lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Technical theatre

message: This doesn't list the sound crew. Are they convered by one of the other categories or is this an oversight?
----
Is this page correctly named?  I've done some amateur backstage work, and I've never heard the term.  Would "technical aspects of theatre" be a better name?
----
In the English-speaking world, this is Backstage or Production. I've never heard the term either, and have 15 years' stage experience. Sound crew could be included with lighting, since they nearly always work in very close proximity, but I feel that a separate category is better.
:In my high school's theatre, the tech booth was too small for separate lighting and sound operators, so there was usually just one guy who did both -- close proximity indeed.
----
In my school theatre days, the world of lights and sound was known as "tech", verb forms "doing tech", "running tech" or occasionally "teching". I even have some sort of plastic trophy for "best tech design", but these all strike me as a bit too informal for an article name. "Technical theatre" sounds a little odd to me, too; I wouldn't object to "backstage crew" or some such, perhaps.
----
I think the more generic term is stagecraft for the art of taking a designer's product and turning it into a realized production.  The designers, managers, technical crew, supervisors, etc. fall under production, but there's ambiguity in the difference between production and Theatrical production.  
Lighting and sound should be separate- in the US until very recently they were different unions.  They're also very different-- there's a philosophy of big electrons vs. little electrons, this is why video falls under sound... usually.  The building of scenery and the designing of scenery should be separate topics.  They may be done by the same person, but they are very different arts.
Part of the problem here is geographical, part of the problem is cultural.  What I think the UK calls a lighting chief would be called a master electrician through most of the east coast in the US, a production electrician through most of the west coast, and lighting supervisor in many reigional theatres.  There is nuance in the job titles-- but they're effectively the same thing.  
Technical theatre tends to refer to anything that isn't done by the actors or directors, and primarily in cultures where the designer and the implmentor (Lighting designer/Master electrician) are the same person.  I've run into the term mostly in this context.  Out of context, Technical theatre is kind of like technical ballet...
I vote for stagecraft as the generic catchall for all of this.
: BLP 22:07, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

message: I just marked this page for cleanup and as a theatre-stub, for the following reasons: the first paragraph is not written smoothly or objectively, using phrases like "it is common" (common by what definition) and "...are at least as important..." (NPOV). While I personally agree with them, I just think this article could be expanded and tidied up a bit. 
On a side note, I agree that stagecraft would be an appropriate general term. (The Swami 02:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Marked Up
Talk:Commonwealth of Independent States

message: In the introductory someone wrote that "The CIS has its origins in the Russian Empire..." Why not the Kyivan Rus or the Egyptian Empire of Pharaohs? The CIS has its origins in Novo-Ogorevo and Belavezha state dacha and has nothing to do with the Russian Empire by means of absolutely. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The CIS is the Eden garden of corruption for the post-Soviet elites in connection with the local mafia groups and clans who parasite on what is left from the Soviet Union. It has nothing to do with political science or history. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Take a deep breath and look at its equivalent - the Visegrád_Group. CIS is just a logical development of economic and geopolitical situation. Neighboring countries tend to form unions to clear things up. And the Post-Soviet elite is very little different from West elite, West elite is same closed club and uses the word "lobby" instead of "corruption" for the very same reason of indirect influece. 89.0.125.95 (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that the CIS finds its origin in the dissolution of the USSR. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - it had nothing to do with the Czarist R.E. 74.37.206.38 (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory 

message: To avoid content duplication – Member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States contains no substantial content that's not already present in this article. — kashmīrī TALK 21:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge. It’s kind of a nice standalone summary, but pretty much entirely a content fork per guidelines.  —Michael Z. 15:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Merge. Was created by a banned user anyway, and does not have any content that is really different from this page.132.231.51.111 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Merge It's got a lot of content but I agree, if it was standalone as a list page maybe it could stand on it's own  but it's extremely redundant currently. Marleeashton (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States]] into [[Commonwealth of Independent States]]
Talk:Hawaiian language

message: why is the flag for the hawaiian language page an israeli flag? mentions hebrew once and israel nonce. 73.238.227.37 (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are talking about. I only see a US flag once & the Hawaiian Flag twice. Where do you see an Israeli flag? Peaceray (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The preview image was changed to the flag of Israel through vandalism to a module. It was reverted quickly but remained in the cache for some pages. I've purged the cache for this page so it should be fixed now. Nardog (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image
Talk:Club (organization)

message: Religious club  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3023:916:4A88:111:7623:3FF3:3B9E (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

message: The reference to the Hoboken Turtle Club mentions that it existed as of 1911. In fact, the club existed much later than that -- at least until 1939. Should this be changed? My source for this is a New Yorker article that makes mention of it from that year: http://web.archive.org/web/20061211133042rn_2/www.newyorker.com/archive/content/articles/010219fr_mitchell?010219fr_mitchell  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.72.88 (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I placed the  tag on this page.  I think it's too long and meandering--it need sections, etc. --Kewp 17:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The proposal is to merge Voluntary association to here. As far as I can see, there are no significant conceptual distinctions – although there are of course differences in connotation; one wouldn't call a gentlemen's club a gentlemen's voluntary association.  --Lambiam 06:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: AGAINST There is a significant legal distinction in that the word "club" is used colloquially but the term "voluntary association" is often used to distinguish a legal entity from other types such as a cooperative, domestic corporation, charity corporation or so on. Clubs may choose what type of legal entity to be, but the phrase voluntary association often has a precise and technical legal meaning.  Rorybowman (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal (2010) 

message: It is said that clubbing is injurious to health.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveM123 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Clubbing
Talk:Triton

message: If somebody wants (I did it for vulcan) someone
can use the link "Pages that link here" and correct the
links to go directly to the desired page.
Already did. :) I note that there are a lot of astronomical pages that have since been split into astronomical and mythological pages, and others which probably should be. I might make a project of cleaning all that stuff up sometime, once Wikipedia's got its link database fixed. Bryan Derksen
Anyone who has a wish to make him/herself useful in this way is advised to check out Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, which contains a list of the most linked-to disambiguation pages. Andre Engels
----
The list of ships named "USS Triton" is now duplicated here and on USS Triton. I'm vaguely uneasy about this; they may go out of synch with each other in future edits. Perhaps USS Triton should be redirected to here? Bryan 22:55, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking it would save people a step, but if you want to revert it, go ahead. The links to the three ships that have live pages presumably won't get broken. I trimmed the ship info, so if you make the redirect, the rest should be put here also. wwoods 01:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: "Triton" is the word for "newt" in many languages and shows up the scientific names of many subtribes of newts, like Hypselotriton, Laotriton, Pachytriton, Paramesotriton, etc.  Should this be added?
Cameron Nedland (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . – Uanfala (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newts 

message: How about the malware? https://www.technologyreview.com/search/?s=triton
Barely mentioned at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triconex#Triton_malware
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 
:Barely mentioned barely qualifies for an entry. I've added it. Seems like a likely search term. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malware
Talk:Ethernet

message: Currently this article says
"Due to ... the reduced panel space needed by twisted pair Ethernet, most manufacturers now build Ethernet interfaces directly into PC motherboards, eliminating the need for installation of a separate network card."
Reduced compared to what?
Is the panel space required by modern twisted pair Ethernet less than the panel space require by earlier twisted pair Ethernet?
What does the panel space used by Ethernet in a 19-inch rack panel have anything to do with Ethernet interfaces on PC motherboards?
What other kind of panel could this be alluding to?
--DavidCary (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, the article refers to the reduced back panel footprint of 8P8C compared to Ethernet's initial DA-15 AUI port (for coax or an external transceiver) – twisted-pair Ethernet has used 8P8C from the start, so there's no difference there. The required back panel space isn't the only reason for ubiquity (the others being decreasing cost and increasing demand), so we should rephrase or maybe remove that sentence. --Zac67 (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited source (from 2004—wow) says nothing about "panel space", and the term really doesn't make sense here. I agree with  that "back-panel space" may be the intended meaning. Nevertheless, it's unsourced, and far from clear to the average WP reader. I changed the sentence to read:  This section is starting to show some age, so more editing is probably a good idea. Good catch, ! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 11:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  reduced panel space
Talk:Ken Kesey

message: I found two sources recounting the performance of Twister in Boulder that I hoped would clear up the cn tag. Unfortunately, neither mentions Ginsberg reading with Kesey:
*Kesey flees Boulder after play brouhaha
*A report from Naropa
Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, found it. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading in Boulder with Ginsberg?
Talk:Junk DNA

message: Perhaps having the word YET used more frequently, as well as having as a second point if not the first, a clarification clarifying / a differentiation differentiating between,..
.
1 matched-with-others-in-surpassed-evolutionary-progressions-and-so-redundant(true junk) DNA,
2 assumed-no-function junk from genetic processes (high confidence - temporary retentions kept longer than needed if needing to be kept at all), and
3 theorised to have no function but of more compatible DNA-chemistry -combinations ... junk (ones that have still matching after-activation matching chemistry with organelles or functional materials in plasma/interstitial spaces, but are without 'context' in nearby genes along the chains, and so seem pointless, despite chemical-compatibility.  Compared to things like say, immune system instructions or embryonic stages, ones with clear-purpose)
(less-confidence / more reasonable uncertainty - the chemistry suggests a high likelyhood if not outright proof, of past usefullness)  ...
.
... could help to introduce the concept FIRST?
Rather than finding the contrast or inferred-problems with the single concept or inferred consistency, further down the page,
and the static tense (scientific conclusion-ary) avoiding the still-new problems of the field?  i.e.  using YET, adds necessary cautionary relativity to a solid concept, but a phenomenon that is sometimes irreversibly presumed static.
---
i.e. when something THOUGHT junk, is 'let-back-in', at the PREVIOUS time of it being labelled junk, the static nature was less correct, than saying "YET", so,.. yet-confirmed as junk, or yet-re-included back into unknown status rather than confirmed-junk or certified-junk, etc.  A big part of that problem is WHO certifies, but that might end up making the page much larger than it should be if that kind of debate/issue should be on a separate page or is not subjectively purposed  -  i.e.  at least the 'YET' nature of both corrective processes, reveals just HOW-new, this science is. Sort of like if you re-wrote it entirely, and re-wrote it with constant inferred STATUS inferences, to keep reminding the reader, that DNAs classification can rapidly CHANGE, that DNA is only sometimes statically clearly-purposed, nature's IMperfections, compared to imaginary ideals, etc.  That's not opinion, that's hard-science.  Human DNA for tails, for example, are recent, but HAD function.  Tense with it as an example, would be an easy example to demonstrate the principle of CAUTION with DNA's classification as junk or not-junk. 120.21.106.152 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your point. Could you give a specific example of something you think should be changed? Genome42 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor tense suggestion 

message: This section of the article serves no purpose since the important material is covered in the rest of the article. I will delete it in a few days unless there are objections from other editors. Genome42 (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 'Measurement and estimates' section
Talk:Sigismund von Herberstein

message: 15th Century Carniola cannot be defined as "Southern Austria". In fact, the term "Austria" was restricted only to the present-day provinces of Upper and Lower Austria. Only in 1564, when the emperor Ferdinand I. divided his share of the Habsburg lands among his three children, did the term "Austria" spread south (as Carniola, Styria, Carinthia and Gorizia were renamed "Inner Austria"). Viator slovenicus 20:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: South Austria?

message: Would anyone be able to add sources to this article? There are some hints above, but I'm not entirely sure where the information in the article is from in the first place (including the birth and death dates). The first draft is here (back in 2002) and the contributor left in April of that year with this comment, though from the above he came back as User:Phaedrus86, who stopped contributing in 2007. There are versions on other language Wikipedias. The birth and death dates were added by an unregistered editor in 2004. Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:ISO 8601

message: We might rephrase or delete it so it wouldn't be misleading.
It might confuse the readers looking for the current time, it's not guaranteed to be the current time, since it requires a page purge to update it.
Or we should at least add a disclaimer, but it might be too verbose and distracting. I'm not sure if there is a standard wikipedia disclaimer for this kind of element on pages. Lucasxp64 (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we remove the "Current time"? 

message: On 17 January 2024  made an edit which changed many dash-like character changes, quite a few of which were incorrect or inadvisable. For example, the article presented ""2004-05" as valid ISO 8601 notation for May 2004, which it is. The edit changed it to "2004–05" (that is, using an n-dash character) which has an entirely different meaning, 2004-2005. In another spot "−05:00 was changed to "−05:00" which isn't incorrect, but presents difficulties for editors, because in edit mode it is just about impossible to distinguish the various dash-like characters. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect dash-like character changes

message: This (in Times):
ISO 8601-1:2019 allows the T to be omitted in the extended format, as in "13:47:30", but only allows the T to be omitted in the basic format when there is no risk of confusion with date expressions.
contradicts this (in Combined date and time representations):
In ISO 8601:2004 it was permitted to omit the "T" character by mutual agreement as in "200704051430",[37] but this provision was removed in ISO 8601-1:2019.
Lacking access to the published standard, I've no way of ascertaining which is correct. Roger Rohrbach (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What's meant by the 1st statement is that "194705" is not allowed as a time (except when context implies it has to be time), because it could mean May 1947. It would have to be "T194705" or "19:47:05" to be unambiguously a time and not a date. The 2nd statement applies only when a date and a time are combined. There is no contradiction. Indefatigable (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory statements about prefixing times with 'T'
Talk:Regional accents of English

message: The most obvious aural difference in spoken North American English, to me, is the way they say "Noo York"  and Frank Herbert's "Doon" and "toob"  and "stoopid".   I hardly notice most of the other so-called differences listed here,  although I do notice differences in terminology and idioms.Lathamibird (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article links to the article on North American English regional phonology which has the information you are asking for. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about ,,,,, 

message: The term British accent is categorical for all accents which are coincidentally both geologically close and phonologically similar to each other. To say that the category itself doesn't exist is malformed. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not state or imply that the category of British English accent does not exist. To the contrary, what it is says is that there is not a single distinct British accent. Rather it says there are several English accents which are distinctly British, not just one. Mediatech492 (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "British English accent does not exist" 

message: The introduction doesn’t mention grammatical differences. As a youngster in the 50s I knew which local town people came from and could explain why. All I remember now is that the differences were a mixture of grammar and phraseology, not pronunciation. An example may be the widely recognized southern US expression “you all” (y’all).
There are also regional differences in verb use and conjugation notably the verb “to be” For example, some regions conjugate “to be” using only a single word - “am” (‘m) or “be”, or “is” (‘s) as in..
I’m
You’m
He’m (or ‘eem)
We’m
You’m
They’m
or….
I be
You be
He be
We be
You be
They be
or…
I’s
You’s
He’s
We’s
You’s
They’s 2607:F010:3FE:FFEE:0:0:0:6C (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: The article says 'In words like "chance", "plant", "branch", "sample" and "demand", the vast majority of Australians use the short /æ/ vowel from the word "cat".' Australian English has the lad/bad split; "cat" uses the short /æ/ vowel and the five words listed use the long /æː/ vowel (except among speakers who use the long /aː/ vowel instead). Any Australian will corroborate this - ask them to say "pants" and "chance" and notice the difference. 220.235.103.138 (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian English vowels
Talk:Meiji Restoration

message: This will be list of citations for sources the G369 Modern Japan course students will be using to edit this page:
(Npsteinh (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography for Edits 

message: Due to many of the most recent edits being vandalism, I would like to suggest either Pending Changes protection or Semi-Protection.
Nemoanon (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The English translation of Meiji Tennō's proclamation from January 3, 1868 is wrong. It refers  to Satow (A Diplomat In Japan, p. 353), but Satow gives another date, Feb. 3, 1868. Satow's text is clearly a diplomatic note to foreign embassies, while the proclamation of Jan. 3 [Keiō 3/12/9] is directed to the Japanese people. It is also much more detailed and can be found here: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%8E%8B%E6%94%BF%E5%BE%A9%E5%8F%A4_(%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC)#%E7%8E%8B%E6%94%BF%E5%BE%A9%E5%8F%A4%E3%81%AE%E5%A4%A7%E5%8F%B7%E4%BB%A4
--Bescheid (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the shogunate, wrong proclamation (王政復古の大号令) 

message: There's reference to "the young Emperor's edict" of 3 January. It's unclear what is being referred to here, although I note there is reference elsewhere in this talk page to a 'proclamation' of that date. The Charter Oath seems to be something different as that was in April according to the linked article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDavies (talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the shogunate: What edict? 

message: It should be added that though Japan doesn't have any recorded history of criminalizing homosexuality it was during the Meiji Restoration from 1872 to 1880 where homosexuality was briefly criminalized 197.186.3.115 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality
Talk:Almost all

message: Could "could mean" be replaced with "can mean" everywhere (except in the introduction)? "Could mean" sounds like "but there are strings attached to what I'm going to tell you, and I won't tell you about them - hehe" - which is mean for a dictionary. "Can mean" means "sometimes it actually means what I'm telling you - no strings attached". --User:Haraldmmueller 06:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry for that, and for not noticing your request earlier. I'm just used to write that way. Is there anything else in the article that bothers you? Please ping me when you reply, this page is on my watchlist but I (almost) never check it. Professor Proof (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "could mean" -> "can mean"? 

message: Should this be “The Cantor set is almost null”?
Not a mathematician, but it seems wrong as written (since article is about “is almost”, and based on looking at Cantor set, which seems to not be null). 24.217.225.229 (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cantor set is in fact a null set, i.e., it is a Lebesgue measurable set, and its Lebesgue measure is zero. ("The Cantor set is null" is math jargon for "the Cantor set is a null set", not for "the Cantor set is the empty set". I think this could be better phrased in the article.) -- Tea2min (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “The Cantor set is also null”