lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)

message: Seeing as there's been nothing in the way of movement here, I figured I'd rekindle discussion about the "wins vs. wins and noms" criteria. So... what does everyone think about the big number issue brought up on this talk page? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rekindling discussion 

message: At the moment, the page's "valid criteria" are often applied subjectively in AfD debates that I've seen, particularly criterion #3. Any thoughts?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs to be reworded 

message: *No Merge I think it's a horrid idea to merge everything to WP:N. Each page involved is already very large. Having the subdivisions allows for focused discussion on the guidelines, and building a usable consensus. If every notability guideline shares a talk page, it will be reduce participation on them. This guideline in particular has undergone a lot of changes over the last year or so, and is a contentious one among some wp editors. Horrorshowj 02:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal Discussion 

message: I agree with Mik4ty4 above, it makes sense to bring pornographic actors into line with other people. Other than academics (which is also under discussion), there are no other individual notability criteria for individual groups of people. There would need to be some explanation for why pornographic actors are treated differently. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[WP:BIO]] 

message: per discussion here and at BIO the guideline has been incorporated at BIO and I am adding the redirect. --Kevin Murray 15:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect
Portal talk:Literature/Did you know

message: Some even older "Did you know" pages can be found at Did you know ... (literature).
I have provided weekly "Did you know" questions and suitable images for more than a year now, but what with bots removing all kinds of pictures for alleged copyright reasons I feel unable to continue this activity. Good luck to anyone who'd like to carry on. <KF> 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

message: I broke Portal:Literature/Did you know/Week 12 when i renamed Beatrice to Beatrice (given name); i am fixing (since it seems to be being reused), but by doing a Dab bypass in accord with the Dab, rather than "forwarding" back to the name article. My guess is reader are likely to read just the lead of that page, and just the entry in the chars secn. YMMV. --Jerzy•t 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repair?
Talk:Todd Helton

message: 73.63.54.161 (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020 

message: 2601:681:5500:6600:EDFE:7ABE:8371:DB3C (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 10:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021 

message: 2601:681:5500:6600:EDFE:7ABE:8371:DB3C (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 10:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021 (2) 

message: 2601:681:5500:6600:EDFE:7ABE:8371:DB3C (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 10:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , this appears to be the same vandal that disruptively edited the page, leading to page protection. It's probably best to remove these empy edit requests per WP:TPO in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021 (2) 

message: 2601:681:5500:6600:BCB0:C471:D2CB:5DA7 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021 

message: 96.61.7.198 (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2021
Talk:Journal of Discourses

message: According to the  photocopies online at BYU , the introduction to volume one is dated June 1853, but the title page is dated 1854. --Blainster 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication

message: Here are some issues I have with this.  A lot of the "doctrines" in the last paragraph are misrepresented as such.  Isn't Adam-God theory a term made up outside of the church in order to twist what Young really meant?  How accurate are these journals really considered to be, today?  It makes it sound like the church used to believe this stuff and then dropped it, but that isn't necessarily the case. It's just too vague on these issues, for me. Wrad 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be argued either way, IMO, and the article should probably reflect that. I like what you have done to the article, personally. -SESmith 10:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. No problem—sometimes it takes a few tries. -SESmith 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As requested, I have added a citation to a scholarly Mormon site that directly addresses the issue. Dromidaon (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  See links normally to be avoided #12. Open wikis usually aren't a good choice for citations. A better citation may or may not be needed. If the sentence were rephrased, some of the citations in that wiki might be able to be used. Jaldenpage (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fairmormon.org is not an open and editable wiki. It is a closed wiki of LDS scholars maintained by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research(). I would also have to argue that this meets the requirement of being an exception as addressed in your same bullet point "with a substantial history of stability." Dromidaon (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that fairmormon.org is probably an OK citation to use, since it is a closed wiki and pretty much sets out the positions advanced by FAIR. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues
Category talk:European football biography stubs

message: There are quite a lot of stubs here.  Shouldn't we create a few more stubs for individual countries? - Runcorn 21:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I followed the "be bold" guidance and set up a Greece stub, and now people are complaining!  I'd say there should be a Russia stub, and maybe others.  Views? - Runcorn 19:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Why isn't there an Israel stub?--Runcorn 22:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:New York's 3rd congressional district

message: The dates are incomprehensibly formatted. There are no commas or spaces...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.244.168 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: You mention a list of "Hamlets" or "Villages" are partially in District 3.
I live in North Bellmore and we are completely within District 3. So explain, please, how you can list it as "partially" within. I don't understand your use of the term "partially" and if it is the dictionary meaning of the word, then what you have listed is incorrect for both North and South Bellmore, and North and South Merrick, and possibly other "hamlets" and "villages." Pookerella (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain "Partially in the District" 

message: I think the descriptive text may be right, but I think that map (which doesn't agree with the description) is outdated. I think the lines have been redrawn since this map was drawn. 71.204.84.204 (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong map? 

message: I hope someone can post a short paragraph about this district in the proposed NY state redistricting map that was struck down by the NY State Court of Appeals before the 2022 election. Sources include: 
https://theislandnow.com/new-yorks-3rd-4th-congressional-districts-see-changes-in-proposed-redistricting/ 
and the interview with the North Shore Leader (newspaper) editors on https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/a-local-paper-sounded-the-alarm-on-george-santos-nobody-listened 
It would have crossed Long Island Sound to include voters in the Bronx and Westchester, all the way up to Westchester County Airport. ElsaObuchowski (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia entry leaves out "Bayside".  A good chunk of Bayside (including the part I grew up in) is part of the 3d Congressional District. 74.96.102.250 (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redistricting proposed and changed 2022
Talk:Richard van der Riet Woolley

message: Runcorn 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

message: I think Richard Woolley should be a disambiguation page rather than redirecting here.  There is a car designer called Richard Woolley, see Rover 75 and Land Rover Range Stormer. Scatterkeir 14:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Saints Cosmas and Damian

message: I removed the See also section because the first entry, linking to Cosmas of Maiuma was already linked at the top of the article; the second entry was not in fact a link to a Wikipedia article but gave information about the oldest church in Brazil, so I moved the info into the article. MishaPan 06:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed See also section

message: The intro states in part, that Cosmas and Damian were "born in Cilicia, or in Arabia (CE)...". What does "(CE)" mean? Most frequently, CE refers to the Common Era, but looking at the disambiguation page CE, I found a number of other meanings, none of which makes sense in this context. MishaPan (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad: Catholic Encyclopedia). It seemed obvious at the tme. --Wetman (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CE?

message: This article is heavily Catholic, as in Roman Catholic, when these Saints were canonized and venerated first by the Greek and Antiochian Churches (Now Greek and Antiochian Orthodox Churches, also the Syraic orthodox Churches.) Just pointing out - even the first paragraph has capital-C Catholic, which is traditionally understood to mean specifically the Roman Catholic church. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they brought many people to the early/ancient Christian faith?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.138.62 (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic POV

message: "Silverless" as a translation of the Koine word "Anargyroi" is both clumsy and misleading, and, of course, incorrect. 
(Even though the Koine word for "money" derives from "silver", a literal translation of "anargyroi" would be "for no money".) In standard English, "silverless" denotes "penniless" and is deprecated. The conventional monicker is provided at the end of the article,
and is, of course, "unmercenary".   Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistranslation of the monicker

message: The description stated: "Icon of Saints Cosmas (left) and Damian (right) holding medicine boxes and spoons for dispensing cures". 
That is obviously wrong: there is no spoon in sight, and Cosmas is holding a bottle containing a yellow fluid.
The description of a different illustration of the pair in Isabella Breviary#Sanctoral on f462r runs:
"Cosmas and Damian were twin brothers and physicians according to Christian tradition. They are depicted, one with a urine bottle in his hand, the other with a mortar and pestle."
Bearing that in mind, and the original description of this painting, it seems reasonable to amend the incorrect caption to:
Icon of Saints Cosmas (left) and Damian (right)one holding a urine bottle and the other a medicine box
Michael F 1967 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of icon painting at head of article
Talk:Hoard

message: Should these two articles get merged or somewhat consolidated? There are many categories on both Wikipedia and Commons derived from both terms, with parallel hierarchies which seem redundant. Would be great if a specialist can take a look.--Codrin.B (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all hoards are treasure trove (indeed most aren't), so I would say no.  The close parallels you note are due to the fact that most notable hoards, with an article on Wikipedia, are treasure or treasure trove.  The term "treasure trove" is problematic as it has a specific legal meaning in English law, and has been superceded in the 1996 Treasure Act, so no longer applies to recent hoards in England and Wales, but is still used in a rather loose sense on Wikipedia and Commons.  Personally, I would be in favour of renaming and rescoping the "Treasure trove" categories on Wikipedia as "Hoard" categories, and removing the "Treasure trove" categories on Commons entirely as there is already a good Hoard category hierarchy there ... but those are probably discussions that should take place elsewhere. BabelStone (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoard vs [[Treasure trove]] 

message: Hi all, PatHadley (talk) here. I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence at York Museums Trust (Project pages). I've been working with the numismatics curators uploading images of coins from the Middleham Hoard. The whole set can be found here: Category:Coins from the Middleham Hoard (110 images!), I hope that they're useful! Unfortunately the hoard itself is lacking an article. I've just started the bones here: Articles for creation/Middleham Hoard and it would be great if people  - could help the curators (new editors - YMT Coins in particular) and myself get the article ready for submission. Also, if there are any ways in which we could help you achieve your goals for the coverage of hoards on Wikipedia that would be great. You can find out a little about the collection on the blog and contact me with any queries. Look forward to working with you! PatHadley (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One fact that blew my mind was that there were more hoards buried during the 25 years around the English Civil War than the total number for both the 250 years either side of this! This is reflected nowhere on Wikipedia and it would be great to have something on financial security, the explosion in coinage etc in this article or elsewhere. YMT Coins has little time to create this content but would gladly work with interested Wikipedians to get it added. PatHadley (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middleham Hoard
Talk:Peter Smith (judge)

message: For incorporation into the article (I don't have time to do it myself right now), here is the entry from the 2004 British "Who's Who" on him:
SMITH, Hon. Sir Peter (Winston), Kt 2002; Hon. Mr Justice Peter Smith; a Judge of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, since 2002; b 1 May 1952; s of George Arthur Smith and Iris Muriel Smith; m 1980, Diane Dalgliesh; one s two d. Educ: Selwyn Coll., Cambridge (BA 1974; MA 1976); Coll. of Law. Called to the Bar, Lincoln's Inn, 1975, Bencher, 2000. Lectr, Manchester Univ., 1977-83; practice on Northern Circuit, 1979-2002; QC 1992; Asst Recorder, 1994-97; a Deputy High Court Judge, 1996-2002; a Recorder, 1997-2002. Recreations: Titanic Historical Society, British Titanic Society, Jackie Fisher fan, reading military history, football. Address: Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, WC2A 2LL. Club: Athenaeum.
--Elonka 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's Who entry 
Talk:Creetown

message: I'm reverted back everything by User:Tomdy and User:Tartan.  Virtually everything introduced by Tomdy was a violation of copyright from http://www.creetown-heritage-museum.com/ and http://www.creetown-walks.co.uk/.  Creetown walks has a copyright notice.  Creetown Heritage Museum has an unknown copyright status and so should not be used   -   Crosbiesmith 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it looked a little suspicious but was too tired to check. All my edits were basically just removals of the POV statements. Thanks for that. Tartan 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio
Talk:Joey (marsupial)

message: I would have thought that the concept of Joey would warrant it's own article, especially since it applies to more than one marsupial (a little known fact by the way). I just noticed that Kitten has its own lengthy article, so why on earth would Joey not warrant its own??  --πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 06:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Loitering

message: While this article is rather useless in its current state, it should be retained and expanded. The wikitionary definition simply states that loitering is standing around with no aim. However, this wikipedia article does point to the fact that it is illegal in some areas. Why? Why was this law brought into place? What are some examples of loitering turning into more serious crime? Such an example, I presume, would be gangs loitering, waiting for a vulnerable person to rob/rape/assault. This is the sort of information that could be added. --Nambio 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep, but greatly expand

message: So are the origins in 15th Century English common law or 16th Century?  Not good for an article to contradict itself in this way.81.23.54.142 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: The article states "Loitering prohibitions are particularly common in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation."
However, I didn't find anything about loitering in Russia in the article or outside of the article. Where is the information about Russia coming from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.35.57 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loitering in Russian Federation 

message: I came to this page after having a discussion with a friend whether loitering was a crime in the UK and Ireland. As far as I know, it is, whereas in Spain, where we currently are, it appears not to be and walking around city streets, you find youself constantly harassed and hassled by loiterers of all sort. Would love to see more detail on the subject. Thanks. --Brian Fenton (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would love to see more detail on this article 

message: That must be the funniest illegal activity yet "illegal for doing nothing". i want to see sources supporting it.--Leladax (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The crime of doing nothing" 

message: I don't believe there are any loitering laws applicable in France ?
* The wikipedia.fr article on vagabondage says that any such law was removed on 1992
* A google search for loitering france points to the 2003 law on interior security (), but this law doesn't seem to talk about loitering itself.Yitscar (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loitering in France ? 

message: I removed the section for Germany because it was completely inaccurate and needs a major rewrite. There are no laws that would generally forbid loitering in Germany. 2001:A61:3573:9201:B928:6AF8:FD3A:F683 (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: These aren't mentioned so far in the section for the US, but are also used to ban loitering and have been (as of 2019) adopted by about 55% of US cities.
Patlut (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sit-lie ordinances
Talk:Hellogoodbye (EP)

message: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:n6jweau74xh7
This tracklisting conflicts with wiki's. Which is the real one? --Discharger12 00:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that different. The track listing on Wikipedia is the one from the back of the CD case. --HarryCane 17:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hm 
Talk:Orson (band)

message: A lot of this page looks like it was nabbed from a press release. This is just a suspicion, but it would be nice if someone could say for sure. Anyways, I've tidied the page up a bit. We could do with an image of the band. -- Drumnbach 22:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: copyvio

message: I have reorganised the page and deleted some of the material just copied from the band's website. A picture is required, as well as a little more detail on their disography. The trivia section could be rewritten in prose as well.Michaelrccurtis 09:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ReOrg

message: To me, they sound nothing like indie rock. They sound more like manufactured pop music along the lines of Maroon 5.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 08:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Indie rock groups' category 

message: I must question the paragraph recently added in reference to Jonathan King's child abuse conviction.  While I certainly don't make light of or condone child abuse, I must question its presence in the Orson article.  It has little to do with the band (How long was Mr. King associated with Orson?  Since they signed their major-label record deal?), and almost certainly goes against Wikipedia's Neutral POV policy.  I believe it should be removed.
Thnairg (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonathan King reference 

message: It would be nice to list the date that they disbanded on here. All I can tell is that it was sometimes late 2007 perhaps early 2008. I'm looking into it. XphnX (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disbanding
Talk:Gertrude the Great

message: "dies natalis, or date of death." - dies natalis means "day of birth"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.118.82 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: I am pretty sure that St. Gertrude was not an orphan.
Somebody should double check that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.219.38 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An Orphan?

message: If she was never beautified nor canonized...how can she be a saint?  Is the infobox wrong?  -- Matthew Cadrin (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint? 

message: The link to The Life and Revelations of Saint Gertrude the Great  does not lead to the cited text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.102.115 (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link 

message: Under the section "Life": "...the exact date of her death is unknown...".
Under the section "Veneration": "...November 16, the date of her death.".
Which is it? Caeruleancentaur (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconciling needed 
Talk:Gertrude of Nivelles

message: I started by correcting some duplicative and contradictory language, and that became a major cut, trying to trim down to history rather than literary analysis without page cites. Unfortunately, I don't have time to work on this article further, only note that it seems start class because of verbosity.Jweaver28 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup needed 

message: The infobox says she was canonized in 1877 by Pope Clement XII.  In the "Veneration" section it says she was never formally canonized.  Which is it?  Can someone be informally canonized? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was she canonized, or not?