lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Rainbow Bridge National Monument

message: Introduction now says "Rainbow Bridge is often described as the world's largest natural bridge; while this title may be deserved it is a little misleading, as the technical differences between a natural bridge and a natural arch are minor and subject to interpretation."
Actually, I think there's a clearcut distinction: if there's a watercourse under it, it's a natural bridge: http://www.naturalarches.org/archinfo/faq.htm
And the Dictionary of Geological TermsAmerican Geological Institute, 
Dictionary of Geological Terms, 1976, Doubleday Anchor defines a natural bridge as a "natural arch that spans a valley of erosion.
Propose editing to remove POV. Comments?
 Pete Tillman 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with it.  I haven't been there (yet - my wife really wants to go sometime) but looking at the photo on the page, it looks like it straddles a wash - so that would make it a bridge, right? — Zaui (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biggest?

message: Did this National Monument inspire George Lucas for his first Star Wars episode ? The "pod race" sequence (in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, 1999) shows indeed an area of several archs (or bridges ;) very similar to the Rainbow Bridge... Could any Star Wars fan check this information and source it? 343KKT Kintaro (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars ? 

message: While the aerial photo of Rainbow Bridge is a nice photograph, it was also taken illegally. The metadata shows that it was taken with a PHANTOM VISION FC200, which is a camera attached to a quadcopter/drone for aerial photography. These machines are illegal in areas administered by the National Park Service. The system-wide ban went into effect on June 27 2014http://news.yahoo.com/drones-banned-us-national-parks-130432721.html, and according to the metadata, this photo was taken on June 29 2014. Here's an article about a drone incident at Rainbow Bridge about a month later that talks about the ban in this National Monument specifically: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=31035351
Wikipedia shouldn't tolerate illegally taken photos, so I am removing it from this article. BoulderPD (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Aerial Photo
Talk:Velocity (novel)

message: It is allowable to have that much quoatage from a book in the article? Lots42 18:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting 
Talk:Pipe Spring National Monument

message: Hi. I just edited the main article to add an outbound link to an NPS publication titled Pipe Springs National Monument: An Administrative History. It might be helpful for anyone working on this page. I've copied the link below for the sake of posterity.
http://www.nps.gov/pisp/historyculture/upload/PISP_adhi.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.170.173 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pinnacles National Park

message: clearly a start class article. to reach B must expand especially with biology and meteology info and more sources. Anlace 00:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assess per wiki proj calif

message: I looked up the three fault names that are mentioned as running through Pinnacles on the USGS database.  None of them were in there.  From its maps, it looks like the proper fault name is the Calaveras fault        zone, Paicines section; the San Benito fault zone; or the Pine Rock fault.  I'm nowhere near an expert on faults, but unless someone has a better suggestion in the next couple of days I'll change it.  See here for my source. Thanks! -- ColinLittle 21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPS web site does use the names as in the Wikipedia article. Cheers Geologyguy 21:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fault names incorrect? 
Talk:Montezuma Castle National Monument

message: Did you intend to put these tags as headers on the main page? Pete Tillman 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: User:Node ue moved most of the Montezuma Well information to a separate page on 4/2/08. I thought we should  discuss this before completing the move. As the Well is administratively part of Montezuma Castle National Monument, it might be best to keep both together. I don't see any real gain for users from splitting the page. Other opinions? Pete Tillman (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The well is its own geological entity, even if they are part of the same administrative entity. The earth does not care how we label it. It is after all 11 miles away from the castle itself. --Node (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article topic is the National Monument, of which the well is a feature just as the cliff dwellings are.  That the National Monument derives its "castle" name from the cliff dwellings doesn't mean that's all it consists of.  Postdlf (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Montezuma Well -- separate page?

message: I think it would be quite sufficient to simply note the historic origins of the name 'Montezuma Castle' with a comment to the inaccuracies contained therein.  Additionally pointing out that the historic spelling "Montezuma" would be more accurately spelled "Moctezuma" is simply lecturing long dead explorers.  Further belaboring the fact that "neither part of the monument's name is correct" is not necessary.  Besides, lots of things get named based on incomplete or misinformation.  The name given it by explorers is in fact historically significant.  Perhaps, if they had access to wikipedia back then, they could have more properly named it 'This cool condo in the cliff that looks like what we imagine a castle built by Moctezuma would look like'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.63.232.6 (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: No! Really?!

message: Can someone please correct the co-ordinates?  Those given here link to Courthouse Square in the center of Prescott. Cactus Wren (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is it? 

message: So I added and changed a few things; can be seen through my sandbox 
Source 3 still needs to be fixed, I tried to fix it but I could not. DayanarsTalk May 6 2019  —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Additions
Talk:Eclipse (breath freshener)

message: There are two articles on this subject and they need to be merged. Paul Robinson 10:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The MOVE link at the top of this page, but please point out the 2 pages so it can be discussed. --DMW 16:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is the diagram really necessary?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.5.65 (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram?

message: True from my experience, but LOL is this necessary?
--Wæng (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "For some unfathomable reason, it is nigh impossible to find orange flavour Eclipse mints."

message: Similar brands, which both pages describe as a the US or Canadian equivalent. Excel (gum) is a perennial stub with little content. Eclipse (breath freshener) is not too large that it can't include Excel gum information, and it already discusses Canadian distribution of mints under the Excel brand. Though predated by Excel, Eclipse appears to have more global distribution and thus may be the better target to merge to. Ost (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Excel (gum)]] with [[Eclipse (breath freshener)]]
Talk:Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument

message: While 3.5 mya is barely Late Pliocene (if one refers to the non-standard "middle Pliocene", this would be it), IIRC the fossil beds near Hagerman go into the Earliest Pleistocene, some 1.8 mya. It might not be the same location though; the website says 3-4 mya which is slap bang "middle Pliocene". Might be some obsolete dating, boundaries have shifted a bit around in the last years.
FWIW, the later date (c.2-1.8 mya) appears to be Glenns Ferry Formation sediments. IONO whether these have been reassigned or redated. Dysmorodrepanis 22:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Age
Talk:Grand Canyon–Parashant National Monument

message: The article says this is in Arizona and the infobox for Nevada is included and which claims it is also in Nevada.  Which is correct?  Vegaswikian 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arizona only? 
Talk:Giant Sequoia National Monument

message: The Boole Tree is claimed to be one of the ten largest Giant Sequoias with a base diameter of 35.65 feet (112 / π), yet the next sentence states that "regular" Sequoia trees have a base diameter of 40 feet! This would make the Boole Tree smaller than the normal Sequoia. Backspace (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of Boole Tree

message: "Redwood National and State Parks" is a VERY specific name for only REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK and the three state parks (Prarie Creek, Del Norte Coast, and Jedediah Smith) that are located adjacent to (actually touching) Redwood National Park. This category is in error listing any parks beyond those three State parks in addition to RNP and will confuse readers. No other parks are included in the historic management compact that exists in between only the three listed state parks and Redwood National Park. Disagree? Call/Check sources related to Redwood National Park Headquarters in Crescent City, CA...Norcalal (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redwood National and State Parks designation REMOVED 

message: Previously stated "The National Monument includes several places listed on the National Register of Historic Places including a historic cabins district, a ranger cabin, and the south entrance sign."  The entrance sign, historic cabin districts are in Sequoia National Park not the Monument.  According to the National Register of Historic Places there are no sites within the monument that the Forest Service has had listed.  The National Park Service has gotten the General's Highway listed and that road serves as part of the Park and Forest/Monument boundary.  The forest does have concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer that some sites are eligible for the Register but the Forest Service has not completed the process to get them listed on the Register.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gator567 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Register of Historic Places Sites 

message: IMHO, this particular article is heavily slanted in favor of the lumber industry, the political supporters of the U.S. Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, which looks upon the National Forests (and this National Monument) as crop resources rather than as national, natural treasures. Although proclaimed a Natl. Monument in 2000, as of 2008 this National Monument was still being logged for pine and other lumber species with no end in sight.  The Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and other conservation organizations should also be contributing to this article to present a balanced view. SFFrog (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited, but Biased, Text
Talk:Fort Moultrie

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  --dashiellx (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: I could not find any congressional action designating Fort Moultrie as a "national monument" nor a presidential proclamation. In fact, page 14 of the 1998 GMP  states "No enabling legislation exists for Fort Moultrie." — Eoghanacht talk 11:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. "Fort Moultrie is a unit of Fort Sumter National Monument. "  So shall we rename it, and if so, to what? Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've worked on the article, the only issue now is the name, see :Category:American Civil War forts to see how other civil war forts are named, not conistently I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National Monument"? 

message: This suspect wording either needs to be examined or clarified with respect to John B. Floyd, first made Secretary of War by John Buchanan.  Floyd's various actions were hardly laudatory, but he was never accused of treason.  After leaving office and before shots were fired in anger at Fort Sumter, he was accused of conspiracy and fraud, but the indictment was quashed.  In his memoirs, Grant did use the word treason when referring to Floyd, but that would put him in the same company as all the Confederate fighters and sympathizers, like Lee.Euonyman (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "soon to be traitor" 

message: I'm preparing a significant expansion of the "Postbellum period" subsection, including details of the Endicott and later batteries 1895-1945. I'll also be adding references for 1st System and 3rd System eras.  Any wishing to collaborate are welcome.  RobDuch (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postbellum period 

message: I noticed some unreliable sources while translating this article for a foreign language wiki, but I don't have time to fix them right now. Specifically the source is FortWiki, which is heavily cited and seems to be SPS. Seraphim System (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fort Moultrie
Talk:Fort Matanzas National Monument

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: In some edit summaries or comments elsewhere, I saw some suggestion that recently created Fort Matanzas National Monument Headquarters and Visitor Center should not be a separate article, could be covered within this National Monument article.  I think it should be separate.  The current coverage in this article is just right: a bare mention in one sentence plus a See Also link.  It would be confusing to readers to give more, about the National Park Service rustic architecture etc., which is hugely secondary to the real history of the place.  Happy to discuss as always, am suggesting here is the place to discuss if anyone is interested. --doncram 13:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fort Matanzas National Monument Headquarters and Visitor Center separate
Talk:Fort Frederica National Monument

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 
Talk:Florissant Formation

message: The intro can be improved by not using the word "algae" (whatever that means), and substituting "diatoms" (which is correct). That makes sense of the blooms, because diatoms need silica for their frustules. The word algae is hopelessly compromised, and serves only to confuse. "Algal bloom" is therefore misleading. Next, I would suggest stressing the two cycles of deposition, as in Meyer 2003 p32/33. It's a pity we can't use his illustrations! In general, the later sections seem accurate, and it is really only the intro which makes me wince a bit. 15:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity
Talk:Chiricahua National Monument

message: Chiricahua National Monument Historic Designed Landscape should be merged into the article about the national monument, expanding the existing section and including the NRHP infobox. There need not be separate articles for overlapping NRHP designations; readers are best served by discussing everything in one place. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Rhyolite Park and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 1#Rhyolite Park until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Mdewman6 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rhyolite Park" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Castle Pinckney

message: Anyone have a recent photo of the fort (or whats left of it) ? Engr105th (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern photo 
Talk:Castillo de San Marcos

message: I just noticed a Fort Marion article (no categories, only 2 articles link to it).  It seems to me this is good candidate for merging into Castillo de San Marcos and setting as an . — Eoghanacht talk 20:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fort Marion article 

message: The Castillo itself is located at 11 Castillo Drive & the Administrative Offices are located at 1 Castillo Drive. FieldMarine (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: I'm not a regular at this article, so will leave it to others to place or not place this new image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New image needing placement

message: The image shown here, and this one which I can upload and crop are other choices. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: This article duplicates material and sometimes disagrees with the Manuel de Cendoya article. PAR (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts and duplications 
Talk:Booker T. Washington National Monument

message: why was the booker t. Washington monument made? 24.72.147.160 (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: you idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 24.72.147.160 (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  booker t.
Talk:Uni-Mart

message: Uni-Mart article starter here.  I rated this as a stub b/c it still has bare-bones information, and mid-level importance b/c the chain is a notable part of commercial culture, particularly in central Pennsylvania where it competes heavily with Sheetz and 7-11 for convenience store brand recognition.  --Erielhonan 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating and Importance 

message: In the late 50s to mid-60s there was a membership store in Burbank, California named 'Unimart'.
It was located at Vanowen Street and Hollywood Way. The building was later used by Lockheed, and is currently (2011) used by Fry's Electronics. LorenzoB (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Burbank Unimart
Talk:Camp Peary

message: I think the CIA wants this information to be "confidential." We really shouldn't have this here... Feel free to object...
:It is irrelevant what the CIA wants. Wikipedia is not afilliated with the CIA (as far as we know ;)193.190.253.148 07:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we need to keep this article here to act as a honeypot in order to confine cia page edits to a controlled space where we can keep an eye on them.  failing that, we need to keep this page here so that wikipedia editors will believe that cia page edits are being confined and will continue to contribute to the project in order to provide cover and plausible deniability for cia control over wikipedia.  please do not discuss this any more.  the walls have eyes.  — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confidential?
Talk:Crossover music

message: I think there's an oversight in the Classical Crossover section.  There's a series of musical albums called Classical Made Modern (classicalmademodern.com) which is all classical crossover: famous Classical repertoire played in modern music styles.  Can someone add it to the page with proper attribution. Synbass (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to Classical Crossover
Talk:Belle Vue (greyhound racing)

message: My grandfather remembers monkeys being dressed as jockeys and riding on the backls of greyhounds at Belle Vue in Manchester. Can't seem to find any info about this on t'internet and we're unsure of the year. Could anyone verify this, and if so, could it possibly be written about in the main article?
(Update: )
Mr Kipling 11:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monkey racing

message: Do you have any references for your info on GRA. I'm getting conflicting stories and it wd be nice to get it straight. hjuk (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GRA
Talk:Rosenwald School

message: Did You Know
*...that over 5,000 Rosenwald Schools, shops, and teachers' homes in the southern portion of the United States were built primarily for the education of African Americans by Julius Rosenwald, who was part-owner of Sears, Roebuck and Company?
Realized that not all schools were in southern states and matching funds were required for grants, so blurb is corrected as follows for accuracy:
*...that over 5,000 Rosenwald Schools, shops, and teachers' homes in the United States were built primarily for the education of African Americans with funds donated by Julius Rosenwald, who was part-owner of Sears, Roebuck and Company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaoverland (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blurb for DYK 

message: I believe that the philanthropist Julius Rosenwald cited in this article on the Rosenwald School is the same person as Lessing Julius Rosenwald the businessman, who has his own Wikipedia page but which does not mention his philanthropy nor the schools.  Perhaps a more knowledgable editor could link the two articles together?
Claudia Bestor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.235.194 (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julius Rosenwald = Lessing Julius Rosenwald 

message: I added External Link to http://www.noblehillwheeler.com/ 
It was featured for two days on CNN US news web site
G. Robert Shiplett 17:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosenwald projet in the news 

message: I provided a link to the WP article "Julius Rosenwald." I would like to propose that the biographical information about JR be omitted in this section.
I would also like to recommend that this section be renamed "The Rosenwald-Washington Partnership" to reflect the unique nature of their joint work.  This is the key theme of the Stephanie Deutsch source.
Any thoughts?
BrandenburgG (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julius Rosenwald and Booker T. Washington 

message: Wouldn't it make sense to change the name of the page to Rosenwald Schools since it's describing more than one school? ChillyBlanket (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural name