Do we really need a seperate article for the TNA Triple Crown? The size of this article is practically the same size as the TNA bit of the Triple Crown article that we already have. Not to mentiont that the regular article for the TNA area is more up-to-date than this article. I move we merge this article with the Triple Crown Champion article that we already have. If someone can add in the suggest merge tags, that'd be great. I don't know what they are. Anakinjmt 04:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that long or cluttered, and there is no point in having a separate TNA article for this when there is a TNA section in the normal article. And, don't take out the propose merge tags just because YOU disagree with them. Please make any further comments on the talk page for Triple Crown Champion. Thank you. Anakinjmt 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bringing up idea of merge yet again
Category talk:Vietnamese poker players

message: These are all Vietnamese-Americans, and should not be included as "Vietnamese poker players". Instead they should be under Vietnamese-Americans. User:Le Anh-Huy
: Poker players are currently categorised by birth country and resident country. As such you should find that they are listed as Vietnamese and American separately. Obviously though, Xuyen Pham is not Vietnamese-American. Essexmutant 09:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment
Talk:GWB

message: OK, "res ipse loquitur" just means ...well, "Don't confuse this with something complicated, this thing so simple that the truth of it might as well be written on its face in magic marker"  More specifically,  "ISO code  for the Gwa language of Nigeria", is short, and tells the very rare reader for whom it's relevant, briefly and unambiguously, how to find the details.--JerzyA (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redid flaky entry
Talk:Vladimir Shukhov

message: Alex, is the article complete? If it is, let's DYK it. --Ghirla | talk 17:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Template talk:Major poker tournaments

message: Wasn't sure of what to do with WSOPA.  It's technically a circuit event, but because it's in Africa, I think it deserves its own entry.  So, I added it to the ther "other" section under the WSOPA.  If you think it needs a different presentation, feel free to change it.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WSOP Africa
Template talk:WSOP Main Event champions

message: There should be repeats listed otherwise why would we list the winners by order? It is showing the winners by year. It should be shown by year won and if not at least mention that they won back to back. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeats use should be listed 

message: One reference per winner is fine, the template happens to be ordered by year first won. You might be confusing templates with structured lists, eg "List of WSOP winners" which would note multiple winners, dates etc. There is no provision for simple templates to have multiple links or references. Deiz talk 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 ref per name 

message: Anyone think we should include the year that each player won? Like "Peter Eastgate (2008)". Gary King (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the year that they won?
Talk:Peter Cohan

message: I'm sorry, but this guy seems like a random talking-head type.  Does he really deserve his own wikipedia entry?
Agreed, total talking head.
Yup. Someone tell the guy Wikipedia =/= LinkedIn.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.48.255.20 (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Old South

message: under Geographic usage: Tennessee is (was) not a border state. The border of TN did not touch any Union States. {unsigned}
Arkansas was not a border state either...This is really not making any sense.  Basically, it is almost as if this article calls Arkansas a Deep South state as well as a border state.  It's pretty confusing.ArkSoutherner 17:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: border state

message: Regarding this sentence:
:Certain groups now wish to rescue the term from racist connotations by stating that they desire to celebrate only the things about the Old South which might be considered "good", such as "southern chivalry".
Southern Chivalry is racist in origin because it arose from the Souths fascination with all things connected to Sir Walter Scott, and in particular his novel Ivanhoe, which is set in Feudal times. Chivalry is also of "feudal" origin and was the aesthetic ideal of Scott's novels. Why is feudalism racist? Because many have compared the Southern social system with its lords and serfs, which is why it held such obsession for the south in the 19thC. See also Twains Huckleberry Finn. -- Stbalbach 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chivalry

message: First let me say, I'm not trying to start a flame war about North vs South, slavery, etc...
I added a 'citation needed' to the statement "In Colonial times, it was largely dominated by slave owning plantations."  A lack of citation is only one of the problems here.  What does culturally dominated mean?  Did the majority of non-slave residents own plantations?  Did the majority of non-slave residents own slaves?  Was Native American culture of the old south dominated by plantations, or do you mean the culture of everyone except the Native Americans?  
Or, does this statement mean to say that life in the old south was rural and agricultural, as opposed to urban?
Maybe it would be fair to say that it was economically dominated by slave-owning plantations... I don't know the facts, and I would like a source for that kind of statement too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.26.209 (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominated by slave owning plantations? 

message: Could someone please add the names of these states within the map drawing? To any non-american reader, this is guesswork. 2003:C0:DF11:4300:99B1:6E80:893C:5534 (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names?
Talk:Fresh Horses (film)

message: I remember seein gthis movie as a kid, and being really pissed that there were no horses except for a wide shot of a farm or something. On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong. Either way I think this info needs to be put in the article.Heinleinfan 20:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In July 2009, this article was tagged for resemblance to the IMDB plot summary. Investigation suggests that the material originated here. The earliest archive of the IMDB summary is August 2006 (). The plot summary was started here in May 2005. At that time, the only resemblance was the first sentence. It was the following month before it was expanded to include the next two, here. Always good to be vigilant about such things, but in this particular case it seems we are in the clear. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright concerns
Talk:Allegheny, Pennsylvania

message: There has never been a place called "Allegheny, Pittsburgh".  Allegheny, Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania were two cities located on opposite banks of the Allegheny River.  Pittsburgh annexed Allegheny in 1906-11.  The "Allegheny, Pittsburgh" descriptive does not fit anything, and the information in the page is virtually worthless.  141.158.119.187 17:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I started to re-org / re-write this article.  It still needs plenty of work.  Please help if you can.  Wjb 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Re-write
Talk:Multiple realizability

message: This article needs to be re-written for a non specialist audience
::You know, the more I think about this matter, the more ridiculous this claim seems.  This article is NOT the kind of thing that you will find in ANY general encylopedia. Why should I write it as if it were being written for a general encylopedia. 
:Not in this lifetime, bud. This article would not even exist if I hadn't created it. I am the oly one who touches it.  No one else here touches such topics at all. Thereofre, in all likelihood, you'r stuck with trying to learn the material.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, this is a techincal topic. IMO, it is insufficently specialzied and techinal. If you want non-techincal, you have Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The West Wing and all sorts of other pages. Dumbing down challenging ideas never helped anyone. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, here's a challenge for you: write a Simple English Wikipedia version of this article. --Xyzzyplugh 22:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How much money??--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ask Judith Butler or other theorists to do it for you!! Simple English is against there religion.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

message: If someone could take anything salvageable from that page and put it in here then turn it into a redirect that'd be great --WikiSlasher 10:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Multiple realisability]] 

message: "Functionalism has consequently fallen out of vogue as a dominant theory in the philosophy of mind[citation needed]. The dominant theory ("received view" in the words of Lepore and Pylyshyn) in modern philosophy of mind is a sort of generic non-reductive physicalism and one of its central pillars is the hypothesis of multiple realizability"
This claim seems highly contentious. Even were a citation provided, such a reference would still be the opinion of just one (or one group of) philosophers/scientists, and as such would do little to make the claim more secure. Functionalism/CTM is still very much the dominant theory in phsychology and cognitve science. See, for example, the work being done on analogial reasoning at Stanford University by Gentner. 62.244.185.135 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinionated
Talk:The Independent (2000 film)

message: Is that list really necessary? Anyhow, i've fixed the list... Even if it is a waste of space it might as well be tidy ;) Sean 01:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictitious Filmography 

message: Human subject 204.111.9.61 (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eddie pence jr harrisonburg va
Talk:Orange County (film)

message: "*Jack Black's character Lance has a sort of catchphrase: the word "exscape."
- I removed that piece of trivia, becuase it's hardly trivial. I'm sure he says that only once.. If i'm wrong, please disregard this.
Tommyhaych 00:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This isn't trivia.. 

message: "Having an epiphany, Shaun realizes his misguided intentions and apologizes to Ashley. They pick up Lance, still hiding from police, and go home."
Shaun came across Lance first as he was hiding from the police, They then went to get Ashley, who they had to convince to get in the car as she was still angry at Sean. 208.69.184.110 (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect order
Talk:Duplex (film)

message: It says in the end of the plot section that the policeman was her son's lover! Was that really the case? Were the policeman and her son gay?! I don't remember getting that impression when I watched that movie. (Trikita (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policeman is her son's lover?