lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Category talk:Environmentalists

message: The category "Environmentalists" is quite broad, including both activists, organizers, theorists/writers, philosophers, essayists, and so on. It makes it a little hard to include it in parent categories correctly.  Could we better organize it by creating the categories "environmental activists", "environmentalist writers", "environmental studies scholars", and some category for supporters of environmentalism who are well-known as such but are not, per se, activists (I'm thinking of, for instance, celebrity environmentalists). ???  Some people would have multiple cats instead of "environmentalist", but it would probably also replace some of the other more generic cats like "writers".  Thoughts? --lquilter 17:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that the category is quite broad. I like the idea of a split into "environmental activists", "environmental writers", "environmental scholars" (or suchlike). I don't see the need for a category those who agree with the environmentalists but are not known for anything notable in the field. Alan Liefting 11:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On second thoughts it is not a good idea to have such categories as "environmental activists" since they would become very large. I have been placing environmentalists in their seperate country categories.  All the entries in this category should also be placed in country categories. Alan Liefting 20:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I see the problem with a broad, inclusive category page for a broad, inclusive group like "environmentalists."  A worse problem all over WP are categoy pages that send you out to, say, 3 or 4 articles.  (Alan, I suspect you hear this point, since I know you proposed deletion of a few environment cats. last week).  I mean, the real goal is that someone who googles Chico Mendez can find his WP page, read something halfway right about him, link to environmentalists at the bottom of the page and find out about lots of other important, or somewhat important, people.  The problem with a lot of small categories is that you read about Chico, click on, Brazilian environmental activists, and find out he's the only one famous enough in the US to have a WP bio.  Envirocorrector 17:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category name
Talk:List of by-elections to the Senedd

message: 2 Points I disagree, Peter Law was an Independent when he died.
Also ahve you guys forgoton about the Swansea East by-election?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1568106.stm
:On Law's party - whilst I agree he was, virtually all listings are seeking to ascertain the change by the voters - hence comparison to the last election. The listings for UK Parliament by-elections contain a lot of cases of by-elections in seats where the elected member had changed party and this method is the best for showing when the voters changed their mind.
:As for Swansea East fair play. I recall a lot of people talking about Blaenau Gwent as the first ever Assembly by-election so it seems everyone forgot the earlier one. Timrollpickering 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: For consistency with the other lists I think we should list the holding party as that when the seat was last contested. When a member has moved party we can put their new alleigance second (so Peter Law would be Labour/Independent) but even if the move is upheld in the by-election it should be treated as a gain. Timrollpickering 09:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. —Nightstallion (?) 09:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with this. Good to keep the standard doktorb wordsdeeds 11:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this have a grey background now, to signify an independent gain? —Nightstallion (?) 12:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, did it myself. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holdng party

message: I've re-added the list of regional member resignations as I think it's important that these are all recorded in one place.
As the Assembly is still a fairly new institution and there haven't been too many by-elections and list changes I think it's logical to have them on a single page. Over time it might be necessary to split them.
I've renamed this page accordingly. 
The only other option would be to have two separate pages, but at present I think that would be unnecessary. 
Happy to debate/discuss, but please do not just delete Paulharding150 (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, you don't just get to impose your view unilaterally. There is a procedure for debating page moves (WP:RM). I don't agree with your logic of stitching together by-elections and regional member appointments. This isn't how it is done with the Scottish Parliament articles, for example. Regional member changes there are recorded in the parliamentary term articles, e.g. 5th Scottish Parliament. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you object then I'll make a new page for changes, I think (and I stress I think) it's better to have all the changes together rather than spread over five articles. Paulharding150 (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional Member changes
Talk:Willem Johan Kolff

message: This remarkable man is still alive. JFW | T@lk 09:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was until February 2009. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Tears of Pearl

message: redirecting to Tears of Pearls Sparkleyone 09:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, i don't know how to rename pages and of course i only noticed my mistake AFTER creating and filling out the article Sunhawk 19:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problems, I've done the same thing myself heaps of times! Sparkleyone 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Yaz

message: Yaz born 15 April (year unknown) in Bosnia
A.K.A. Jevante
* See also: YAZ is a C/C++ programmer´s toolkit supporting the development of Z39.50v3 clients and servers. http://www.indexdata.dk/yaz/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.37.190.186 (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

message: I am finding alerts about the use of YAZ, the birth control pill widely advertised on TV and print ads. 
This was prescribed to me in 2007 after a laparoscopy to remove an ovarian cyst. I was experiencing heavy bleeding and was anemic before the surgery. I was 52 and my surgeon/doctor concluded I had endometriosis and needed to be hormonally regulated until I finished going through menopause.
 After only a week, I felt awful. WHY? I ended up in the ER after 2 weeks on this drug. I was dehydrated and could barely walk in from the car after hours of vomiting. The desk nurse grabbed a wheelchair and rushed me back to triage. 
When I checked back with my GYN, again I was told to start back on YAZ, my trip to the ER was unrelated to YAZ. I was encouraged in the information provided and by my GYN's office to persevere, it could take 3 months for my body to adjust to the medication. I am happy to say, I rejected this and started a vitamin and herbal regime that built up my poor depleted reproductive system. I felt amazingly better. When I went back for my post-op recheck, armed with the supplements I had taken, my doctor looked at their inserts, saw black cohosh as a very small part of the balance of herbal ingredients and told me I was playing a dangerous game, black cohosh was being studied at medical schools and was suspected of hurting women's health. I was sitting there in front of him, feeling better than I had in 6 months and yet, this reaction and scare tactic and advice for another trial of YAZ. Black cohosh, on the other hand, has been taken by women for many, many years and I do not see law suits against its producers.
I share this personal tale to pose this, why do physicians prescribe drugs that have such a checkered testing history that drug companies print elaborate cautionary inserts? Why is our own body's response not the ultimate arbiter of how good any substance is for us? I am happy now that I listened to my own body and took YAZ for only those 2 weeks. I now get daily emails from law firms looking for clients for class action suits against YAZ. I obviously was not alone in my response.Crowmick (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  YAZ, the birth control
Talk:Pruning shears

message: The reason for  a merge is that Americans don't use the word secateurs, but call them loppers. So I suggest we put all these terms and varied meanings on this one page, with explanations of usage. I'll find out what Australians call the different tools. JackyR | Talk 09:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We called them secateurs in Australia too.70.189.154.46 (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

text: No, apparently the American who posted on Talk:Secateurs was just confused. So scrub that idea. :-) JackyR | Talk 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked another American here and when I described secateurs, he called them small pruning shears, and when I described loppers, he called them large pruning shears.  I would call the large tool branch cutters, but Home Depot and Lowes call them loppers.  (Though they also stock "bypass pruners" which look like secateurs.)  I think secateurs should be merged here; loppers are at least distinctly two-handed. -- Beland (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi -- I'm American and I've never heard the term "choinstein (for anything, including shears of any sort)." I'm pretty sure this is vandalism but before I delete I wanted to doublecheck. Sugarbat (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Well, M-W says "secateurs" is British for "pruning shears", so I implemented the merge and removed the that confusing unreferenced passage. -- Beland (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Layout needs work.  Photos disrupting See also and other section lines.  Not my skill. Help?  Duff (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: The statement that there are three types: anvil, bypass and parrot beak is incorrect. There are at least four: Anvil, Bypass, Double-blade and the vintage-style parrot-beak, and probably others. The parrot beak does not have two concave blades. One blade is concave, the other convex at the back and concave at the front. It is also unfair to say they are only any good for thin stems. I find them to be a fantastic all-rounder and especially good for roses, getting through stems the others I have give up on. 151.170.240.200 (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Types
Talk:Sam Stayman

message: The article doesn't mention NAMYATS, a well known convention also invented by S. Stayman (it can be found on the polish version of wikipedia ).--Anax 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newwhist (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namyats? 
Talk:Spanish architecture

message: I've noticed that most of the article is lacking sufficient sources, but as I've worked on Moorish/Islamic architecture articles already, I've gone ahead and revised that section at least. Most of the section here was again simply unsourced, aside from a few small details, and some of it did not make proper use of reliable sources, such as the citation of Ibn Arabi, a medieval primary source that shouldn't be used for a summary section like this (or at all; see WP:PSTS). Significant details were therefore incorrect, awkward (unencyclopedic tone or using uncommon terms), or out of touch with what reliable (scholarly) sources would say. For sake of efficiency I've copied and adapted relevant content from the "Art and architecture" summary section at al-Andalus, which I recently revised as well. I've kept the few parts of the existing section here that were sourced, but replaced or rewrote most of the rest. I figured I'd make this talk section here to more clearly explain this large edit and to provide room to raise any questions or concerns. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising al-Andalus section
Talk:Type I submarine

message: I changed these:
*Lenth: 72.39 meters
*Beam: 4.3 meters
based on Bernard Fitzsimons, The Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare (London: Phoebus, 1978), Volume 23, p.2537. From there I also added #TT & guns. I must question that "max depth" number. That looks like crush depth, to me. More typically quoted is test depth; for a 1935 U-boat, I'd expect around 250-300ft. Have you got a firmer number?  Trekphiler 11:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Up to spec
Talk:Type II submarine

message: modeled after the Finnish CV-707. Thats not entirely correct. Due to the Treaty of Versailles German weaponmanufactorers and the army decided to set up an engineering company in the Netherlands. Thus skipping the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty. It designed a submarine that was sold to Finnland. --Tresckow 19:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish 

message: For the IID it states "The range was nearly doubled to 3,450 nautical miles at 12 knots and enabled the Type II to operate around the British Isles.", which would indicate hat the previous types were limited to just the coast. Yet if you look at the individual IIC records, several of them were at various points off of Scotland, Ireland, and other places in the North Sea. It also looks as if it's range was sufficient to do so as well. Perhaps it should be "sustained operations", as it does look as if Type IIC would be able to head to England, mull around a bit, then have to head back before too long.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.226.163 (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range 
Talk:Type XIV submarine

message: "Milk cow duty was especially hazardous; 289 sailors were killed out of an estimated complement of 530–576 men"
Out of 40.000 German U-boot man 30.000 died, I think. So, the opposite of this statement might be true.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.176.187.64 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong statement

message: I assume this is nautical miles? If so, is the SI unit abbreviation really the same as newton-meters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.208.251.21 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: nm as range

message: The first paragraph states:
"They had no offensive weaponry ...
But then goes on to state:
"In addition to carrying ... four torpedoes ..."
Torpedoes are offensive weaponry, so perhaps the paragraph should begin:
"They had minimal offensive weaponry ..."
I am not well informed in this field, so I won't make the change myself.
Karl gregory jones (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I repeatedly stated in reverts: No torp tubes, torps only carried as cargo to resupply other U-boats. --Denniss (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Offensive Weaponry
Talk:Type 1936A destroyer

message: Did this class of ships have names? Should mention and acknowledge the issue either way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfzimmerman (talk • contribs) 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ship names

message: "They were intended to carry two forward guns in a twin turret, but as the twin turrets were not ready in time, early class 1936As carried a single mounted gun forward." - according to German Wikipedia Z23 and Z24 HAD twin turrets but they proved too heavy for operation! What is true?
151.136.147.145 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guns
Talk:Rivers State

message: The official name of Rivers State's capital is Port Harcourt. Any other addition to the official name should be backed up by reliable verifiable sources. I have thusly removed the additions next to the official name. Please do not re-add it unless you back it up with reliable verifiable sources. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name 
Talk:Tribe (British TV series)

message: Why has this page been redirected? The program is called Tribe, not Going Tribal. --Mercifull 10:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it has different titles in the US and UK.  I've seen it before (Junkyard Wars vs. Scrapheap Challenge).  In the US it is most definitely Going Tribal.  If the title is different where you are then the article should be updated to reflect the multiple names. --StuffOfInterest 10:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I created the article as Going Tribal because that's what it is known as here in the US. However, if you think there's justification in changing the name to Tribe, be my guest. I was under the impression that since it is jointly produced by the BBC and the Discovery channel, it is both a British and an American show. Fearfulsymmetry 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need.  UK nationalism aside (and to think how people complain about the US), both titles are mentioned in the article and both names get to the correct article.  Flipping it is more trouble than it is worth. --StuffOfInterest 23:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: I've redirected to Tribe as this is its original airing title, it was renamed Going Tribal when shown in the US, but the title should reflect its original name, and now it does.--NeilEvans 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it back until the move can be done properly.  This should have been handled as a page move rather than a content copy.  Now and admin will need to clear the destination before a proper move can take place.  Also, I believe the episode names should stay as just because one place doesn't use them they are still appropriate for another market. --StuffOfInterest 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Successor state

message: Is the path from Roman Empire to Turkey actually legitimate? —Felix the Cassowary 10:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too was wondering in what sense the Ottoman Empire could really be considered to be the "successor state" of the Byzantine Empire, other than one conquering the other.  In the late 15th century, I think Russia claimed to be the Byzantine successor state (and had a better claim as far as dynastic and religious continuity went...).  The article needs some rewriting. AnonMoos 17:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman empire -> Turkey? 

message: Would Kievan Rus' > Russia, Ukraine and Belarus be an acceptable example?
Lemmy Kilmister 11:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kievan Rus' 

message: It's written in the text "Third Reich, and eventually to the Federal Republic of Germany." Im Germany this topic is very contentious. See for this also the article in the german wikipedia Deutsches Reich law status and the main article status of the Deutsches Reich. --134.147.116.52 10:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Reich and modern Germany 

message: removed "Palestine to jew occupied Palestine. Know to the jews as israel."
Violates NPOV principle. Additionally, this does not fit under the term, IMO, as Palestine was a British protectorate, not a state.
Bogfjellmo 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel/Palestine 

message: I merged [[Successor state" entirely into Succession of states. Hult041956 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged to "Successor state"
Portal talk:Nudity/Did you know

message: "... that it is possible to edit Wikipedia while nude, and many people do so?"- This is a no-brainer. And whatever happened to the no-self referening thing about Wikipedia. Even the other DYK "... that cultural and legal acceptance of public nudity varies regionally?" is a no-brainer. If you don't have anything to write, don't write. why make a useless portal? 203.110.244.21 10:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a Did you know?
Talk:Unitarian trick

message: "the unitarian trick (occasionally unitarian trick)" looks like a repetition to me. maybe "Weyl's unitarian trick" was intended to be in parenthesis?
:since Unitary trick redirects here, I think it was intended to be the alternative. I've edited accordingly. Hv 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: The page on semisimple Lie algebras states
    * \mathfrak g is semisimple if and only if every representation is completely reducible, 
      that is for every invariant subspace of the representation there is an invariant complement (Weyl's theorem).
directing here. It's hard to find a clear definition of Weyl's theorem here on the "unitarian trick"-page, and I'm not able to derive it from what's here. Does anyone perhaps have a better reference that we could cite? Especially good would be one where the theorem is explicitly stated. 192.38.109.188 16:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weyl's theorem
Template talk:WikiProject Mathematics

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Maths rating →  – This template is hard to find using WP:Rater because it's inconsistently named with all the other project banners. From above, it looks like there's some history of this project doing something funky, but that's been ironed out and no longer applies.  talk 18:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Support per nom. This really should have happened a long time ago... Gonnym (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 August 2021 

message: @MSGJ Can you provide evidence of the field parameter being marked as historical please? ~~~~User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the project subpages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Assessment/Analysis were marked historical in 2012  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fields 

message: As discussed on Template_talk:WikiProject_banner_shell#Mention_on_WP%3AMerging%23How_to_merge, the current WikiProject template does not autorecognise redirects, which used to needlessly populate Category:Unassessed mathematics articles. Therefore, I request the change suggested there,
replacing the line |class =  with |class=. Felix QW (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Primefac (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  should not have been necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2022 

message: WOSlinker: Thank you for your efforts, but whatever you just did, it's causing Multiline table in list lint errors. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is fixed. I don't know what caused it and I don't know what fixed it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change caused Multiline table in list lint errors