lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Frisian languages

message: The page now has: This page covers the West Frisian language, spoken in the Netherlands. For other Frisian languages see Frisian language (disambiguation). It continues with a treatment of the super language, with only occasional reference to West-Frisian. Something is not quite right there. Aliter 17:50, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic 

message: Having the sentence in Old Frisian and in Anglo-Saxon would be interesting, if someone could provide such a translation. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative sentence suggestion 

message: There is a discussion about whether there is a linkage between Germanic, Frisian and English peoples and languages at Talk:English people#Germanic and Frisian links. It would be helpful if editors could hold fire on making edits related to this topic until a consensus has been reached. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  English, Frisian and Germanic links
Talk:Filioque

message: The lead says "the double procession of the Holy Spirit." Is this a neutral formulation? Shouldn't it be "the procession of the Holy Spirit as double," or something like that? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will have to explain how they mean different things to you.  They seem synonymous to me. -- Elphion (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see what you mean.  I've made the change. -- Elphion (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "double procession" 

message: The heirs of Charlemagne claimed to be successors of the the Roman Empire (as also did the Emperor at Constantinople); and since it was also the Frankish kings who pushed the Filioque controversy, as discussed in the article; and since the resulting Great Schism - wherein the Pope excommunicated and anathematized both the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople - was politically beneficial to the Franks by discrediting two important rivals it may perhaps be appropriate (provided always that there are credible sources available meeting Wikipedia standards) to add one or more footnotes or citations regarding the political dimensions of the controversy for the benefit of readers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:C100:8540:B193:53FF:5C3D:2D08 (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Aspects of Filioque Controversy & Schism 

message: Is this an article about the Filioque, or the Filioque Controversy?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.29.10 (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filioque or Filioque Controversy?
Talk:Fire

message: The redirect 🔥 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.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:🔥]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Man’s red fire 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.  Utopes (talk / cont) 06:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Man’s red fire]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Man’s red flower 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.  Utopes (talk / cont) 06:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Man’s red flower]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Man's red fire 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.  Okmrman (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Man's red fire]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Fundamental interaction

message: The strong interaction has a relative strength of 1038, but a small range of 10-15 m. If the relative strength of 1038 had infinite range, the strong interaction would pull everything in and make 1 giant atomic nucleus.
But, what if the small range of 10-15 m had infinite relative strength? 84.154.74.115 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  relative strength and range 

message: my guess for 3 Ways to Destroy the Universe
Over large (astronomical) distances, gravity tends to be the dominant force, and is responsible for holding together the large scale structures in the universe, such as planets, stars, and galaxies. However, gravity is the weakest of the four interactions. With these 2 properties of gravity, I guess, the death of the universe will be the heat death. 94.31.85.138 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  heat death
Talk:Free

message: Not regulated, restircted or controlled.
Costing nothing.
Not containing something. (Free of additives).
"Think 'free speech'%5000000, not 'free beer.'" – Richard Stallman This idea needs elaboration, but it's here as a seed for development of this article.  <>< tbc
I visited this article on Wikipedia specifically because I had recently seen the phrases "free (as in beer)" and "free (as in beer and speech)" online. I started to wonder what the origin of these distinctions were and came to this article. Sadly, the information I was looking for was only here, on the discussion page. If these phrases are coming anywhere close to the common (internet) parlance, then IMO there should definitely be a Wikipedia page (this one or another) briefly explaning the origin and meaning behind them. Also: what's with the "free to write for TLove" part about? -IQpierce
:See Gratis versus Libre. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 20:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is currently a dismbiguation page. Intro looks like a dicdef, so needs to go.  The rest maybe should be moved to Freedom if not deleted.  Is anyone going to genuinely search for free expecting any of these and why shouldn't this disambig be merged with Freedom? —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 20:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to see 'free like speech, not like beer' on here somehow. I'm not sure how best to do it, but like many others here agree it needs presence. ThuranX 02:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

message: Wouldn't free software make more sense under CS than economics? —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 20:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Software

message: I was looking for information of what constitutes free products.  Free has long been a marketing or sales tactic, but I don't see anything pertinent on this page. -- EsotericRogue Talk 03:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see anything on the above either. Unless it’s there and I've missed it. Otherwise, it seems something that's worth making a page for. Helper201 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Price
Talk:Foundationalism

message: Isn't this a typo? "...while some contemporary rationalism asserts..." It should read 1) "while some contemporary rationalists assert..." or 2) "while contemporary rationalism asserts...". The first suggestion is preferable.
----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasorme (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a jest?  Seriously though, disambiguation will sort this out - religion is not philosophy.--Knucmo2 12:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

message: Because: 
It did not present an argument for F. 
It contained the error that circular arguments are invalid, they are not. They are unconvincing. 
It had some questionable use of 'dogmatic'. 
--Deleet (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed the "Arguments for... F" 

message: Under Alternatives to..., 'reformed epistemology' is listed. Seems to me reformed epistemology is merely a type of foundationalism, with specific foundationalist 'basic beliefs', etc.
Can anyone explain how R.E. is not F?
Foggg (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's incompatibility with foundationalism has to do with it's adherence to divine command theory  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

text: One could argue that all of Western Christianity is foundationalist, both Protestantism with its "sola scriptura" and post-Tridentine Catholicism with its papal/magisterial authority. They just disagree about what the foundation is. In contrast, Eastern Christianity is more like an complex ecosystem than a house built on a foundation; hence it is more coherentist (with a healthy dose of mysticism thrown in). Authority is viewed as internal and pneumatic rather than external and dogmatic, and so there isn't a need for a "foundation" per se. This could be because Western Christians accepted Aristotle's ideas (via scholasticism) and Easterners didn't. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Reformed epistemology'?
Talk:First Council of Nicaea

message: The article claimed, uncited, that Macarius of Jerusalem was among the foremost attendees and named him "patriarch". This is incorrect. Jerusalem (still known by its Roman name of Aelia) was probably a dependency of either Caesarea or Antioch at the time, so not even self-governing let alone a patriarchate. It was not until this council rendered its canons, in fact, that Jerusalem gained a measure of independence. It would actually be another century before Jerusalem gained full recognition as one of the chief sees. While Macarius was certainly influential at the council, and was a prominent spokesman for the eventual winning side, he was not by any means a "patriarch". See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.x.html and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xi.html 192.91.171.36 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macarius of Jerusalem 

message: Domnus of Stridon as one of only five attendants of the council from Western part of the empire, has most likely never existed. In Gelzer's book Patrum Nicaenorum nomina the index of council fathers lists only Budius of Stobi (probably missread as Strobi and Stribon; see pages XLIV, 56 and 247) and Domnus of Pannonia, listed directly after him. In one of the list Domnus is also mentioned as metropolitamis (of metropolis). It seems that the name of Domnus of Stridon was coined by mistake from names of these two bishops. This error was pointed out by Frane Bulić in his article Stridon (page 13) as early as 1920. --Janezdrilc (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk translated to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domnus of Stridon. --Janezdrilc (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domnus of Stridon
Talk:Ferrari

message: Hello,
I just changed the construction of sentences referring to Scuderia Ferrari: they are now singular in construction ("Ferrari is") rather than plural ("Ferrari are"). I give a couple of reasons for making this change:
* Use of the singular for collective nouns is in fact standard British usage; see Comparison of American and British English#Subject-verb agreement. It isn't used all the time like in North America, but it is acceptable. Per MOS:COMMONALITY, it is preferable to use vocabulary and grammar shared between English varieties.
* Articles about British motorsport teams already use this construction. For a quick cross-section, see Team Lotus, McLaren, Tyrrell Racing, Brabham, and Aston Martin in Formula One.
* There may be situations where the entity being referred to is ambiguous or irrelevant. Referring to both entities in the singular makes it easier to write these sections.
The rendering of the team as plural was an idiosyncratic decision that I, an American, personally made. I do not think it reflects either correct British English usage or the best interests of this page. If anyone would like to make a counterpoint please feel free. Marisauna (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scuderia Ferrari references changed from plural to singular 

message: Came here from seeing a beautiful car in the wild. The Monza sp2. It is listed as out of production as of 2023 but still listed as current in this article in contradiction to the article on the car. I am not familiar with the car industry nor car wiki but this seems contradictory to me. Either one is wrong or I'm missing an explanation in one (both?) Of the articles. 2A02:1406:45:93D8:1CE:9F43:9E29:8789 (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, you're correct that the Monza series has finished production and shouldn't be in the current models table. I just removed them both. TKOIII (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current models
Talk:Flag of the United States

message: Apparently Robert G. Heft designed the current flag ("Robert G. Heft" redirects hither).
https://trivia.cracked.com/image-pictofact-11188-35-counterintuitive-facts-about-history-that-have-no-business-being-this-true .  See his simple-English Wikipedia entry. Kdammers (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert G. Heft predicted what a 50-star flag would look like, and his prediction turned out to be correct.  Not sure how much influence he had over the workings of government agencies, such as the Heraldic Program Office (now known as the United States Army Institute of Heraldry), the official U.S. emblem-designing agency.  There's a debunking article on the Slate website (and of course "Cracked" is not a reliable source)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  current design 

message: Under "Code," the article reads, "Both of these codes are generally ignored, almost always without comment." There is no support given for this statement.  In particular, I question the latter half.  The first half might be supported by https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/national-international/what-is-the-us-flag-code-and-how-does-it-work/2649925/ and possibly https://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq4.html . Kdammers (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code practice 

message: edit flag color to a lighter red because it looks more modern and new. Qwertywasdf (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024 

message: "Nevertheless, Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were launched and landed vertically and could not horizontal atmospheric flight as the Space Shuttle did on its landing approach, so the streaming convention was not followed."
The bold phrase highlighted in the sentence is not grammatically correct. The phrase could probably be simply replaced with "not horizontally".
174.44.211.37 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Liu1126 (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar issue in "Display on vehicles" section
Talk:Frigate

message: Hello, I've added a new paragraph, because I'm convinced that this article isn't complete without it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SjoerdvDonk (talk • contribs) 07:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airdefense role 

message: I’ve removed the paragraph in the World War II on the German fleet escorts. The first line (and the only one referenced) states that they were "essentially frigates"; I’ve removed it because they essentially weren’t.</br> 
This isn’t a comparison Conway, and (AFAIK) Janes, uses: And the source (a self-published website) states the fleet escort was "was essentially a frigate, an aggressive looking miniature warship with two stacks and two 10.5cm gun turrets". 
On the contrary, a frigate wasn’t a 'miniature' anything; the designation was revived by the Royal Navy for a type of enlarged corvette, approaching the size of a destroyer with a design that traded speed for reliability and endurance; and above all, "cheap, uncomplicated, slow and, ultimately, expendable". OTOH the fleet escorts were about the size of a torpedo boat (and smaller than a corvette) with a "specification for high speed" that "compromised the ship's seaworthiness, reliability and firepower".</br> 
So, no comparison, really. Anyway, I trust everyone is OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-class fleet escorts 
Talk:Fort William, Scotland

message: Do we need this level of disambiguation? I wouldn't have thought there were that many Fort Williams in the world. --John (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: "French loan-words in the Gaelic language are very rare" - There are actually quite a few. Not very common, but not uncommon either.--MacRùsgail (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think 'rare' by itself is best? Removing 'very' wouldn't find very (ha!) much disagreement from me, but it is a significant fact that French loan words are really not as common in Gaelic as they were in the Norman impact on Anglo-Saxon. Essentially modern English is Norman Anglo-Saxon. Scottish Gaelic is Gaelic with Welsh inflection, and, you are right, more than a few French loan words.FelisRead(talk) 10:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: French claim

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 to Fort William, Scotland. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fort William, Highland →  – Per WP:SCOTLANDPLACE. Convention is to disambiguate settlements in the Highland Council area by their district rather than the council area as a whole. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also now opting for Fort William, Scotland instead of Lochaber but the reason I gave does not change that much. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 July 2023 

message: Empty the bins 2A00:23EE:13D0:6844:FB93:D73D:9B02:53CD (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litter on the streets....the bins are full
Talk:Fugazi (disambiguation)

message: Just a quick note on the first meaning in the list: I really don't think Fugazi is an italian slang word (and I am italian). (For those who can read or guess italian, follow the interwiki to (it) to double check that it doesn't contain any reference to italian slang meanings).
Apparently it is slang used by Italian-Americans, and it comes from the Neapolitan Language (the language of Naples), which is NOT a dialect of Standard Italian, but a language of its own, which explains why you don't understand it. The word is spelled "fughesi" in that language, and it means "a fake, a fraud".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:4480:387B:A552:46B1:9C28:FDEF (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian slang?

message: Do we really need a disambiguation page for "fugazi"? I think most people looking for Fugazi are going to want to see a page about the band. Especially given that the validity of this word as an Italian slang word is in question.
== moving this page ==
I propose moving this page to Fugazi (disambiguation), and creating a redirect from Fugazi to Fugazi (band), with a link at top to the disambiguation page with .  By far most references to "Fugazi" on the web are for the band, and disambiguating it as currently stands is poor practice.  See, for example, this advice in WP:DAB: If a word or phrase commonly refers to one major topic, simple one-word links to such ambiguous topics will redirect a user to a main article with the same one-word title, such as Bewitched. However, there should be a disambiguation statement at the top of that page which includes a link to the topic's disambiguation page, in this case, Bewitched (disambiguation) .  
If there are no objections, I'll do this in the next few days.  bikeable (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Really Need for Disambiguation Page?

message: I propose moving this page to Fugazi (disambiguation), and creating a redirect from Fugazi to Fugazi (band), with a link at top to the disambiguation page with .  By far most references to "Fugazi" on the web are for the band, and disambiguating it as currently stands is poor practice.  See, for example, this advice in WP:DAB: If a word or phrase commonly refers to one major topic, simple one-word links to such ambiguous topics will redirect a user to a main article with the same one-word title, such as Bewitched. However, there should be a disambiguation statement at the top of that page which includes a link to the topic's disambiguation page, in this case, Bewitched (disambiguation) .  
If there are no objections, I'll do this in the next few days.  bikeable (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving this page 

message: I haven't seen it though so shouldent write about it. Look it up at IMDB  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.176.71 (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr fugazzi is a film - wikipedia has no entry of it!!!