lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Manitoga

message: It was raised in a renaming discussion at Talk:The Hermitage (Nashville, Tennessee)#Requested move that the current title "Manitoga (Russel Wright Home)" here is probably not appropriate and does not follow naming conventions.  I am probably responsible for the current name, from way back, but agree that it should probably be different.  In the edit history, i see i created the stub article as "Manitoga" in August 2007, then moved it in September 2007 to the current name with edit label "use more descriptive name, the NHL name. so don't have to add description into every linkname to this article".
Okay, I note that the official NHL program name for the site is in fact "Manitoga (Russel Wright Home)" (as reflected in title of NHL summary page for the site, linked in the article).  I was just starting in wikipedia back then.  I must have thought, then, that the NHL official name must be used for the article.  Now, I believe that the NHL program name for the site should indeed appear as the title in the NHL/NRHP infobox, as it does, but the article name can be different.  It can be changed to a common name for the site.  Should it be simply Manitoga, which currently redirects to this article?  Another candidate might be "Dragon Rock" which appears from the photo caption to be the name of the house, while Manitoga may refer to the whole estate and hence would then appear to be better.  Also "Russel Wright Home" would be a candidate.  The NRHP program name for the site is just "Manitoga".
So, I suggest moving this article to simply "Manitoga". doncram (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Manitoga" is what appears in big letters on the sign out front. Yes, that's what it was originally named. Daniel Case (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel, or another administrator, could you please implement the move to "Manitoga" then?  Moving there is not open to non-administrators, due to a prior version of the article being under the Manitoga name. doncram (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming article 
Talk:Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Variety Series

message: Not to split hairs, but most of the 1980s entries are for "Specials" or programs and not a "Series", as per the Emmys database. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series or Special? 

message: There appears to have been some back and forth edits in the past several months on including and removing 2015 and beyond. They should not be here as the category was split and they are covered in Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Variety Sketch Series and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Variety Talk Series. PAVA11 (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2015 and beyond
Talk:Astrakhan State Technical University

message: Most of the text in this article is plagiarized from .  I'm going to delete the offending text until someone can readd it paraphrased. Joshdboz (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem
Talk:Dougong

message: Why is it sometimes spelled 斗栱 and sometimes 斗拱? Is either considered more correct? Rigadoun  (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know. The book that is my primary  reference does not have the word in Chinese characters. I will ask User:PericlesofAthens who is more knowledgeable and has a more complete reference set than I do. --Mattisse 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since so far,   zh:斗栱 and zh-yue:斗拱 have been added to the bottom of the page, I am guessing that  there are many variants. Looking at older and larger articles on Chinese subjects, I see that even more alternative Chinese character spellings have been added to those articles (I guess, by bots). --Mattisse 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you added the zh and the zh-yue. To me much is mystery. You seem to know more than I do!  --Mattisse 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found them linked on the zh page, but I didn't know why they were written differently, and thought that if anyone did, an explanation would be nice. Rigadoun  (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese character

message: I have been told that  dougong is 斗拱 in elementary Chinese.  --Mattisse 20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My Chinese dictionaries all have 斗拱 and not the other version. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer to question 

message: — Assignment last updated by Flightless Burd (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Architectural History
Talk:List of colleges and universities in Nebraska

message: I'm looking for a school in Nebraska that was active prior to 1884 and operated until 1892 that was called York Methodist College.  It may have been a precursor to Nebraska Methodist College, but is not listed in that article, nor on the Nebraska Methodist College website.  Further, Nebraska Methodist, a medical school, began its operations in 1891.  York Methodist was the location for a sorority chapter of Pi Beta Phi, and one notable graduate was Minnie Mae (Freeman) Penney, whom, as a 19-yr old teacher was credited with saving her 13 pupils from a surprise blizzard on January 12, 1888. Jax MN (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This 1966 EdD dissertation about the history of York College may have some applicable information. ElKevbo (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The chapter is noted by Baird's as continuing in some capacity until 1892, but this may be an error.  Earlier Baird's editions say it was active between 1884 to 1888. This early version of York Methodist College, cited in the earlier part of that dissertation appears to be the one.  Existent from ~1879 to 1888, and maybe a thin connection to the Nebraska Methodist College, or a predecessor.  We're tracing this now. Jax MN (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  York Methodist
Talk:Amaurobius ferox

message: I was looking for a source on the "actively encourages offspring to devour her," and I noticed that the reference takes you to a generic page. I'm not aware of any of Wikipedia's policies on how to mark bad refs or whatnot, so I'm just going to bring it to everyone's attention. It's the third reference on the page.47.196.102.77 (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted, I think the Natural History Museum might have had more extensive information at some point in the past but I can't find it now. But it is a bit of a generic reference, so I've added the academic papers too now. JMWt (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Reference

message: This was a really interesting and well-written article! I only made a few minor edits on this article, such as italicizing the name of the species in a few places where it had not been italicized and adding hyperlinks throughout the article. One suggestion that I have is to edit the contents of the Lead section.  Right now, it mostly contains information about the species' phylogeny, and this could be made into its own Phylogeny section. Other information from various sections in the article could be incorporated into the Lead section to make it more into a general summary of the whole article. Also, there are multiple scientific terms in this article that I added hyperlinks for, but might also be helpful to briefly define so that the article is easier to read for people who do not have as much background knowledge on the topic. RenaBio472 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Behavioral Ecology Student Comments

message: The introduction references a "permanently social" species Amaurobius socialis, and cites a study on A. ferox. Is A. socialis a valid species? If so, is there a reference available? Biosemiosis (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a synonym of Badumna socialis (see here), so should be removed from this article, which I've done. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A. socialis? 

message: The first two paragraphs under the Molting Behavior section are very similar/ have redundant information. I'm not going to change it because I've only ever made very small edits to articles, but I encourage someone else to do so. Also, disclaimer, I've never added a topic on the talk portion of any article, so forgive me if I've made some mistakes on this post. RVAMiggie (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molting Behavior
Talk:L. John Nuttall

message: I have deleted the reference to Nuttall being killed by Wild Bill Hickman. The referenced source (the MA thesis) is clear that he died "peacefully" at home in Salt Lake City. –SESmith 22:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death
Talk:John Sherwood (bishop)

message: There seems to be a problem with the date of death, with several sources giving 1493. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess it's a calendar issue, probably from the change of the start of the new year. I have Handbook of British Chronology Third Edition (published 1996) giving 1493. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (revised Jan 2008) gives 1493. The Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300-1541: volume 6: Northern province (York, Carlisle and Durham) (published 1963) gives 1494.  Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Death date
Talk:John Fordham (bishop)

message: Catholicism,  (capital "C") is not a denomination. It means universal as contrasted to nominalism. The distinction being exemplified in the definition of "man". Catholics hold that there is such an entity as "man universal", a template in the mind of God. Nominalist believe there is only individual "Tom, Dick and Harry"s and the title of "man" is the name used to represent them, that there is no universal archetype or template.  Thatcatdavid (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Denomination: catholic
Talk:Trifolium hybridum

message: Need mention of toxicity to horses and I believe other livestock – it can cause photosensitivity on white areas of skin, and liver damage.  See for example .Richard New Forest (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Trifolium hybridum_inflorescence_-_Keila.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 19, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-07-19. 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!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: — Assignment last updated by Mousemia (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Organismal Diversity B
Talk:Cupid's bow

message: This topic has nothing to do with the Roman god Cupid, so why does this article redirect to it? It doesn't anymore. --75.49.222.55 00:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Redirect

message: As Cupid's Bow refers to a facial feature and has little connection to the Roman god of erotic love, Cupid, I've done up the page and removed the redirect. --Pavithran (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No more redirect to [[Cupid]]

message: Is the image on the article page correct?  I understood that for a full "Cupids bow", the outer edges of the top lip need to be up-turned, and the annotation of the image does not include that particular feature.  Rgds  78.32.143.113 (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image correct?

message: Are you sure that Cupid's bow is the highlighted portion? Seems to be different from what this page says http://blog.redapplelipstick.com/know-the-four-regions-of-your-lips/
So who is right and who is wrong? 203.211.151.204 (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Image
Talk:Belene Island

message: "off the Bulgarian coast"....   This island is in the Danube River and is not near any coast.Eregli bob (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, not everyone is a native speaker, sometimes it just slips when you're not thinking. Some languages have a single word for coast/shore/bank/waterside/strand, it's not always easy to pick the right one :) Just correct it and move on, no need to explain it, it's pretty clear. Todor→Bozhinov 11:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:
Talk:Chock-A-Block

message: Perhaps someone could extract a frame from this video to get a better picture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnWcm5dr45s
The same fair-use rationale should apply.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwongozi (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture
Talk:Read All About It! (TV series)

message: Was this show ever released on VHS? Chubbles 23:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was... I remember seeing it in grade school. Scared the crap out of me though, as i was a 3rd grader... 71.238.25.226 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it was, scholastically anyway; I remember watching some episodes in grade school English.  Whether it was released on video commercially is a different story. GreyWyvern (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I know it was as I watched the tapes. The school let me have a VCR before they were common so I could watch educational videos. (I had bone fractures fairly often in elementary school. I went to regular school, but supplements were done when I couldn't go) It was kind-of creepy at times, but I was fascinated too as I came from a Sci-Fi loving family. Oddly the tapes were sometimes just tapes and so had other shows at times. (Usually other educational shows that just landed on it, but it was neat finding them. Like "hidden tracks" are to music buffs)--T. Anthony (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Released on video?
Talk:Hồng Nhung

message: Ewwwww rotten ho. Lehongho (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist trash 
Talk:Universal Ship Cancellation Society

message: Reverted good faith edits considered spam or advertisements.  Information did not seem encyclopedic & made article appear like the organization’s website.  Link to USCS homepage should be place in external links section not in main body of article.  Please use references when adding material & I recommend discussing changes here first for consensus.  Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting three edits
Talk:Load control

message: Needs to be renamed to "Load control" per the Wikipedia naming convention for capitalization.--DavidDHaynes 23:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

message: I propose that Load management be merged into Load control. Right now they're both basically talking about the same thing. Load control mentions a little more about the technology and load management a little more about the history and examples, but I don't see any huge differences.-nstannik (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Merged content to [[<Load management>]]. See [[Talk:<Load management>#Merger proposal]]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstannik (talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged 14. July 2011
Talk:Wyckoff-Bennett Homestead

message: Is this the same or different site as the Pieter Claesen Wyckoff#Wyckoff Farmhouse Museum?  I am not sure, but the relationship needs to be sorted out and described in both articles.  See also another Wyckoff house or two. doncram (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not the same as the Wyckoff Farmhouse, but appears to be another house built by the Wyckoff family (100 years or so later). I just learned about it while searching for youtube videos related the Pieter Claesen Wyckoff farmhouse. This house (Wyckoff-Bennet) was sadly sold by the heirs of the Motts to 22nd Street Investors LLC (as described in this article). The house, as of 7 months ago is neglected and in terrible state of repair (see youtube video by CBS New York “Vandals making their mark on Revolutionary War era Brooklyn landmark” published approx 7 months ago). In about 2020 “Open House TV” released a video on youtube of the features and history of ownership of the house, presented by the Mott’s son. Hopefully the city can do something about it if they haven’t already. 2601:1C2:4100:3097:153:11C0:27AD:C321 (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  same as Wyckoff Farmhouse Museum? 

message: Fodder for expansion of this article may be culled from this NY Times article. --sanfranman59 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Times article of 1/31/2010 

message: The needlepoint currently referenced in the article and which had hung in the house at least until its 2021 sale, is a modern creation and cannot be used to support the inaccurate and contradictory dating of the house to 1776.
The 1766 date of construction is a guess that appears in a 1960's paper by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. The date is based on an inscription in a beam utilized in the remaining barn, which was re-built in 1899 after the city required the house to be moved (within the property) and rotated, in order to align with the street grid.
There is a good amount of important history missing from the article. When the house was repositioned an additional barn was demolished and not rebuilt, and former slave quarters were razed. MxBuster (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical accuracy
Talk:PhotoSIG

message: Hi I'm Sheena the photoSIG Administrator, photoSIG has no problem with this being copied from our about page. If anyone wants to contact me about it you can email me at sheena@photosig.com.
:Hi, thank you Ma'am for your response. The issue isn't only the copyright - the issue also has to do with WP:SPAM - or the tone of the article. It appears that photoSig is certainly notable, but the tone of the article is part of the problem. Also, if you wish to use the text, could you please follow the instructions at template:sd-copyvio for emailing us (it makes things much easier). Thanks. The Evil Spartan 23:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text will remain for a few days yet if someone has time to start in the meantime. The Evil Spartan 03:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

message: This Wikipedia article makes note that Photosig has been offline since about April. It disappeared without any notice to paid members, of which I'm one, and there's been no apparent effort by the owners of the site to explain what happened. 
It's a shame, because it was a good community and over the 10 years or so of using it you get to know people a little.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.21.210 (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the editor (and a 10 year photoSig poster) who added that section to the article.  it is interesting that Sheena posted here, on this talk page in 2007, but NOT in 2014. Carptrash (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photosig is gone
Talk:Kolubara

message: The article is probably inconsistent in its terminology abt what is part of the Kolubara. It is surely at least incoherent in that respect, which needs to be fixed. Perhaps this has to do with the inconsistency with Jablanica River, abt the length of that river. --Jerzy•t 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: I just corrected right tributaries of lower Kolubara; 
*River Ocaga is not tributary of Kolubara but of small river Lukavica which inflows in Kolubara near Lazarevac (so i removed Ocaga and added Lukavica instead)
*Also I added river Turija which was missed here. Turija is, after Ljig river largest right tributary of lower Kolubara.
Petkowsky (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ocaga
Talk:Golija

message: Here is another site that is interesting :
http://www.golijskidar.com/O_Goliji_en.html
James Michael DuPont (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site 
Talk:839th Air Division

message: The information on this page is incorrect. Sewart Air Force Base was never assigned to Military Airlift Command and the 839th Air Division was never part of Military Airlift Command. It was a Tactical Air Command organization and was deactivated when all of Tactical Air Command's C-130 units transferred to MAC. Sewart Air Force Base was long-since closed when this took place, with it's assigned units having transferred to Little Rock AFB, Arkansas.
(SamMcGowan (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:86th Air Division

message: The 86th Air Division is merely one of the designations the 86th Wing of the USAF has had since 1948.  It should not have its own article.  I see that another contributor has attempted to REDIRECT the talk page, and this has been reverted.  While I think that a redirect (with appropriate annotations on the talk and article pages to preserve histgory) is the appropriate action, I believe discussion of this matter is called for before this becomes an edit war. Lineagegeek (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be merged with that for the 86th Airlift Wing
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th nomination)

message: Wow, just wow.  Pointless and outright fallacious reasoning is perfectly valid to get an article deleted.  I guess the facts learned from Starslip Crisis have already been forgotten.  Frankly, the admin who just blankly took the delete votes and ignored the facts discussed has just reafirmed my already dim views of Wikipedia. Alyeska 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "helpful and useful isn't a reason for keeping"? Well, Certainly not. Lord knows we don't want pages that are helpful and useful on this site, Heaven forbid. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Color me surprised
Talk:Ceremonial stone landscape

message: I'm just learning to create articles on Wikipedia. Help and suggestions are welcome.Geophile 16:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Never heard of it in my life but some book published by them appears to be on this topic. Is the publisher reliable enough for peer-review?
Might purchase the book, in that case. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @DougWeller: Any idea? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: New English Review so if they published it, no. Note that we have Landscape archaeology. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But Timothy Ives might have stuff you can use. I see his book is listed at White guilt as that's a or the major topic. Anything NEARA says {see link in section below]] can be ignored. I do have some sympathy with Ives in that for instance America's Stonehenge is 19th/20th century, but the claim there, and for some other stuff in New England, is usually Celts built it. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see its description here.. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - this helps. I will go across the links. And best wishes for the procedure! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New English Review Press 

message: Here is a good write up about the controversy around these structures: It isn’t the best source by itself, but has citations that would be helpful. Thriley (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial history