lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Introduce Yourself

message: The song Blood is apparantly not written by Mosley, at least the music of this song existed before he became part of the band. On Youtube, there is a record uploaded under the title "Faith. No More - Blood (live 1984)" where you can hear Courtney Love singing this song. So the music wasn't written by him. Don't know about the lyrics, because they are different.--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The official releases of Faith No More albums - up to Album of the Year, the first to deviate - had songwriting credits as 'all songs written by Faith No More'. King for a Day had no songwriting attributions at all! The songwriting credits used by Wikipedia were supposedly submitted to fnm.com - a fansite dedicated to Faith No More and related projects - by Billy Gould. Is this more authoritative than the liner notes for the official releases of the music? I do not know. Nor do I know why Moseley would have been credited as sole writer of Blood, when indeed there is greater evidence to suggest the song was written well before he even joined the band. My best advice: take Faith No More songwriting credits with a large pinch of extra salty salt.Robbmonster (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some further information... I just bought the cd of Introduce Yourself. The songwriting attributions list no composers, but does point out "all lyrics written by Chuck, except for We Care a Lot and Introduce Yourself, written by Chuck and Roddy". The bolding of the proper nouns is directly from the notes. And again, this information is clearly in contradiction with the information supposedly provided by Gould. Which should have authority?Robbmonster (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @Robbmonster, There seems to be a misunderstanding here: I was just referring to the musical composition, not the lyrics. Love's lyrics were indeed different, but the music and the singing melody are the same. That is why I question whether Mosley wrote the music of this song. I think it is correct that he wrote the lyrics, though.--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was agreeing with you. I don't think there is any way Mosley wrote the music for the song.Robbmonster (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blood" not written by Mosley 

message: My self 37.111.134.101 (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English
Talk:Franciscans

message: The entry has a sentence now that states "The name of the original order, Ordo Fratrum Minorum (Friars Minor, literally 'Order of Lesser Brothers') stems from Francis of Assisi's rejection of extravagance." 
I do not think extravagance is the correct word: on dictionary definition is that extravagance is "lacking restraint in spending money or using resources". But Francis had an aversion to luxury and worldy goods that grant the appearance of wealth: attach oneself to the "majori" or the upper classes as opposed to the "minori". Hence he disdained his patrimony, not because it was extravagant, but because it was wordly wealth. I did not find the word extravagant in the footnote cited for this section. I am going to change it to the word "luxury". You can pay for luxury at a reasonable or extravagant cost; Francis would object to both. I know it is a minor, but in reality a substantial difference. Rococo1700 (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I agree also. Carlstak (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would eliminate the word ''extravagance''
Talk:Pinback

message: As much as i love pinback, no encyclopedia should start with "an amazing indie rock band"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibeleaf (talk • contribs) 01:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Does anyone have a picture that can be used on here? The most recent one was removed due to copyright issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Pinback.jpg
Peaceoutside 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinback Photo 

message: Should these be put up under the discography? I don't know much about them other than they exist:
2003-03-18 - EB, 1st Mix
(Live recording)
Versailles
Tres
Clemenceau
Chaos Engine
Tripoli
Hurley
Concrete Seconds
Offline PK
Boo
Offcell
Seville
Microtonic Wave
Talby
Shag
Penelope
Loro
Montaigne
June
2004-04-12 - The Black Cat, Washington DC
(Live recording)
(Intro)
Boo
Chaos Engine
Tripoli
Hurley
Concrete Seconds
Microtonic Wave
Non-photo Blue
Talby
Grey-machine
Loro
Fortress
Offline PK
X.I.Y.
Penelope
Tres
Crutch
Prog
Burnt Down, Burnt Down
(Studio recording)
Anti-hu
June
West
Penelope
Messenger
X.I.Y.
Montaigne
Concrete Seconds
Some Voices
Bbtone
Tripoli
Rousseau
Manchuria
Loro
Crutch
Shag
Clemenceau
Hurley
Peaceoutside 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreleased / Other Material 

message: I removed the reference:
For more on Pinback you can check http://www.pinbackfreak.com or http://pinbackfreak.com/PB_FAQ.html for a direct link.
from the article. Any necessary information can be deduced from what is currently written.E racer1999 (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third party/Fansite website link 
Talk:Arena Football League

message: I propose splitting the newest/current iteration of the AFL into a new article since it’s not directly connected to the original league. Blake675 (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. There was zero continuity of operations, just the acquisition of some trademarks following the shutdown of the prior league. The new league should be split off into a separate article, and the excessive "second incarnation header removed. There was a specific discussion not to use that terminology here when the events first took place, as although there was a legal reorganization and missed season, there was never a full cessation of continuous operation of at least some franchises, unlike the total shutdown following the 2019 season which ended the original league for good. In fact, calling the current attempt at a league a version of the same league is a promotional POV. oknazevad (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Support per oknazevad. Also, the original league's article should stay titled at "Arena Football League" and the new semi-pro one should be "Arena Football League (2024)" ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Support the establishment of a Arena Football League (2024) page. My main disagreement is that yes, the 1987-2008 league and the 2010-2019 league are indeed legally separate, but related enough to justify maintaining a single article for them, which the third and current league is not. (At least no more than the 1983-1985 USFL and 2022-2023 USFL are, and there was an explicit settlement in that case saying the two are indeed not related. Such should be the case with the current incarnation. J. Myrle Fuller (talk)  22:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I will go ahead and split the articles. Blake675 (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Split
Category talk:Years in the future

message: The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Note that the consensus was to keep this category but delete categories for individual centuries in the future. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: CfD discussion

message: This category is really stupid. It would still be stupid even if we had a corresponding :Category:Years in the past, but we don't. Brianjd 06:23, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
* Actually I sort of like it. VeryVerily 06:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Years in the future]]

message: Delete :Category:23rd century, :Category:24th century, :Category:25th century, :Category:26th century, :Category:27th century: premature. -- User:Docu
*Agreed, and it's not like there's anything in these categories anyways...  -Sean Curtin 01:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
* Delete: Agreed! Brianjd 08:36, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
* I would delete these categories and keep the "Years in the Future" category discussed above. --Andrew 00:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:23rd century]] etc

message: Years in the future on Wikipedia seem somewhat speculative. --SuperDude 03:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: I think, if this category is to be kept, we should add sort keys for the articles and categories.  May I suggest that the sort key be the 4 digit or 5 digit year which starts the respective category/article.  That would keep everything more-or-less in order, except that the 11th Millennium article would be sorted under "1" instead of at the end of the 9s.  We'd also need to decide whether 22nd century was sorted before or after 2101; I lean toward after, making the sort key for 2101 2101 0 and the sort key for 22nd century 2201 2.  Any other suggestions?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bump, sort of.  I'll implement the sort keys shortly, if I don't hear any objections.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort order 

message: My attention has been drawn to 2030, the first-ever "future" year article I've looked at. The predictions section is just not credible, and conflicts with site guidelines (crystalball) and policy (verification ... the sources are not reliable in quite a few cases). It's very challenging to write in reliable predictions, and I suggest we don't do this at all. Heaven knows why it's first in the article. Could something be done about this? I've also raised the issue here. Tony (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years might be a better place for this discussion.  I tend to agree with you about many of the predictions.  Present documented plans, no matter how unlikely to succeed, (California High-Speed Rail), probably should be included.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]]
Category talk:3rd millennium

message: Hi there,
This category needs update.
Every (should) millennium-Category contains the following.
Most of them do have all this, but not all. For example 3rd millenium:
-------START(for 3rd millennium) :
Subcategory:
* All century's (x1st century - x0th century) STARTED
* All decades (x010s - x990s) NOTHING
Pages
* The millennium page (xth_millennium) DONE
* All century's (x1st century - x0th century) DONE
* All decades (x010s - x990s) ENOUGH('till 2100)
* All years (x000 - x999) ENOUGH('till 2007)
-------
I've been working on this this day and yesterday, but it isn't easy and needs time.
If somebody wants to help(or a bot) please tell me on my Talk-page. Do not just do it, because wen I am doing the same we are doing double work.
Same is for 1st, 2nd and 4th millennium.
User:TijhofGraphics 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Please let's use a centralized discussion area.  My recommendation is Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards#Categorization and sort keys.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed
Talk:Kusunda people

message: Why isn't there even a link to Indo-Pacific languages? Check out the last three external links at the bottom of that page. If this doesn't demonstrate that Kusunda is an Indo-Pacific language...
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 1:53 CEST | 2006/5/1
Just copied the link to the PNAS paper from the Indo-Pacific languages page.
David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 0:20 CEST | 2006/9/5
:Unfortunately that paper used the very poor data that was available before Watters. It would be interesting if Ruhlen et al. take the new data into account. Given the large number of potential long-range comparisons, plus the lack of general acceptance for such views, I thought it best to restrict the very limited space of the article to the info in Watter's article, surely the best source on the language (and the only decent source), and to restrict long-range speculations to the links - at least until they generate some real controversy. kwami 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationships 

message: If the Nepali word Kusunda means "savage", it is derogatory so I propose the name used in the article is the one they use to refer to themselves,  Mihaq people. 84.66.77.19 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change the name
Category talk:2000s

message: See Talk:2000s#Years in the future.
<<"Two Thousands" is the most common usage, though this is not clearly separate from references to the century or millennium.>>
Yes, it is. The "two thousands" is the 2000s decade. The century and millennium that's it is in are the "21st century" and the "3rd millennium". There's no reason why "two thousands" should imply the whole century or millennium anymore than "nineteen hundreds" should imply the whole 20th century. Voortle 22:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's the point. Countless people refer to the 17th century as "the 1600s". Unschool 23:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Frankston railway station

message: Does anyone know when the new Frankston train station will be completed?--110.22.50.32 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankston station 

message: Does the extension to Baxter include making at additional rail track at Frankston station?--110.22.50.32 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extension to Baxter
Talk:Benevolence International Foundation

message: I put in a link to his indictment. Very informative.
LDH 15:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arnaout

message: The link to the "golden chain" directs to an article about a flower. Something should be done to correct this, or else the link should be removed altogether. Deepfryer99 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Chain 
Talk:Outdipper

message: Outswinger/inswinger are in much more common use than outdipper/indipper.
Can someone point out a usage of "outdipper"?  A google search returns 4 copies of this page and 1 page about motorcycles or something... I certainly had never heard the term before. Sam Holden 12:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: I also have never heard of term outdipper.
Tabletop 02:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have both outswinger and inswinger, which are better and more detailed articles anyway. I'm going to mention this on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Cricket, and see if there's a consensus to make links to the two (eg in Comparison between cricket and baseball) point to the more common terms. Loganberry (Talk) 23:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never heard of it. 

message: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outdipper.  (Actually, there was nothing to salvage)
I@n 16:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge done
Talk:Tippy Martinez

message: I was at the game where Tippy picked three Blue Jays off first.  I'm trying to remember who they were; I know Barry Bonnell was one.  Cal Ripken homered to start the O's half of the tenth (after Cliff Johnson had homered for the Jays in the top half), and the Jays replaced Jimmy Key with...um, Joey McLaughlin, I think.  Anyway, Sakata's HR just reached the first row of seats in left.  We were so punchy by that point that I was like, "Wait, what?  What??  The left fielder isn't picking up -- you mean HE DID IT??"  What an absolutely amazing game.  Anyway, no, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia, but it's just one of those wonderful memories. - Scooter 07:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tippy and Blue Jays
Talk:Fiat Dino

message: is this article talking about the Ferrari or Fiat Dino?? its seems to be mixing the two together.
:I agree, I think someone has got seriously confused. I'm no expert on this model, but I understood them to be two different cars. They certainly look very different, and the Fiat is front-engined while the Ferrari is rear or mid-engined. Even if they share some components it would not mean they are the same car - many cars share components. Maybe a Ferrai/Fiat expert or two could help out here. Graham 22:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote both the Ferrari and Fiat Dino articles.  Better?  --SFoskett 01:57, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
the coupe was actually designed by Giorgetto Giugiaro, who was at that time working for Bertone studios. that's why the labels and most handbooks only mention the latter. should this be specified?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.177.205 (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:The Last Rose of Summer

message: No reference is given for the claim that the composer was George Alexander Osborne, and I cannot find one myself.  It cannot be true anyway, because Osborne was born in 1809 and Stevenson's setting was published in December 1813 in volume 5 of Moore's Irish Melodies.  I have removed the mention of Osborne. 87.113.57.138 (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely the right choice, as the tune is a variation of a traditional tune, connected to Donnchadh Ó hAmsaigh, called "Aislean an Oigfear" or The Young Man's Dream. As I have  a reference for this, as well as a sample of the original tune, and there is no reference given for Mr. Stevensons composership, I will correct the article now --Ginness (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of melody 

message: Composer Felix Mendelssohn wrote a fantasy on this poam  Christofer Robin 09:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Cultural Uses 

message: I'm struggling to understand the connection between the banner and the topic of this article   If someone may connect it to me in a way that makes sense, that would be appreciated. Also, if you do agree with me, let me know. 2600:1700:7C40:7AC0:35F8:3157:7BE0:89AF (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the anonymous user above meant by "banner". But if it was the template for "more citations needed", I've deleted that. It was dated to 2013, and the article certainly does have enough citations. Aklein62 (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the article header have to do with the topic?
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 9

message: I just got through editing the tables of Prime_Minister_of_India and President_of_India I intended to only switchover to the wiki-pipe-markup, but after a little experimentation I found that by following the mon dd, yyyy format considerable screen space was gained (small monitor perhaps?), also it stacked more neatly than dates with the fully-spelled-out month names. I then found out that there was already a dispute over date-formats on the Pres. page, and followed a link here. According to the guidleines in this manual, months must be expressed in full to avoid any ambiguity. Would it's[sic] use in a table like the ones I've linked to above, qualify as ambiguous? If so, I'll gladly revert the dates to the normal format, though I really do think it's[sic] use in such a table is quite a bit neater. -- Phil R 14:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that dates with short form months do not reformat according to user's preferences. With my preferences set to "dd month yyyy", on Prime Minister of India I see all the May dates resolved according to my preference, and all other dates in the table in the "incorrect" "mon dd, yyyy" format—most disconcerting! -- Arwel 18:23, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in Tables
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/archive dash discussion

message: I note that everyone in this debate is agreed that dashes in date and number ranges should appear as en-dashes when displayed or printed. The disagreement is on what method or methods should be recommended in the Manual of Style to achieve this. The proposals are
# Recommend –. (Advantage: achieves the desired result immediately. Disadvantage: awkward to type, offputting to newcomers.)
# Recommend hyphen. (Advantage: common practice. Disadvantage: never achieves the desired result, because it there's no way to automatically convert it.)
# Recommend double-hyphen. (Advantage: easy to type. Disadvantage: doesn't achieve the desired result immediately. A wiki markup feature that turned double hyphen into en-dash would introduce a small number of errors, for example in the discussion of the -- operator in the C programming language.)
Note that one day the English Wikipedia will allow all Unicode characters, so then surely the recommended approach will then just be to type an en-dash. Gdr 13:04, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
:It's easy to automatically convert both the spaced hyphen (to –) and the spaced double hyphen (to — (not –)). There's always ­ (soft hyphen) for (rare) isolated pre- and post-decrement operators. As you can see from this discussion, it's not a complicated issue :-) Otherwise, I agree with your summary.
:chocolateboy 23:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of debate so far
Category talk:Millennia

message: Is there much point in having a "Millennia" category? Brianjd 08:17, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
Actually, this category is probably necessary if we want to categorise every page on Wikipedia. But I still don't see the point in :Category:Years in the future (talk). Brianjd 08:28, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
:We need it for the articles about the millennia (already created), I'm not sure though which is the use o f the individual categories for future millennia (e.g. :Category:4th_millennium). -- User:Docu
Wouldn't it make more sense to arrange the millenia in chronological order? 203.28.159.154 11:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do we need this category?
Talk:The Ballad of Narayama (1958 film)

message: I don't know how to write movie reviews for readers, but I think I can help writers:
Superficially, the movie is a sob story about one's ancestors.  It is really more like Herman Melville.
It starts "100 years ago, in the North of Japan".  It is not about Japan.  It is about humanity in our normal state.
The unusual thing about it is that people had gone from primitive survival agriculture to making sophisticated movies about it, almost within the memory of individuals.  It is a movie about how life is when there is not an industrial revolution.  Many people in the world are still equally poor and technically primitive, but they are, no longer, so well adjusted to it, and they will never have a chance to make movies about it.  We can hope that, when things stop changing so quickly, human life will return to being similar to that in this movie, rather than ending.  David R. Ingham 06:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place and time and why that is important.
Talk:King Edward's School, Birmingham

message: In addition to the verifiable use of the word in the Chronicle, Lunt actually explained to a group of us that he had introduced the title Chief Master, as he felt it was more appropriate for some reason of prestige. Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief Master 

message: I have trimmed down this section to a manageable and more importantly verifiable level. The issue with these lists is that they need some form of quantifiable criteria. At the moment it is an indiscriminate list (which is what the category is for). Ideally, this should come from a secondary source and not the Old Eds association website. The school should be discussed as having some sort of influence eg Coe's novel was based on his time at the school. Woody (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that User:R CaryGilson has reverted. I would reiterate my above observations and note that the entries were unsourced except to a general list and they had become far too large when compared to the size of the article. They need a specific, quantifiable criteria as to what makes them notable. Woody (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable alumni 
Talk:Home Means Nevada

message: Should this page be moved to WikiSource? 209.203.60.6 09:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the lyrics should probably be moved to Wikisource and this article should just give a synopsis of the song. --209.108.217.226 03:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Vj90 2409:4042:D80:C6D:1E20:83D8:88E8:4827 (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ftyi 