lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Wootton, Kent

message: I'm afraid that I feel that almost all parts of this page are unsuitable for an encyclopaedia, at least as they stand.  Entries should be verifiable, and the bits about snowfall and the telescope have no references.
The bit about snowfall is very trivial, and I propose simply removing that, unless somebody can come up with a reference to Wootton's snowfall being consistently higher than other similar places.
The telescope entry is of some interest, but its present wording is quite unsuitable.  I have tried to find references, but the best I can find (an article by Colin Ronan) doesn't go much further then *speculating* that Digges invented the telescope.  Unless there's a better reference I haven't found, I don't think one can do more than say that Digges came from Wootton, and that the case has been made (giving a reference for this) that he invented the telescope.   One can of course link to the Wiki page on Digges, but I see that the Wiki page on the telescope doesn't mention Digges.   In any case, I don't know of *any* evidence that Digges was *at* Wootton when he worked on optics.
I have put in a link to Eythorne Baptist Church,  but the fact that some time ago there was a link between Wootton and that church group is sufficiently important for a place in an encyclopaedia.
Eebkent (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this page worth including in Wikipedia?
Talk:Plimoth Patuxet

message: I went to the History section looking for information on what, if any, of the plantation is original, how it's grown over time, etc. Instead I found this: "Telling the iconic story of Plymouth Colony was the fulfillment of a young archaeologist’s boyhood dream." Blech. It would be great if anyone with sources could make this a useful article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.33.111 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like an advertisment 

message: It seems the official name of this site/organization is now Plimoth Patuxet Museums. This Wikipedia page should be changed to reflect this, right? (That is, the primary title/name for this page should now read Plimoth Patuxet Museums, right?) Cjslaby (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Name?
Talk:Wendisch-Rambow

message: Die Grafik "Map of Wendisch-Rambow" zeigt keinen Ort in Mecklenburg Vorpommern, sondern die Orte Rebowo (früher Rambow) und Karznica   (früher Wendisch-Karstnitz) 25 km östlich von Slupsk (Stolp) in Nordpolen an der E28.87.161.192.56 14:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Translation (by Google): The graphic "Map of Wendisch-Rambow" does not show a place in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania, but the places Rebowo (formerly Rambow) and Karznica (formerly Wendisch-Karstnitz) 25 km east of Slupsk (Stolp) in northern Poland on the E28 — but there's no graphic now; was there previously a map? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

message: Wendisch-Rambow is a village of Schwerin  in northern Germany. It is in the state Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. The population as of 1996 is 201 (Approx). That's all absolute nonsense. Wendisch-Rambow has never been a village of Schwerin, because it has been a village in Pomerania, which belonged to Prussia and is now part of Poland. --Frau Olga (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute nonsense 

message: Has anyone who is a native English speaker tried to read this? It reads as if translated by machine. All the syntax in the latter part are non-English constructions and nearly unreadable. Then there are mysterious errors like "Hoof" which means animal foot in English. I think someone thought it was the English for "hof". It's not.
And no, I'm not going to fix it, as I am English-only and would make even worse errors. 76.115.99.167 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense, Yes - Absolute, No 

message: I propose on fixing this article. This is horribly written. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this progressing, Burklemore1? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixing article

message: There seems to be great confusion about the location. The co-ords 53.7756°N 11.4122°E place it E of Dambecker See and W of the B106; this location is corroborated by the map in the external link.
However, that location is hotly disputed by 87.161.192.56 and Frau Olga: according to the former, the true location is 395 km ENE of 53.7756°N 11.4122°E; while Frau Olga doesn't specify a location, the location specified by 87.161.192.56 is in the Pomerania region of Poland.
So the question is: which location is correct? The odds would be astronomical that two villages with the same names are in two countries nearly 400 km apart! How reliable is 87.161.192.56's assertion that Rebowo was formerly Rambow and Karznica was formerly Wendisch-Karstnitz?
Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is it?
Talk:Betteshanger

message: The reasons for this pit having strong union militancy was probably working conditions. It was the wettest pit in the UK with considerable loss of life and frequent injuries resulting from the wet conditions. My own grandfather was a desperate WW1 discharged soldier forced to work at this colliery and reckoned conditions in the colliery worse than the Western Front.AT Kunene 123 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Blosxom

message: I checked out Blojsom, Clojsom and Hobix, they are all 404. --92.46.9.195 (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  derivatives 

message: I've deleted now the dead links and also updated some link-order - and take out the dead citations and also the "missing insufficient inline citations"-notice, because it doesn't make sense for this project. The same for japanese and french version... --213.47.92.191 (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates
Talk:Whitney Stakes

message: I'm not sure why there needs to be (NYRA) at the end of the article name when other similar articles do not have - or need - this designation. I am proposing the name of the article be changed to Whitney Stakes. JRHorse (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Whitney Stakes 

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 as requested per the discussion below.  Dekimasuよ! 03:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Whitney Stakes (NYRA) →  – As written previously, there is only one race known as the Whitney Stakes, and therefore, the (NYRA) in the article title as a disambiguation is not necessary. Proposed renaming based on WP:CRITERIA and specifically WP:CONSISTENT (with other horse racing stakes race articles). JRHorse (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 August 2023
Talk:3's & 7's

message: What is it, officially? Because this page has both "3's and 7's" and "3's & 7's". (chicken queen 19:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The single cover uses the ampersand, that seems fairly conclusive to me. FredTheDeadHead (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "and" vs "&"

message: Would it be accurate to say it is similar to Faster Pussycat Kill Kill? I'd think that is even closer to the video, and deserves mention. -TheChrisParker (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: What does the title of the song refer to? (Not a forum post; important information article needs to address.)---SeizureDog (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Josh has ever addressed it, so including heresay in the article would be a no-no. But as assumptions go, it's commonly believed the song refers to the poker hand 3's & 7's, commonly regarded as a crap, nothing hand. Would also fit with the song's theme of lies (Bluffing). Red157 14:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure how relevant this is, but I saw someone's very interesting numerological interpretation of both numbers, it seemed pretty relevant... Both numbers had interesting meanings, they seemed to fit the song... I think it might have been a combination of those factors that led to the song's name. If we can confirm this we might be able to include it. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning? 

message: Should it not mention there being another version of the video, which has since been removed from youtube (where the band's website linked to)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.235.92 (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: Every use of the song title in the article does not use apostrophes - as in, "3s & 7s" - but the article title does - it's "3's & 7's". As far as I'm aware, "3s & 7s" is grammatically correct, but nearly all the official sources (e.g. the single cover) show "3's & 7's". Shouldn't the article be consistent with the title and the sources?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.208.77 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostrophes
Talk:1998 Brazilian Grand Prix

message: This bot has detected that this page contains an image, :Image:Circuit_Interlagos.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at :File:Circuit Interlagos.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Circuit_Interlagos.png]]
Talk:1998 Austrian Grand Prix

message: lol, I'm afraid I haven't got time to clean this up, but will whoever does so please make sure this version is preserved somewhere?--Nyelvmark (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is pretty funny 

message: The entire race can bee seen on online video channels, David Coulthard never was 'a lap down'. He was ALMOST a lap down at the end of the second lap and could close the gap to the rest of the field already during the first (ands only) safety car period. He never was overlapped. I hope that someone can correct that. 149.238.193.125 (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulthard 'a lap down'?
Talk:1999 Malaysian Grand Prix

message: How did Herbert 'nearly [score] back-to-back wins'? Even if Ferrari's exclusion had been upheld he'd have been behind Hakkinen by eight seconds. Why not throw in that Marc Gene "nearly" scored back-to-back 6th places, which he would have done if the Ferraris had been disqualified and that had somehow caused Mika Hakkinen to also blink out of existence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.97.64 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what the text means is that during the period of time when the Ferraris were disqualified, Herbert was second and "had nearly scored back-to-back wins". But I agree it's a bit unclear. DH85868993 (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But he didn't, he was - during the period of time - 2nd. He didn't come close because to get to 2nd required two expulsions and there was never any question of Hakkinen being penalised; he didn't even finish particularly close to the McLaren. Again, he no more nearly had successive wins than Gene nearly had successive 6th places.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.97.64 (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people would consider winning one race and then finishing second in the next race (which was the situation while the Ferraris were disqualified) "nearly scoring back-to-back wins", regardless of how far he finished behind the winner of the second race. DH85868993 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbert
Talk:1999 Japanese Grand Prix

message: If you find any reference errors, please list them here.
 The Official Formula 1 Website contains an error - Damon Hill is listed as "WD" (withdrew). The correct term is "Ret" (retired). Bobby Doorknobs 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Errors 

message: I have listed Damon Hill's entry on The Official Formula One Website as a reference error. As far as I know, "WD" is only used for cars that were officially withdrawn from an event (i.e. did not start the race), and that's not what happened here. Hill decided to give up his race (supposedly with brake problems) so he should be listed as "Ret" like on ChicaneF1.com. Bobby Doorknobs 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damon Hill (Race) 

message: "If the result of qualifying had been the result of the race, Häkkinen would have been the champion."
And? No Grand Prix has ever been decided by the result of qualifying. What's this sentence even doing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.97.64 (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: True. --Falcadore (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh, what?
Talk:John Coburn (Indiana politician)

message: This article was started using public domain information from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. LarryQ 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:2000 Australian Grand Prix

message: Although yes, the 3rd millennium did start in 2001, apparently because there wasn't a year 0, it's numerically incorrect for a millennium to start in technically the second year of that millennium. Kinda confusing, really.
MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just the way numbers work. 2000 isn't the 2001st number in a sequence but the 2000th. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  21st Century
Talk:2000 British Grand Prix

message: A small project is being undertaken to expand this article into something more suited to the subject. I shall be adding new material and expand or replace some of the existing material. The project may take a few weeks depending on the progress of development and I would like anyone's feedback and those who have useful information of sources that could be used in this article.  Z105space (Talk to me!) 21:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article development
Talk:Bishop Douglass Catholic School

message: Whoever this editor is, they clearly have a vested interest in the school and are clearly neither impartial nor independent. The edits this editor made to the page has removed virtually all of the schools history and most notably, anything relating to the school's historic issues. The article now reads as an advert for the current school and all it's glory and the school's history has been excised, presumably to eliminate any suggestion it hasn't always been a shining example of a Catholic school trust. The edits cannot be undone automatically, but almost certainly should be restored, with PLP202 - presumably the former pupil and current head teacher - requested not to butcher the article again to suit their own PR needs.181.124.150.234 (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by PLP202
Talk:2000 Monaco Grand Prix

message: If you find any reference errors, please list them here.
 The Official Formula 1 Website contains an error - Pedro de la Rosa is listed as "DNS". He was not present at the restart, but because he did take the original start of the race, he should be listed as "Ret" to follow the WikiProject Formula One policy regarding DNS entries. Bobby Doorknobs 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Errors 

message: According to http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2000/57/ the use of the red flag was a mistake. violet/riga [talk] 08:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red flag mistake 
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond/Character Article Layout

message: OK, does anyone oppose this merging proposal?  Vikrant Phadkay 15:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, maybe Everyone. The discussion is on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond talk page. SpecialWindler  talk 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just leave the discussion on the Wikiproject talk page? Its not exactly a huge discussion, so there is no need to create other sub-pages for the discussion to make it less centralised. - • The Giant Puffin • 08:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Thornton in Lonsdale

message: There are currently 2 forms used in the article - one with hyphens and the other without. 
One wonders which - if either - is considered the more correct form ...  Trafford09 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like maps use it without hyphens. I have modified for consistency with the article title. Keith D (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation in the name
Wikipedia talk:Five pillars of evil

message: Chuckes and wonders to self whether some mad rouge admin will cite WP:5EVIL as his reasons for being a rouge admin. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup|former 04:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it time.  —  ChedZILLA 01:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yesh, plenty of that, much we have, time—wounds all heels...<melody style="timbre:whistfully;">I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee...  WurmWoodeT 20:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[SMH#Other|ShakingMyHead]]

message: It is wrong to teach others to make trouble.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zasxsdcdf (talk • contribs) 07:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it humor? 

message: Man, that's the most accurate depiction of Wikipedia's microcosm I've ever read! --96.127.219.24 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be taken seriously? 

message: yes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.39.132.210 (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @187.39.132.210 what, it ie just humour 88.110.61.147 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  communism
Talk:Skender Kulenović

message: I don't think the translations of his poems should be in the article. Vanjagenije 15:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poems

message: There is an ongoing slow-burn edit war underway involving a Swedish IP, , , and a Serbian IP over the ethnicity of Skender Kulenović. This issue should be discussed on this page, supported by reliable sources as to his ethnicity. Editors are reminded that this article falls under the following Arbitration Committee decision:
 Regards, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 23:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring over ethnicity
Talk:Sara Torsslow

message: Once again, I much enjoyed reading your article and have sought only to tidy up its English. If I have intefered with your meaning - or indeed if you don't like the stylistic changes - please feel free to revert to your original.
With best wishes,
45ossington 18:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Perhaps it would be better to remove the "Ö" from her name, as the letter is sometimes troubblesome in the English language? --85.226.235.233 13:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessary to have her whole name in the title. She is known as "Sara Torsslow" in history. That's her name on Swedish Wikipedia. The article can be changed to that name. --85.226.235.233 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  She was known as Sara Strömstedt in 1811-1830 and Sara Torsslow in 1830-1853, and is known and listed as Sara Torsslow in the history books. Torsslow would be best. --85.226.235.206 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Talk:Subdivisions of Polish territories during World War II

message: Currently the atricle has 2 maps, somewhat related to the issue: :Image:900px-Fourth Partition of Poland.png (in German) and :Image:Germany1941.png. I foumd a much clearer map here, if it could be used - together with three others - to create a better map for Wikipedia, it would greatly benefit the project. So far I couldn't find good maps for Soviet occupation (a map comparing SU from before September '39 to the period after the invasion but before Barbarossa would be quite useful.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested maps 

message: Ukrainians made up a clear majority only in the total population of Stanisławów Voivodeship, but not in Tarnopol and Lwów ones where ethnic Poles prevailed (See Second General Census in Poland of 1931). Poles made up a majority in almost all cities of Eastern Galicia as well. So the ethnic composition of Eastern Galicia as of 1931 can be described in the following way:
* Ukrainians — 53%
* Poles — 40%
* Others (including Jews) — 7%
Sincerely -- 92.113.233.30 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  False information in note 1 
Talk:Subdivisions of Congress Poland

message: We need administrative maps to fill in the period 1844-1867, when the Kingdom had only 5 governorates. A map for the period 1867-1893 would also be useful.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find on the maps, perhaps we should email the website owners and ask them for a permission to use the images under a free license? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map request 

message: I've reverted the split and redirecting of Vistula land to Privislinsky Krai. The rationale is a follows:
* Privislinsky Krai is a fork of the Vistula land; the articles should be merged (name is open to discussion)
* Privislinsky Krai is an article about a state; this article and the content that was split from it is part of the series of articles on administrative division of former Polish states
* Vistula land was redirected to Privislinsky Krai, without any content being transfered, when in fact it is a more developed article
* finally, it is disputable whether we can claim that Privislinsky Krai should be classified as a state; officially the Congress Poland was never replaced by it, and there was never anything like an "administrative division of Privislinsky Krai"
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First, as the name suggest, Privislinsky Krai is a fork of the Vistula land. Those articles should be merged, and I am at this point not saying which name is more correct, but both names refer to the same phenomena. Second: per WP:V, please provide sources, per WP:V, that clearly state that Congress Poland indeed was replaced in 1867 by Privislinsky Krai.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: To centralize the discussion, please direct any replies to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Privislinsky_Krai.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree with split at 1867 
Talk:2003 Australian Grand Prix

message: Please do not separate Qualifying into individual days. Qualifying is not sufficiently notable to just seperate tables for each day, and additionally it makes it harder to read for the rader if they have to mentally combine both tables. What was there originally is the best combination of readability and conciseness. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is is not a statistics resource. --Falcadore (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualifying tables