lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:AFI 100 Years... series

message: Anybody want to take on the task of italicizing all of these movie titles?  RickK 04:46, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
* Done. Now, another question: is it appropriate to have these full lists on Wikipedia? --Twinxor 22:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hmm. I coulda sworn the actual line in Caddyshack contained the words "Man outta nowhere..." - dcljr (talk) 07:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caddyshack quote 

message: What 100 years are they using for this series?  When do they say American movies started?  That should be here. . .  (John User:Jwy talk) 22:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I can't find the date range. -162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that the first "100 Years" list (100 Movies) was released in 1998, I would guess they're probably counting from the beginning of the 20th century (even though 1893 or 1894 might be more appropriate). Would be nice to have a reference, though — especially since these lists were released over an entire decade. The exact starting year is largely academic, since the earliest film to actually make it on any of their lists (AFACT) is 1915's Birth of a Nation, which, after the 2007 update of the "100 Movies" list, was replaced by 1916's Intolerance. The most recent films in any of the lists are 2004's Ray and Hotel Rwanda. FYI. - dcljr (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHICH 100 years? 

message: I haven't seen one anywhere.  Does anyone know what the deal is?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.60.162 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As it seems to be a celebration of the first 100 years of American film, I doub it. Maybe every 100 years, not every year! (John User:Jwy talk) 04:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  AFI did indeed release one new list of 100 movies (stars, etc.) every year from 1998 to 2008, as is clear from the article, but apparently stopped there. - dcljr (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a new list for 2009?
Talk:Romance (music)

message: I think I may have heard at one point that the classical Romanze was often constructed in ABA form, when the A is usually slow and B fast. The 2nd movement from Mozart's concerto as well as the Movement from Schumann's 4th symphony seem to follow that structure, which strengthens this notion.
Anyone know anything about that? 109.67.226.42 (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Romance as a classical music form

message: :During the 18th and 19th centuries Russian composers developed the French variety of the romance as a sentimental category of Russian art song. "Ochi Chyornie" (black eyes) is a well-known example. Isn't this text confusing sentimental lyrics with the musical form of the Romance? It certainly seems so, unless the musical definition of romance can be brought to bear on this. Anyone? --Wetman 15:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: confusing sentimental lyrics with the musical form
Talk:Errare humanum est

message: From VfD:
Contains nothing but translations of a Latin phrase into other languages.  RickK 06:17, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
*Delete: I'm going to get really snippy.  The phrase originates in English, in Alexander Pope's Essay on Man, and this is therefore a translation of English into Latin and then into all kinds of languages.  Grrrrr!  Know thy Pope. Geogre 12:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Talk:List of uniform acts (United States)

message: The Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (U.S.) has the (U.S.) disambiguation because of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (Australia). The names of the laws are not identical, but are close enough to warrant the disambig. --Benc 06:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is "*Uniform Probate Code Vi (1989) (1998)" supposed to be new Article VI? It is not clear and does not look like a probable future Wikipedia article title, so should not be linked that way. -Rrius (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Uniform Probate Code Vi]] (1989) (1998)
Wikipedia talk:Quote

message: For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quote
----
So... um... what's this then? Template:Quotable is just a copy of Template:Opentask. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

message: Alright, I admit it.  I don't have a clue what this is supposed to be.  Can someone help me out here? --bdesham 19:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Eh?
Talk:Geography of association football

message: Argentina has an unusual system. They play the whole season in two halfs. The 'Apertura (opening) is the first half. A championship title is awarded when this finishes. The points are then reset and they play for the Clausura, in the second half of the season. After that finishes another championship title is awarded.  Mintguy (T) 08:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Argentina

message: For me, this is currently a very useful article, containing links to nearly everything I might want so good work so far.
I want to propose a few additions and changes however:
* Firstly, would anyone object if I added every nation from around the world? This is certainly what I'd expect to see if I viewed this page. I understand some nations don't have a national league, for example, but this can easily be left blank and we'll have a more complete table?
* Also at the moment entries tend to link to the highest league within a nation, but wouldn't it make more sense to link to the general system? For example English football league system instead of two separate links to the Premiership and Football League, Chilean football league system instead of just the highest league, and so on.
* Next, could international football competitions be listed also? At the moment only domestic ones are. So, the European Championships, or African Champions League could be listed under the relevent headings.
* Lastly, a very small point, what is the convention on linking years, like 2004? It makes more sense, and looks nicer, not to, in my opinion and I'd have thought there'd be some kind of convention on it.
Anyway I'd be interested in hearing any views on the above. Iae 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on some proposed changes 

message: I removed from the list Barawa, Bougainville, Kurdistan and Tibet, since are out of criteria applied in the introduction of the section. From the same introduction I also removed "...stateless populations...", if we apply also this criterion then we should add a lot of other Football Associations, not only Barawa or Tibet (moreover, this cluster was already included in "Regional" sub-section). Our guideline should be our page List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent, obviously referring to those permanent inhabited only. Following this principle I added to the list Transnistria, and I also added as a note the absence of a FA for Akrotiri and Dekhelia, Pitcairn Islands and Svalbard. SouLFlamE (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-FIFA associations
Talk:Area 7 (novel)

message: I've trimmed some 32kb off this article, comprising a ridiculously long blow-by-blow account of the plot and a compendious list of characters.  I've restored an older synopsis which could probably do with a little expanding.  The synopsis comes from an old revision.  --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've removed the 'overly long plot summary' tag that was lingering on the page. If you check the revision history, what's on there now is way better than what it used to be.  MichaelHenley (Talk-Contribs) 13:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary
Category talk:Charities

message: This category will become too big. Should it be sub- divided by geography (UK charities, USA charities, etc.) or theme (conservation charities; children's charities, etc.)? Andy Mabbett 09:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any guidelines as to what the optimum size of a category should be? In any case, you're probably right. My inclination would be to say that dividing by country probably makes more sense - though there's no reason why we can't do it both ways. --  ALargeElk | Talk 09:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: size

message: This category and others were discussed at CFD Dec 31 2007. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: charities, nonprofits, NGOs
Talk:Goniatite

message: Goniatites are ammonoids, Nautilus are cephalopods - the similarities are only aesthetic ones.
I originally wrote this article in 1998 and published it on the Web....
It need links to other articles.
Dlloyd 09:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

message: Goniatites should be merged into Goniatite as duplicate topic. Nmclough (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is no need to disambiguate, the opening sentences for each clearly identify the topics--Kevmin § 20:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *okay, point taken. Will remove in few days assuming nobody else chips in. Nmclough (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge duplicated articles Suggestion
Talk:Belemnoidea

message: A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1007/BF02988082 has been correctly entered.  If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database.  Please  complete the reference by hand here. 
The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message.  Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not put the reference down directly in the first place, that's what I would have done.J.H.McDonnell (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to broken DOI 

message: This article seems to have a similar problem to the old ammonite/ammonoid article.  Most of the text is about belemnites (Belemnitida) while the taxobox and other details refer to belemnoids in general, including several other orders that lived much earlier.  I suggest we separate these two concepts into two articles.
Cephal-odd (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, right on. And for titles lets stick with scientific terms like Belemnitida and Belemnoidea and not use the familiar slang J.H.McDonnell (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought Belemnitida = Belemnites and Blemenoids = Belemnoids , as with Ammonitida = ammonites and ammonidea = ammonoids. It even refers to belemnitida as belemnites here: http://www.ukfossils.co.uk/guides/belemnites.htm, I think Belemnoidea miht be a super-order or something The Talking Toaster (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree. Belemnites should redirect to Belemnitida, not Belemnoidea. Then there's the other problem. Belemnites is also a genus. The real problem though, is that no article exists on Belemnitida. But yeah, the descriptions on this page actually refers mostly to Belemnitida. Phragmoteuthida and Belemnotheutina for example, do not actually have the elongated and bullet-shaped rostra described in the article. I'll try and see what I can fix.-Obsidi♠nSoul 22:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I have created a stub for Belemnitida over the previous redirect here: Belemnitida. I'm too busy writing the article on Tessaratomidae at the moment though to be of much help expanding it. If anyone is interested in expanding it please do so, so we can move extraneous stuff from Belemnoidea to there. I will help once I mainspace the article I'm working on. Cheers. --Obsidi♠nSoul 23:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belemnoid vs Belemnite
Talk:Bivalvia

message: Added further information. The new text needs links to other articles added.  Dlloyd 10:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra information

message: :Added text from article I originally wrote in 1998 and published it on the Web....
:Portions of this text are :
:"Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this.  Dlloyd 00:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fossil company text
Talk:1999 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom

message: Is that table showing the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party votes totalised?
80.229.39.194 10:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats

message: The template liberal parties has been changed, less fugly now? Gangulf 10:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, thanks :) --Shallot 11:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: There's so little on this party. It's only mentioned as a minor opposition party in Croatia. But isn't the President of Croatia from this party? --PaxEquilibrium 21:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presidents in  Croatia have no party membership if they are elected. Mesic was supported, among the other partys by HNS. He was a meber of HNS for some short time befoer he was elected in 2000.--89.172.20.81 05:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stjepan Mesic 

message: Shouldn't this be called simply Croatian People's Party per WP:COMMONNAME? As everyone who has ever read a newspaper article about the party must have seen, it is universally referred to as such, or by its initialism HNS. Timbouctou (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is the official, full name of the party. United Union (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, everyone realises that. But Wikipedia prefers most commonly used names, not necessarily official ones. Can you detect the distinction? Timbouctou (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Please stop edit warring and show some good faith and revert your edits. Please stop this disruptive editing. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tzowu 
Talk:Carbon paper

message: According to some of the DEA reports I've been reading, Carbon Paper seems to be a common wrapper for cocaine and heroin.  Does anyone have any idea why this is?  Might be interesting to add to the article if we can find a good source explaining it.  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 03:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "then wrap it up with carbon paper to avoid X-Ray scanning machines at airports"  - WTF?  That makes no sense. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 03:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon paper and drugs 

message: A girl in a few of my classes is deaf and she asks me to take notes on the carbon paper for her since its hard for her to keep up with the teacher and the interpreter.
:It's not exactly a novel use for carbon paper, but it's a clever idea so that you can take two sets of notes at the same time.  Good for your for offering to help! --Ericdn (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely this is simply what carbon paper was made for. Not really note worthy but good on ya for helping out a deaf girl :/Wolfmankurd (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Use for Carbon Paper

message: Carbon paper is also used to transfer tattoo design from paper to skin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.14.198 (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon Paper and Tattoos 

message: * Carbon paper for fuel cells has nothing to do with the carbon paper described in this article
* It is paper made of carbon microfibers
* Reference for example: http://www.fuelcellearth.com/pdf/Toray_specs.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.35.147.96 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon paper and fuel cells

message: Isn't carbon paper used by dentists to find high spots on artificial crowns so that they can be ground to improve the bite? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dentistry
Talk:Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

message: Is it relevant to add this? Kabelo Lesooana (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What would the screenshot represent? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Rhain Thomas Vercetti running while holding a shotgun Kabelo Lesooana (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that would violate both WP:NFCC#3a and #8. Images should be encyclopedic; that sounds mostly decorative. I'd recommend reading MOS:VG#Screenshots and WP:NFCC. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Rhain okay Thanks Kabelo Lesooana (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot of one of the ports of the game(Android) 

message: The current source sounds more like an analyst predicting a GameCube version was coming after PS2 exclusivity contract ended. Do we have any source that Rockstar actually ever announced or even internally ever intended to develop/release it on GameCube? Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm honestly not sure. The article mixes statements from CEO Jeffrey Lapin and analyst Michael Pachter. IGN seems to interpret this as objective truth. If you think this is only Pachter's opinion, I would leave it out entirely. IceWelder [✉] 18:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't recall ever reading that it was actually in development or outright cancelled. It's true that these articles tend to mention it as some sort of inevitability. But I can't see where that assumption came from. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancelled GameCube version
Talk:High score

message: On the VfD page for High Score it says the decision was to delete, but it has obviously been kept.--MaxMad 08:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error on archived VfD page? 

message: Why link to time attack/speed run sites on a high score page? Also, the site http://www.super-play.co.uk/ has about 500 videos of high scoring plays so it might be worth a link.
I came to this page (actually, 'hi score') looking for information on why it's spelled 'hi score' and not 'high score' on older games. I assume it has something to do with limited screen space, but I can't find too much on google about it. Maybe someone (else) should dig up some info on this and add it? 204.244.139.103 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Any chance of a high score screen from a free (as in speech) game to replace the current copyrighted one? the wub "?!" 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Could someone familiar with the concept of Score Attack translate that section into English? DLCinMaine (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Score Attack?
Talk:John Robin Sharpe

message: This page was placed on Votes for Deletion in July 2004. Consensus was to keep; view discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John Robin Sharpe.
----
What's up with the guy that wrote "SICK SICK SICK" all over this article?  What is wrong with people these days?  Just because some one has a difference of opinion or because a certain person commits a certain crime means that the normal rules of courtacy or intellectual integrity don't apply?  Come on people.  How do we expect to have a democratic discussion if all we can do is call names?  64.26.170.107 07:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Ridicule (film)

message: I watched this movie in French class- it was great! But it was kind of hard to follow, so I was wondering if the opening scene was actually a scene from "the present," while the rest of the movie was, in turn, a following of the events that led up to Ponceludon's disgrace at the masquerade? I don't think he was tripped twice; instead, I think that the urination scene (which my teacher censored, lol), was actually retaliation for the ridicule that occured at the end of the movie. Does that make sense? Hopefully somebody can clarify.
.onion 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Vodafonturm

message: From VfD:
* I'm not sure about this one.  Is there any particular reason why this radio tower is in any way significant?  (posted by: Robert Merkel 14:52, 2004 Jul 27)
*Comment: To begin with, its correct name is "Vodafone-Turm". That's where it should be moved, if there's concensus to keep. The only significant details about this communication tower might be that (1) it is built in form of a tripod (conventional ones have a simple cylindrical base) and (2) it was raised within a few days... --Palapala 16:59, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
*The tower has an unconventional design and should so be placed in the Wikipedia! (posted by: 80.185.98.130 16:35, 2004 Jul 27)
*Thank you, O Talking Hosiery.  There's nothing notable about this tower that I can ascertain.  The only notable towers that come to mind are Mount Sutro in San Francisco, the NHK tower in Tokyo and that 1200' monster out in South Dakota.  Delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Aberdeen

message: Add to See also
Old Aberdeen
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Aberdeen Killoh (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think we need a link to Old Aberdeen in the See also section, as it's crowded already and Old Aberdeen is mentioned and linked to in a few different places in the main article. That being said in general for such a small change, I suggest being WP:BOLD and just adding it in. You'll get things done a lot quicker that way! NemesisAT (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: A bit too much puff in this one. Example:
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrrho the Skipper (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag added
Talk:DIN connector

message: When was the DIN connector standard first published?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.132.17.182 (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of publication 

message: The text says "DIN 45322 (5-pin and 6-pin at 60°)", but the diagram of the
6-pin at 60° is labelled "DIN 45522: 6-pin, 60°, 240°". I strongly suspect that
one of these is incorrect.
Searching online for "DIN 45522" mostly just turns up images that are on
Wikipedia/Wikimedia (and images which are irrelevant, like pictures of people or random
objects), while an image search for "DIN 45322" turns up many pictures of 6-pin
DIN connectors that look just like the diagram labelled "DIN 45522". This leads
me to believe that "45522" is a typo. Without access to the actual DIN spec I
am unable to verify this, however. Laurence Gonsalves (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIN 45522? 

message: used... for interconnecting analog audio equipment, for example a stereo tape recorder to a stereo amplifier or preamplifier, using the five pins for the four signal connections plus ground. The cord used for this has a connector on each end, and the pins are connected pin for pin, that is, pin 1 to pin 1, 2 to 2, etc. Pins on male connectors are numbered (from right to left, viewed from outside of the connector, with the 5 pins upwards, and facing them): 1–4–2–5–3. Holes on female connectors are also numbered 1-4-2-5-3, but from left to right (facing the holes). A four-channel cord wired in this way is sometimes simply called a DIN cord, a DIN lead or a DIN cable.
Wouldn't a three-pin plug be sufficient for connecting stereo equipment (left signal, right signal, plus ground)?  Why does the article speak of "four signal connections" and a "four-channel cord"?  Wouldn't four signals indicate quadrophonic sound rather than stereo sound? Novel compound (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Recorders (tape or otherwise) use separate analogue in (record) and out (playback) connections. So stereo in and stereo out requires four signal connections. An advantage of the DIN connector is that you get this in a single connector rather than the 4 phono connectors that are otherwise commonly used. (Note that only 1 of the 24 possible ways of connecting the phono connectors is correct.) GrahamN-UK (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "four channels"? 