lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Scilloideae

message: The generic list should be checked carefully. I've corrected a couple of obvious errors that were introduced from a source that is widely available on the web but is neither published nor peer-reviewed. More recent and more authoritative published references are available, and should be used. Needless to say all classifications and circumscriptions are opinions representing a POV, and may differ radically from one reference to another, so sources should always be explicitly cited! MrDarwin 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the removal of Camassia and Chlorogalum, the list of genera is not that given in Watson and Dallwitz. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be checked against and then sourced to the AP-web list. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

text: It's probably best to accept the opinion of the content experts that it is in a "state of flux". It is probably not a good idea to have two lists - one here and one under Asparagaceae, as this introduces the likelihood og inconsistency - instead one should link to the other. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genera 

message: I have checked the article against the Spanish article and added material where necessary - the introductory material in the Spanish page is now all included here. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean that the tag can now be removed? Peter coxhead (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No - not untill all sections are up to standard. Note tag has been there since July 2009 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Morphology seems to be at same level --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Ecology looks ok --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Phylogeny ok --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Taxonomy, Economic importance updated, references checked - I think this page now meets standards of tag, so it can be removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish tag 

message: The authority (Engler) given for this subfamily is incorrect, this page is an outlier. APG defers to Chase who attributes it to Burnett. I will place a note in the text accordingly. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Other normally reliable sources also say Burnett (e.g. ) so we should just change the authority to Burnett. The source given for Engler is older and should not be considered as equally reliable. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Agreed - done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Authority 

message: The link in the box where is the family name point to some other subfamily. I don't know where should lead, but its obviously wrong 81.108.26.125 (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong link
Talk:Battle of Ong Thanh

message: In 'They Marched Into Sunlight', the book mentions many problems with the NVA KIA numbers.  "The most reliable number, Sloan and the others said, might have been the 22 seen by the reconnaissance platoon, which was the first unit to reach the battlefield after the fight." (page 415) Wsacul 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No title

message: This is a derogative term used by one side of the conflict. The term is used to refer to NVA and NLF units. This needs to be fixed. --Cerejota (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Viet Cong?

message: I have undertaken a light copy edit of this article. I have the following comments and suggestions for further improvement:
*currently the article is written using British/Australian English, however, given that the topic relates to the US, it would probably be best per WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES to rework it to be compliant with US English (for instance, kilometres → kilometers, metres → meters, recognised → recognized, etc);
**the convert templates can be made to use US spelling by adding the following code: "|sp=us" to the template, for instance "". I have done this now. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: It's a shame no one referenced the Project CHECO report on this action (listed by the project as "Ambush at XT 686576"). It has some good, period information about the ambush (and it's clearly identified as such throughout the report). Although it focuses much of its attention on fire support for the battle (air and artillery), it provides some good insight. Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHECO Report? 

message: The entire first section of the "Aftermath" section does not coincide with any of the interviews with Vo Minh Triet I have so far seen recorded on TV or accounts I have read in proven good sources like Maraniss' "they marched into sunlight". Given the source that is used for citation (a short article in a non-peer-reviewed magazine) I highly doubt the accuracy of the claim that Lt.Col Vo Minh Triet thought all enemies dead. All sources I know of claim that he had to keep a strategic schedule set by his superiors and didn't have a particular interest in slugging it out with the 2/28th since his troops were out of food. As far as I know he assumed the battle tactically won when the Americans started disengaging. Therefore I suggest either deleting those sentences entirely or finding a better source that can actually stand on its own. Fellbatzen (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath sources/verification
Talk:Sd.Kfz. 4

message: There is a contradiction regarding production dates - 1933 versus post-1941; actually I think there is the wording of this article is very confused and unclear - after following the external references it is clear that this vehicle designation was actually a family of conversions of different trucks (no production start date is noted) - it looks like the author of this article has simply rearranged the wording of the references in such a way that it no longer makes sense.
::: I agree. I did some copyediting, hopefully clarifying a few things, but I have no references on this family of vehicles. It remains a poor article. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production Start Date 

message: I've done a copyedit as part of the Guild Of Copyeditors backlog elimination drive. Not an awful lot actually needed doing, but all the references on the page were to the same Geocities page which has now vanished. I've removed the links, which has changed the problem from "only references are to self-published sources" to "There are no references at all". Retagged as appropriate. Given the plethora of sources about every aspect of World War Two in general, and the armed forces of the Third Reich in particular, it surely shouldn't be that hard to come up with some proper references to what the text describes as a pretty widespread class of vehicles...  Brickie (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit
Talk:Hell Yes

message: The Hell Yes article regarding Beck's work makes it clear that it is an EP, but is it also a song (or subtitle of a song) on the EP? I suppose that does not need to be clarified here, but it may mean that the Alkaline Trio article could be more simply named, Hell Yes (song).Paul W. 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Song or not?
Talk:Ulysses S. Grant III

message: "The centennial celebration began at Grant's Tomb with a twenty-one gun salute and was attended by cadets from West Point. A major controversy developed when ceremonies were to be held at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. A member of the Centennial Commission, who happened to be a black woman, was denied a room at a Charleston, South Carolina hotel. The NAACP protested this vigorously and called for protests and boycotts of any centennial celebrations. It accused the Centennial Commission of being pro-South and not forcing the hotel to allow blacks in, especially on official business. Gen. Grant made the statement that the Centennial Commission was not responsible for state laws. The controversy brought in President John F. Kennedy who stated that he would not accept any discrimination in centennial celebrations."
While interesting, what in the heck does this have to do with Ulysses S. Grant III? I'm deleting it, unless someone wantst to discuss the relvance.
:I don't understand what you are objecting to. It is silly for the article to mention the centennial celebration controversy without saying what the controversy was and what part Grant played in it. I have restored the text to the article. 70.20.228.140 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take it a bit further. Not only is a "major controversy" appropriate in this article, but the nature of the controversy, which is apparently a conflict between a position taken by the NAACP and Grant's defense of the commission's responsibility in the outrageous offense, deserves better coverage. 172.56.26.73 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "He was the son of Frederick Dent Grant, and the grandson of General of the Army and U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant."
To me, this sentence implies that President Grant had no other grandson, and that Frederick had no other son. Is that the meaning intended? (The issue is whether the word "the" is being used properly; as the definite article, it says something significant.) 172.56.27.236 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Uniqueness
Talk:Richard Schreder

message: I wish I could have done better at this article, but I think that something is better than nothing. Hopefully other Schreder enthusiasts will help bring it up to acceptable quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoKu (talk • contribs) 25 August 2006
: - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Cray Time Sharing System

message: It is likely that the 1st paragraph has the order of development wrong.  Indications are that LASL (now LANL) refined documentation and software developed initially from LLL (now LLNL).  The mere fact that LTSS is the "Livermore" Time Shring System and LRLTran came from LLL and the use of LRL to refer to LLL means that paragraph 1 may require editing.  An oral interview of the one of principals seems to confirm this.  Awaiting confirmation from other written documentation.
143.232.210.44 17:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Thomas de Cantilupe

message: I think it's time to move this article off the original format of references including full citations. I will start moving the citations to a list of sources unless there is an objection to this. Jim Killock (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources format
Talk:Gerald of Mayo

message: Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina 3416.  https://archive.org/details/bibliothecahagio01boll/page/508/mode/2up?ref=ol&view=theater&q=geraldus sub Geraldus ab. Elitheriensis et Mageonensis; p. 509. --142.163.195.18 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference
Talk:List of reptiles of Australia

message: All of the top ten most venomous snakes are native to Australia, The Ten Most Venomous Snakes (ref from articles) and
This claim is false the referenced link only refers to Australian snakes if read you further down the page it clearly clearly acknowledges that snakes from others countries are not included. That said its still useful information hence placing it on the talk page. Gnangarra 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I wrote that, but was scepticle (should have obviously read the notes). I had a feeling it was more like 7/10 most venomous snakes. --liquidGhoul 14:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know an Australian sea snake tops the list then i think its a cobra species, there's 2 cobra species in the top ten. I think the rest were locals though.  Think I'll give google a whirl and see I an shake a list free.  Gnangarra 15:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From lead 

message: Perhaps the article needs to be renamed. Whereas the article titled List of birds of Australia is a comprehensive list of birds of Australia, this article is just a list of Families. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: List of reptile families of Australia would work. But, I'd rather see someone make the effort to create the article that should be there. I've got other things going on, or I would. I could suggest it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia. Any other ideas? SchreiberBike | ⌨  06:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of families
Talk:Chelidae

message: The recent edits outlining the taxonomy of this group is actually wrong, they should be reverted to follow the ICZN system which turtles use. PhyloCode is not an accepted nomenclatural system in turtles, turtles follow that listed in CoL, IUCN, this is also at odds with Wikispecies and Wikidata. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Which recent edits? If they 'should be reverted', how about reverting them.  Sun Creator(talk) 11:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Found additional discussion here and here.  Sun Creator(talk) 12:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Taxonomic Edits 

message: Hi  and  sorry I am short of time last few days but wanted to make a start on this. Refs for Ranacephala as sister to Phrynops are as follows;
::Thomson et al., 2021 (not me this is Robert Thomson)
::Holley et al 2020
Neither paper actually moved the taxon out of Mesoclemmys but both demonstrated the paraphyly and recommended it, The TTWG checklist 2021 accepted this and moved it, this is already cited on the page.
Re a collective name for the Mesoclemmys they are the Toad-head turtles, though I think in the future they will be further divided, also Parahydraspis should be in the Chelinae, it is actually a Phrynops (Mynarski, 1976 synonymised them). Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can update the genus level cladogram. I think the total evidence analysis (fig 2) in Holley et al (2020) is the best choice for topology and the genus assignments can follow TTWG-2021. I can also add the extinct genera. I see that the molecular analysis (fig 1b) in Holley et al (2020) has a different arrangement, grouping some Mesoclemmys with "Ranacephala" and Phrynops so I assume this is why you think more changes can be expected. —  Jts1882 | talk  18:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs etc for updated Phylogeny
Talk:Chelodina

message: I've started updating the species list to be a bit more informative. Right now it looks like a good start, but does anyone know how to make consistent nice looking range maps that many species have? This would make the list look quite a bit nicer. Mattximus (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed that column, it didn't look that nice. I think this format is simpler, contains all the information from before, but now includes images and IUCN redlist info.Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those taxa are fossil species, a hobby horse of mine, but not extinct per the IUCN. cygnis insignis 18:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

text: You must have thought the same thing :) I'm in two minds about whether to mention some available names, Hoser's taxa, a secondary ref might not be polite in their opinion. cygnis insignis 19:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep I noticed that and made the change. I did a bit of research but I just wanted to give this page a more friendly format. I tried very hard to keep all contributions intact and not delete any information, just arrange it in a nicer format. Mattximus (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the species list
Talk:Pee Wee Reese

message: The article describes Pee Wee as a "champion marbles player." This sounds like hyperbole. Did he win marbles championships or was he a marbles enthusiast?
The incident in which Reese puts his arm around Robinson occurred in 1947. In that description we read, "Reese, the captain of the team, went over to Robinson, engaged him in conversation, and put his arm around his shoulder in a gesture of support which silenced the crowd." Yet later we read that Reese didn't become captain until later. "Reese became Dodgers' team captain in 1950." So which is it?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.236.229 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Picking Nits

message: Don't you think it'd be appropriate to include the picture of Reese/Robinson? 24.136.160.205 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the section talking about Reese's gesture toward Robinson, it says he was team captain. My impression from the text was that this was in 1947, but later in the page, it says Reese became captain in 1950. This should be corrected or clarified.
--Tim Warner (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: When was Reese team captain?

message: I've noticed this tussle over whether to list Reese's single-season coaching stint in the infobox. This was a year the Dodgers won the World Series so that would seem to underscore its significance. Is there a particular reason it shouldn't be listed in the infobox? It doesn't seem obtrusive. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: - can you help explain here? I don't follow why you believe this coaching stint is random. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 01:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Cause the coaching jobs back in that era were often vanity positions for recently retired veterans. And the consensus is to not include coaching jobs in the info box unless they have a long and notable coaching career. Spanneraol (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so even when the vanity position as such supports a World Series win, that's not notable? Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tussle over the coaching stint
Talk:Booroolong frog

message: — Assignment last updated by Paigeberzinski (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Biology Inquiry and Observation
Talk:Roscoe Nicholson

message: This entry for Roscoe "Ranger Nick" Nicholson has been marked as "non-notable."  In accordance with the instructions included in the notice, this page has been edited to address the concerns by improving, copyediting, and sourcing the page.  
Nicholson is one of the two most important historical figures in the early history of the Chattahoochee National Forest, the other being Arthur Woody.  The Chattahoochee National Forest website refers to him as the "first forest ranger in Georgia." In addition, he played an important role in the development of Rabun County by being the key person behind the extention of phone lines to a new part of the county.  Finally, he has been honored by the creation of the Coleman River Scenic Area, reflecting his status as an early conservationist.
Admittedly, some of this information was not included in the initial draft of the entry and the initial draft of the entry did not include sources.  In light of all of these points, the entry, as revised, should no longer be marked as "non-notable" and should not be deleted.
Tlmclain 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Baw Baw frog

message: — Assignment last updated by JDav39 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies
Talk:Stephen Harding

message: According to the Roman Martyrology, the official list of Catholic feast days, St. Stephen's feast day is 17 April.  I have changed the dates in the article accordingly. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Feast day

message: Can anyone resolve the contradiction over Stephen's date of birth between the opening paragraph and the summary panel?--DStanB (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Birth
Talk:Chironex fleckeri

message: Not sure if this is an acceptable criticism, but dear God, I've never seen such indiscriminate use of the semi-colon!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.204.185 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Grammar

message: "turtles, which are not the only creatures known to be immune to their stings."
Shouldn't that be "which are the only creatures"?  (I'm not an expert, but as far as I know, sea turtles are the only animals that hunt various species of toxic jellies as their primary food source.  So I don't think the 'not' belongs there.)
72.64.182.202 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Negatives

message: It is important to consider that every species will react to the venom differently.  I reworded the lead to reflect this.StephenPCook (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lethality

message: What (or who) decides weather a sting is mild ? Only a small part of the swimmers body touches the jelly-fish or what ? I've read that many people die of the pain chock, which causes a heatattec. I've also read that it has four eyes and can swim very fast and after rain , they gather at river mouths. Like they both can feel the slightest stream of freash water and know that
food follows in the stream of fresh water. Do not recall from where though, but I'm sure I've read it. 83.249.169.163 (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   "mild" sting ? 

message: The paragraph introduces using vinegar as a method of deactivating still functional nematocysts, then points out multiple flaws in the study that discovered this including the release of more toxin.  Then in the final sentence, "Because of these concerns, dilute acetic acid is still the recommended treatment."  Usually people don't keep recommending doing or not something when a study is flawed.  I'm going to change this to "Despite of these concerns, ...".  I'm just posting this here to clarify why in case someone decides it was fine the other way or I misread something.   98.222.199.14 (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: History of sting treatment (last sentence)

message: We have a fair bit about the dimensions of the tentacles, but nothing about the body’s dimensions, other than ‘large’.   Boscaswell talk 05:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions of the body, anyone? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Wildlife Nerd8694 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Invertebrate Zoology
Talk:Censorship in China

message: Recently, several things have been banned in mainland China, including:
* Winnie the Pooh
* PewDiePie
* South Park
* DJ Zedd
Now seems like a ripe time to cover these incidents. The true question is... who will do it?
RayDeeUx (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  counter to popular believes winnie the pooh is not banned. u see him literally in disneyland... 101.127.15.2 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to censored in all cases to be censorship. The source used in this article describes censorship of Winnie the Pooh on social media and film. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent incidents of censorship in China 

message: * https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/business/china-censorship-poverty.html
 Bookku    (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: there is censorship in every country, it is very important for content creator to know how china does rating, yet there is no discussion on it? for example, smoking, what condition and rating is smoking allowed to be shown? we need more proper information, not this political pov that doesn't really explain anything that sound more like a rant. or at least, there should be a link to a separate article about what can and cannot be shown from a legal and rating pov. 101.127.15.2 (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The third paragraph in the lede addresses the censorship ratings in terms of freedom of press.  Path2space (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  need more information on rating standard.