lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:The Serpent's Egg (film)

message: This article has information in various languages, I have translated some, but I am unsure for others. Please, someone translate the remaining information. --Francisco Valverde 17:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information in various languages 

message: I was rather amused to see the completely bewildering statement This was Ingmar Bergman's one and only "Hollywood" film. What relevance does this have? Making it even less relevant, this is considered a Stub. Please explain just what is meant by this statement and include a reason why it should even be allowed to remain. (Other than a filler for a cut-n-paste article from IMDB.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.204.1 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just what is a "Hollywood" film? 

message: Is it clear that Manuela has actually become a prostitute? If memory serves me well, all we have to attest to that is her say-so towards the end of the film - and that is quickly put in doubt: she may have concocted a story to mask her return to religion. Feketekave (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail
Talk:Faithless (2000 film)

message: Runtime:
:Argentina:152 min / Colombia:154 min / Denmark:155 min / Peru:152 min / UK:154 min / USA:142 min
Why does the length vary so much?  The US version is shortest, missing 12 minutes.  Censored?  What was left out?
-69.87.204.188 (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rated R for sexual content, some nudity and language. 142 min. In Swedish with English subtitles.
Actually, the truth is every more strange.  The US DVD labeled right on the DVD "142 min"  starts rolling the credits at 159, finishes at 161.  It starts with a 2 min trailer in English, followed by a trailer for a Ted Bundy movie and a movie called Malicious Intent.  So the original movie actually starts with the credits etc at about 7 min.  161-7 = 154 min runtime, exactly the same as listed for the Swedish original.  So, instead of having a mystery about 12 minutes missing, we have the mystery of how the US version came to be so wrongly labeled.
-69.87.204.187 (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions
Talk:Symphony No. 1 (Bruckner)

message: Heinrich Schenker uses a passage from this work in Kontrapunkt, Book 1. It's Example 52 on page 61. Don't know if this merits mention in the article. Anton Mravcek 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

message: I happen to own this old 1966 Deutsche Grammophon recording and the CD notes say that it is the 1866 version.  Further, it sounds like the 1866 version when I listened to it.  I think I prefer to rely on what DG says in their own product than on what some 3rd party website says.  --User:Alf74 17:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a valuable disc you have there. Have you also listened to the Tintner recording? There are some specific spots where the difference between the true Linz version and the so-called Linz are very obvious, mostly in the Finale. I'll have to remember to listen to those when I get home. Anton Mravcek 15:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to this website neither Haas nor Nowak ever published an edition of the 1866 version.  The first playable edition of the 1866 version was by Carragan in 1998 (based on a verbal description by Haas), so Jochum could hardly have recorded it in 1966 even if he had wanted to.  And in my experience booklet notes are not to be trusted on details like these, one of the the most notorious examples being the EMI Flagstad/Melchior Tristan that turned out to be a composite of two performances by two different conductors! Grover cleveland 08:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jochum's Early Recording with Berliner Philharmoniker

message: I have corrected the versions used in the discography according to the Complete Bruckner Discography - Symphony No. 1 in C Minor. It confirms that both recordings by E. Jochum used the Nowak 1877 version. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versions
Talk:Vinhais

message: I took the liberty to remove the long list of freguesias in this article since the town is so small and relatively unimportant in the greater scheme of things in this world that the endless list of freguesias seems superflous.  By adding more information about the town the list is just not necessary to make the article seem long.  I'm sure than anyone reading the article, not from Vinhais, would have little interest. Vogensen 23:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Pelle the Conqueror

message: There should be another article or stub for the book by the same name, by Martin Anderson Nexo, on which the film is based. I see there's a link to the Project Gutenberg text, but a reader who didn't know to look for that would think the film was all there was to it. (I'd create a stub myself but I've just barely figured out how to enter comments and am afraid of messing up!)
Rosekelleher 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Lost Weekend

message: I don't know what constitutes spoilers so I only included what would probably be found on the movie cover.  I suppose wikipedia is not the place, but I have to comment on the unease that permeates the movie, and how you both hate and hope for Milland.  You even catch a glimpse of why he could be great, and what he sees in the alcohol. --Ignignot 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers 

message: There is a movie rental store on Valencia Street in San Francisco named "Lost Weekend". Can anyone confirm that the store is named after this film? --130.20.185.186 (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's trivia in any case. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rental store in SF? 

message: It would be interesting to see what some of the critics said about it. Valetude (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: This is an interesting side bit to the film.  Is the implication that all of the pawnbrokers in New York at the time were supposed to be Jewish?  That would be a pretty remarkable affirmation to make.Partnerfrance (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "But all the pawnshops are closed for Yom Kippur."  

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. There is a unanimous consensus for the second move, and a weaker but still present consensus for the first move. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 17:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the Oscar-winning Best Picture–Actor–Director–Screenplay is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "The Lost Weekend", it would be counterintuitive for The Lost Weekend to redirect to the Lost Weekend disambiguation page. Users researching the iconic film should be able to access it directly, while those searching for "Lost Weekend" would go likewise directly to the Lost Weekend dab page. A hatnote atop the film's entry would, of course, also point to the Lost Weekend dab. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 April 2023
Talk:Lahardane

message: "Population is about 500 but rising rapidly due to new housing developments."
Where was this from? Plucked from thin air?
 corrected with the 2011 Census figure  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peat malt (talk • contribs) 11:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Turning Point (1977 film)

message: Originally, the ballerina Gelsey Kirkland, who was at the height of her fame at the time and dating Mikhail Baryshnikov (Yuri), was offered the role of Emilia.[8] She rejected the role as she was dealing with substance abuse issues at the time and she "wanted no part of Hollywood"
According to her autobiography, Dancing on My Grave, Gelsey really didn't want to do the movie but felt like she had no choice. She felt her character was empty headed and the movie was too melodramatic. At the time, she was not having substance abuse issues. She had a bout of bulimia, dropped from 90 lbs to 80, and the studio felt they had no choice but to replace her as she was too thin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.7.252.203 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gelsey Kirkland
Talk:Pastoral Symphony (film)

message: No wikipedia article on Jean Aurenche?  What gives?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.52.63 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jean Aurenche
Talk:Menispermum canadense

message: Two of the three Internet citations return error 404.  The site that discusses medicinal uses actually warns their information is unreliable and about a century out of date.  The University of Wisconsin at Green Bay cautions that consumption can be fatal.  I am removing all reference to the "usefulness" of eating this plant as dangerous and unreliably sourced. Durova 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing boldly
Talk:The Garden of the Finzi-Continis

message: The article is almost entirely about the novel, not the film. If there's going to be an infobox here, shouldn't it be an infobox on the book? | Klaw ¡digame! 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes agreed, it is an infofilm box. The film should have it's own article since it won those awards and is considered a classic.--Dakota ~  ° 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I just read this article, I noticed an error, which I think is not a minor one: the boy, Giorgio, is not going into the Finzi-Contini's property the first time he's sitting there, outside the garden's wall and talking with Micol: While he's hesitating about leaving his bicycles and climbing in, Micol is being found out and called back home, and it takes another 10 years for him to be invited to the garden, to play tennis with Alberto and Micol on account of Mussolini banning the Jews from the local club. --Shlomith Kedem 21:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Film infobox
Talk:Marty (The Philco Television Playhouse)

message: Shouldnt there be some mention of it's signifigance in the 1950's game show scandal?
At least in the trivia section.
24.222.244.17 15:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think it should be separated  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.14.51 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised that there hasn't been much discussion, but I tend to agree--though not until we have clearer references for the teleplay section, especially the character list.  Though the film is better known (largely because of its Oscar & Cannes wins), the common (though inconsistent) rule in Wikipedia is to assign the straight title to the original work--in this case, the teleplay.  Thus, it is the film that should be moved--though that would require numerous link corrections, especially in Oscar- & Cannes-related articles.  --RBBrittain (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have split the articles. All film information is now at Marty (film). - Kollision (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes
Talk:John Woodnutt

message: Any conformation that he's died? Can't find anything on the internet. BillyH 23:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Viridiana

message: The synopsis proudly proclaims that it misses crucial information. Why? Could someone who has seen the film clean it up? Cop 633 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot section

message: The article for Luis Buñuel says he was born in 1900, but this article says that in 1977 he was sixty-one.  Which is correct? TJSwoboda 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buñuel's age

message: Is the 1962 New York Times review representative of the reception of this film from comtemporary American critics? and does the opinion of this steemed group have an important bearing on the scope of this article? Miguel (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: Narciso Ojeda is credited on IMDb as being in the film, but who did he play? Perhaps the coachman with whom Moncho goes to live after the beggars come or the man with glasses who drives Viridiana to and from town near the end? 75.172.3.239 (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Narciso Ojeda
Talk:Kadıköy Anatolian High School

message: == POV? ==
'm a Turkish high-school student and I'm sure I'd agree with the strong assumptions this article has made. So I'm quite sure about the neutrality of this article. --Quinlan Vos 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 'm a Turkish high-school student and I'm sure I'd agree with the strong assumptions this article has made. So I'm quite sure about the neutrality of this article. --Quinlan Vos 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: edit made on one of the three most important high school nonsense. there is no such thing even if there was this school definitely will not be in this ranking. wikipedia is not the place to show your love for your alma mater.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.205.118 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: Nereden cikti bu isim, Mekteb-i Mülkiye gibi?.. Okulumuzun boyle bir adi yok... E4024 (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mekteb-i Maarif
Talk:Las Hurdes

message: The comarca template includes the standard grey flag and coat of arms with the question mark. Since Las Hurdes has not historically had any and is not likely to have any soon, how can they be erased for this article? They don't look good as they are. Xufanc (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag and coat of arms

message: This article is unbelievably biased, particularly in regards to Bunuel... I like how Franco's reason for banning 'Land Without Bread' is cited unironically  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.14.239 (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bias???? History is history. Your "Franco's reason" is wishful thinking. The Spanish Republic banned the film. Here are some non-Spanish, well-informed, neutral sources: Numa Broc, in Persée : Les géographes français en Espagne (1920-1950) says: "Curieusement, la République espagnole n'autorisera la projection du film." Furthermore, in Cinémas : revue d'études cinématographiques / Cinémas: Journal of Film Studies, vol. 8, n° 3, 1998, it is written: "Dans sa présentation de documentaires contestataires,Vincent Patigny commence par Las Hurdes (Terre sans pain) de Luis Bunuel (Espagne, 1933) et mentionne que depuis ce film, toute dénonciation d'une société, d'une réalité sociale, reposant sur les mêmes prémisses, les mêmes conventions, les mêmes mythes est devenue nécessité et fondement du documentaire social. Ce film, nous rappelle-t-il, fut frappé d'interdit par la République espagnole parce qu'il donnait à voir une mauvaise image du pays."; also in Films 2008 it says: "Tourné en 1932, le film fut interdit par la toute jeune République : il donnait de l’Espagne une image trop peu reluisante. Il sort plus tard en Europe, en 1937, avec le succès que l’on sait." I can find any amount of sources confirming that the ban dates from the Spanish Republic. The ban by the republic made Bunuel very disappointed (tuvo un gran desencanto) with the republican authorities, for he had embraced the young republic with enthusiasm. Franco banned it later for his own reasons, mainly that he distrusted and hated all Spanish intellectuals, unless they were fiercely Roman Catholic and wholeheartedly supported him. And Bunuel was known for his anticatholicism. Besides, Franco did not need to give any reasons when it came to his stern censorship. He was known for not explaining, not elaborating.- Xufanc (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: I know it is hard to believe there might be people in this world who do not understand Spanish, but just in case they are not good enough translators to do justice to Lope de Vega, might someone provide an English translation for Porque no saben que hay Dios / ni más mundo que este valle, please? --Oop (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation
Talk:Ossessione

message: I think there's a factual discrepancy in the summary that contains spoilers.  This part:  "In another scene, a man rushes into the inn where the tramp is seated at supper with the innkeeper and his wife. He informs them that another landowner has been shot from behind by a worker. Bregana fetches his gun and leaves. Shortly after his exit, as the adulterous lovers huddle close by the window, gunshots sound through the night" doesn't seem correct.
Having just seen the film, what actually happens is the husband, Bregana, leaves dinner for a few moments and goes outside.  When he returns, he tells the wife and tramp that another landowner has been shot from behind by a worker.  The wife complains about some cats outside making noise, and gets so stressed about it (the cats are in heat, mimicking her and the tramp's lust) that her husband, Bregana, goes out with the gun to shoot the cats.
However, this is from the English subtitled version I watched, so I'm not sure if the difference is between the original version and subtitles, or what.  Anyone want to confirm?  I don't want to edit until I know more.  Clockster 08:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the DVD; shall take a look at it sometime soon. Viva-Verdi 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

message: I was about to write about the same referred to in the Plot section, when I see that it was already discussed. But I start a new comment, since in the previous one there are other issues too.
The scene in question: "In another scene, a man rushes into the inn where the tramp is seated at supper with the innkeeper and his wife. He informs them that another landowner has been shot from behind by a worker. Bregana fetches his gun and leaves" is definitely misleading. What actually happens is what the previous poster wrote. Actually there IS a fourth person that comes to tell that a man has been shot by an employee because of his wife. But, the thing is that Bergana stays indifferent, totally oblivious that it is exactly what could (and, eventually, would) happen to him. A few minutes later he grabs the gun -rather upset- because his wife complains about the cats.
I think that part needs a rephrasing.
And, to be sure, that is what happens; nothing is "lost in the translation" here. Nazroon (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Factual discrepancy"
Talk:White Nights (1957 film)

message: I think the movie is known better as "Le Notti Bianche" even in English-speaking countries, thus, I propose a move to the appropriate page.Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Le Notti Bianche or White Nights? 

message: the link at the bottom of the article returns an HTTP error  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.197.234 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT link is broken 

message: See the third paragraph here, from a review by the Criterion Collection: https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/374-le-notti-bianche  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C078:C500:156B:F82F:F712:60FB (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot outline: is there plagiarism?
Talk:Amateur radio license

message: I've just created a blank page. I'm going to give people at least a day to comment on this proposed article before I invest a bunch of time into it. Please send your comments! Andrewjuren 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Would it be wise to add this?  I don't think I would have a problem scanning mine, except maybe blanking out the address, name and such.  I think I could do this fairly cleanly.  Unless someone doesn't mind displaying thier own license.  As of now I think i'd have a problem with that being on a wikipedia.  Lenn0r 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this page was merged into the main amateur radio page in 2011 (and that page is already rather image-heavy) it no longer makes sense to request this (even if it's a request which could be filled at least here in Canada... VE3RCS is part of the Military Communications and Electronics Museum so the station, licence and all, is on public display as a museum exhibit and appears in the CFARS article). I've therefore removed this from wikipedia:requested images for now. If the ticket itself ever is broken out into a separate article again, the request could be made at that point but makes no sense now. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of a Amateur Radio License in the US

message: I think the article is to vague on the requirements of the HAM operating license. I think we should add more detail to the article about this. I also think we should group the different countries by their standards on a easy, medium, hard scale.Southafrica6 (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs more info on requirements
Talk:Free Marie

message: Her age was revealed (37) in her issue of King's magazine September of 2005 issue. 68.154.17.17 00:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how come in a magazine they stated Free was 32 and AJ was 30 when they first started hosting 106 and Park?? She's 38 years old, and stop removing her birthday information, until you find a site that says she was born in 1970.68.220.108.227 22:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wanna believe you, but we need proof lol because alot of websites have her down for 1968, AJ 31?? 68.220.108.227 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thats good enough, now we need one for Free 68.220.108.227 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  she was born in 1968 

message: she's 36 according to birthdatabase
MARIE   A WRIGHT 1970-02-07 Boston MA 68.154.13.151 21:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  age 

message: 106 & Park is an extremely popular in the black community (will cite this), a former host should be no problem. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Music Notability
Talk:File-hosting service

message: হেলপ 37.111.205.200 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  onedrive একাউন্ট ভুলে গেছি কিছু ছবি আছে আমার কাছে 

message: হেলপ 37.111.205.200 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  onedrive একাউন্ট ভুলে গেছি কিছু ছবি আছে আমার কাছে 

message: Jamie lech hacKS me 50.215.3.218 (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local storage 

message: Having a problem. Need to talk with a tech 68.202.5.184 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk to a tech person
Talk:The Delinquents (1957 film)

message: Altman's first film Andman8 02:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: High

message: *I just noticed this comment at the bottom of the page: "The majority of this article is from McCarthy's review and analysis of the film". Is this a copyright violation in that case? I have blanked the relevant section for the moment. Can the writer of this section please confirm that it is not copied directly from McCarthy's book? I had a couple of other criticisms, that the text was a review rather than an encyclopedic article, but the copyright issue is more serious. Leithp 14:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: I have just fixed the article so it is in no way a copy of the Todd McCarthy article. It might not sound quite like a encyclopedia article yet, but I'm sure people will start cleaning it up. I will try, as well.
:Thanks. Leithp 06:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just fixed it 

message: I placed a clean up tag on this page.  I have started to make some changes, but there still is a lot of work that needs to be done.  Specifically, some of the larger sections need to be broken up, and some areas need to be rewritten.  Estrose 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up