lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Gorellik

message: Demon lords seems to be more appropriate place. I don't think this article can stand on its own notability wise. Turlo Lomon 22:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, gnoll or Pandemonium (Dungeons & Dragons) would be better, as this isn't a demon lord.--Robbstrd 22:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Should be merged somewhere, soon, as it is non-notable as a stand alone article and will go to Afd as-is. --Jack Merridew 09:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion
Talk:Dualism

message: A change such as the one agreed above can leave wikilinks leading to a disambiguation page. Several gnomes tidy up the resulting mess and usually manage to divert the links to the right articles.  In this case we have made inroads but lack the specialised subject knowledge to resolve the last few dozen links. Please can you help? Portal:Philosophy/Selected article/27 also needs attention.  Thanks,  Certes (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoming links
Talk:Hollyphant

message: Having recently started a List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, I am trying to determine which monster articles should be redirected into the lists.  I believe this article may be a suitable candidate to be merged and redirected into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, as that is when it first debuted in the Dungeons & Dragons game.  Please discuss reasons for or against such a merge.  If no discussion has taken place 5 days from now, I will redirect this article to that list; otherwise I will follow whatever discussion takes place here.  Thank you!  :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: As there were no responses, I redirected this article to the list page.  Since no response is also no consensus, any editor may restore this article at any time. However, rather than simply reverting, I urge you to use this space to develop some form of consensus regarding the article, lest another editor put this article up for deletion. BOZ (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected
Talk:Imagine (game magazine)

message: Imagine Magazine is notable for being the only peiodical published by the now vanquished TSR Inc outside the United States targtetted at an audience outside the United States.  It was the second professionally produced monthly periodical to be released into the UK market focussed on role-playing games after Games Workshop's own White Dwarf.
Many of the UK based contributors to Imagine Magazine went on to publish commercial products for TSR, including Don Turnbull, Graeme Morris and Jim Bambra.
Additionally, the acclaimed Neil Gaiman published his first short story, Featherquest, in the pages of Imagine magazine.--Calabraxthis (talk)  11:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes more sense to cite assertions of its notability in the article itself instead of on its talk page czar · · 07:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: The magazine contain more than articles about AD&D as it launch with a D&D adventure, Beacon at Enon Tor, issue 4 had Aramax One, a Star Frontiers adventure and issue 8 featured DragonQuest. (source: Acaeum Imagine Magazine Index) Suggest Imagine (gaming magazine) or Imagine: Adventure Gaming magazine. Spshu (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. JEB215 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine (role-playing games magazine)? 2001:558:6033:DB:4CB2:272E:895F:9F1A (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article 

message: The legacy section is a tad inconsistent, mentioning Game Master in one sentence, then Game Masters in another - neither of which ring any bells with me.  I saw G.M. and Gamesmaster International magazines in the late 80s, early 90s - does anybody know if either or both of these magazines were related to Imagine? sheridan (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Have flicked through the early copies of G.M. and Gamesmaster International and neither have any particularly bad words to say about TSR (G.M. - the earlier of the two magazines even has a congratulations letter from one E. Gary Gygax). If a specific reference in the magazines isn't supplied I'll probably reword this section. sheridan (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy Section
Talk:Subject-matter expert Turing test

message: I don't have access to this article
:E.A. Feigenbaum (2003) "Some Challenges and Grand Challenges for Computational Intelligence" 
but according to  it describes a subject matter reasoning test.  Perhaps it precedes Kurzweil?  If so, then it is perhaps a good source for a definition for this article. Pgr94 (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feigenbaum article 

message: The term "" seems to have become more common than the current title "" in the existing sources. See Google Books search results:
* https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Feigenbaum+test%22
* https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Subject-matter+expert+Turing+test%22
15:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose move to [[Feigenbaum test]]
Talk:Miniatures Handbook

message: Is this a 3rd edition supplement or a 3.5 edition supplement? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was printed a few months after the PHB, and as I flipped through it just now everything about it screamed "3.5". I was thinking it was a 3.0 book initially, but after those two bits of evidence I think I may have been confusing it with Savage Species or something. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edition
Talk:Amin Saigol

message: I am giving you information regarding saigol family in urdu which may please be clarified and enter your data if deem fit.
urdu not transferable in this text regret pl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.67.50 (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://richpaki.tripod.com/barons.html#saigols. 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) 17:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to removing closely paraphrased content, I have also removed information that showed no relevance to this individual. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Vaiaku

message: The coordinates are wrong, Vaiaku, the government center of Tuvalu is 8°31'27.07"S 179°11'41.16"E. The coordinates shown are too much to the north, landing in the village of Alapi. As a result, Vaiaku shows up wrong in Google Earth...BeeSee 04:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Monster Manual IV

message: Monster Manual gives an overview of all versions of the book. I do not see any reason why this should be a seperate article when it has no additional information. It would be appropriate in a D&D Wiki, but not on Wikipedia. Turlo Lomon 06:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then bring this and Monster Manual V to WP:AfD.  The info here is redundant to the original. In fact, I'll do it. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Discussion
Talk:Mordenkainen's disjunction

message: The amount of detail in this article I don't believe is appropriate for Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not a game guide, and there is too much technical information on the spell to justify the way it's written. Also, I don't think there is anything significant about this spell to warrent a seperate article (on Wikipedia).  Information is already listed at D&D Wiki.  This article should have what ever sourced lore added to the Mordenkainen article, and then made into a redirect. Turlo Lomon 05:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 06:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger
Talk:Oberon (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: I don't understand why this article was created. There is no content, context, analysis, let alone any evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be redirected to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities - in fact, I tried to do that but it was reverted. BOZ (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The revert seems to have been done since there was no actual "merge" to that list.  I think that "Oberon" doesn't appear in the list right now...  --Craw-daddy | T | 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oberon's in there now, in the Fey deities section, with basically the same info as in this article. I think I'll do the redirect.  -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been created again; as part of the grand D&D article merging and redirecting process, I've redirected it once more. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:Pharaoh (module)

message: This is to discuss the following articles.
*Pharaoh (module)
*Oasis of the White Palm
*Lost Tomb of Martek
I believe these three articles should be merged (with redirects), to Desert of Desolation. Here is my reasoning.
#Modules are all part of the same story line.
#Modules were republished as I3-5 Desert of Desolation, in one book.
#It would clearly show publishing history.
#Additional reviews would all be consolidated into one article (when added)
#Awards all consolidated in one article.
Basically, I feel we can make a much superior article by consolidating the three, then by trying to keep the different "chapters" seperate.  Please post your opinion in this matter. Turlo Lomon 09:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. --Pak21 12:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. How do we want to make this happen? I could do it sometime after the 1st of the new year. Web Warlock (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started a temp/work page at User:Webwarlock/workspace//Desert_of_Desolation, please feel free to edit, change or contribute as you see fit. Web Warlock (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  -Drilnoth (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal
Talk:Planar Handbook

message: I believe adding information from this article to the Planescape article would provide context for the Planar Handbook, and add more publishing history to Planescape. Turlo Lomon 07:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this and Manual of the Planes would both be reincarnations of Planescape. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 07:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You are because Planar Handbook doesn't have overviews of the planes; Manual of the Planes does (at least in 3E/3.5). -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 07:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Same here; I know what I'm talking about.  The Planar Handbook simply adds spells, races, planar touchstone sites, and new classes.  It doesn't discuss the planes specifically. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 08:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose. This is completely different.  -Werideatdusk33 (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The Planar Handbook is a book; Planescape is a setting. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger discussion
Talk:Races of Stone

message: I have restored the  cleanup template, which clearly applies to this article. This is not the same as saying that this article is non-notable or that it should be deleted. Rather it is a request for additional sources made to any editor who wishes to contribute additional content. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You yourself say that the article may be notable. This is a clear indication of a time where  is more appropriate, per the documentation of the  template. This sort of misuse of templates is another part of the reason that the whole dispute got started. Additionally, the article also already had ; having both is unnecessary. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:Remnis

message: Article should point to the realm of the giant eagles in Beastlands. There is not enough information to warrent a seperate article on Wikipedia for this subject. (A D&D Wiki is another matter). Turlo Lomon 06:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Unless the layer is mentioned either heavily within D&D or anytime outside it, there shouldn't be an article on it. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 06:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: cONCUR. I found this page by random page button. It was unsatisfying !  216.234.58.18 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger discussion
Talk:Defence mechanism (biology)

message: I hadn't noted the existence of this article. It's very similar to antipredator adaptation, and should probably be merged with it. There are two issues: firstly, plants might not be considered 'prey' in the narrow sense. I don't think is a good way to treat the subject, and would recommend treating all organisms eaten by an animal as prey. Secondly, defense could also include defense against conspecifics, for example, such as mimicry in females to avoid sexual harrassment. Finally, parasites, grazers and parasitoids can also be considered predators in the loosest definition of the word, so they could be treated here too potentially. Either it should be merged or tidied up and kept as a summary of other more specific articles. The fact that it doesn't say what it's about to begin with is a bit annoying. Richard001 05:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: I feel that it would be more beneficial to simply add reciprocal "see also" pages. Though they may have similar material presently, they may branch out into two very distict pages in the future, as "anitpredator adaptation" is a fairly specific term and "defense mechanism (biology)" is more general.Triumbrum (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "see also" is better 

message: It's good to see how others have tackled this area. Malcolm Edmunds in Defence in animals, Pergamon 1974, tackled predator-prey defences, but not defences against infection and parasitism. The arrangement went like this:
Primary defences:  function: to decrease chance of encounter.
definition 1. Operates before predator takes any action (action = prey-catching behaviour). Robinson 1969.
definition 2. Operates regardless of whether predator is in the vicinity. Kruuk 1972, and Edwards.
1 Prey may not be detected.
:1.1 Anachoresis; lives in holes &c.
:1.2 Crypsis
2 Prey detected, but not seen as edible
:2.1 Aposematicism
:2.2 Batesian mimicry
Secondary defences:  function: to increase chances of prey surviving encounter. These defences may operate as soon as prey detects predator, or after predator has started a prey-capture attempt.
1 Passive measures: armour, chemical defences
2 Active measures
:2.1 enhanced primary defence
:2.2 other:
::withdraw to a fastness; flight; deimatic behaviour (startle or threat display); thanatosis (feining death); deflection (diversion behaviour, deflection marks, detachment of body parts); retaliation
Defensive groups including mixtures of species
The evolution of defensive systems
Ruxton, Sherratt and Speed wrote Avoiding Attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry, Oxford 2004. Their canvas is slightly more restricted than Edmunds, but they do cover the experimental literature thoroughly.
Both books are first-class, and both leave out (as perhaps we might) infection and parasitism. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overvew, continued
Talk:Sea cat (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: Having recently started a List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, I am trying to determine which monster articles should be redirected into the lists.  I believe this article may be a suitable candidate to be merged and redirected into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, as that is when it first debuted in the Dungeons & Dragons game.  Please discuss reasons for or against such a merge.  If no discussion has taken place 5 days from now, I will redirect this article to that list; otherwise I will follow whatever discussion takes place here.  Thank you!  :) BOZ (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: As there were no responses, I redirected this article to the list page.  Since no response is also no consensus, any editor may restore this article at any time. However, rather than simply reverting, I urge you to use this space to develop some form of consensus regarding the article, lest another editor put this article up for deletion. BOZ (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected
Talk:Shadow mastiff

message: Having recently started a List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, I am trying to determine which monster articles should be redirected into the lists.  I believe this article may be a suitable candidate to be merged and redirected into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, as that is when it first debuted in the Dungeons & Dragons game.  Please discuss reasons for or against such a merge.  If no discussion has taken place 5 days from now, I will redirect this article to that list; otherwise I will follow whatever discussion takes place here.  Thank you!  :) BOZ (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: As there were no responses, I redirected this article to the list page.  Since no response is also no consensus, any editor may restore this article at any time. However, rather than simply reverting, I urge you to use this space to develop some form of consensus regarding the article, lest another editor put this article up for deletion. BOZ (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected
Talk:St. Sylvester's College

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14372b.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased 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.  Dianna (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @Diannaa: This is a decade late, but noting for future reference that newadvent.org/cathen/ is a verbatim reproduction of the Catholic Encyclopedia, a Public Domain source. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 
Talk:Mary: A Fiction/Archive 1

message: Can anyone locate the title page for the 1788 printing of this book? Awadewit | talk 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title page

message: I am extremely impressed by this article. It's coverage of the topic is comprehensive, it's well cited with scholarly sources, and displays excellent prose. I also like how the critique of the work was worked into "Themes" instead of dumped haphazardly into a Criticism section. My suggestions for improvement are: provide a clarifying caption for the Scholderer painting. The other pictures easily make sense, but this one caught my eye due to the woman depicted; not because of something in the text as I was reading. Second, there seems to be something unencyclopedic about the tone of the article in some places - but it is an extremely vague impression at the moment and I cannot quite yet put it into a suggestion, maybe later. --Meowist 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have tried to add an explanatory caption to the painting. If you figure out the problem with the tone, please let me know. Awadewit | talk 08:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed