lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:World Thinking Day

message: She was born Olave Soames.  She married Sir Robert B-P in 1912, and became Lady Robert B-P.  In 1929 (after the photograph shown) he was created Lord Baden-Powell, but her title remained the same - strictly, Lady Robert B-P. After he died in 1941, she became the dowager, "Olave, Lady Baden-Powell" and her daughter-in-law Carine became "The Lady B-P", or, strictly, "Lady Peter B-P".  However... in 1932 Olave was created a Dame in her own right, and thereafter was entitled to be called "Lady Olave Baden-Powell".  Until that time, to have been called "Lady Olave" would have signified that she was the daughter of an earl or duke.  To sum up - I have amended the caption to suit the fact that, at that time, she was "Lady B-P" or "The Lady B-P", NOT "Lady Olave B-P".  RobinClay (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olave Baden-Powell
Category talk:Lynching in the United States

message: this is a poorly named category. 
If this is to be a category of lynching events, the category should be named 'Lynchings in the United States'.  A category named 'Lynching in the United States' should only have general articles on lynching, not lynching event articles.   Thanks Hmains 21:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:C.F. Os Belenenses

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time! -- tariqabjotu 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Request 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS for page move, per discussion below.  I did go ahead and change the "CF" to "C.F."  There are articles using quotation marks in the title - see some here, but there doesn't seem to be consensus in this case.  If there are other football club articles using «» marks in the title, then there might be a much better case for renaming this page. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request fixed 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nom.--Húsönd 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I don't believe it. Where's the source? 93.238.78.9 (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  10000 trophies won?
Talk:Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath

message: There has been no announcement as of 05/12/2011 regarding the north American release date, changed the infobox to reflect this information. 
Source: JAW employee  78.105.117.231 (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  North America Release Date 

message: If the game has not been released yet for Playstation Vita, then it should not be listed in the "Platform(s)" field of the Infobox.
ProResearcher (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The Article states that this game was released on widows via steam this year but a simple check on the [steam store] disproves that statement. This game was neither released for windows as part of the oddbox or on steam as the developers couldn't get past a huge porting issue. 217.39.13.34 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never Released on Windows 

message: While this information may be true, it needs to be sourced.  ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §  Contributions ♣ 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Feature Film" section 

message: Here is a statement proving that there will be made a remake.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/09/03/oddworld-strangers-wrath-ps3-announced/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.192.220 (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right a HD remake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.144.215 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remake
Talk:Harpoon

message: I came to this article so I could accurately depict an ancient harpoon, and was surprised by the size of the article. I've seen whole websites devoted to whaling by harpoons. Unfortunately, I don't know much about harpoons, so I can't expand this myself. If you know a lot about harpoons and whaling, please expand this article. - Omnimmotus 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harpoon Article Expansion 

message: The Japanese hunted rorquals using nets and hand-held harpoons. Also, during the early modern era, a pram was lowered from the whale catcher to finish off whales, including rorquals, using hand-held lances. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rorquals "invulnerable" to hand-held harpoons?

message: Other important developments such as poison harpoons, and self propelled harpoons (rocket harpoons) are all missing from the article. they were important in the development of the harpoon, and should be mentioned. the whalecraft.net website has some very good and extensive information on them, as well as harpoons in general. 71.137.150.192 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  more information needed 

message: Harpoons aren't just used for whale fishing. Considering that this article is within the "fisheries" category, I would imagine that it can also include the Bluefin Tuna harpoon style of fishing that exists in the US Northern Atlantic, among the Maine and Cape Cod fishermen.
50.195.33.198 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Just Whaling 

message: It's not a harpoon. Harpoons were used to secure the whaleboat to the whale via a whaleline. Bomb lances were used to kill whales. The redirect needs to be removed or an article created for bomb lance to fix this mistake made by a non-expert. ST1849 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does bomb lance redirect here? 

message: Why does harpooner redirect here? 2603:6080:C402:2AA4:A9F2:2F2:5218:7E50 (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does harpooner redirect here? 

message: Any reason why the short Harpoon cannon and Explosive harpoon need to be separate? FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge spin off articles here
Talk:List of The Mummy (film series) characters

message: Can the title of the article be changed to Characters related to The Mummy (film series) since it's about the characters in the film series, not only the 1999 film. I'll do it if nobody else does it. Bib 14:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Why don't we have the Americans in The Mummy section? Or Mr. Ha Fez (I might have spealt that wrong, eh) for the mummy returns? They were all very important to the plots of their respective movies and it seems stupid to have skipped them.203.53.167.180 08:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Americans

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose. This list deals with characters from The Mummy (franchise), not just from the first film, but the existing name is quite adequate for this, so let's go with WP:PRECISION and keep it simple. (If we complicate this name, presumably we will rename The Mummy (franchise) article as well - no let's not.) Andrewa (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I have grave concerns that none of these characters has significant notability. The article's been tagged for having no sourcing since 2010. Any thoughts on the matter? Doniago (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 

message: In The Mummy Returns she fell into a pit of scorpions, not scarabs.  Emperor001 (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Anck-Su-Namun's Death

message: In this article, Evelyn Carnahan's nickname is spelled as both Evy (six times) and Evie (four times). Which is it? (Anyone have a script?) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Evy seems to be correct, though I'm open to the possibility that more reliable sources might indicate otherwise. DonIago (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Evie" or "Evy"?
Talk:Camryn Barnes

message: i think the twins powers should be more explanitary.Cheeseballface 19:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  powers 

message: five foot four. 1.64 m. coming from new york, pure white american heritage. Leia 13:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  height
Talk:Ursus (film character)

message: I don't really know why, but several different IPs, using AOL, seem intent on restoring an old version of this article, from when it was the (now-deleted) Saint Ursus. I wrote the new version, which contains all the same information, and is, if I may be so frank, much better. I don't understand why they/him/her are doing this... but if they could please explain, that would be great. Otherwise, I have no choice but to remove the redundant and poorly written text. Thanks.--SB | T 03:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange edits
Talk:Equivalent circuit

message: your most recent series of edits have conflated model and equivalent circuit.  I have reverted the changes for now.  The changes (in part and with references moved for clarity) are:
An equivalent circuit is not an approximation.  It is an exact equivalent of the thing being compared.  If it were not, we would be forced to say approximate equivalent circuit.  A model may well not be an exact representation of a physical system.  Almost by definition it is not.  But an equivalent circuit of the model will be an exact representation of that model.  For instance, the Thevenin equivalent is an exact equivalent of the models chosen to represent a set of interconnected generators, but the model of those generators may be very approximate indeed.  Your hiding of small-signal model through a pipe to small-signal equivalent circuit rather bears this out.
Admittedly, the article is already confused on this point, but these changes made it so much worse. SpinningSpark 10:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalent circuits and models
Talk:Coconino Sandstone

message: Whoa!  I added this last night, without realizing there is all the above commentary on the creationists begging the rocks to be of marine origin: "The eolian nature of the Coconino (particularly in the Grand Canyon) is challenged by creationists.  Their a priori conclusion is that the Coconino was deposited in water, rather than by wind, during the Noachian Flood, for to allow that the Coconino is eolian would disprove their flood theory."  Based on a new article by Steven Newton: The Coconino's starring role in the creationist-geologist battle. EARTH Magazine .  I somewhat agree that maybe creationism shouldn't even be mentioned, but as the article states creationists at Cedarville Univ. in Ohio are now actually trying to use real geologic data like grain size analysis to show that the Coconino is not eolian.  They of course ignore the obvious crossbedding and frosted grains that indicate eolian origin.  Jstuby (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it. If you want it somewhere, put it on some creationism page ... flood geo or something. Doesn't belong here. Vsmith (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

text: In case some revisits a Creationism section one day, there were 3 papers presented at the 2009 GSA conference that could be referenced regarding the Coconino Sandstone , , . --Jonathan Roy (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  another creationist reference 

message: The article has a couple different types of cites including a bare Html call.  I propose putting them all in the same template style..  TheTahoeNatrLuvnYaho (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: to P.H. Is they some reason why you didn't use typical cite template that automatically puts the references into a common format?  TheTahoeNatrLuvnYaho (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried using the "typical cite template," I found it an absurdly inflexible, poorly designed, and quite useless piece of automation that creates more problems than it solves. I have found that simply typing out a citation saves a lot time, effort, and frustration. Because I have limited time to work on editing, I prefer not to waste all of my time trying to force fit citations into this template. Paul H. (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've been reading and editing it appears to me that many editors do not know how to properly write a citation.  That's why I find that the collection of cite templates (book, web, journal, news, etc.) are really helpful.  All you need to do is fill in as many blanks as you have information for, and then the citation is structured properly for each kind of resource automatically.  This is very acceptable for most sources.  Of course if there is something more difficult, writing it out is best.  And too, the harv and sfn templates greatly reduce the clutter in the articles, making them easier to edit for content, grammar, etc..  TheTahoeNatrLuvnYaho (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  diversity of citations.
Talk:List of Geffen Records artists

message: This would be much better as a category (see :Category:Artists by record label). --kingboyk 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, for this one I disagree, since there will be a lot of folks who are/were signed to Geffen with no article. This should be a comprehensive list. Chubbles 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: DO NOT add artists to Geffen records that recorded for MCA Records and are now reissued by this label, such as New Edition, the Who, Tom Petty, Res, and Guy. They are former MCA artists, not Geffen artists. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Geffen then and Geffen now
Talk:Centralizer and normalizer

message: If M is a monoid in a symmetric monoidal closed category V with equalizers and f\colon X \to M is any morphism in V with codomain M, one can define the centralizer of f as the equalizer of the two multiplication maps M \to [X, M] induced by f. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralizers in symmetric monoidal closed categories 

message: In the beginning, it says The centralizer and normalizer of S are subgroups of G, and can provide insight into the structure of G. Can this be made more specific? In which way do they provide insight into the structure of G? Is there a particular theorem indicating this? Zaunlen (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence in introduction
Talk:Michael R. Heim

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 22:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see the "Speedy Deletion" tag removed.PaulLev 22:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment
Talk:Inflationary epoch

message: 08/15/20 - How long would this epoch have lasted?  (PS: An epoch is after all a time unit.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivowelch (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In mid-May, 2014 some information came to light which indicates significant problems with the data analysis of the BICEP2 team. See this reference:http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6865. I note that the talk by Ralphael Flauger at Princeton was not formally peer reviewed (similar to the BICEP2 news conference). AFAIK, the systematics paper by the BICEP2 team isn't even "in press" yet! The general consensus of the responses to the Flauger talk seems to be that until we have information at more than one frequency, and especially at higher frequencies, we should not accept the idea that the results are definitely from the Big Bang.  Planck data will probably NOT answer this, as the BICEP2 study was done in an area of sky where Planck hasn't separated signal from noise. Anyway, the claim that the BICEP2 study is "strong" evidence is, I believe, an exaggeration. What is needed is multifrequency data with a clear measurement (and subtraction) of the 'noise' caused by galactic dust (as well as lensing).  This may take a few years to resolve. Until then, I am changing "strong" to "the first clear experimental" (I think 'clear' is better than 'direct' as the B-mode frequency power spectrum is hardly what most would consider 'direct', imho). I am going to make the same change in the identical paragraph in the Wikipedia article "Inflation (cosmological).Abitslow (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong Evidence - BICEP2 

message: How does the paragraph about interstellar dust (which turned out to be in the Milky Way only) and the “tensor-to-scalar ratio” relate to inflation? --PointedEars (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to dust
Talk:Childlike Empress

message: In the movie, bastian does call out the name "Moonchild".  however, the film is very noisy at that point, so it is hard to make out.  If you don't know what he is saying then you can't understand it.  But once you know what he is saying, he definitely says :moonchild".  However, he says it as three syllables - "Moon-chi-eld".  i've corrected that part of the article.--Tiberius47 01:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Bastian Balthazar Bux

message: For those who keep trying to change Fantastica back to Fantasia, in the original book the name of the land is Phantásien, but the English translation uses the name Fantastica. It's only the later derivative works (films, tv series) that use the name Fantasia. -- Annie D 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the best way to avoid the changes is to mention both names (e.g. Fantastica ("Fantasia" in the movies)). This would help avoid the confusion, as many people have only seen the movies and do not know about the book. 夢の騎士Yume no Kishi - Talk 13:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantasia vs Fantastica
Talk:Crieff High School

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.  --MLauba (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Patchwork Girl

message: Should this be merged with Wizard of Oz? --CrabFreak (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No she's a notable literary character just like the others that have their own articles from the series.  Also I am taking out the sentence that makes it sound like somehow, magically, a Tim Burton character made 100 years later is the basis.  It was in the section on patchwork girl in other media, so it wouldn't belong there anyway.  Rifter0x0000 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Korean Grand Prix

message: Perhaps some mention of this races predecessor, the Korean Super Prix would be appropriate in this article? --Falcadore (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Super Prix 

message: The diagram uploaded is either way inaccurate or outdated. Check the F1 official site: http://www.formula1.com/races/in_detail/korea_840/circuit_diagram.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roofred (talk • contribs) 09:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track layout 

message: I've moved elements regarding 2010 events into the 2010 Korean Grand Prix article. Butterdori (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 Korean Grand Prix article 
Talk:Jack Pumpkinhead

message: The article implies that Stewart Lerange fit inside the costume of Jack Pumpkinhead in the movie Return to Oz by saying that he was an "exceptionally thin actor." He did not. He was merely the puppeteer as mentioned in the Wiki article on the movie.
 75.168.8.40 (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stewart Lerange was just a puppeteer
Talk:Korea International Circuit

message: Hi, according to F1 website, FIA 2011 and FIA 2010 the lap distance was always 5.615 km, not 5.621. --95.248.79.135 (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lap distance 

message: There's no mention of the disaster that was the first race. It poured rain. The track had no slope anywhere and no drainage. The safety car was running lap speeds quicker than the race cars with full wet tires. Bizzybody (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's relevant then add it to the article. Be bold.SSSB (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The extremely wet first race?
Talk:Nessarose

message: I think their "Christian" names should come first, because the article is in English, and it could cause some confusion. Because the article is English, we should conform it to fit our culture. If it was written in Japanese, I would say put all the "first" names last. 204.210.250.233 (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese names 
Talk:Boq

message: I think their "Christian" names should come first, because the article is in English, and it could cause some confusion. Because the article is English, we should conform it to fit our culture. If it was written in Japanese, I would say put all the "first" names last. 204.210.250.233 (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese names 

message: BOQ is the standard abbreviation for Bill of Quantities. Shouldn't we add something?
--Boris 'pi' Piwinger (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity
Talk:Madame Morrible

message: Madame Morrible Seemed like the next villain. Perhaps she is Mombi?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.161.95 (talk) 18:06, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
: That's the most common speculation that I've heard. —Qit el-Remel (talk  •  contribs) 14:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mombi

message: I think their "Christian" names should come first, because the article is in English, and it could cause some confusion. Because the article is English, we should conform it to fit our culture. If it was written in Japanese, I would say put all the "first" names last. 204.210.250.233 (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese names
Talk:William T. Phillips

message: I believe there is some evidence that William T Phillips was Butch Cassidy ( for example).  There are even several books on the subject.  I'm not sure that the evidence is conclusive, but I wonder if it isn't disingenuous to say that "no evidence supports the claims".  Perhaps we should change it to "some nonconclusive evidence supports the claims" (with a reference or external link to more info) or perhaps expand the discussion of the controversy? Adagio 22:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled