lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Wars in Lombardy

message: If someone with greater image editing skills then myself could make a map for this article it would be extremely helpful.--Ollie Garkey 12:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map? 

message: The battle article says it was a win, not a loss, for Florence's league; also that the league was called the Italian League; also that the Papal States were involved in the conflict. If so, some of that information should prolly be included on this page. -LlywelynII (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Anghiari]]

message: I propose deletion of "backed by Lorenzo de' Medici" in the second sentence of the "Aftermath" section. This is a mistake; there is no Lorenzo de' Medici involved at that time - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_de%27_Medici_(disambiguation)
Lorenzo il Vecchio (1395–1440)
Lorenzo il Magnifico (1449–1492)
Cosimo il Vecchio was involved. 
If no objection is raised I will make this change Aug 1, 2021.
YourHumbleServant (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sforza becomes Duke of Milan 1450 (delete "backed by Lorenzo de' Medici")
Talk:Moritz Daniel Oppenheim

message: External links #2 and #3 don't work anymore so I removed them. 174.130.6.206 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This site offers different dates for both endpoints. Thmazing (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth and death dates
Talk:Devolved, reserved and excepted matters

message: Are you sure that railways is still reserved? My understanding was that Labour were making a big song and dance last year about railways being the first area of reserved power to be devolved since the Scotland Act. Eg, see the Transport Scotland article. --Mais oui! 10:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Railways

message: We got to have a seperate article for the use of the term in the US.Cameron Nedland 02:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --Mais oui! 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks bro.Cameron Nedland 23:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pleasure. --Mais oui! 23:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US
Talk:Hindustan Unilever

message: Company: Public carries a [Needs citation] flag, 
but by definition, all "stocks" added to the Nifty Fifty (cited on the page) are "listed stocks" traded on the  National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE), the leading stock exchange of India, and are "equity shares" in PUBLIC companies. 
Perhaps rather than [Citation needed] the word Public might carry a link to page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company? 
2601:249:8C00:8620:C5CE:84A8:33AE:2DF4 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of Company: Public carries a [Needs citation] flag
Talk:Porteous Riots

message: I propose to do a rewrite of this article, rather than a redirect from Captain John Porteous. Watch this space. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 10:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The narrative is not clear.  What was the meaning of "cutting down" Wilson's body and why did the onlookers object?  Sir Walter Scott's version implies that the witnesses sympathized with the victim and considered Porteous to have been unnecessarily cruel.
CharlesTheBold 17:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification requested
Talk:Artificial atom

message: Artificial atoms refer to a whole class of systems that behave like atoms in the sense of discrete energy levels, not just quantum dots. Large metal objects that respond in peculiar ways to microwave radiation, for example, are called artificial atoms as well. Anyway, I must sound like a loony without any references, but if I have time I'll come back with some.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.207.198 (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can link this YouTube video by Andrea Morello explaining artificial atoms and quantum dots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUKKwyQLG2c Sinucep (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments
Talk:DeBarge

message: Wasn't this performed by DeBarge?  I don't see any mention of it.  --Navstar 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Who's Johnny?" 

message: El Debarge did not perform Who's Johnny, the theme song to the movie Short Circuit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.146.233.116 (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's Johnny? 

message: is she related to the guys? --Melly42 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kristinia DeBarge 
Talk:Sonya Smith

message: Note that someone keeps removing one of Sonya Smith's work in TV: Aurora (telenovela)  for no apparent reason.  The article about Aurora is also being vandalized. The user switches between IP: 190.136.58.35 and  190.225.43.207.
=== Father's Name ===
Is there a source for the name of Sonya's father?  In the article someone changed it from Federico Albertini Smith to Fred Smith.  I can't find an official source for any of the two names.Charles Dayton (Talk) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source citing her father's name as Federico Albertini.  I don't know why the user changed the name to Fred. I restored the name back. Charles Dayton (Talk) 20:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vandalism]]:

message: Is there a source for the name of Sonya's father?  In the article someone changed it from Federico Albertini Smith to Fred Smith.  I can't find an official source for any of the two names.Charles Dayton (Talk) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source citing her father's name as Federico Albertini.  I don't know why the user changed the name to Fred. I restored the name back. Charles Dayton (Talk) 20:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father's Name
Category talk:British female MPs

message: :Category:Female life peers is currently going through CfD. I acknowledge that this category might be somewhat more interesting than that for peers, and that it may be compatible with the current sub-catting of :Category:British MPs currently taking place. However, it seems a bit premature and inconsistent to have this until the other CfD has been completed. Mtiedemann 11:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the alert.  I wasn't aware that :Category:Female life peers was going through CfD, or I would have held off creating this one.  As you can probably guess, I think that both should stay, and that this is a case where gendered sub-classification is appropriate provided that the female minority is also categorisied in the parent category: see my reply on the CfD entry.However, I will refrain from adding any more female MPs to this category until the CfD on :Category:Female life peers is complete.  --BrownHairedGirl 11:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

message: I thought that the clear principle for categories by gender, ethnicity, etc was that they should not 'ghettoise' (my word) those people away from non-gender based categories or artificially split people. The new subcats for this category (by nation represented) is being used to split male from female MPs however. 
When we had just British MPs and British female MPs, there was consensus that female MPs would be categorised in both, ie left in the parent category, as per MOS. Can we agree that this has to be done in this case too? Personally I believe the subcats to be redundant, female MPs can be in several relevant categories, but I propose an interim compromise. Mtiedemann 22:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "as per MOS"? --Mais oui! 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest. That category, however, does not need to be balanced directly against a "Male heads of government" category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male by default. Both male and female heads of government should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category (e.g. Presidents, Monarchs, Prime Ministers, Governors General.)
The key sentence is the last, that "Both male and female heads of government [or here MPs] should continue to be filed in the appropriate gender-neutral role category". There was reference to this above too. Mtiedemann 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Accepted: I am now in the process of restoring the gender-neutral cats. Nearly finished. --Mais oui! 06:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subcats by nation
Talk:Combat Rock (novel)

message: I refer Khaosworks to Apostrophe#Basic_principles:_possessive_apostrophe. " Lewis' " sounds better than " Lewis's " to me... Bondegezou 11:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From that section: "In general, a good practice is to follow whichever spoken form is judged best: Boss's shoes, but Mrs. Jones' hat. In many cases, both spoken and written forms will differ between people (but see "Possessive form of words ending in s" below).""So let's look at that: Apostrophe#Possessive_form_of_words_ending_in_s and see what people like the Economist and the Guardian recommend. And consider how a person would actually pronounce it: "Lewisss own" or "Lewises own"? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two pronunciations are "Lewis own" and "Lewises own". I accept there is no right or wrong choice between them, but I prefer the former. Bondegezou 13:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possessive apostrophe

message: I've removed the assertion that the book is semi-autobiographical. There's nothing else to back this up here and no citation. And it sounds very unlikely in a PDA. For it to be so, the author would have to have included substantial elements from his own life and almost certainly a character that is closely based on himself. Merely having recognisable location elements and background details gathered by Lewis when he lived in the area does not make it semi-autobiographical. If it is semi-autobiographical, please reinsert it with citation. (But this would be so unusual in a Doctor Who story that it be worth expanding on.) Klippa (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-autobiographical

message: The Placement section, while accurate, is unsourced. I have been filling in the "Set Between" for all the books (I'm nearly done with the Second Doctor), providing a sourced plausible sequence placement, combined with clarification of the authoritative information provided in the cover blurb, using consistent verbiage. I don't want to step on the toes of the original author of the Placement section in the article, so I'm not touching it, but I encourage him or her to remove it, not only for consistency, but because the bit about The Abominable Snowmen seems like original research.NoJoy (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Placement
Talk:Last.fm Player

message: This should be merged with Last.fm, this player is not exactly full featured and provides the basis for last fm's service
Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.166.126 (talk • contribs) 
:I have to agree. Computerjoe's talk 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  It's the same text that's in the Last.fm article so this article isn't adding anything. --Mperry 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Microsoft Corp. v. Zamos

message: The article is about the Microsoft Corp v. Zamos lawsuit, a notable court case. The only notable thing about David Zamos is that he was in this suit. Please can someone rename this article to Microsoft Corp v. Zamos. 62.31.67.29 13:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this really need to be a biography article? 

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support per nom. Probably uncontroversial. –  Anþony  talk  13:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:Morriston

message: I have no idea who this person is, but I am minded to consider his inclusion a joke.
If nobody posts independent evidence that this person is, in fact, eminent in such work by 30 April, I will remove this reference. - Stevecov 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, he's gone. --Stevecov 12:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: David 'Dave' Thomas
Talk:Jehoshua Ben-Pandira

message: I think this should be merged into the Yeshu article under the ben-Pandera, ben-Stada section. Massey's views are highly POV and based on a series of rigid interpretations of the raw info which disregard other interpretations. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everbody's views are highly POV. The point is that it should be made known that this is one interpretation. I think a separate article is fine , especially considering Yeshu article length. You wanna censor via merging? You have links for criticism of Massey's work? -  max rspct leave a message  12:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yeshu article provides enough raw data for readers to spot obvious weaknesses in Massey's views, like the assumption that the Yeshu mentioned in connection with ben-Perachia is identical to Yeshu ben-Pandera and assumption that the Yeshu is short for Yehoshua. (The Yeshu article does currently lack info on evidence of interplay between the Gospels and early forms of the Toledot Yeshu, which needs to be included.) Kuratowski's Ghost 12:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Lumbago

message: Why not merge this article with the low back pain article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khonsali (talk • contribs) 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I move the best of the content from here to Low back pain and made this page into a redirect to low back pain.Badgettrg 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with "Low Back Pain"?
Talk:Isidingo

message: Cause time at which I will need help on how to start the article. Dr.Hans Siyanda (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm responding to this at User talk:Dr.Hans Siyanda, thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  can I be guided in order to write my article.
Talk:Yoo Seung-jun

message: I couldn't find any English language article that mentions he is actually married to Christine Oh. So if someone finds one, please change the text to reflect it and cite the source. Monni 11:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Who made this seem so....nonencyclopedia-ish?  And I deleted the comment that was here before. SKS2K6 01:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question
Template talk:Football in the United Kingdom

message: I do not believe defunct is an accurate description here:
* For the Coronation cup- either it was a one off event, or they may hold it again at the future date of a coronation- so can't be "defunct"
* Plans for UK team in 2008, and 2012 exist
In any case navigational templates are not the place for article text. Astrotrain 12:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defunct

message: Added FAW Premier Cup. Its contested by teams in the Welsh system and English system.
Out of the four competions listed only 1, the Texaco Cup contains, English, Scottish, Irish and Northern Irish teams, plus Ireland is not part of the UK anyway. As for the Anglo-Scottish cup, Empire Cup and Coronation Cup these where played out between just Scottish and English sides. Personally I see more relevence for a competion which is still in existance, over the anglo-scottish cup which was played out between sides not good enough to qualify for European competions i.e. Fulham and St. Mirren.
Xenomorph1984 (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationwide Football competions

message: Should the IFAB be listed here? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IFAB 

message: I feel this is out of place here as not all teams involved are part of the United Kingdom nor will all the teams of the United Kingdom be involved. Currently, I believe its inclusion is misleading. Fionnsci (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 Associations' Tournament
Talk:Pilsner Urquell Brewery

message: A wholly duplicative template has been removed which adds nothing to the main SABMiller template. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of that template and the secondary template was therefore added improperly. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SABMiller template 
Talk:S6G reactor

message: S6G technically refers to the Reactor Plant configuration and not specifically the reactor core installed.  This page should be considered renaming to S6G Reactor Plant or similar to help differintiate between various reactor cores intalled on the same plant configuration.  For instance the first flight 688 class submarines with the SG6 plant had the D1G core 2 reactor intstalled while the rest or any that were refueled upgraded to the D2W reactor core.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean697 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 9 April 2006
:Typically, the use of "reactor" encompasses the actual pressure vessel, the pressurizer (PWR), feedwater loops, etc. So I think that part is probably OK, although if the design also encompasses turbines as well then I guess it may need to be changed. My bigger issue is with your claim about having a different "core" (my guess is that they have a whole new pressure vessel... "changing the core" is accomplished every time the reactor is refueled) is that you have no source for this claim. This claim needs a source. --nbach 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably a dead conversation but he means a different TYPE of core.  Some had different pressure vessels, some were backfits.  There aren't likely to be too many sources as a lot of it is vigorously classified.  Protonk (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactor plant 

message: The 130 MW rating is incorrect and can probrably be attributed to one of the outdated and incorrect sources for this article listing nuclear submarin reactors and outputs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean697 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 9 April 2006
:What an ... interesting ... claim. ➥the Epopt 14:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this claim? Becuase we had a source for the 130 MWt number, which seemed credible. -- nbach 02:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Janes Fighting Ships uses the "official" numbers.  Any other numbers are either wrong or are classified. Patris Magnus (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  130 MW
Talk:Pachliopta jophon

message: Ceylon Rose has been excised from the List of Butterflies of India Papilionidae) since it is NOT an Indian species. However a link to it is placed in the Talk page. If I find any material on this butterfly, I shall continue to maintain it's wiki. AshLin 12:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excising P. jophon from the Indian regional checklist
Talk:Disability discrimination act

message: This article is still Anglosphere centric, it mentions disability discimination acts in UK, US, Canada and Australia, but what about mainland Europe, does Germany have one for example?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrtone86 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 9 April 2006
I think the title of this section can be strengthened by renaming it to "Disability Civil Rights Laws" to be more inclusive and focused on civil rights, as that is primarily the goals of disability community advocates when pushing for such laws. --Dakolson (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

message: Just a Question. What is Wikipedia doing to make sure the development of its policies do not compromise the spirit of inclusion and accessibility for all with regards to say someone with downs syndrome? Kaz 20:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well quite a lot of what we do has improved accessibility as a goal, for example the use of  in navboxen which enables assistance programs to parse the navbox contents better and the choice of suitably contrasting colours for text and background. See WP:ACCESSIBILITY. From that point of view the development of our policies does not "compromise the spirit of inclusion and accessibility" for anyone, quite the reverse. Downs' Syndrome is quite variable in its effects. If you have a particular concern, please ask in more detail. --Mirokado (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipolicy
Category talk:British trade unionists

message: This category seems to have a mix of senior Trade Union officials, politicians who have supported trade unions without holding high office, and individuals who are notable for something else but at some point worked in a trade union to no great notability. One suggestion is to have a subcat such as :Category:Leaders of British trade unions to hive off the really notable trade unionists, without being specific about General Secretaries, deputies, etc. Perhpas others should be removed from the category but it gets rather subjective. Mtiedemann 12:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create sub-cat: Leaders of British trade unions 

message: In 2006 Mtiedemann pointed out above that the category inclusion criteria ar somewhat subjective. I have added a :Template:Category description. A criteria that includes notable trade unionists and excludes others appears necessary. There are or were, millions of trade union members in the UK - because at certain times, for certain jobs, it was obligatory to become a member. For example I was one for just a summer job in the late 1970s, against my will. Here is a suggestion for inclusion and exclusion criteria:
* In: General Secretaries
* In: Deputies
* In: members notable for trade union activity (got into the media for example)
* In: members who (freely) signed their name to some protest or activity?
* Out: members whose articles have no verifiable cite of their activities
* Out: ordinary workers
* Out: members who only appear in published lists of union members
-84user (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category description needed
Talk:List of Eliteserien top scorers

message: I think this article should be moved to Norwegian football top scorers, as it would be a less ambiguous title and would be consistent with articles of a similar theme such as Swedish football champions Oldelpaso 12:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article move?
Talk:USS Indianapolis (SSN-697)

message: This article states: "To learn more about the U.S.S. Indianapolis (SSN-697) and past crews, or if you are a past member of a crew, to find out about get togethers, visit Hullnumber." ReallY? This might be okay to have in the talk section, but certainly doesn't belong in the main text. For that matter, the whole last paragraph sounds a lot like original research or something lifted verbatim from a cruiser Indianapolis survivor newsletter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.160 (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic?
Talk:List of Articles by John Kenneth Galbraith

message: Please don't delete or redirect this article (has happened twice) until you've read the explanation of why it's here! The bibliography on John Kenneth Galbraith covers only the books he has written whereas this article hopes to get to grips with the several hundred academic articles he has written without making the original article one long list of works! Ultimatley I'd like to group his written articles together under themes in his thought and explain the concepts. Sjeraj 12:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)