lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Template talk:Video formats

message: "(ATSC & ISDB are part of the DVB standard)"
Someone care to post any kind of reference? Pmbarros 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The line "DVB standards:" is misleading, since ATSC and ISDB are not related with the DVB consortium. It should be rewritten as "Digital terrestrial television standards". --Cantalamessa 08:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: Pal Plus is still in use... removed defunct info from the template.Ricnun 12:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PalPlus

message: Removed POV as expressed with "TVRO". Systems still in wide use all over the word, were analog cable is common, for example. Template is simpler now.Ricnun 12:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Global perspective

message: I think historical line covers only pre PAL & NTSC systems. Analog HDTV systems should be handled as　vestigial standards.--Hadsn (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why MUSE and MAC were put into historical? 

message: Should we add more digital satellite broadcast system here? or remove them? Digital satellite broadcast systems and video formats are not very relevant, but analog HDTV video formats are basically used on satellites broadcast. Corchorifolius (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital satellite broadcast systems
Talk:Benedetto Accolti the Elder

message: This article was seriously messed up-two different persons with same names.I have no idea how this had happened,but I tried to correct that mistake,so I removed the ecclesiastical duties,because they belong to his grand-nephew.Plese be careful when writing articles,because at first it is confusing that this noble man had son and also was a Cardinal,who usually didn't have families and children! Drjmarkov (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an odd title for an article...how about "Benedetto Accolti the Elder"? Is he ever called that? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Vukan Nemanjić

message: *Religion → Serbian Orthodox → Roman Catholic (converted) 
 
I was looking for  information that Vukan Nemanjić is converted Catholic but I found nothing. If someone could attach RS which talks about it and if the source does not exist I suggest deleting that part. Mikola22 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 
Talk:Blanche of England

message: I noted the attached image at Commons, but cannot locate material concerning it.--Wetman (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bonafos Caballeria

message: This whole article seems to be copyvio from this article  - Listed as "Copyright 2002 JewishEncyclopedia.com. All rights reserved."
Furthermore it is fairly non-neutral in its descriptions and has a distinct lack of refs.
Chaosdruid (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Thanks for investigating the problem. I do a lot with copyright work, and it always makes me happy to see other people attending to it, too. :D No dispute that it's non-neutral and needs better references, but from a copyright standpoint it's clear. We run into the Jewish Encyclopedia from time to time at WP:CP. Certain elements of the website can be copyrighted, but they can't exert copyright over material that has already lapsed into public domain because of age, and the contents of articles they published between 1901 and 1906 are freely reproducible because of age. When in doubt, I generally check the authors of the piece just to be sure they haven't slipped a new one in on us. :) This piece was written by Richard James Horatio Gottheil, who died in 1936, and Meyer Kayserling, who died in 1905. We should have no copyright issues here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio, non-neutral POV and lack of refs
Talk:Walter Map

message: This links to a non-Catholic religious description. They were all Catholics back then. This is one of couple descriptions that's a little confusing.  For anyone who might be editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishop of Hereford is a very short article, but I guess its implication is that the bishopric (founded, it says, in 676) slipped from the Catholic church into the Church of England, very much as the whole of England did. If that's right, the link here is not at fault; it's just that the article Bishop of Hereford needs more history. Andrew Dalby 15:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  wouldn't this make more sense being discussed on the article for Bishop of Hereford itself? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  Worth noting too that the CoE didn't exist when Walter Map was writing (not until 1534). Pbhj (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bishop of Hereford]]??

message: His name was Walter Mapes, not Map.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.74.77.2 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "Mapes" has certainly been used, especially in 19th century publications, but to say that his name was "not Map" you'd be arguing with a lot of more recent sources. The fact is, spellings vary. In any case it was a bad idea to change the spelling in the footnote to the ODNB: that's a bibliographical reference, and that's the way they spell it. Andrew Dalby 18:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling
Talk:Amadu III of Masina

message: I'm proposing to move this article back to its original title, which is what one sees in the literature and what is used locally in Mali. This is the same issue with the article for Amadu Seku, "Sekou Amadu II."--A12n (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert to original name

message: First of all, thanks to the powers that be for extending discussion on the move proposal. Disappointed that there was not more input. FWIW, still maintain that despite good intention, the original move from the stable title leaves us with a suboptimal solution for naming the article - anything using the numbered names will require modifications (as we have seen with Seku Amadu III and now Amadu III of Masina) that in effect create artifacts (per previous discussion). This could have been avoided by first proposing the move and going through a discussion period. I'll gladly support any proposal to move the article back to Amadu Amadu and consider any proposal to move to Amadu Amadu plus a modifying term, probably parenthetical, to facilitate disambiguation.--A12n (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. Don't really see that the discussion is closed, but would agree that it is not my place to reintroduce a proposal. Part of my reason for writing earlier was follow up on information that is relevant, but was not available at the time when the earlier proposal was discussed. I still firmly believe that "Amadu III" is not an appropriate title for this article, and if WP rules helped get us to this place, then they need to be modified to allow consideration of wider context than counts (e.g., the origin and context of use of particular forms by reliable English sources, use in other languages in which the name is important, etc.). It is also worth remembering that the actual current title of this article, "Amadu III of Masina" is not "most often used," and in fact is a creation - arguably necessary once one has gone down the road of renaming the article "Amadu III," but also unique to Wikipedia (and now whatever sources have mirrored WP content - which gets back to another point: WP is not just a neutral reflection of usage, but actually has an impact on knowledge and usage). In any event, I do appreciate that you were trying to do the right thing, but from my perspective the outcome looks wrong for African studies, students beginning introduced to the history of Mali, and Wikipedia's representation of African history. I'll leave it here until such time as the issue is brought up by others.--A12n (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow up on article name & move proposal
Talk:William de Braose (bishop)

message: The recent change explained with  "(update sorting per WP:MCSTJR)" was misguided. The name does not indicate a place of origin as in the example given for Peire de Corbiac at WP:MCSTJR. It is a family surname at this time. The de Braose family had been based around Wales for about 200 years. So the example which fits the caseon WP:MCSTJR is that given for Alberto di Chiara, Otto von Bismarck etc.Doug (at Wiki) 09:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting 

message: Was he Welsh or English? The de Braose family is English. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: His parentage is unknown. There were several branches of the Braose family by this time distributed across England and Wales. His appointment at Llandaff is likely to mean he came from a Welsh branch. Doug (at Wiki) 11:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "His appointment at Llandaff is likely to mean he came from a Welsh branch." - not necessarily. Many wealthy English families could procure bishoprics in Wales. Since "His parentage is unknown", then it's safer to remove all categories relating to his nationality to avoid WP:OR. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Doug (at Wiki) 11:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality
Talk:Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad

message: Perhaps this page and the last section on the page of Agudas Chasidei Chabad could be merged together. Both are on the topic of the Chabad library. Sagtkd 20:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The library definitely deserves a special article. This is a stub (compare it to the Hebrew wiki), so I suggest the relevant info in Agudas Chasidei Chabad be merged here, not the other way. DGtal 11:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Amalie Dietrich

message: "she was boarded out to strangers, and, in 1859, left her to fend for herself". (Para 2, Early life) It is unclear who the various pronouns refer to: the mother or the child. I am hoping someone with access to the reference, can clear up the confusion. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouns!
Talk:William de Cantilupe (died 1254)

message: Article confuses his wife and mother, grammar needs to be straightened out and the right children put in the table.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.136.114 (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improperly attributes children to William 

message: Juliana was this William's sister. Joanna was his daughter (supported by references)Doug (at Wiki) 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children sorted
Talk:Catherine of Valois

message: John 76.182.220.150 (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: It has been suggested that Henry ordered her memorial to be removed to distance himself from his common ancestry. 
This doesn't really make sense -- Catherine was pure royalty!  How would her tomb remind people of his common ancestry? --Jfruh (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "common ancestry?" 

message: On the Owen Tudor page it mentions John Beaufort as the man Catherine was planning to marry:
"Queen Catherine, upon being denied permission by her son's regents to wed John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, allegedly said upon leaving court, "I shall marry a man so basely, yet gently born, that my lord regents may not object.""
On the Catherine of Valois page it says it was Edmund Beaufort:
"Catherine was still young and might wish to remarry which concerned the Protector, the king's uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. Rumours abounded that Catherine planned to marry Edmund Beaufort, Count of Mortain, her late husband's cousin."
Did she intend to marry both of them? That seems unlikely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.105.23 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent with the Owen Tudor page
Talk:Bazman

message: The article currently states "The mountain was discovered in 1896 by Percy Sykes and Brazier Creagh;[6] back then its volcanic nature was already known.[7]"
I think there are a few problems with this sentence. (I don't have access to reference 6 (Tchermak's 1956) so I can't check that source).
* (1) Discovery. Bearing in mind how e.g. Western European men spent much of history allegedly "discovering" places that indigineous people had known about for centuries, is "discovered" the most accurate and appropriate word? Possible alternatives are "surveyed" or "climbed".
* (2) Reference 6 (Tchermak's 1956) apparently states "discovered in 1896 by Percy Sykes and Brazier Creagh" but reference 7 (Reclus 1906) states that the mountain was climbed (not discovered, by the way) by Molesworth Sykes on 1 January 1894, so references 6 and 7 appear contradictory.
* (3) I think the phase "back then" is too colloquial for a Wikipedia article. I suggest that "back then its volcanic nature was already known" should be changed to something along the lines of "By 1906, the volcanic nature of the mountain had been accepted by geologists". I hesitate to make such a change myself because I don't know the details within the Tchermak's 1956 source yet.  
GeoWriter (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look soon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding point #1, I agree that "discovered" is questionable. I'd replace it with "climbed" on the basis of Reclus 1906 to avoid the issue. As for #3, the article does not say much about the research history, it just states that the mountain is a volcano without elaborating who discovered it. The exact text translated is .Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Discovery"
Talk:Mansa Sakura

message: The previous version of this page stated that Sakura had been a general in Sunjata's army. However, no source I have read has given any such indication, so I have not included that claim in the revised article; if the sources for Sakura's reign are as sparse as they seem to be I doubt that such information is known at all. However, if anyone does have a reliable source for that claim, it would be very helpful. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunjata's Army 

message: The title of this article should probably be "Mansa Sakura" or "Sakura (mansa)"; the spelling Sakura is significantly more common than Sakoura in English-language works and placing the title Mansa after the personal name seems to be much less common than placing it before the personal name, so "Mansa Sakura" or "Sakura (mansa)" should be preferred to "Sakura Mansa". Ornithopsis (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title 

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sakoura Mansa →  – The spelling "Sakoura Mansa" turns up almost exclusively results related to this Wiki page, and has only three results on Google Scholar, only one of which is an actual scholarly source. "Mansa Sakoura" has six results, "Sakura Mansa" three results, one of which is a duplicate and all of which are actually "...Sakura, Mansa...", and "Mansa Sakura" has 17 results. As far as I can tell Sakoura is the Francophone spelling, but as we are an English wiki we should use the Anglophone spelling Sakura. Google Ngrams only turns up results for "Mansa Sakura". Ornithopsis (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 June 2021
Talk:Sancia of Majorca

message: She is very often referred to as Sancia, the Latin form (also used in French). In fact, Google Book search indicates that "Sancia of Majorca" is three times more common than "Sancha of Majorca". Would a move be in order? Surtsicna (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sancia or Sancha?
Talk:William of Sherwood

message: The mnemonic poem might need some explanation for those who are not familiar with how it works. Here:  is a general explanation; according to it there are the four vowels, each standing for one of the basic Aristotelian forms of propositions: A (every S is P), E (no S is P), I (some S is P) and O (some S is not P). Every name used in the poem provides a corresponding syllogism by the vowels of that name, e.g. "Barbara" is an A-A-A syllogism where the major premise A (every S is P) combined with a minor premise of the same form A leads to a conclusion of the form A, etc. We do have Barbara Celarent (disambiguation) but, as far as I can see, we do not have yet an article where this mnemonic system is explained as a whole. Proofreader (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mnemonic poem
Talk:Richard Gilmore

message: Could someone please research and find out why Edward Herrmann continues to be listed as a "Guest Star"?!?! 'Emily' is not so why is he!?!? This has been driving me crazy since I noticed it about two seasons ago!
204.49.209.110 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being listed as a "guest star" is no big deal.  It's purely what kind of contract the actor signs with the show.  Many shows have had main characters be "guest stars" for years.  Notthegoatseguy 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk:William VI, Marquis of Montferrat

message: It is asserted without citation that William VI was married to the eldest daughter of Frederick Barbarossa. The enormity of even a brief marriage between the daughter of the Holy Roman emperor and the grandson of his most powerful vassal in Italy, right after the latter came to power and right before the former left for the Third Crusade, not to mention William being before the age of majority and the close consanguinity of the proposed couple, makes it extremely suspicious that it is not mentioned in any primary or secondary source that I know or could find.
I was able to track a reference down to the infamous 1937 Europäische Stammtafeln tables for the Aledramid marquises of Montferrat. Where Wilhelm Karl von Isenburg got the idea, I don't know because he doesn't say, but a random poster on RootsWeb points to an uncited remark from a 1757 Thesaurus rerum Suevicarum. That just pushes the question further back, but Sophie/Sophia of Hohenstaufen/Burgundy seems to be a phantom person invented by an eighteenth-century scholar who might have confused Judith of Babenberg, Judith/Sophia of Swabia, Beatrice of Burgundy, Frederick Barbarossa's daughter Beatrice, Sophia of Montferrat, and even Eleanor/Sophia of Savoy (or any combination thereof). I am only a doctoral candidate and not experienced as an editor, but I thought I'd post here to ask if someone else might agree with what I've found. Gormongous (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that there is no source cited, and that there is no mention of this marriage in the DBI article I think that you should remove it. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Phantom first wife?
Talk:Amelia Curran (painter)

message: I made the portrait of Percy Bysshe Shelley smaller, because it's not Amelia Curran's portrait, and the main picture of Percy Bysshe Shelley's article is the same image, but smaller anyway. Eugeniu B (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture resized 
Talk:Xia Gui

message: According to the image description itself, the authorship of Ten Thousand Miles of the Yangtze River is somewhat disputed. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed content - authorship of Ten Thousand Miles of the Yangtze River 

message: "completely  forgetton. It was not until  the 20th  century that his art was  rediscoverd "
is not true,
The  evidences::
*  Shi-chu pao-chi(Catalogue  of painting  and calligraphies in the Imperial Collection) Part I  in 1745  (32th vol.) listed   TWO     landscape  handscrolls  as   First   grade.
And all imperial catalogues  contains  more than 7    works.
*  LI tso hsien,  Shufa Kan Ei published in 1871, which  records masterpieces  from  famous collectors in Beijing     contains ONE landscape painting with  high appraisal
*  Kuo Yun Lo Shu-hua  lu ( 1882): the records by  the  famous collector Ku Wen Pin（1811-1889）  wrote, has  One  landscape  painting  with   high appraisal.
It  is not important  whether  these  pantings are   genuine  or not.  The appraisal in 18-19th  century   is   the  evidence. Although   the  popularity had declined , comparing  it in Sothern Song,, it should   be still  in  18-19th  century. 
I cannot find  any COMTEMPORARY record  about Hua Gei. Some  records were written in Yuan dynasty. Now, it is  impossible to  recognize the  early or later style, because there is  no work  with  the DATE.--ReijiYamashina777 (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction
Talk:Amilcare Ponchielli

message: We show him dying on 16 January.  Sources seem divided as to whether he died on 16 or 17 January.
*16 January – , , , , , etc
*17 January – , , , , , etc
*This has a bet each way, referring to both 16 January and 17 January.
On the other hand, Nicolas Slonimsky, usually an extremely reliable source, says he died on 15 January.
So, where to now?  Can anyone cite an authoritative reference that will decide this?  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 16 January 1886, 11.35 a.m. - source: Giuseppe De Napoli, Amilcare Ponchielli (1834-1886), Cremona Nuova, Cremona 1936, p. 311 --Al Pereira(talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds credible.  Thanks you.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Death

message: The article on Amilcare Ponchielli said, until I edited it,  The article on I Lituani said, with sources, until I edited it  While performances as Aldona make sense to me, the assertion was entirely unreferenced, and contradicts the Ponchielli article, so I have deleted it (but left it as hidden comment).
Perhaps someone who actually knows the subject can edit both articles to say whether the opera was well or poorly received, include performances as Aldona if that happened, and to explain the renaming. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point about I Lituani 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Amilcare Ponchielli (before 1886) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO000794 - Restoration.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 28, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-03-28. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 15:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD