lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:1996 Australian federal election

message: It appears that the Division of Isaacs also changed hands this election but is not listed here. Anyone got the appropriate numbers to fill in the table? --Stormie 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Result here. I believe it became notional Labor by way of redistribution before the election. I actually came across the wiki page and was going to mention it here, but noticed this! I think if the MP after the election is a different party to the MP before the election, or went notional opposition but was retained by the incumbent at the election, they both warrant a mention. Timeshift (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Seats changing hands

message: In Canada it is not uncommon for defeated Government leaders to immediately quit their seats despite just being reelected by his constituents.
The boxes in these election articles stated that they have disclaimed reelection.
In Australian federal elections, there have been two occasions Fraser in 1983 and Keating in 1996 in which a defeated Prime Minister have immediately walked away from their seats yet the boxes in these articles made no note of this as they merely noted their respective seats.
Perhaps this should be rectified as they have in effect disclaimed reelection.
122.106.83.10 (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  When a Prime Minister quits his seat after losing an election 

message: Looking at this edit, I have reverted it and others similar because it is unsourced.
I am unconvinced of the logic. Fraser may have technically been PM rather than OL when he advised an election, but only by a matter of hours. It could be said that his agreement with G-G Kerr was made as OL before being commissioned as PM. I'd like to see a RS making the same point, otherwise it comes across as editorial opinion in Wikivoice. Perhaps we could discuss it and come up with a consensus? --Pete (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's as may be, but it seems you are new around here. I have Reverted your Bold edits, which are unsourced, and we are Discussing them. That's WP:BRD Please do not edit-war until we find a WP:Consensus. There doesn't seem to be any hurry on your contribution, and if we can source it and get some agreement, it should be fine. --Pete (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winning from Opposition
Talk:1987 Australian federal election

message: Why is there a summary total for "Liberal/National coalition" when it wasn't operating at this election? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: For all intents and purposes the Coalition still contested the election - there was still a Lib/Nat 2PP at this election and they still sat together in the previous and the next parliament. Look at Candidates of the Australian federal election, 1987 in lower and upper house for NSW. Look at Senate results at Australian federal election, 1987#Results and the 1,289,888 NSW voters who voted for the Liberal/National Coalition joint ticket. The WA and SA Nats usually have not been part of the federal Coalition and VIC has been spotty - does that mean the Coalition usually has not existed because all Libs/Nats in all states didn't run together? IMHO the article content about the coalition should be in far greater clarified and referenced detail with its own section. Timeshift (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to dig through this later but the Coalition definitely did not exist during the election with the Nationals breaking it off at the end of April and both parties established separate front benches. IIRC the election was called in part because the opposition was in a mess and the Coalition was restored not long afterwards. Part of the confusion is that the National Party structure gives a lot of power to the state parties and Joh's drive had put the set-up under strain with the result that in New South Wales the state party operated election pacts and a joint Senate ticket rather than going head to head with the Liberals even though they would be (initially) sitting separately. The 2PP is really an indication of the political science divide rather than the counters officially declaring that the Liberals and Nationals were in harness. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coalition? Reverted edit.
Talk:Science, technology, society and environment education

message: I disagree that STS education is rooted in postmodern thinking. Science is based on observations and conclusions, which is not postmodern in my understanding. Could someone provide a better reference that those in the current version. If not, would anyone object if I removed that comment? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  postmodern? 

message: In the section on Opportunities and challenges of STSE education, two instances of "the table below" appear, yet no table appears below this section.  The only table in the article does not seem to be the one implied.  Dreamerblue (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing table?

message: This article is currently tagged "". It appears to have improved since November 2008. Would anyone object if that tag were to be deleted?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert attention
Talk:The American Breed

message: It would be great if the original author(s) - or the one who added the photo - could identify the members in the photo by name. In the meantime, as I find the time, I'll poke around and see if I can find that info. Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo ID 

message: The original 1966 recording of "Bend Me, Shape Me" is by a group called the Models, not the Shape.  A copy of the song is included on the compilation album, Girls in the Garage, and a copy of the 45 on MGM Records is easily located in a Google search.  The information in the article on the song "Bend Me, Shape Me" appears to be correct. Shocking Blue (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Recording of "Bend Me, Shape Me"
Talk:Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga

message: This article has a POV title. See the archive Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 1#American Revolutionary War vs. American War of Independence -Philip Baird Shearer 08:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non NPOV title

message: Actually, it wasn't always the battles that won the war. It was surviving in between the battles to remain, or appear to remain, a credible force. Having said that, there is no place to insert the "hard winter" at Morristown 1779-80, when the force, as usual, threatened to disappear. I haven't checked, but the other non-battles, and winters, are probably missing as well. Where do they go? (Looking to insert a few choice sentences). Student7 (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-battles

message: The name of this theatre should read "Northern theatre of the American Revolutionary War (1778-1782)", having "after Saratoga" in there is no good.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought the name of this article was lame; your suggestion sounds fine to me.  (For consistency with other ARW theaters, it should be spelled "theater", not "theatre"; there ought to be redirects from the other spelling.) Magic♪piano 23:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article title would be more consistent and maybe "look better." I suspect the article was forked and wound up with name from a subsection title. Or not. To me, as a student of the war, the current title seems more meaningful. First Boston for New England, then Saratoga for the Middle Atlantic States. These are crisp event boundaries IMO. For a newbie to the topic, it may mean nothing, I suppose.... Student7 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name
Talk:The Newberry Consort

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.newberryconsort.org. 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, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their 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.  ––Formal talk 00:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Impacto

message: Is there a particular reason why this song has two infoboxes?  The image and info in them is identical.  Remixes don't get their own infobox - if anything an extra image field can be placed at the bottom, although in this case it probably isn't necessary if it is the the same picture. - eo 19:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infoboxes

message: I fixed it so both Fergie and Daddy Yankee have their own info box, so please stop reverting it. Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't fix it, as they both do already have their own infoboxes. I have checked the history and have noticed you have been reverting it alot to your version which I have also noticed you have been doing on a number of songs from your contributions. In this particular instance you have been constantly reverting, first you added to the artist category "Daddy Yankee featuring Fergie singles chronology" and then when you finally realised this you changed the whole infobox around not aknowleding the other edits made by editors and reverted it back to your reversion. Stop doing this, it already has two boxes and you are deleting information in the process, so stop. I noticed from your talkpage that this problem has also happened for you in the past, so don't repeat your mistakes. Cazique (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest YOU fix it so that it has "Single by Daddy Yankee featuring Fergie" because that is how it is supposed to BE!!!! Tell me what information I am deleting because its just fine. I'll re-add it. But I don't see any deleted information. Everything is fine. I put everything in order. It was fine a year ago. Now people decide to change it. No, I'm not having it. It stays "Single by Daddy Yankee featuring Fergie" because that is how it is supposed to be. I will keep on changing it back. It is supposed to read that. Just like "Crazy in Love" is "Single by Beyonce featuring Jay-Z". Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied to you on your talkpage, so please understand "Impacto" does not feature Fergie. I see you now understand what new information you have been deleting by reverting it to your way, so please understand this also. Thanks Cazique (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop reverting
Talk:Ayngaran International

message: I've removed this tag, as I think my edit has changed the article sufficiently enough so that it no longer sounds like an advert. I know nothing about this topic though so I cannot vouch for the facts in the article! If anyone thinks it still reads like an advert, feel free to explain :-) Mentality 08:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advert tag
Talk:1977 Australian federal election

message: Between December 1975 and October 1980, when Joan Child, Elaine Darling and Ros Kelly were elected (re-elected in Child's case), there were no women members of the House of Reps.  Women have been elected at every election from 1980 onwards, and it is unthinkable this would ever change.  The 1977 outcome for women was much commented on in the media and amongst feminist groups, and it provided a spur to the Affirmative action campaign in Australia.  I believe that the fact that 1977 was the latest (and likely to be the last ever) general election at which no women members were elected to the House of Reps is highly significant, and worth noting in the article.  I've re-edited the article accordingly.  --  JackofOz 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any idea which media? (Not disagreeing with you but I think sources would actually be positive as people could go and read more about it) None of the news search engines goes back to 1977 (best ones go back to 1996), but I'd be prepared to look in about 2 weeks if I knew where to look. Orderinchaos 09:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, can't help.  I did do a thorough search before I made the edit, but nothing came up.  I was expecting to see something relevant as a link to the Affirmative Action article, but there's no mention of Australia in the article at all, very surprisingly.  --  JackofOz 09:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah most stuff in Australia is offline in libraries :( I've been hunting down stuff (reasonably successfully) for WA political history articles. Orderinchaos 10:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1977 - last time (almost certainly ever) no women were elected to the House of Reps

message: How does this relate to the election? Did it have a bearing on the campaign/result or was it just coincidental timing?
:The election coincided with the retirement of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr. Kerr had appeared drunk at the Melbourne Cup in November and the public outcry resulted in the cancellation of his appointment as Ambassador to UNESCO.
--Merbabu (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't he retire in 1978, a year after the election? Orderinchaos 04:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  If you click the link to his article, you'll see he left office on 8 December 1977, and Zelman Cowen was sworn in the same day, 2 days before the election.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh OK. No worries then. (Dunno why I remembered it as being 1978. :/) Orderinchaos 10:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerr
Talk:Ottoman Albania

message: Some editors are disturbed of the Ottomans being called Turks, but not of 'Tamerlane killed the Turks' absolute ruler'. Interesting. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-discrimination 

message: Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article quotes 8 references only 
Talk:Irene Kral

message: Irene Kral is one of the most underrated jazz singers of this century. She is a favorite of mines even before Clint Eastwood's movie. She was one of the few who could play solo accompanied only by her acoustic piano. I discovered her music in the late 70s and now have all of her recordings that I am familiar with.
If there is more information on her, it would be nice to develop this article with samples of her music so that the world can learn who she was. A great and humble talent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.102.208 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Tusoteuthis

message: With the publication of a recent paper,Fuchs, D., Iba, Y., Heyng, A., Iijima, M., Klug, C., Larson, N.L., & Schweigert, G. (2020). The Muensterelloidea: phylogeny and character evolution of Mesozoic stem octopods. Papers in Palaeontology, 6(1), 31-92. it seems that Tusoteuthis might be a nomen dubium, and Enchoteuthis might be valid. Thoughts?
Borophagus (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enchoteuthis? 

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 section. 
----
:Tusoteuthis →  – With the publication of a recent paper,Fuchs, D., Iba, Y., Heyng, A., Iijima, M., Klug, C., Larson, N.L., & Schweigert, G. (2020). The Muensterelloidea: phylogeny and character evolution of Mesozoic stem octopods. Papers in Palaeontology, 6(1), 31-92. it seems that Tusoteuthis might be a nomen dubium, and Enchoteuthis, which was named later than Tusoteuthis, may be the valid name. This does not appear to have been picked up as of yet, and it may be somewhat controversial, so I'm putting in a move request.
– Borophagus (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But the given references are just going along with the consensus of their time, which was Tusoteuthis being valid because nobody really checked (or officiated) whether the name was even viable based on taxonomic rules. The new source simply made that check and found that the taxon isn't following the rules, so this can only be disputed in a future study that argues that the type specimen is indeed rule-abiding (which is unlikely IMO). Macrophyseter | talk 21:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's probably the best course of action for now, now that some additional points have been made. I'll try and get to work on a separate Enchoteuthis article now, I think.Borophagus (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 March 2021
Talk:1966 Australian federal election

message: Funnily enough, in this landslide coalition election, Dawson swung 12% 2pp to Labor and won it. Should it be listed, or am I missing something? Timeshift (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it had already changed hands in a by-election earlier in the year. Frickeg (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh thanks! Timeshift (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Division of Dawson]] changed hands?
Talk:Rusyn Americans

message: What is the pronunciation of this term?
Fustigate314159 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:1961 Australian federal election

message: It was certainly a close election.  But was it really closer than 1940, where Menzies held on with the support of 2 Independents?  It was one of these, who switched sides in 1941 that made Curtin PM!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Close election
Talk:Justin Hayford

message: The text in the sections "Biography" and "Style" was likely copied directly from another website, without even changing the HTML single "" commands to Wikipedia double-spaced paragraph breaks. (I have now double-spaced those paragraphs, and made minor updates to the text - mostly changing some stuff from presnet tense to past tense.) Acwilson9 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly plagiarized material 

message: In 2001 After Dark Chicago Magazine gave Justin its "Outstanding Cabaret Artist" Award.
Acwilson9 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards and recognition
Talk:1951 Australian federal election

message: According to "Power in the Liberal Party" by Katharine West (pretty much the first authoritative academic source overviewing the party), it was February 1945, but the conferences which led to it and some of the key quotable speeches of Menzies about the Party's aims were almost all in 1944 - that's where I checked. So it's one of those "which do you count" sort of cases, and I went with the date the party formally commenced existence. Orderinchaos 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I go by http://www.liberal.org.au/about/ and http://www.nsw.liberal.org.au/about/the_liberal_party/our_history.html has October 16 1944. Timeshift (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation date

message: Contrary to myth this double dissolution wasn't (formally) about banning the Communist Party. The Senate refused to rise to the bait on that one and passed the bill; the double dissolution was triggered over the Commonwealth Bank Bill.  I'll amend the article as soon as possible. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trigger legislation 
Talk:San Anton School

message: I have improved the look of the page. You can get help from us. Malta does not have many school wiki pages in English. Adding an infobox was a good way to improve. Victuallers 09:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:1946 Australian federal election

message: They should be counted for the Coalition, as they were a merger of the two parties in South Australia, and effectively the South Australia division of the Liberal Party.  This would boost the Coalition's total to 28. (I don't know anything about the Liberal Country Party in Victoria — what were they about?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.174.114 (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This example does not differ from any of the other examples on many of the other election pages. The major right party in Australia has historically fractured often. The L&CL ran candidates that opposed official Liberal Party candidates and were not part of the federal coalition. We list as the source for the election result lists. Timeshift (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Timeshift's correct - and this election in particular was notable for such fractiousness as not everybody wanted to be part of the new party. The LCP in Victoria *may* have been a product of peculiarities in their local scene which saw, among other things, an independent Premier (as in a member of no party, with a cabinet of independents and party dissidents) ruling briefly in 1945. Orderinchaos 06:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay for finding the 1946 2PP in a list since 1937! :) (Now back to 1919!) Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal & Country League's 2 seats
Talk:1943 Australian federal election

message: Wanting to create a stub for her, I was basing it on http://www.womenaustralia.info/biogs/AWE1857b.htm but it didnt mention she actually gained office. I looked at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/handbook/historical/representatives/heitmann.king.htm and I can't seem to find an Ivey... any ideas? Timeshift 10:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Malinda Angelina Ivey

message: Can someone please add the graph of the seat distribution of the House of Representatives like there is for every other Australian election and put together a table like the other Australian elections. I know I’m demanding a lot but it really bugs me that this one is different to all the rest. AnAustralianHistoryBuff (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of reps
Talk:Reactor protection system

message: i need the reactor type of the reaction fe+2fecl3=3fecl2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.123.226.133 (talk • contribs) 
:See your talk page. Simesa 13:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: What on earth does "auctioneered" mean in the context of this article? 193.62.194.252 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Auctioneering?
Talk:ABLA Homes

message: Fifty People killed in five years, that seems amazingly high. 
Also the woman killed in the McDonald's was well before 1994.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.114.78 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime situation 