lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:German wine classification

message: This one is a little more borderline of a B-namely because of the glaring absence of a major section on the history and development of the classification. It goes into great details about what the classification is, and even mentioning some historical classifications, but there is a huge gap in understanding how exactly the system came to be. The wine label section is also tiny and could use more of a summary style but the missing history & development section is a larger concern. AgneCheese/Wine 23:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on assessment

message: This article would carry more authority if other possible importing countries were acknowledged. Afterbrunel (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Almost never imported into the United States

message: There have been important changes in official and VDP classification "rules" for dry wines for Grosses Gewachs/Grosses Lage/Erste Lage, etc. as of 2012.  It is extremely confusing to most, even professionals.  An expert on the new classifications needs to be found to update this section, as the regime is now phasing out some of these classification and their regional distinctions, and heading towards a more generalized "Grosses Lage" for all top sites, and "Grosses Gewachs" for dry wines from the top sites.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blotz1 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEEDS UPDATING ON COMPLICATED NEW DRY WINE  AND GREAT/PRIMEUR CLASSIFICATIONS 

message: I think that the information contained in the German wine label article fits firmly into the context of this article and doesn't really need its own page. There's already a section on the label in this article; it makes sense to just pull the information over. Ducknish 15:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and  Klbrain (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[German wine label]] 
Talk:Rising (Rainbow album)

message: I wonder why no-one mentioned that this album is an progressive rock record? Lengthy 6 to 8 minutes-long epics with sophisticated arrangements, untypical melodies, distinctive keyboards, fantasy lyrics... I think that's enough to consider it and Long Live Rock'n'Roll progressive.--95.37.255.59 (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I really disagree or anything, but it would be great if you could find a (reliable) source suggesting that they are progressive. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can find Rainbow on progarchives.com. I believe that this site can be concidered as a reliable source. Anyway, it definitely showcases that I am not alone in my suggestions.--95.37.255.59 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Prog Archives lists them as prog-related, not progressive rock proper. It does say that their first four albums (especially the songs "Stargazer" and "Gates of Babylon") inspired symphonic progressive metal bands like Symphony X though. Nite-Sirk (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bowie and Queen are in prog-related too, though nobody will argue that they both had art-rock/prog albums in they discographies. And so Asia is in prog-related category too, that's just for your information. Same with Rainbow — their post-Dio stuff (except for some tracks from Stranger in Us All) was very far from prog at all — yet Rainbow had their prog moments on Rising and Long Live Rock'n'Roll. And y-es, they had inspired sympho prog metal — so I don't think that this is reasonable to claim that founders of any genre's sound were that far from this genre so you will consider them as a completely different genre.--109.184.212.99 (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Prog Archives claims that Rainbow influenced progressive and symphonic bands, not that they played progressive rock. By that same logic, we would list Swans as grindcore and industrial metal as they influenced Napalm Death and Godflesh, or Suffocation as deathcore or slam death metal since they use breakdowns and influenced deathcore and slam bands. Also, Prog Archives is not considered reliable in Wikipedia (see here). Nite-Sirk (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's progressive rock. It's just two really long songs that don't change TOO much throughout. I'd say it's still heavy metal but not speed metal, the last song is the only fast song on there.108.81.33.59 (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive rock
Talk:Comité Régional d'Action Viticole

message: What happpened with the terror incident? Lot 49atalk 22:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did blood flow? 
Talk:Robotech music

message: Album covers are not supported in discographies. This has been long standing practice now and is not in dispute. Pick any random sampling of 50 articles from :Category:Discographies. You will not find a single article in that category that contains album covers. If by some miracle you do find one, it will have only recently been added and the covers will be removed soon. I've removed the album covers again, as this is a clear violation of our guideline and policy. Do not re-add them. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album covers removed
Talk:Rocinate

message: What evidence other than conjecture can possibly indicate a misspelling of 'Rocinante'?! This should be tagged an ambiguous page.  PlasticDoor 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conjecture 
Talk:Rollin' Stoned

message: I feel that this album still slaps, actually. 2600:8806:A108:EC00:9462:F6A3:CCAD:2B49 (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you all feel about this album in 2022?
Talk:Rootin Tootin Luton Tapes

message: A set of Split Enz demos barely qualifies for a Wiki entry; it certainly doesn't rate an infobox. At the moment it's a proposed album with a suggested tracklist. Grimhim 03:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete infobox
Talk:Semi-formal wear

message: Currently, this page only describes semi-formal attire for man. What is the semi-formal attire for woman? -- 2001:8A0:6D12:6900:84A2:D66B:81AB:C32B (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an excellent improvement to the article. Toddst1 (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-formal for woman 

message: This photo of a tuxedo is... Not particularly good. It's got notch lapels, which is a really bad look for a tuxedo, and he's wearing some sort of badges, which I think also detract from the photo. On top of it all, having clicked on the link to this guy's page... It's not like he's a style icon or anything, I'm not sure why he got singled out. If I can find another CC-BY-SA photo or similar to replace it with, would anybody mind? Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 Agree. Toddst1 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher McCreery photo 

message: I'm removing File:Brittneylaramee.JPG as it is just an awful picture with the trailer-park / hooker pose.   Not appropriate for semi-formal attire/conduct. I like the idea of the "little black dress" but that's a terrible photo.  Toddst1 (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Brittneylaramee.JPG
Talk:Live In Belfast

message: "Do Bears" was sung as a duet with Kate Bush at around 1986 on 'Comic relief'. My question - Who is Atkinson singing it with in this recording (which apparently pre-dates the other one in about 5 years)? No female singer is listed in the personnel. It sounds like it's Bush here as well, anyone knows if that's right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.11.140 (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Do Bears"
Talk:Ruiner (A Wilhelm Scream album)

message: I found :Image:A Wilhelm Scream - Ruiner.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the  tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as  or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unspecified source for [[:Image:A Wilhelm Scream - Ruiner.jpg]]

message: :Image:A Wilhelm Scream - Ruiner.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:A Wilhelm Scream - Ruiner.jpg
Talk:Runnin' Off at da Mouth

message: Runnin Off at Da Mouth -> Runnin' off at da Mouth"Off" & "da" do not get capitalized. 71.233.232.196 (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: title is in conformance with MOS:NAME. Happy‑melon 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move
Talk:Rush Replay X 3

message: In the infobox, Rush, Geddy Lee, and Alex Lifeson are all listed as producers. Unless this is how they are credited on the set, it seems to me that either "Rush" or "Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson" should be listed as producers, not both. Can anyone with these DVDs clarify who is credited?--Classicrockfan42 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Producers
Talk:Ruth Is Stranger Than Richard

message: The article implies that Richard was Side A of the LP, but on the CD, the order of the two sides is reversed from what is shown here, suggesting that Ruth was Side A. I'm inclined to change the article, except I don't know where the perception that Richard was Side A comes from. Richard K. Carson (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My copy of the original vinyl LP clearly has V 2034-A on the label for Side Ruth and V 2034-B on the label for Side Richard. As this seems to be consisitent with the CD, I have swapped the track listing in the article. (Note: the LP cover does not help as the track listings on the back are printed at 90 degrees to the picture on the front!) One imagines that, if he could, Wyatt might have liked no A and B printed anywhere! The cover gives no credits for album cover design. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The precedence of Ruth in the title also supports this ordering of sides. But, of course there are always printing errors. I have now swapped the track listings and adjusted the text to match. But if there is a stronger clear source which contradicts the label printing, these edits will have to be reverted. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

text: As an additional data point, my version of the CD lists Richard as side one. Unfortunately I don't have the physical CD with me at the moment and so can't provide any additional details. Marfire (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So, does this mean that we just can't trust CDs, where the notion of "sides" is meaningless anyway? Regardless of the track listing, what plays first? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

text: All releases until the 1998 CD reissues start with side Ruth. 1998 and onwards, side Richard comes first. https://www.discogs.com/master/view/23524  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14C:82DF:FF9B:121:7E57:F7A2:9599 (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sides A and B

message: Yes, it is unsourced, and some is just opinion. But it all sounds quite accurate and some of it could be easily sourced. So just saving a record  here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description
Talk:Palomino (grape)

message: The main photo for palomino fino grape shows skin colour as noir or similar. Palomino is a white grape, a drawing or photo which presents the correct colour would be better. 金慧婷 (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  main photo is confusing 

message: There is an excessive list of synonyms for Palomino grape, is this information necessary, and could it be organised better. 87.119.84.106 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive list of Synonyms
Talk:Sacred Heart (Shakespears Sister album)

message: Does anyone know if this album was officially released in the US, and if so, when? I picked up my copy in Europe, but have never seen one Stateside. samwaltz 15:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US Release Date?
Talk:Sacrifice (Gary Numan album)

message: The single "Magic" was released in the US with Joseph Michael Linsner artwork and a track listing of 1. Magic, 2. You Walk In my Soul, 3. Play Like God. Released under the NUMA/Transmit Discs label (like the "Dawn" release). 68.55.155.6 (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic Single (US) not even mentioned
Talk:Association of Volleyball Professionals

message: ==Untitled==
This article needs a major rewrite and update.  I'll start with an outline and bullet points.  Please jump in, if you can help.  Oconnell usa (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Update 

message: This article needs a major rewrite and update.  I'll start with an outline and bullet points.  Please jump in, if you can help.  Oconnell usa (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Saint Dominic's Preview

message: --131.107.0.105 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've sorted the problem out. Kitchen roll (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songs section reads like a review, not an encyclopedia article. 

message: The album cover is actually NOT photographed at St. Anselm's Church. It is taken on the stairs of Montgomery Memorial Chapel, corner of Richmond Rd. and Bolinas Ave. San Anselmo, CA. --Torbjo (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Tobjo for your information. I'll check it out and make changes in article as applicable. Your input is appreciated but should not be in main article as it is not sourced, and would be considered WP:OR, so I moved it here to the talk page. Agadant (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This information as moved from article to talk page 

message: I have recently downloaded the above book and I'm planning to update some aspects of the article, notably the "Recording" section for the moment. I'm also planning to start a "Background" section, as the book provides much information on the lead up to the album.   Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Saint Dominic's Flashback: Van Morrison's Classic Album, Forty Years On
Talk:Same as It Ever Was

message: One of the things that made this album interesting and unique are the various trumpet loops. I remember reading a review back in the days that described who the trumpeter was and how his samples were used. Does anyone know who the trumpeter was whose work House of Pain used? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: About 1.5 years later; name of the trumpeter still unknown... --82.171.70.54 (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't really a discussion forum about the album. You'd probably have better luck looking it up at discogs.com. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 02:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trumpet Loops
Talk:Krasnoufimsk

message: Kzavodov, who are you? :)
You are writing an article about our town, are you from here? -- 82.211.136.15 04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to ask him at his own talk page.  If he returns (he hasn't logged in since March 2006), he'll have a better chance to spot your note.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

message: From other sources are found that the Kazan - Jekaterinburg railway line was finally completed and opened to traffic only in 1924. Does the statement "Railway station was built in 1915 and the railway opened in 1916" mean that the railway line to Jekaterinburg was opened in 1916?
This railway was started by private Moscow - Kazan Railway but the whole line was finished and
opened by Soviet Railways. There is also an important locomotive depot. The most difficult section to be built was west of Krasnoufimsk toward Tshernaja Retshka (Chernaya Rechka).
The name Krasnoufimsk is not the base word in Latinizated form. Peharps the correct version is
Red Ufaer. In German version Krasno an der Ufa just like Frankfurt an der Oder.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.82.235 (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Krasnoufimsk
Talk:Milford, Michigan

message: I've removed the entry for Randy Godwin, as it did not link anywhere, and the only references I can find to a person with that name are:
1) A local actor who performs in community theater types of performances
2) Vague references to a character from Escanaba In Da Moonlight
While I don't consider myself the sole arbitror of who is or isn't famous or notable, I think the difficulty in identifying this person demostrates by very definition that the person in question is not notable.
Kevin 04:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Randy Godwin'''

message: I've undone a revision that had the following information:
Notable Businesses with 25+ years history
Milford Times
Arms Brothers Men's Wear
Village Peddler
The rationale is as follows:
1) The heading "25+ years history" is entirely arbitrary. If a business is notable, great. But businesses are not Wikipedia-level notable simply by virtue of having existed for 25 years or more.
2) The sparse listing is suspect. Arms Brothers is indeed notable, as it is not only the oldest still-operating store in Milford, it is arguably the very first retail store in the State of Michigan, having operated for nearly 170 years. Similarly, one could argue that the Milford Times has a certain degree of notability for having been published continuously for over 125 years -- despite the fact that it no longer has an office in Milford.
So it begs the question "What's the Village Peddler doing on this list?". The other businesses have legitimate notability, and well over an entire century of operation -- not to mention the fact that the Village Peddler is mysteriously hyperlinked while the other businesses are not.
We have the oldest retail store in the state, and one of the oldest newspapers in the state, sharing notability with a knickknack store that happens to have been open for 25 years? I don't think so.
3) Assuming you hold the above two points invalid, consider the number of businesses in Milford that have been open for 25 years or more. The Village Butcher, The Shutter Shop, Huron Valley Furniture, Milford Baking Co., etc. The simple fact is that many (curiously omitted) businesses were omitted, and having such a list is more appropriate for the Chamber of Commerce's website than Wikipedia. This isn't the Yellow Pages. (ref: WP:NOT). Kevin 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: August 5, 2007 revision
Talk:Sanctified (album)

message: Sanctified was also reviewed in Metal Hammer per Talk:Morgana Lefay. Geschichte (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Metal Hammer review
Talk:Sanctus Ignis

message: Well, as it turns out, there may be as many as 4 different track lists. The Japanese version does not have Niflheim, but has the bonus track and the Stringless Violin demo, and there may have been European versions without Niflheim or with Stringless Violin. If anyone has a source regarding these, Wikipedia would love you for it. 128.61.56.41 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track lists
Talk:Santa Monica '72

message: "This live album features a quite different setlist to the one found on Ziggy Stardust - The Motion Picture"
That would probably be because Santa Monica '72 documents the Ziggy Stardust tour whereas Ziggy Stardust - The Motion Picture, despite its name, documents the Aladdin Sane tour. BTLizard 13:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, kind of depends on whether Aladdin is viewed as a subset of Ziggy or a character in his own right. Then again, the set list will naturally evolve over time, and there was a whole 'nother album between the Santa Monica and Motion Picture dates... Cheers, Ian Rose 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Santa Monica '72 documents the US leg of the tour, just after the album was released, while Motion Picture documents the last Ziggy show, which while on the Aladdin tour was not typical of it, I believe. Fantailfan (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different tour 

message: I am in favor of merging forward, because the earlier release was a MainMan release, unsanctioned by Bowie and spottily released, whereas the EMI/Virgin release is a catalogue release in the Bowie at the Beeb-Young Americans Collector's Edition vein. Fantailfan (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed my mind... merge back. Will do so on 20 July if no other opinions expressed. Fantailfan (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed my mind... again. With this release all of the (acceptable) Mainman/Golden Years/Griffin semi-legal releases are now official releases. Keep both but create an alternate chronology which includes those items. Fantailfan (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging the official into the bootleg seems absurd on the face of it. Bootlegs are generally not notable and, as a result, finding the official album would be expected and the bootleg would generally be the exception. If any merge were to occur, I would favor merging the bootleg into the official. However, this is one of the rare instances of a bootleg being clearly notable, so the article on the bootleg can remain. Additionally, the wide separation in releases, to me, gives solid reason to keep both articles. Despite its iconic status, though, the bootleg should not be in the chronology box. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Golden Years release was not a bootleg, only semi-legal. There were bootlegs prior to the 1994 release, however. Fantailfan (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging articles