lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Extended School Year

message: In my school district, ESY had a completely different meaning.  It wasn't for special needs students, but was a way to accommodate more students than the facilities or staff could handle normally.  The students were divided evenly into 4 tracks, and only 3 of the 4 were in class on any one day, extending into the summer to give all tracks the required number of days.  So, do we have an article on this concept ?  If so, we should link to it from a dab at the top of the page.  If not, can we add that concept here ? StuRat (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the other article, and placed dabs in each, to the other, since they may obviously be confused. StuRat (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different meaning for ESY
Talk:Darjeeling Municipality

message: I wonder what is the correct spelling – whether the mentioned "दार्जलिङ नगरपालिका", or "दार्जीलिङ नगरपालिका" written on the building on the photo – if there something like correct spelling is, in India. --Mykhal (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling
Talk:New Cooch Behar Junction railway station

message: Ncv to kumargram train 2409:4088:8094:4F46:0:0:2250:40A1 (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Train
Talk:2008 Colorado Democratic presidential caucuses

message: What is causing the remaining 27 Delegates to be unassigned?  Does anyone have a good estimate for how the will be split?
Dan
Well it's now 10 unassigned according to the main article and 9 here, but I don't know why the Colorado state democratic party is taking so long in any case to allocate them. In any case the articles numbers should be sourced. I would guess that by Tuesday the source the main article is using will agree with the source this one is using about that delegate called for Obama here that's uncalled there.  Jon (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obama's site reports CO as 37 for Obama and 18 for Clinton though does not provide a source for this. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke

message: The photo shows a kit model. What is the odd caption about running engines and the propellers being blurred when it is a model?! Xtal42 (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo is of a model - odd caption? 

message: I have assessed this article as being a stub, despite its C-class length and supporting material (infobox and two images), not out of malice but because it does not cite a single source and is therefore un-encyclopedic. As soon as citation and research is made for this article, it will advance. If citation is sufficient, it will indeed reach C-Class. –Vami_IV✠ 10:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: length of content makes a stub, or not. More than enough content. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub-class assessment
Talk:HMS B2

message: I grandi disastri: transatlantico tedesco che investe, spezza e affonda un sottomarino della flotta inglese davanti a Dover. https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/~GUAAOSwIgNXkLc2/s-l1600.jpg] 80.99.11.157 (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant postcard found.
Talk:Matson, Gloucester

message: Why hasn't the Matson page got more information?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveyou.o8 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and add some more, but remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a place for indiscriminate facts and information. Alex McKee (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to have a stab at extending the content significantly. This is hard to do because there's not much published information about the village or the estate but I shall endeavour to make the article more complete, or at least less of a stub. If anyone fancies helping out please just jump right in! Alex McKee (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matson 

message: I just overhauled the page to work in the content that another user added. Alex McKee (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Potentially useful for finding decent references for information: http://openlibrary.org/subjects/place:matson
Alex McKee (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 
Talk:Indite

message: AD Genkin, LV Murav'eva - Zapiski Vsesoyuznogo Mineralogicheskogo Obshchestva, 1963 first mentioned and only observed rarely.--134.76.234.75 (talk) 07:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: LV Murav'eva 

message: Perhaps a disambiguation page. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is the other meaning?—Tetracube (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning: indite has another meaning
Talk:Junkers Ju 288

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Within the infobox, I’ve changed the ‘role’ to “medium bomber,” in order to align the article with other combat aviation articles.  The information previously contained — something along the lines of “Advanced bomber” & “Bomber B project competitor” — is better off mentioned in the article proper (the former more or less is, the latter is mentioned in the introduction).
As for its designation as a “medium bomber;” First off, it would seem most sources label the 288 as a medium bomber (Book search — external link). 
Secondly, it was smaller (and usually lighter) than most heavy bombers, while being larger than most light bombers.
Lastly, the 288 was developed as, more or less, a direct successor to the Ju 88/Ju 188. Both of these aircraft are listed as “medium bomber(s)” here on Wikipedia.
Just figured I’d open this up in case anyone wanted to dispute my labeling of the 288 as such.
MWFwiki (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medium or heavy bomber?
Talk:Maruthamunai

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  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.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:I-ME-WE

message: This is the initial draft gleaned from atleast 3 sources on the Internet. Please feel free to add your own refs and also wikify the content.Pizzadeliveryboy (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial draft: Plea for Wikification 
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table (re-nomination)

message: I wonder if any thought has been given to the possibility of a proactive approach to sockpuppets on this AfD. It occurs to me that the IP addresses for the socks from the previous round are probably on autoblock right now.  If that autoblock expires during the period of this AfD, then the puppet show might come back with a vengeance.
Note that I am not suggesting what should be done in this regard - I am simply raising an issue for your consideration. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Château Pèlerin

message: This structure seems to be being described in different ways around Wikipedia.  In one version, the castle was captured and then dismantled by the Mamluks in 1291.  In another version, the castle was abandoned by the Crusaders, and left intact by the Mamluks until the castle was damaged in an earthquake several hundred years later. My own sphere of expertise just barely intersects the events around this castle, so I'm not certain what the consensus of reliable sources says.  Can anyone who does know more about the topic, help to straighten this out? --Elonka 22:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting legacy

message: This is English Wikipedia. Only French WP has a reason to use the modrrn French word. Arminden (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chastel, not Château: medieval French!
File talk:TV-introduction-world-map.svg

message: Awesome piece of work, thanks
Just a very minor comment. Why did you choose split modern day tajikistan and ukraine from ussr? it was all one country, and tv was introduced to its entirety, right? -- you chose not to distinguish between different regions in other countries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.194.11 (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  =

message: I don't know how to put a key on the map, but here is what each colour corresponds to.
*Re35d = 1930 to 1936--90.213.243.174 (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Key

message: Uganda, Kenya, and Nigeria had access to television before white-dominated apartheid era South Africa? Really? I would have thought that South African cities, that were trying to pass themselves off as cosmopolitan and european, would have had television prior to the 1970's.
:The Apartheid government were very reluctant to allow television as they believed that it would expose the masses to the concept of multicultural living because of the large amount of British, Dutch and American programming which would naturally end up being shown on SA television.  The date for South Africa is definitely correct - not sure about those dates for Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria though.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 10:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: South Africa

message: Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union at the time, how come the color is different for Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.150.110 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine? 

message: I can't distinguish between them. Theofficeprankster (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greens too similar 

message: This image is unusable to at least 10% of the population and possibly more who can't discriminate between those shades of green.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.135.24 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours other than red/green
Talk:Urim, Israel

message: In the end of the History section, please add "Urim uses land belonged to the Palestinian village of Al-Imara".
Source:
All that remains : the Palestinian villages occupied and depopulated by Israel in 1948. Khalidi, Walid. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies. 1992. p. 73. ISBN 0-88728-224-5. OCLC 25632612.
I can't edit by myself due to WP:ARBPIA4 edit restrictions.
Thanks!  User:Huldra Bustan1498 (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Bustan1498: checked and , Huldra (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 15, 2008

message: Out of 20 cars entered for the race, only the six cars from the Bridgestone-shod teams (Ferrari, Minardi and Jordan) competed. 
Minor point: Technically, is it cars, drivers or teams who enter a race?
Bigger bugbear: Cars do not wear shoes, hence they are not shod. ... only those using Bridgestone tyres ...   Kevin McE (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Brookula annectens

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (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 printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites 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.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 20, 2008

message: A tower is an intrinsic part of the structure of a building.  It is not merely part of the facade.  Maybe ... dominating the building's appearance?
Shop in UK English invariably means a place for purchases: a store in US parlance. Would workshop bridge the divide?  
A building was damaged by fire: fact.  That fire was disastrous is a value statement (unless there were deaths: otherwise some people might have considered the building a "monstorous carbuncle").
The TFA segment does not allow for citations, therefore I do not believe that quotations are appropriate; could we finish with simply benefactor Lettie Pate Whitehead Evans." ?  Kevin McE (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I beloieve that all of the comments that I have made here to be valid criticisms of the article summary, of the kind that would be expaected in a peer review or FA discussion.  Why is it deemed suitable to simply ignore editor's constructive criticisms in attempts to improve the main page of Wikipedia with neither counter-argument, acknowledgement  or rebuttal? Kevin McE (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm equally puzzled. MaxVeers (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Car body configurations

message: It says "three or five-door hatchbacks (without separate trunk compartments) are a 'two-box' designs". This approach, referenced to a North American source, appears to treat long liftbacks (3-box) as a class of its own, distinct from hatchbacks. But then the article on hatchback says that the Brits use hatchback for liftbacks too (and so does yours truly). Perhaps the article should elaborate more on the uncertainty and diversity of today's body classes (i.e. Skoda Superb with a twindoor is both sedan and hatchback (liftback) in one car. And it's clearly 3-boxen. East of Borschov 07:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 842U (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice of words

message: This article has expanded to also cover one-box and two-box styling, so the title has become misleading. I therefore propose that it gets merged into Pillar (car) as the article where the body styles are covered. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Against There is an overlap in the two subjects; to talk about one requires talking about the other. But the two are fundamentally distinct.  Despite commonality, its not necessary to combine articles aobut John F. Kennedy and his brother Bobby. 842U (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks for your comments. How about renaming the article "Car body styles" instead? The intent is to remove the current illogical structure of having One-box and Two-box as sections of an article called Three-box styling. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I propose this page be moved to Automobile body configurations. "Car" is an informal term, and generally only covers light passenger vehicles and such. "Car body repair" would be an inappropriate name for Automobile body repair, and so is this. Auto body is a much more accurate and inclusive term. When I hear "car body" all I can think of is passenger train cars, which are actually called "car bodies". In automotive use, they are automobile bodies, autobodies, unit bodies, unibodys, or coachwork. I don't think I've ever even heard them called "car bodies" before now, except maybe informally at times.
64.222.125.27 (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal 

message: I find it a bit lacking, shouldn't it include chassis configuration? Everything in this article currently is about bodyshell cars, particularly pillars for some bizarre, unexplained, unreferenced reason. There is missing content for monocoques, space frame, rail chasses...
Then there is another article car body style which is sharing the scope of this article. For example, a 'roadster' is more a use-case which should fit here more than a 'body style'. Rally Wonk (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What even is this article?
Talk:Woodie (car body style)

message: It seems to me the term should not be capitalized, but this article is mixed.  I am going to make it consistent. Huw Powell (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization? 

message: " By 1955, only  is Ford, Mercury, joined in 1965 by Chrysler offered a "woodie" appearance, evoking real wood with other materials including steel, plastics and DI-NOC (a vinyl product)" is WRONG...Edsel Bermuda would have it in 1958...and Rambler Cross Country's last year for the fake wood look was 1956...2601:18E:C501:E4F3:7ACA:39FF:FEB2:EFCB (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Just Ford! 
Talk:Mushaira

message: Is there any rules/traditions against men and women performing at the same Musharia?Slipzen (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
File talk:Greater london outline map bw.png

message: Excusez-moi la photos ne marche pas je ne peux ps la prende le point rouge enlève que faire ??
:This is the english wikipedia so write in english please thanks. Pro66 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

message: The city of London here has no boundary separating it from the City of Westminster, but you can't really see it in smaller size in an article page. Newham from Barking and Dagenham are separated by a faint thin blue line, a river, but there is no black line so it looks like they are one borough, as there there are many rivers shown that are not borders. Motorways are also drawn over the top of the borders/black lines, when it should probably be the other way. 
Carlwev (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Borders not clear

message: I am trying to upload this image to replace the current Greater London outline map image (this one) I have uploaded newer versions of existing images before but this one is not letting me I think it maybe protected. My newer version is only a slight alteration making the boundaries clearer between Newham and Barking and Dagenham - Ealing and Hounslow - and City of London and the City of Westminster. Anyone that can help me change it or change it for me I would be grateful. Carlwev (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! I uploaded your version at WikiCommons. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help changing image
Talk:Kumarakom Bird Sanctuary

message: at least one of  the references in this article are labeled simply "Book."  Should I delete the information it is referencing, or hope someone comes back to change it? Orcahuman (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Book" is reference name for Ayub, Akber (ed), Kerala: Maps & More, Kumarakom,  2006 edition 2007 reprint, p. 53, Stark World Publishing, Bangalore, . The first time all details are there and subsequently the references are marked only "Book". This detailing is visible only when one opens the edit. In the normal page the reference leads to the deatils. Multiple references to the same source are marked in this manner in hundreds of Wikipedia pages. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Officially there is no such Bird Sanctuary in this name, or in this area. Please check http://www.kerenvis.nic.in/isbeid/forest.htm for List of Wildlife sanctuaries in Kerala. But The place is well-known for its birds, mainly migratory birds. --Praveen:talk 14:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no such Bird Sanctuary officially
Talk:2008 Namdaemun fire

message: This article should, I think, be merged into Namdaemun. However, I won't tag it while it's featured on the home page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 
Talk:Phenoptosis

message: The article on the evolution of aging claims that the mechanisms here proposed are those of one theory of aging, and not even a modern one and one that is most likely untrue, however this article makes it seem like this random Russian came up with THE theory of how aging evolves. So which one is it? Is this a fact that exists out there in the world, or simply a theory someone had that is being described? Moreover, the article even contradicts itself when it says that extant examples of semelparity evolved due the high extrinsic adult mortality (which is in line with current theories on how aging evolved), but then goes on to just recap the scientifically unsupported "altruistic aging" theory not as a possibility, but actuality. 
While it's fine to have articles on outmoded theories (like Newtonian Physics), or downright fantasy (Hollow Earth theory), I think the article needs to be rewritten so as to be a description of a theory, not an explanation of reality from the viewpoint of a theory. It also needs to be rewritten for internal consistency. --Don Ecchi (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this exist?
Talk:7×61mm Sharpe & Hart

message: If anyone has access to the following, it could provide more information and references (found on IAA forum):
IAA Journal # 426, July/Aug 2002, page 7
W.B. Dixon’s European Cartridges, Vol. II,  Page 249 & 250 
Cartridges of the World 11th Ed., page 118 Tengu99 (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References