lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Template talk:Folkestone and Hythe

message: Some of the places shown on this list are not villages: some are simple hamlets. Should this not be included in its title?Peter Shearan (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means include it in the title. I think that is a better option than the one you appear to have chosen, namely removing names from the list. Removing names simply makes the box less useful to users. See Template:Horsham, for example. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 21:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hamlets etc
Talk:River Barle

message: Does anyone know hydronym's etymology?--AmfiTIMNin (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 
Template talk:Tonbridge and Malling

message: Not all the places shown on this list are towns and villages. Some are simply hamlets - or even just places on the map. In any case, those that are part of the civil parishes should say so. See, for example Barnes Street and Golden Green. They abut one another along the same stretch of road, and both articles say that they are villages! Peter Shearan 07:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not all towns and villages
Template talk:Tunbridge Wells

message: Does the temp need a red-link to 'Goudhurst and Kilndown' as a seperate entry, when there are seperate articles for them both (or in the case of Kildown, another red-link)?  --Chrisfow 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other templates, covering Kent, some places are named for the village and again if the parish has a different title, possibly covering two villages. Is that the case here? - Olive Oil -ŢάĽɮḍőпє - 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, that makes a bit more sense!  Thanks Olive Oil! Chrisfow 12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goudhurst and Kilndown?
Talk:Rochester railway station

message: New images placed in commons. When it is decided how to refer to the old station- Commons files will also need to be hot catted.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I quite like the new station but then I walk to and from the train ! Have also got some new photos of the station to add to commons later. DavidAnstiss (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2015 

message: Is the new (2015) station correctly located on the RDT? It is a lot closer to the Medway Bridge. See RDT Template Talk page. --Stewart (talk | edits) 16:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New (2015) Rochester Station
Talk:Sevenoaks railway station

message: No mention of Thameslink? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

message: What happened to the stuff about the new Costa Coffee that opened there? I found it interesting. 149.254.51.73 (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what happened. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You must work for Starbucks. :P 149.254.49.89 (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costa Coffee
Talk:Bobby Waugh

message: What does this mean, he commited a crime related to the outbreak of a disease?  That's really vague.  At least link to something that explains this.  Did he cause the outbreak somehow?  Was it biological terrorism or something?  This leaves us with no idea and no way to find out.Chrisrus (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did he do?
Talk:Snodland railway station

message: My late father Keith Watson practically rebuilt Snodland signal box in the seventies, plumbing in a flushing toilet which was christened by a local celebrity it was said, he also did a lot of work to Cuxton signal box but Snodland he reglazed, tiled, laid new lino, pointing and shingles all done in between trains.
It is a testament that two of the local signalboxes he worked on were listed, he also was the last signalman at Sole Street, Cuxton Down in between Sole St and Rochester Bridge, Longfield which all became redundant when Meopham power box went live with Rochester the next power box south and Farningham Road the next lever box north of Meopham which itself became redundant when Swanley was upgraded but remained to manage the old Southfleet line.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.46.84 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Staplehurst railway station

message: Re the 1996 crash, the paragraph added by the IP editor seems to fail WP:NOR IMHO. I've found a reference that the crash occurred and added the cause. Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Accidents

message: The 19-year-old booking clerk, a plate layer and the pilot of a German plane died when the plane crashed into the station and set it on fire. This should be added! However, I don't have sufficient info or sources myself. There is or was a memorial plaque in the station. APW (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crashed plane and deaths in Sept 1940
Talk:Strood railway station

message: For a limited time in the late 1980s or early 1990s there was a non-stop service between Gillingham and Maidstone. Trains from Gillingham would reverse at Strood station and be routed onto the Medway Valley line, and vice versa. Unfortunately I don't have any details as to the dates of operation. Anyone? Lee M (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Tonbridge railway station

message: The article states that it was moved in 1868, but it must have been earlier as the 1857 direct link to TW opened in that year, and would have used part of the site of the earlier station. Can anyone clarify this? Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: When did the station move?

message: The redirect Tunbridge railway station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Tunbridge railway station]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Jiangyan High School

message: Not taking any part in naming convention conflicts, I still think the "mu" unit deserves to also be expressed in SI and linked. But since other editors seem to be happily reverting eachother on this I don't change it myself... highlunder 15:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mu? 

message: A good start but the English needs a lot of work hence the stub rating rather than start class. This seems like a potentially very important school. Please tell us more. Dahliarose 13:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assess
Talk:Tunbridge Wells West railway station

message: This article really is a pleasant surprise. I was quite taken aback to see that the West Station even had its own Wikipedia page, and then to see all the detail and research that a few individuals have put into this is truly impressive. The Yablochkov lamp, the rival companies, the old adverts. In all the years I've been vaguely aware of that station, I never knew anything of that rich history. Great stuff guys, keep up the good work. Palefire (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: 'The spur to Grove Junction remains in an overgrown state; it was sold for £1 in 2001 to Railway Paths Ltd (a subsidiary of Sustrans), but is protected by covenants ensuring that it can only be used for railway purposes; the section is also safeguarded from development in the East Sussex and Brighton and Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 as well as the Wealden Local Plan.[25]'
Railway Paths Ltd isn't a subsidiary of Sustrans, this may be checked by reference to the register of Companies House and viewing 'Persons with significant control, here.  As far as I can tell, Sustrans only has one subsidiary, Sustrans (Trading) Limited.
For information, subsequent to 2001, Railway Paths sold the spur to the east of Warwick Park, and now only retains the tunnel.  For detailed mapping please see here.  The covenants safeguarding development remain in place.
Dpembert (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revival: Spur to Grove Junction
Talk:River Heddon

message: I don't think that Heddon Valley Shop makes a notable article, and since it's all part of the same NT property, it should be deleted and its meagre content merged here. Comments?  —SMALLJIM  13:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done it.  —SMALLJIM  16:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merge

message: Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Trust pilot
Talk:Whitstable railway station

message: The wiki entry for 'January 1915' says The railway station in Whitstable, England, was closed as a wartime measure. But this page says a new station was opened next day, 700 yards to the East.  What was the issue? Valetude (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure of station
Talk:Below (film)

message: When I created this article, I deliberately called the film a "WW II thriller" and not a "horror" film. If anything, it's a ghost story. But it's not a horror film in the sense that term is used today and was a factor in the film's poor box office because it was marketed as one. "Mystery" fits as well. RoyBatty42 19:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no problem in it being both a WWII thriller and a horror film. 169.226.112.164 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimaitely, it's a psychological thriller because the ghosts are never confirmed. It's all just a mix of guilt/bad conscience, paranoia, and hallucinations due to the air poisoned with hydrogene. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Horror Film?

message: The captain definitely does NOT shoot himself in the head at the end of the film. Another sailor shoots him just before he shoots the doctor. --70.112.247.86 (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot is a bit off
Talk:List of newspapers in Ghana

message: I see someone has made a start at improving this article. Keep at it, this is an interesting subject (one I know nothing about so can't improve the article myself). Still a way to go yet though. Jules1975 15:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Dungeness railway station

message: Image of the old station if its still there would be nice, failing that an old image from when it was. Pickle 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any station image (even the new buildings) would be helpful. I like the current image, BUT it is actually a picture of a train, not of a station! The original booking office is still there, plus the original cafeteria, toilets, kitchens, and Station Master's house. The original waiting shelter has gone, but there is a shelter built in the 1980s (1983, I think), plus the modern (2000s) booking office and shop - so plenty of scope for photography Timothy Titus Talk To TT 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of thing do you? Unfortunately I don't have one of the buildings themselves, but it does show more than the current photo I added in lieu of any photo of the railway at all (the photo at the time was of a fishermans cottage).Bluebellnutter (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last update to the photo was certainly an improvement, and I think this one (above) would be a still further improvement. Yes! Timothy Titus Talk To TT 09:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!Bluebellnutter (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo request
Talk:Fred Graver

message: I was tempted to slightly rewrite the opening sentence as "...scared the fuck out of..." as there are no quotes or attributions to the prose, so it looked like a free for all. Instead of just inventing my own version of what may have happened, however, I put a "citation needed" tag for the entire paragraph. The subject sounds like an interesting guy. Lets hope the article does him justice, one fine day. LessHeard vanU 15:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The paragraph regarding Earthquakes
Talk:Communist Party of Belorussia

message: I oppose the merger. The is little organic link between the two parties. The KPB of today was formed following a split from PKB. --Soman 15:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose. While I think this formed the current CPB that supports Lukashenko, I just see no proof yet. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: We presently have three en.wikipedia entries:
* Communist Party of Belarus (CPB) - Камуністы́чная па́ртыя Белару́сі - Communist Party of Belarus is a pro-presidential party
* Party of Communists of Belarus (PCB) - Партыя камуністаў Беларусі - PCB is led by Sergey Kalyakin and is considered to be "pro-Western".[citation needed]
The present entry on Communist Party of Belorussia says that it's a party that started in 1918 and it has no information about what happened to it after 1920.
* What is the Belarusian (or Russian) name of Communist Party of Belorussia? Unless someone can give it to us, i do not see how we can keep it as a separate entry.
* What happened to Communist Party of Belorussia during the 1980s/1990s/2000s ? What is its relation with CPB (pro-presidential) and PCB (pro-western) which already have their own entries?
* Are people saying that Communist Party of Belorussia is a party that existed only during 1918-1920? so that the new parties are essentially unrelated to it (for someone to have been active in the 1918-1920 party e.g. at age 20, s/he would be aged about 90 when the new parties were created, so it's clear that not much link in terms of active individuals is possible across such a time span.
Anyway, see what people think of my corrections.
Boud 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion needs sorting out
Talk:Storm Front (The Dresden Files)

message: I just finished this book today, so I tried to edit the summary a little. I'm open to suggestions, though. Eellee (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My current semi-long-term content project is to work on rewriting the plot summaries for most / all of the Dresden Files novels. I'm currently working (slowly) on Ghost Story but this one is probably next up on my list... it's been too long since I read this to know whether I agree with you at this point, though. I'd welcome your assistance if you'd like. If not, that's fine, but know that I'll be looking at it soon(ish)! --ElHef (Meep?) 03:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on this now and having boiled it down, the plot of this book is actually very, very simple. This being the book which is setting the framework for an entire series, a significant potion of it is there only to introduce the universe and its characters - all necessary, but none relevant to the plot of this story. I will agree that the summary could use a more concrete ending, and there are some factual errors in there, so I will at the very least be doing some major editing to this if not just rewriting it completely. However, in terms of sheer length, what's there is about right for this book, if not even a little long. See WP:MOS-NOVELS#Plot - for a plot this simple, I'll be shooting for three short paragraphs or two longer ones, depending on how it comes out. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: The title should not be at (novel) because it is ambiguous. Per WP:BOOKDAB series names may be used. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Storm Front]]
Template talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

message: This template seems to be in use on a number of articles. The documentation is unclear about whether this was or was not the intent. I understand prevailing practise is that banners like this should only be placed on talk pages.
Would you mind confirming your intent as to placement of this banner - article or talk - please; and if talk, consider checking what links here and moving banners off article space and to talk. And making the document more clear -e.g. "use only on the talk page of stub articles". thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified the documentation and added a  to flag misuse on articlespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Use on articles
Talk:Prehistoric archaeology

message: I stumbled on this page, and I think it could be expanded and edited a good bit. I won't be able to dedicate as much time to it as I'd like, so if there's anyone else out there watching this page and would like to help...
I think that the sentence "Archaeology can also be used to study the past alongside history" is a little awkward and redundant.  The sentence immediately preceding it may not be necessary either, and I think it's a bit misleading to draw a line between history and archaeology as fields of research, as one informs the other.  Archaeologists do study written documents, and historians do look at things other than texts.
Also, I think the use of the term "rage" here is a little loaded.  In more neutral language:
Such a lack of concrete information means that prehistoric archaeology can be a contentious field but debates over theoretical frameworks and interpretation of artifacts have done much to inform archaeological theory. Knittatron 16:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit and expand?

message: Every topic discussed within the article is relevant to Prehistoric Archaeology, there were no unrelated topics. Nautika.richards (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevancy
Talk:The Day the Fish Came Out

message: This article is supposedly about a film called "The Day the Fish Came Out", yet it starts out as if it's about "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold". At first I assumed this was vandalism, but looking back at the edit history it seems to have been that way since day one, and then morphed into a different film at some point. As it reads now it makes no sense. What is the connection between the two films?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.55.215 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the original author simply copied over their synopsis of The Spy Who Etc as a template, but didn't bother to change any of the details to match this film. Wikipedia has a plague of robo-editors who add categories, remove categories, add notifications, remove notifications etc - anything to bump up their edit count - and in my experience these people visit the article, hit edit, paste in their code and hit save and move on, without actually reading the article. That's why it continued to have The Spy Who Etc at the top of the article, in bold, despite being about a completely different film. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: I've been checking references to this movie all over the internet, but I don't find anyone who mentions my favorite aspect of this movie.
Everyone talks about the wild costumes and the wacky music, but they don't seem to understand that this movie is supposed to take place in the future!
In the opening scenes we see a couple walking into a travel agency with a sign posted prominently on the door, "Let us plan your 1972 vacation." They have the computer set up their vacation.
The music and the costumes are supposed to represent a world five years in the future! Leeeoooooo (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's occasionally opined on the Internet that this film destroyed the director's career - after Zorba he was given a shot at directing a mainstream comedy, but it barely had a release and he vanished into relative obscurity thereafter. It's not out on DVD. Unfortunately I can't find a decent source because it's so obscure. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The film was released on DVD on 8 August 2012. — 174.85.69.51 (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Which is off on a tangent - I was actually going to say "according to a thread on the IMDB, that shot has apparently been edited to update the date to 2013 - do you know anything about this?" -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1967 view of 1972
Talk:The Muppets Studio

message: I moved this back to the original location as there is still no source for a name change. See the previous discussion below. —scarecroe (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: page move

message: What's the source for the name change from Muppets Holding Company to Muppets Studio? MHC has been using the Studio name as a moniker since they started launching new products when the Muppets were acquired by Disney. However, all the latest merchandise still credits Muppets Holding Company, as does Muppets.com —scarecroe 16:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Muppets Studio, LLC is the actual name of the business referred to by The Walt Disney Company. You will not find any mention of the Muppets Holding Company LLC in any updated Disney literature. --Speedway 14:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where would one find such Diseny literature? Basically, we need a source. —scarecroe 16:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Muppets Holding Company was changed to The Muppets Studio in 2006.  The change in name was due to a management change at the subsidiary and it's movement from the consumer products division to the Disney studios division.  The Muppets are no longer part of Disney Consumer Products (as seen on DCP's webpage).  The first "The Muppet Studio" copyrighted release was "The Muppets:  A Green and Red Christmas" album from Walt Disney Records in Fall 2006. Ps1082 14:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Muppet Studio," and derivations therein, has been used on some products as an advertising gag. All current merchandise is still being stamped with Muppets Holding Company LLC. There's currently no evidence that the subsidary has received a legal name change on the books. —scarecroe 00:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: subsidary name

message: The title of the article should be Muppet Studios,LLC not Muppet Holding company. Could somebody fix it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.96.138 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Muppet Studios, LLC
Talk:John Lethbridge

message: @Peter Southwood, other interested. I'm considering changing the leadimage to this one, recently uploaded by an employee at the History of Diving Museum.
IMO it's less grainy and seems to match the original better per the sketch in the article. Possible points against is that the Cité de la Mer is probably a bigger museum (afaik the Florida museum doesn't have a 128 m submarine) and that there is more distracting stuff around the object. Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadimage
Talk:Snow Trac

message: The two pages are virtually identical, they can easily be merged. 
Melensdad 16:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge - I agree the two articles are the same subject. If there is nothing from the Aktiv Snow Trac ST4, Trac Master and Snow Master ST4B page that needs to be included, then the content in Snow Trac could be moved there and then a redirect put in. Nice article! Group29 14:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion [[Aktiv Snow Trac ST4, Trac Master and Snow Master ST4B]] with [[Snow Trac]]

message: Picture here of a Snow Trac that was used by the BBC in Scotland if you need any more pictures for the main page.  --jmb 09:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture
Talk:Hispaniolan Ornithological Society

message: I think that the link to the Hispaniolan Parrot (Cotorra) should go to a page for that spp, not the the Amazona genus page, this is also in contrast to the Ridgeay's hawk link. Omie 16:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to endemic birds 