lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Barbara Creed

message: Potential sources to update with:
Working to update theory, filmography, and awards. Suggestions on places to find more biographical information as well are welcome.
Chaudhuri, Shohini. Feminist Film Theorists : Laura Mulvey, Kaja Silverman, Teresa De Lauretis, Barbara Creed. London ; New York: Routledge, 2006. Print. Routledge Critical Thinkers.
Grant, and Grant, Barry Keith. The Dread of Difference : Gender and the Horror Film. 1st ed. Austin: U of Texas, 1996. Print. Texas Film Studies Ser.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barbara_Creed
http://www.humanities.org.au/Fellowship/FindFellows/tabid/123/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1487/Creed-Barbara.aspx
Kathryn Wohlpart (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I created this page because it was an uncreated link from the Abjection entry. I believe her theories are incredibly valuable to researchers of horror, cinema and psychoanalysis. Researchers in those fields would probably like to know something about the author of the books they are using.
I am in the process of adding sources to verify her notability.
Tullyis 03:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please don't delete

message: Very good lead section, easy to understand, and establishes her importance well. The lead section also does a good job of framing the work to be explored. You might consider moving her accolades to another section (the Human Rights and Australian academy business), because with those two moved, the lead section frames the heavier content of your article. Your 'Work' Category is very well organized and flows nicely; starting with the definition of the monstrous feminine and then moving into each work that Barbara has written is a good move, we have the context necessary to understand what follows. I like that you have a shortened title for each work, but you might want to consider listing the full title of her essays within the text (leaving the headings abbreviated) so that we don't need to pan down to the notes section to discover that they are essays. You do a very excellent job of staying neutral in your presentation! I see that you have some more sources in your proposed bibliography and you might want to consider using a few so that all citations are not linked specifically to Barbara Creed; I think you'll run into issues with the article being biased (even in its neutral presentation) if the only person cited is Creed. Great work!Mhenkelman (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review
Talk:The White Hell of Pitz Palu (1929 film)

message: Is it somewhere on the internet? A link would be cool.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.44.153 (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain 

message: (The first two contributors to this section added their comments to the Piz Palü page, from where this has been copied. It seems, given the amount of reversions, that it is relevant here as well.) Ericoides (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have no beef against a referenced and meaningful addition to this page. It's just that so far all the additions have been along the lines of "The White Hell of Pitz Palu is referenced in Inglourious Basterds by Quentin Tarantino." No reference, no detail as to what the mountain (as opposed to the Riefenstahl film) is up to in the film. Do we want to add to the Monet page the fact that the camera lingers on a painting by him on the cover of a book in an Ealing comedy, which the protagonists then chat about for a bit? Should we add this fact to the lily page as well? What kind of mention do  you think is best, and does the Tarantino film refer to both the Riefenstahl film and the mountain. If it's just the film being referred to then Tarantino has no place on the mountain page. If you look at the recent history of the The White Hell of Pitz Palu you'll see that a number of editors have removed the same info from there as "unencyclopaedic". Ericoides (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piz Palü in Inglourious Basterds 

message: There's a sentence in the plot section about Hans being jealous because of "Hans awaking to find Krafft's under the heading a smiling Maria".  I'd fix this sentence, but I don't know exactly what's trying to be said.  Krafft's what?  His head?  Under the head of Maria?  I get the general idea, but I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know exactly what is shown.  Can someone fix this sentence?Wood Monkey 07:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading?
Talk:Law and literature

message: The introduction of this article reads like an advertisement for the importance of law and literature. These claims need to be rewritten in a way that reflects that they are such (opinionated assertions) rather than facts. Cjs2111 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This reads like a law review article. It's far from objective third-party reporting and much more like persuasive essay-writing. In addition, the footnotes are not attached and thus there is little indication of which sources are used to reference which statements. NPOV may not be the most accurate tag, but the article is certainly in need of cleanup. I've re-added a few more appropriate tags. -Thibbs (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: This is a problematic article. No citations, literature list is far too long for an encyclopedia, too much biographical information on the scholars mentioned, if they are notable such things can be mentioned in their own articles, this article is about law and literature and should only mention their contributions to that field. I deleted a long list of titles and short summaries of a number of novels under the heading "Suggested reading". There was no indication what it had to do with the article subject and Wikipedia is not a college curriculum. Please keep content on the subject. This article has a long way to go before it reads like an encyclopedic article and not an historiographic article in an academic journal (except of course that even in such a publication there would be citations). --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article problems 

message: I have been reading through the critiques of this article and will be taking some time of the next few weeks to make some necessary edits. I notice this page has not been edited in a few years. I will mostly be adding or correcting citations and editing the biographical information to make it less opinionated. Vibrants.Sami (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, , if it's OK I'll start by cutting down the section "Significant contributions to the movement,' which has been templated for years. For one thing, it does not  talk about Significant contributions, but only gives squibs on scholars chosen by no discernible principle, and the squibs are not sourced. I will leave only those who seem to be Notable enough to have articles. Cheers. ch (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Edits
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas A&M/Announcements

message: ===FLC Football coaches===
22:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * Update, the page was promoted!  Great work. Oldag07 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Nice! — BQZip01 — talk 02:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: WHOOP! BlueAg09 (Talk) (Talk) (Talk) 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work everyone!! — BQZip01 — talk
===Wikibreak===
06:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Update:  Any members of the project are eligible to critique the article for FA status and vote on what you think.  BQZip01 has made a lot of really helpful suggestions and has now voted to support.  Karanacs 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Another source http://engineer.tamu.edu/communications/publications/TAME_standards.pdf
–
===Maroon color===
03:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It wasn't the bots fault.  whoever put that placed the template on that site accidently labeled it an FA with both the State of Texas WikiProject and ours.  I fixed it yesterday, but the bot hasn't fixed the stat page yet.Oldag07 00:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:List of Ottawa Senators general managers

message: The GMs list should be in chronological order, with Bridgman on top & Murray at the bottom. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't object if you change it. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological order 
Talk:Howard family

message: Did Lady Margaret Mowbray marry a Sir Robert or a Sir Richard? Or was the couple Robert-Margaret not the same as the couple Richard-Margaret whose son was John Howard? 
 
Ah, I seem to have answered my own question by following the external link. It was Robert; I changed the erroneous name. The article could be written more clearly but I won't touch it any further, Tudor peerage not being my cup of ale.  Axel 04:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I changed "a fanciful descent" to "legendary" descent. I think the latter retains the same implication that the descent is not well-attested, while remaining neutral as to whether it is correct; whereas the former strongly implied that it was fabricated. Aurodea108 (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fanciful" vs "Legendary"
Talk:Purana Mandir

message: I believe I've expanded and sourced the article enough to make it notable as per WP:NFILM, WP:NFSOURCES. All of the source used are independent and reliable including Gulf News, The Telegraph, India Today, DNA India, Bollywood hungama and a few books. WP:PROD template should be removed IMO. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD 

message: I just corrected the information under "Box Office" without deleting the claim that the film surpassed Laawaris at the box office in 1984. I just added that the claim could not possibly be accurate because Purana Mandir was nowhere on the list of the ten most successful films of 1984, and it could not have surpassed Laawaris for the year 1984 because Laawaris was a 1981 release. The claim was made on the basis of an article published in DNA and it seems the writer of the article did not take the pain of verifying the claim. Please do make the correction, if I have made a mistake. Thanks. -- HemRaj Singh (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed the contentious part on Lawaris and kept only the budget and gross. Also removed personal analysis on it based on sources per WP:COMMENTARY, WP:SYNTH. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's fine. Thanks. HemRaj Singh (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Office Edit
Talk:Great Western Garment Co.

message: hi, i am the creator of the page... i'm new at this, so i don't have all the formatting down, but why flagged for deletion? mention of pricing scheme?
GWG is a historic company of significance to the province of alberta, and to canada as a whole. i am amazed there isn't a page already.
Smokestack 04:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Charlie Bartlett

message: When is this being released? Was it pushed back from its August 2 release? 24.118.149.157 16:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: The film The Frighteners had a villain named Johnny Charles Bartlett.  Why is this not worthy of mention?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Askpeeves1 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My interesting facts addition was removed about Johnny Charles Bartlett 

message: One thing I noticed while watching the film was the amount of Modest Mouse material. I know there were 2 or 3 posters of Modest Mouse through the movie and possibly some songs, I don't remember, seeing as I saw the movie probably about a year ago, but that might be worth mentioning. I sure remember pointing it out to my friend. AgentHappyDay (talk) 4/8/09 12:51AM -7:00 Mountain Time Zone  —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Trivia?
Talk:Fisher v Bell

message: While reviewing some foundational cases my focus turned to fisher v. bell. i rose the question to my teacher and he refocused to find the answer myself. My question is in the case who is fisher. Shouldn’t it have been something like R v. bell? The police saw the knife and know the law aggressed bell. So who is fisher... this was not a civil case, was it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayana1 (talk • contribs) 
:I came here trying to find an answer to the same question. The article says that Fisher was a chief inspector in the Bristol police, but still, why wasn't it R v. Bell? I might ask on the Reference Desk if nobody comes along here in a few days and sheds some light on the matter. Marnanel 17:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The claimant 

message: Bell was charged with offering for sale a flick knife, contrary to s. 1 (1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959.
In determining the meaning of 'offering for sale', the court drew on contract law, according to which displaying the knife in the window did not amount to an offer but was merely an invitation to treat.
Previous posts have also dealt with other aspects of this being a criminal case, not contract as it says in the article.
Re literal rule of statutory interpretation: While this is often cited as an example, it is actually a rather odd case to take as exemplifying the literal rule, which is associated with the plain ordinary meanings of words -- whereas the meaning of 'offer' adopted here is very much a lawyer's meaning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MirandaEscobedo (talk • contribs) 10:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is  CRIMINAL law case frequently used to illustrate the literal rule of statutory interpretation
Talk:Bring On the Lucie (Freda Peeple)

message: I note the article name was changed to Bring on the Lucie (Freeda People) on the basis of a compilation album Amazon listing which cited 'Freeda' rather than 'Freda', however the Amazon listing for the album it actually comes from - Mind Games - cites the title as 'Freda Peeple' (single 'e' for Freda, double 'e' for Peeple) for both the original version and a remix - as it is also printed on my own copy. I haven't found anything citing it as an infamous spelling mistake or similar, and I'm inclined to trust the original album more than a later compilation.
I note from Google searches 'Freeda Peeple' is most popular, and 'Freeda People' after that, though this may well be revisionism (intended or otherwise) by those mentioning the song. Perhaps it would be wise to leave it at the name by which it is best known - I'm not certain of policy regarding matters such as this: I'm just raising the issue. Regardless, the naming within the article is inconsistent. - AlKing464 04:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeda People vs. Freda Peeple 

message: What does the Lucie mean? Should be in the article? Airproofing (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lucie? 
Talk:Liam Tuohy (actor)

message: Oppose: As you can see, I have modified this page by improving it with extra credits and two screenshots. This should be enough to stop it being deleted, shouldn't it? Jienum 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page deletion 
Talk:Damian Pettigrew

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 08:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 
Talk:David Mills (TV writer)

message: Re: Undercover Black Man blog used as a source, citing Mills as the author---the blog was written not by Mills, but by his nephew. http://undercoverblackman.blogspot.com/2010/04/blowing-ubms-cover.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.89.27 (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete bull shit. Mills wrote everything except the final post. Reading comprehension, my friend, will do you good in your future. Jbottero (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

text: David Mills wrote the blog except for the final, posthumous entry which was written by his nephew. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Undercover Black Man
Talk:Geometry of numbers

message: Is this arithmogeometry?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.205.201 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  arithmogeometry? 

message: Minkowski died in 1909. Any date such as 1910 seems to refer to a posthumous publication.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.162.31 (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jahrbuch über die Fortschritte der Mathematik review at  describes it as "Manuskript im Nachlasse", i.e. posthumous.  Deltahedron (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1910 

message: "Minkowski's theorem was generalized to topological vector spaces by Kolmogorov, whose theorem states that the symmetric convex sets that are closed and bounded generate the topology of a Banach space.[6]"
The geometry of numbers explores the interplay between specific bodies (e.g., spheres), or classes of bodies (e.g., convex), and lattices. To me this result has no obvious connection with the geometry of numbers, much less is it a generalization. I have published several papers in the area. I'd suggest the assertion should be removed, or at the very least be justified better. Be sure to include the lattice generalization aspect. Symmetry and convexity are ubiquitous in math, so their presence isn't adequate. Getthebasin (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kolmogorov's result 

message: The first two sentences of the introductory paragraph are as follows:
"Geometry of numbers is the part of number theory which uses geometry for the study of algebraic numbers. Typically, a ring of algebraic integers is viewed as a lattice in \mathbb R^n, and the study of these lattices provides fundamental information on algebraic numbers."
Yet the rest of the article says nothing at all about algebraic integers. I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can fill in some details. 2601:200:C000:1A0:F44B:1651:20B7:7463 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about rings of algebraic integers???
Template talk:Introversion Software

message: Links were removed from Uplink (computer game) because "that's what we have templates for".
I read through all the info I could find with regards to the creation of templates and navboxes, and I could not find any guidelines regarding their creation - so if I am in error then I apologise. -AlKing464 04:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reason this exists
Talk:SS Laurentic (1908)

message: Considering this is technologically such an importent ship with being a new design incorporating turbine technology for the very first time in a civilian vessel AND being the precursor experimental design for Titanic and Olympic! Could someone please help?
Outofthewoods (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More Info Please!
Talk:Hans Christian Andersen: My Life as a Fairytale

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  -- — CactusWriter| needles 06:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
File talk:Washington Aqueduct lithograph 1865.jpg

message: This isn't an image of the Washington Aqueduct, which is mostly underground.  This is an image of the Potomac Aqueduct which was a water bridge connecting the C&O Canal to the Alexandria Canal.  The Potomac Aqueduct was sometimes called the Washington Aqueduct.  SDC 05:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Foramen magnum

message: Readily merged. Needlessly fragmented to have as two separate articles. Named structure is related to the foramen, so it would make sense to display it there. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Opisthion]] 

message: As above Tom (LT) (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support both mergers. The anatomical features noted are of dubious notability and would be more in context within this article. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Basion]] 

message: The spinal cord as indicated at beginning of article, and as next stated the medulla oblongata, cannot each pass alone through the foramen magnum.  There may be a transition from one to the other within the foramen magnum but this should be indicated.  I don't know the answer to this, but thought I'd note this here as I pursue this question.  There seems to be a strong sense (opposed by depiction of medulla oblongata at end of article projecting out of foramen magnum) that the point of transition between medulla oblongata/spinalis is within the foramen magnum and this may be close enough to be acceptable (unless your a neurosurgeon), but the question raises some interesting considerations: depth of foramen magnum, distance between inferior extent of foramen magnum and superior extent of atlas, location of origin of roots of 1st cervical nerve within spinal cord, location of start of commissural fibres in spinal cord, beginning or end of other features that can only be either in medulla oblongata or in spinal cord.  Jauntymcd (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both spinal cord and medulla oblongata cannot pass (alone) through foramen magnum
Talk:Squamous part of occipital bone

message: I don't know if it was a result of the merge or just happened but three of the images are pretty much redundant, The first two in the "Additional images" section are of: 1)-a full rotating skull, Squamous part shown in red that rotates, 2)- the second is a partial of the same thing that rotates. Both of these are variations of the first image in the infobox. Since the full rotating skull is not favored as being in the infobox two are excess. Otr500 (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images
Talk:Alles Leben ist Kampf

message: An RfC of possible interest to the editors of this article can be found here.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: An RfC of interest
Talk:Dubai Sports City

message: Other similar articles have been merged with Dubai Sports City Carwile2 *Shoot me a message* 16:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[ICC Academy]] into [[Dubai Sports City]] 

message: Other like articles have been merged with Dubai Sports City. Would promote uniformity and cleanup Carwile2 *Shoot me a message* 16:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Dubai International Cricket Stadium]] into [[Dubai Sports City]]
Talk:Columns (How I Met Your Mother)

message: I removed the Error (said that during a heart attack one grabs their arm, not their chest).  The "classic" heart attack pain is crushing substernal chest pain, sometimes radiating to the left arm or chin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstru (talk • contribs) 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled