lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Chemmeen

message: >>  Incidentally, it was also the first Malayalam movie in colour.
It is not the first Malayalam colour movie. Kandam bacha kottu in 1961 was the first M movie to have sequences in colour (like Mughal-e-Azam). Chemmeen may be the first full length colour movie, but we need a more solid reference to confirm that. Tintin Talk 19:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right. Though "Chemmeen" and "Colour" in Google give lot of links saying that Chemmeen is the first Malayalam Color movie, this article in The Hindu suggests that it was one of the earliest colour films made in cinemascope in Malayalam. OK then, give me another fact asap for listing it on DYK ;-) --Gurubrahma 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to pass the buck to Pournami. I have no books with me to refer or confirm. Tintin Talk 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you search for "kandam bacha" in google, it comes up with three or four links like  and  which says that it was the first full length colour movie. I am more confused now ! Tintin Talk 22:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Chemmeen was not first colour movie in malayalam; it was kandam bacha coat-1961; 4 years before it. "one of the first" seems ok; whether it was first cinemascope in M i don't really know.  -Pournami 17:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Balan was the first talkie. It was in B&W (and made in 1938). The other page is wrong. Tintin 05:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour movie 

message: The article need to be separated. The novel and film need to have different pages. I think the contents of this page can stay, while the film page can have produation, cast, crew and reception details, adding of which here may be unsuitable--Anoopkn (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Separation of Article
Talk:Winwick rail crash

message: I propose that the "citation needed" header be removed. For UK railway accidents of many years ago, the only single reliable source is the official Board of Trade accident report, which is also the source for subsequent books such as "Red for Danger". The accident report is correctly hyperlinked and the article is an effective summary of it. There are also other references quoted. Hence any previous omission has been fixed to the maximum extent possible. The header has been in place for nearly 5 years and I suggest that it now serves no useful purpose. Hyperman 42 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation template
Talk:Anil Kapoor

message: The redirect Red (Bollywood film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Red (Bollywood film)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Gol Maal

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 
Talk:Basu Chatterjee

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.bollywoodchaska.com/content/basu_chatterjee-604/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  MER-C 09:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 
Template talk:UEFA teams

message: Ok, I wanted to move Republic of Ireland national football team from Category:European national football teams to Ireland Republic because I hate seeing Republic of Ireland listed under R rather than I.  (Go to :Category:European national football teams and tell me that's not crap).  Imagine my surprise and horror when yadda yadda yadda.  So how can I do this with Category:European national football teams?  I'm afraid to experiment here.. Joestynes 19:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I have some sympathy with your point (we don't have Kingdom of the Netherlands or Republic of France, or Principality of Wales listed under K, R and P respectively) an encyclopedia does not operate according to my taste or yours, but follows authoritative publications, and the authoritative body here, FIFA, lists Republic of Ireland between Qatar and Romania.  Kevin McE 00:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: This phrase cries out for explanation, although an Infobox isn't the right place for that type of footnote.  As it stands, it looks as though UEFA think that Yugoslavia might announce a match against the Soviet Union next month, and we on WP are so much better informed than them, because we know it won't happen.  I understand what the distinction means (other national sides are recognised as being a continuation of Czechoslovakia, USSR and Yugoslavia) but the casual reader might not.  Kevin McE 14:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a definition of defunct is required, why mention USSR, but ignore the football teams of imperial russia, and the commonwealth of independent states, the process seems quite aribitrary Fasach Nua 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recognised as defunct

message: There have been recent changes to reorder the teams alphabetically per their FIFA codes rather than by the names of the actual countries. Seeing as we don't even list the FIFA codes, this is unnecessarily confusing. I think we should just stick with basic alphabetical order. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering
Talk:Nanpa

message: This redirect generates confusion when the user is searching for the "North American Numbering Plan Administration" (NANPA). See article "North_American_Numbering_Plan". Of course, we want to take care of those interested in Nanpa who don't know how to spell it too. When I find a spare moment, perhaps this is my opportunity to learn wiki syntax and write an article, but feel free to fix it first if I don't find that moment. --Anson
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 20:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion 

message: An interesting subject, but I feel the article misses out on two crucial points: (1) What does nanpa refer to exactly? "a certain kind of flirting" does not exactly suffice as an illustrative description. (2) What's the origin or meaning of the word? As a katakana word, it surely is a shortening of a longer kanji compound sort of term, onomatopoeia, or gairaigo. Knowing what it's supposed to mean or where it comes from might help alot towards understanding what it refers to. Thanks. LordAmeth 15:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's not a shortening. It has kanji (軟派) and is more properly written in hiragana than katakana. My Japanese dictionary also implies that the term should refer more to the practice as a hobby or habit rather than a one-time thing. Dekimasu 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Thank you. LordAmeth 11:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion
Talk:Richard Levins

message: The bibliography is getting rather long. Ought we to arrange it chronologically?
-lex
Some editors are getting Richard Levins of the Harvard School of Public Health confused with Dick Levins, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota.  These are two separate individuals!
Noted, but Dr. Richard Levins of HSPH is widely known among his colleagues as 'Dick Levins' - so we listed the nickname in quotation marks, in the middle of his 2 other names. MaynardClark (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Stephen Colbert has been acknowledged as a lifetime idol and understudy to Richard Levins, a fact he will take with him to the grave." This remark is not relevant for the readers and will be omitted.--Engelbaet 16:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it true, or is that statement false? MaynardClark (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The understudy
Talk:Segal–Cover score

message: Kudos to the anon on adding current scores.
I don't know, but that score seems very rare. There is only ONE "pure" liberal in the court? Souter is more conservative than Kennedy? Breyer is a conservative?????? riiiight<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest you read the article (by Segal et al.). The point of the scores is to produce exogenous measures of judicial ideology. Measuring by way of case outcomes would require additional premises. They're actually extremely strong predictors of judicial behavior. Two conservative and two liberal papers' pages are used. Vincent Vecera 19:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

message: "Qualification"?
The article does not state an objective, quantitative basis for the qualification score.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.169.135 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very confused about what constitutes a 'qualification.' Can someone with some understanding of this scale explain this?   22:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualifications

message: It would be interesting to see scores for all past justices for whom they are available. Also, this article mentions that the ideology scores have high predictive validity; it would be good to see correlation coefficients.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.103.172 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical scores
Talk:Swing

message: The disambiguation pages Swing, Swingin', and Swinger are not clean-cut enough.
I propose a "merge all 3" to incorporate all articles with titles like "Swing" or any common form of the word, e.g. Swinger, Swinging, Swingin', Swings, Swingers, etc.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal - Swing-related dab pages "merge all" into [[Swing]]
Template talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

message: There seem to be separate articles devoted to pretty much everyone and everything which appear in the Hitchhiker books — except The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy itself!  Anyone care to turn this link blue?  TerraGreen 19:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for this, someone made The Guide (character) at about the same time. There's no need for two articles covering pretty much the same fictional aspects of the same "book". --JohnDBuell 01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needed? 

message: The "42" image looks cheesy. Coffee 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked it.  It's not perfect, but it does apply.  Idealy we should have the thumb logo from the movie there as this seems to be the official current logo for the series.  On another note, I have changed "Radio series (Parts 1 & 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5)" to "Radio series (Phases 1 & 2, Phases 3, 4 & 5)" as that is the official names of the series' and Parts could be mistaken for episodes.  JP Godfrey 22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have uploaded :Image:HHGTTG.jpg which is a cropped version of one of the movie posters.  Can we use it in the template as "Fair Use"? JP Godfrey 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You could either use the movie logo - 50px or Marvin , but as I recall - this green thingy  is what mainly identified with the guide. Yuval Y 15:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Marvin and the thumb are from the commons, and Marvin is commonly used in Robot's category... Yuval Y 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that 42 is a big spoiler. What about H2G2. or Don't Panic? Harpie 07:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  42 

message: I'd like to add a "See also" section to this template. It could have links to:
* Don't Panic: The Official Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Companion
* Hitchhiker: a Biography of Douglas Adams (book)
* Douglas Adams's Guide to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - after I've added an infobox.
Any objections or comments? --RenniePet 09:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" section? 

message: In my personal opinion, 'And Another Thing...' is part of the main books, and has been a comeback (which while doesn't directly mean a main book, it implies it in it's way of use) and has been considered the Part Six of Three (Or Part Six in the Trilogy of Six, etc. any variation) even though it wasn't written by Eoin Colfer. Even Wikipedia itself states: 'And Another Thing… is the title of the sixth installment of Douglas Adams's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "trilogy".' in it's article. In my opinion it should be added as a main book, though some may not agree, so feel free to disagree (just as long as you provide any real reason). I suggest we put (starting from Mostly Harmless, which I know is already there, but is kept for the ·:
Mostly Harmless And Another Thing... (by Eoin Colfer)
Mostly Harmless And Another Thing... (by Eoin Colfer)
92.11.185.244 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: And Another Thing... Added to the Main Books?
Talk:Conley, Georgia

message: Editors should note that Conley is more a part of DeKalb County than it is Clayton County.
:Since many of those trucking firms mentioned in the article are in DeKalb County, and most maps confirm this, I agree with the anonymous IP. This seems to be a community split between both counties. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  00:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Clayton and DeKalb Counties
Talk:Papilio zelicaon

message: 52–80 mm?  What the hell is that? No one is America is going to have any conception what that is.  I am putting inches in the article.  Isn't Wikipedia's readership almost entirely American anyway?  --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:2CC3:B04:42E0:B22A (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please edit and update it since you have the information. Please reference it too. AshLin (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the description and added a bit about the eggs, since the illustration shows them. I can't add references. The information comes from personal experience--I've reared this species from eggs--and is also available in life-cycle photos on the Web. Some such series are at BugGuide.net. I'm not familiar with the typemarking procedures for adding references to Wikipedia. Cognita (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americans DO NOT use the Metric System
Talk:Charles Constantine of Vienne

message: I have never actually made a factual change in an article, so I am testing the waters here before actually making the change. Flodoard explicitly calls Charles Constantine by that name (Karlus Constantinus) several times, and was also a contemporary of Charles-Constantine, so the first and last sentences are completely false, as anyone who actually checks Flodoard can easily verify. Where on earth is this garbage coming from?
Rhydderch~enwiki (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd misinformation in first paragraph
Talk:Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland

message: Anne Percy, Countess of Arundel (27 July 1485 – 1552) is listed as wife to Thomas Fitzalan, 17th Earl of Arundel - shouldn't this be to William FitzAlan, 18th earl of Arundel?
:YesAlci12 14:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Not sure he should be in :Category:House of York as his relationship to Edward IV and Richard of York etc was through their maternal descent from the Neville family, not through descent from Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York. Equally, although he was a sometime supporter of the House of York, that does not make him a member of the house and other Yorkists are not included in this category. Dunarc (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of York
Talk:Timbuktu (software)

message: We are having a peer review for remote administration tool Back Orifice. We're hoping that you could join the discussion and give us some ideas, how to improve the article further. --Easyas12c 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Back Orifice'' peer review 

message: Anyone for the merge? --evrik 19:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Article claimed that Timbuktu is the only commercial remote software with both client and server, mentioning that VNC is open source.  Microsoft's Remote Desktop Protocol fits this description, though it is bundled with the OS.  As does Apple Remote Desktop, and Fog Creek's Copilot, though both rely on VNC.
Not sure the statement does much except blow sunshine over Timbuktu, so I thought deletion was better than lengthy clarification/caveats.
Josh Powell 02:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed untrue statement about only commerical remote client & server 

message: Is there any remote desktop program that supports remote sound, other than ms rdp/mstsc?  Family Guy Guy (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sound/audio device support? 

message: It is possible to use 8.6 Tibuktu on Vista. but after user login not running as a service  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.123.228 (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista Compatibility 

message: I'm considering a major rewrite of this article with the express aim of increasing it's encyclopedic content and framing the current content in a more neutral tone.  So far my thoughts are to have:
Brief introductory paragraph
Table of Contents
Development History (particularly what companies and the emergence of support for multiple platforms)
Notable Features (will highlight "differentiators" and link to the remote desktop comparison chart as well)
Released Versions (will include major features added/removed)
References in Media (such as articles where the product was used in unusual ways or to solve unusual problems)
I do not intend to provide a feature-by-feature breakdown, as that could easily devolve into a marketing-like activity, which is NOT encyclopedic.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Michael.b.price (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite?
Talk:NetBus

message: We are having a peer review for remote administration tool Back Orifice. We're hoping that you could join the discussion and give us some ideas, how to improve the article further. --Easyas12c 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Back Orifice'' peer review 

message: Netbus was actually the first "mainstream" Trojan, so easy to use that every 10 years old kid could handle it. Back then only few computers were running AV scanners.
What may be notable is that Neikter always claimed that netbus was not meant to be a trojan but a serious remote control program. The program itself shows quite obvious that it is clearly meant to be of "malicious" nature, Neikter often talked about abuse - facts show that this was rather the "normal use" of the software. 
When netbus was released, Neikter was only 21 years old.
The Netbus 2.0 release was indeed announced as a professional remote control solution, but the only real difference was that the server application wasnt run "Hidden" any more and that it required a serial key, which could be bought for a few Dollars from Neikter himself, enabling full functionality. Of course Neikter had the possibility of earning real money with his software in his mind, but as he often stated he was annoyed by the fact that Antivirus Software was detecting Netbus as malware. All major AV-Software companys included Netbus 2.0 as a Virus in their Signature lists, although Neikter protested a lot. There were already hacked netbus 2.0 versions spread around that did neither require buying the registration key, nor would these show the server, it was hidden again.
Neikter is still interested in computer technologies and was last seen at the Conference on Real-Time Operating Systems, 2006 Dec. 5 at Linköpings University. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.133.237.114 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info? 

message: What exactly there is not clear? Which statement requires verification? If no one objects, i will remove that tag after few months. -Yyy (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one had any issues with this, I removed the tag. -Yyy (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed for verification