lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:British Rail locomotive and multiple unit numbering and classification

message: There is currently a discussion on the naming convention to use for the articles on the individual classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Thryduulf 22:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention
Talk:Southern Railway multiple unit numbering and classification

message: There is currently a discussion on the naming conventions for British locomotives and multiple units at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Comments from those familar with the SR classification scheme are particularly welcome. Thryduulf 22:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: As I understand it, other than some SWT sets which are using 4-digit numbers, a good many of the 455s show and have shown 6-digit numbers, notably with the "455" above the latter three digits.  456s have also only ever carried their full numbers.  81.110.106.169 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Class 455's have never carried anything other than 4-digit numbers. The first two digits being the last number of their sub-class.  e.g. Class 455/8 carry numbers starting 58.  Your are getting mixed up with Class 465/466 "Networkers" which have always carred six digit numbers. Please do not revert unless you can provide a factual source for your claims.  I woudl refer you to [www.railfaneurope.net] where they have plenty of pictures class 455's. Olana North (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SWT 455s apparently carry 4-digit numbers.  However, please count the digits on the front of this unit.  (Index).  81.110.106.169 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  6-digit numbers 

message: It might make sense to:
#explain that the first figure denotes the number of cars in the set
#hyphenate the class codes (ie 2-BIL etc.) since this is how they were painted on the car ends
#sort the various classes alphabetically (ignoring the figure) to make them easier to find (ie 6-CIT would follow 4-CIG and precede 4-COR)
If a reference is required for some of the codes, try  --Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of presentation
Talk:British Rail Class D3/7

message: There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention
Talk:British Rail Class 16

message: There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: Marked as problematic in the text:
Another problem was coolant contamination of the oil, due to cylinder head failure
1. The oil is the coolant ?
2. If the cylinder head fails that is a problem in itself.
3. What does it mean by "cylinder head failure" - it sounds more like a leaky part
5. etc
Is this a mistake, or is it correct? FengRail (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means that the cylinder head gasket leaked and allowed coolant (water) to mix with the oil. Biscuittin (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify ?

message: I have calculated the engine displacement based on 16 cylinders each 18cm diameter (9cm radius) x 19.7 cm stroke:
 3.142 x 9 x 9 x 19.7 x 16 / 1,000 = 80 litres
Biscuittin (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor conversion correction, 16 cylinders each 17.8cm diameter (8.9cm radius) x 19.7 cm stroke:
 3.142 x 8.9 x 8.9 x 19.7 x 16 / 1,000 = 78.5 litres
Biscuittin (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I rounded my calculations to the nearest half-litre. Someone has since amended them to a more precise 78.4 litres for Class 15 and 16. Applying the same precision to Class 17 gives 29.4 litres per engine. Biscuittin (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine displacement 

message: Should we call it a road switcher since it is designed for both mainline freight and yard switching duites?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.152.192 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See the reply that I left at Talk:British Rail Class 14#Road Switcher? and also WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Road Switcher?

message: According to the article, the class 16 employed a Voith hydraulic transmission, but under the specifications electric transmission is indicated 2A00:23C4:F28A:C001:650B:AEC0:AE2B:3659 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that ? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 16 transmission
Talk:British Rail Class 24

message: There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: This article seems fairly complete and free from obvious errors, I'm giving it a rating of B, it probably deserves higher.FengRail (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Class
Talk:British Rail Class 121

message: There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: What about the Arriva one that's just started on the Cardiff Bay shuttle? I have no local knowledge of that, but why isn't it being counted? Loganberry (Talk) 04:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Only one is left in passenger service"? 

message: Not to be picky or anything, but my railway enthusiast instinct tells me the green unit in the picture at the top of the page is a class 122 and not 121. Am I right? Tom walker (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 121 or 122? 

message: I remember at one time the class was famous for having more poeple raped on it than any other.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.159.97 (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rapists Train

message: Hi. Just to let you know, the Commons category for Class 121s is now completely sorted by operator and livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons images

message: No sources cite this as being used as a spares donor, therefore all references to it have been removed. Infact, it has seen service since the transfer to Chiltern. Lord Castellan Creed (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 121032
Talk:British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255

message: There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: I've started a discussion which affects this page, over at Talk:British Rail Class 43 (HST)#NOT a merge proposal.... Please do come over if you have any thoughts about the three articles mentioned there. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion notice which affects this page
Talk:British Rail Class 322

message: There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: To inform you all that the Class 322 EMU fleet are to come off lease from First ScotRail in 2010/from next year, when the Class 380 EMU arrive at First ScotRail. The Class 320 is to be *RETAINED* by First ScotRail and are NOT being withdrawn from service. This information came from Rail (magazine).
They are most likely to be moved to Northern Rail to operate the 'Wakefield Line' Leeds-Doncaster service, as it is unlikely that the trains will head further south to National Express East Anglia (NXEA), as this operator is receiving Class 321 EMUs.
--Peter Skuce (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 322 to Come off Lease 

message: It's mentioned the units were transferred south after 2004, but where did they go? We have a photo :File:322483 romford station.jpg which shows a 322 at Romford in Skytrain branding, and was claimed by flickr to be 2005, and metadata to be 2004. Could this just be from 2001? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004-2005 

message: I noticed that this article doesn't state any information about the differences between the Class 322 and Class 321. This should be changed.Speedbird737 (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there was much difference - there must have been some, otherwise the separate classification would not be justified. IIRC Class 322 were dedicated to Stansted Airport services, and had a greater proportion of first-class seating and luggage space; but subsequent transfer to other areas meant that the seating has been altered. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between the 322 and 321 

message: Can this page please be updated as the class 322’s have left Northern Trains and have all been cascaded to Greater Anglia.
Many Thanks. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please respect the policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Trains
Talk:British Rail Class 444

message: There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avicennasis (talk • contribs) 18:29, 10 March 2011‎
:A name change is desparately needed for this article.  This is meant to be an encyclopedia, and here we have an article entitled "British Rail Class 444".  British Rail never owned or operated Class 444 trains.  This article gives the false impression that they did. Contrary to the claim in the previous post, there is no discussion on Naming convention at the location indicated.  86.150.67.86 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The post above yours was placed more than two years ago, and the discussion (which is now closed) is now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible change to the title of this article
Talk:SR Class 4Lav

message: There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention

message: Why is this not given in the article? Barney Bruchstein (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOPS Classification
File talk:Bernard lee.jpg

message: Discussion moved from User:K1Bond007/Archive3#Image source and User talk:Ellmist#Image:Bernard lee.jpg.
Thank you for uploading :Image:Bernard lee.jpg. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Ellmist 19:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright
Talk:Whistle-stop train tour

message: It is more than a dictionary entry.  Information about specific Whistle stop tours should be added.
----
Agreed. This page needs expansion too. It should contain the history of whistle stop tours, when politicians in the US and any other country that used them first started using them. For the US in particular, it should list which presidential candidates in which elections used it. The page should also say when it went out of fashion. I remember Kerry did a whistle stop tour for part of the campaign (and they did it to directly harken back to Truman's 1948 whistle stop tour). I know besides that one time, it hasn't been used in the US in decades, but it would be informative for this page to give the full history of this interesting campaign style.
Maybe this page should be part of a category of campaign styles. Ben Harrison and a few other late 1800s candidates in the US did a front porch campaign style, where they stayed in their house and received visitors and would discuss their positions from there rather than campaign around (kind of a backward system which seems odd that it actually worked, though it would obviously not work any time in the 20th century or beyond). --Thirdmoon 05:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to keep it 

message: Should mention of President Sanders' primary campaign get included here? Probably not until after he's elected and secondary sources start calling it that. 2605:A601:46D:B01:CABC:C8FF:FEA5:82F4 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, no: we probably already look as cluelessly inadequate as we can reasonably tolerate, by mentioning only Truman! The campaign-strategy term goes back to W. J. Bryan's campaign a half-century earlier, when most train stations still were w'-stops, and you couldn't fly in for a campaign speech.--Jerzy•t 04:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Bernie Sanders strategy? 

message: This article's lead gives a too-narrow and US-centric definition of the phrase. Usage outside of politicians' tours need mention. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition too narrow
Talk:Josel of Rosheim

message: *Article: :de:Josel von Rosheim
*Corresponding English-language article: Josel of Rosheim
*Worth doing because: broaden people's knowledge.
* Originally Requested by:--211.128.71.202 09:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional material translated
Talk:Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

message: this article reeks of industry-speak (numerous directions to "follow the lablel" like the ones found on the pesticide page. someone please check these facts and be sure it is NPOV. Bonus Onus 23:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Rule 1 states that consumers will be liable for neglecting the instructions on the labels of pesticide products. More details are needed on what the liabilities are. shanwich (Shanwich (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hey. My name is Johnny. Are we in the same class? I'm sorry, I'm bad with names. I see we are going to work on this together. If we do any editing of other people's work, let's first discuss it on the talk page ( copy and paste info in question, and reasons why you want to change, and how you propose changing it, etc). So here I go first:
"Before a pesticide can be registered, an applicant will have to prove that it wont cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. An unreasonable adverse effect is (1) any risk that is unreasonable to man or the environment that takes social, economic, and environmental costs as well as benefits into consideration and (2) any dietary risk that could be the result of a pesticide used with any food lacking consistency with the standards listed under section 408 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).[1] "
I will leave this here for now, but at some point we need a section on "registration", and this will go there.Dtran420 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HI Ashley 

message: There is a citation needed tag that will need to be sorted out before this can be passed as a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Nomination 
Talk:Economy of the European Union

message: There is a giant huge Index of Economic Freedom table.
Indeed, The Index of Economic Freedom is an annual index and ranking created in 1995 by conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal to measure the degree of economic freedom in the world's nations. The creators of the index claim (...) that "basic institutions that protect the liberty of individuals to pursue their own economic interests result in greater prosperity for the larger society". The validity and relevance of the Index remains highly disputed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.122 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Index of Economic Freedom 

message: For the Index of Economic Freedom, how is computed/sourced the EU value?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.122 (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Index of Economic Freedom: How is computed/sourced the EU value? 

message: Why is a Heritage Foundation notion listed here as if it were just another fact? KetchupSalt (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Economic freedom"? 

message: Bulgaria GDP 2020 revised from 119 951 mln.lv to 120 553 mln.lv.
Bulgaria GDP 2021 revised from 132 744 mln.lv to 139 012 mln.lv. 
https://www.nsi.bg/sites/default/files/files/data/timeseries/GDP_1.1.1_ESA_2010_en.xls
Growth 2021 - revised from 4,2% to 7,6%
https://www.nsi.bg/en/content/2206/gdp-production-approach-%E2%80%93-total-economy 77.76.21.98 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP Bulgaria - revised data 

message: nm?i?kjjjiiioooiiuk?oo?oihu?इउज्जि?ईइखि 202.51.69.38 (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iiओउउइ?ooiiunjoiuiookuoojiuimioiikjiokkjkyjjkjuoiiioi?हिइह
Talk:Asteriscus

message: For the May 2005 deletion debate on this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asteriscus.
:Well if there's going to be a page for asteriscus, then there ought to also be pages for sagitta and lapillus, yes? Do any of these fish earbones really have that much detail to them, individually, that they all need separate pages? (Obviously I disagree with the "keep" vote; I'm in the process of editting "otolith" where to my mind they all fit perfectly fine.) NerwenGreen 07:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asteriscus

message: The asteriscus is not the same as the asterism.  Please do not re-edit the link to falsely claim this is so.  There is no page currently in existence for the asteriscus, and it is described within the top of the page in the asterism article.  As I do not have a wikipedia account, and so cannot create new articles, I have set the link to the present location of the information.  If you would like to create a separate page for the asteriscus, feel free to do so, but there is a dirth of information of the little-known punctuation symbol and I fear the article would never grow to be large enough to meet the minimum page information content wikipedia aspires to.  Again, ܍(the asteriscus) is obviously different from ⁂ (the asterism), and, besides their etymologies, share little.  24.23.201.234 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I misread the linked article - my apologies. However, your disambiguation entry as it stands has a number of problems. The first linked article Asterism (typography), contains the word asteriscus, but the article makes the statement that it resembles the asterism which  is not mentioned in the source provided in that article; as you say it is obviously different. For this reason I believe the statement Besides originating from the same word, "the rarely used asteriscus (܍), which Isidore of Seville (p. 48) says 'is put in place of something that has been omitted so as to call attention to the omission'," also resembles the asterism should be removed from that article, which will leave nothing to link to.  The second linked article, asterisk, does not mention asteriscus in connection with the specific symbol or use. Finally according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages,   piping should not be used in disambiguation pages and  include exactly one navigable (blue) link to guide readers to the most relevant article.--Melburnian (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Asteriscus, a kind of asterisk
Talk:Climate commitment

message: (William M. Connolley 23:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm.. that was your text.   (SEWilco 09:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 09:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I moved Climate commitment studies to Climate commitment because this article is mostly about commitment, not about the studies themselves. mordel (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved page, new title 

message: Here is the relevant quote from Wigley:
:A breakdown of the natural and anthropo-genic  components  of  the  CC  commitment, together with uncertainties arising from ocean mixing (Kz) uncertainties, is given in table S1.  Past natural forcing (inclusion of which is the default  case  here)  has  a  marked  effect.  The natural   forcing   component   is   surprisingly large,  64%  of  the  total  commitment  in  2050, reducing to 52% by 2400.
Poodleboy (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  more that 50% of the current GHG levels commitment is due to natural forcings. 

message: "12.5.2 Climate Change CommitmentClimate  change  commitment,  the  fact  that  the  climate  will  change  further  after  the  forcing  or  emissions  have  been  eliminated  or  held  constant,  has  attracted  increased  attention  by  scientists  and  poli-cymakers  shortly  before  the  completion  of  IPCC  AR4  (Hansen  et  al.,  2005a; Meehl et al., 2005b, 2006; Wigley, 2005) (see also AR4 Section 10.7.1). "  https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf page 1102  Reneza (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCC speaks of "Climate change commitment " -> shouldn't we change the article title?