lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Calor Gas

message: Cranbrook, Fawley and Newbury are Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages. If you know which Cranbrook has a Calor "Customer Operations Centre" then it should be piped, rather than let us guess which Cranbrook was intended. For instance, if the right Cranbrook is Cranbrook, Devon, then it should be coded as Cranbrook which will show as Cranbrook. Similarly for Fawley and Newbury. Art LaPella 20:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: Calor Gas has a new logo - https://www.calor.co.uk/skin/frontend/enterprise/calorgas_new/images/calor-gas-logo.png
: by KylieTastic. Altamel (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit requested on March 16, 2017 
Talk:Cristian Nuñez (soccer, born 1988)

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    ~ Amkgp 💬 19:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cristian Nuñez →  – Not the primary topic. There is a disambiguation page with two other footballers who are already disambiguated. Since Canadian-born, I put soccer rather than footballer. 
There is also a fourth footballer listed who is not disambguated, but his name has an h in it, so I don't think he would need disambiguating - his article has hatnotes. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 August 2020
Talk:Pekudei

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion
Talk:Shemini (parashah)

message: Aaron's children's names are Nadav and Avihu, not Nadab and Abihu. This was my Torah portion for my Bar Mitzvah and I am positive.
I think that this should be switched.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.212.114 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nadav and Avihu

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: There is no justification for Leviticus 9, which is also part of the Christian Bible, automatically linking to a rabbinical discussion of a parashah.
A majority of potential users of English Wikipedia are not practicing Jews. I will elaborate: a majority are not Jewish, and not all Jews are practicing Judaism and rabbinical studies, but all these people are potentially interested in the Bible for their own cultural and religious reasons. Therefore, when the topic is a particular Bible verse shared by Jews AND Christians and, frankly, the entire humanity, the Bible passage is of interest, not (just) the parasha & discussion in Judaism. Thank you for considering this.
The discussion can be concentrated on  this page. Arminden (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, it would seem that your complaint is with the redirect page Leviticus 9 and not with this page. -- Dauster (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leviticus 9 is a Bible chapter, not a parashah 

message: Can we use the Torah as a reference to a Torah portion?  Seems like a violation of Wikipedia's basic notability rules.  NewkirkPlaza (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as we would cite to chapters of Jane Austen when writing about her novels, I'd argue that one should be able to cite to Biblical verses when writing about the Bible. Dauster (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability
Talk:Shemot (parashah)

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion
Talk:Shlach

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: The page should be named Shelach as the shin has a shva NA (שווא נע), which is a "she" sound and not "sh".
--SuperJew (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  naming of page 
Talk:Tazria

message: Why is there a picture of a lamb at the top of the page? I don't see its relevance to the article, so I'm removing it. Turbokoala (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The lamb was there because of course a lamb was required as a sacrfice in the parshah.  But if it somehow offends, we can lose the lamb.  Dauster (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but do you think it's important? It looks like it was just plopped down in the middle of the article. If we want to preserve it, I think we should at least give a caption, no? Turbokoala (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: There is no justification for Leviticus 12, which is also part of the Christian Bible, automatically linking to a rabbinical discussion of a parashah.
Also, why connect a chapter to what is just a section of it? But this is secondary.
A majority of potential users of English Wikipedia are not practicing Jews. I will elaborate: a majority are not Jewish, and not all Jews are practicing Judaism and rabbinical studies, but all these people are potentially interested in the Bible for their own cultural and religious reasons. Therefore, when the topic is a particular Bible verse shared by Jews AND Christians and, frankly, the entire humanity, the Bible passage is of interest, not (just) the parasha & discussion in Judaism. Thank you for considering this.
The discussion can be concentrated on  this page. Arminden (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leviticus 12 is a Bible chapter, not a parashah
Talk:Terumah (parashah)

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion
Talk:Tetzaveh

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion
Talk:Toledot

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: There is no justification for Genesis 25, which is also part of the Christian Bible, automatically linking to a rabbinical discussion of a parashah.
A majority of potential users of English Wikipedia are not practicing Jews. I will elaborate: a majority are not Jewish, and not all Jews are practicing Judaism and rabbinical studies, but all these people are potentially interested in the Bible for their own cultural and religious reasons. Therefore, when the topic is a particular Bible verse shared by Jews AND Christians and, frankly, the entire humanity, the Bible passage is of interest, not (just) the parasha & discussion in Judaism. Thank you for considering this.
The discussion can be concentrated on  this page. Arminden (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genesis 25 is a Bible chapter, not a parashah
Talk:Tzav

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: There is no justification for Leviticus 6, which is also part of the Christian Bible, automatically linking to a rabbinical discussion of a parashah.
A majority of potential users of English Wikipedia are not practicing Jews. I will elaborate: a majority are not Jewish, and not all Jews are practicing Judaism and rabbinical studies, but all these people are potentially interested in the Bible for their own cultural and religious reasons. Therefore, when the topic is a particular Bible verse shared by Jews AND Christians and, frankly, the entire humanity, the Bible passage is of interest, not (just) the parasha & discussion in Judaism. Thank you for considering this.
The discussion can be concentrated on  this page. Arminden (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leviticus 6 is a Bible chapter, not a parashah
Talk:Princess Haalah Al Noor bint Hashim

message: Princess Haalah was born somewhere in April but the date is unknown. As far as I know she was not born on April 6. Thankyou Weather72787 21:57 29 July 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.229.30 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: date of birth
Talk:V'Zot HaBerachah

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion
Talk:Va'eira

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: The "Edit summary" should be
Checkwiki error fix #70. ISBN with wrong length
not
Checkwiki error fix #72. ISBN-10 with wrong checksum
Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision as of 06:02, 24 May 2015
Talk:Va'etchanan

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 
Talk:Vayakhel

message: A note of explanation on the “Further reading” section:  The plan that I’ve been implementing on this page since I started it in February 2006 is to expound the matters listed in the “Further reading” section in the “In inner-biblical interpretation,” “In classical rabbinic interpretation,” and eventually in other “in interpretation” sections.  This is of necessity an iterative task, and it will take some time before I can add interpretations for all the matters listed in the “Further reading” section.  While I work on this project, I ask readers’ indulgence to allow the “Further reading” section to remain as a signpost to further additions to the article and studies elsewhere in the meantime.  Thanks to all for your patience.  -- Dauster (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Further reading" section 

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion
Talk:Vaychi

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 
Talk:Vayelech

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: * The haftarah for Vayelekh is a complicated question, because Vayelekh never appears independently on a non-special Shabbat. While some texts, following an older custom, have the Isaiah 55:6-56:8 reading as mentioned here, this is not so much a haftarah for Vayelekh as much as it is an alternative haftarah for Shabbat Shuvah. See the page here https://www2.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/rosh/eny.html (already cited on the Haftarah page, which is where I found it) for a discussion of the topic. The first line of the section on the haftarah is thus misleading and I would encourage it be rewritten. Isaacmayer9 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haftarah issue
Talk:Vayeshev

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion
Talk:Vayetze

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion
Talk:Vayigash

message: It is read at the same time in Israel also, isn't it?  Unless I'm missing something here...
165.123.203.40 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Vayigash is read in the diaspora..."

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion
Talk:Vayikra (parashah)

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: There is no justification for Leviticus 1, which is also part of the Christian Bible, automatically linking to a rabbinical discussion of a parashah.
A majority of potential users of English Wikipedia are not practicing Jews. I will elaborate: a majority are not Jewish, and not all Jews are practicing Judaism and rabbinical studies, but all these people are potentially interested in the Bible for their own cultural and religious reasons. Therefore, when the topic is a particular Bible verse shared by Jews AND Christians and, frankly, the entire humanity, the Bible passage is of interest, not (just) the parasha & discussion in Judaism. Thank you for considering this.
The discussion can be concentrated on  this page. Arminden (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leviticus 1 is a Bible chapter, not a parashah
Talk:Vayishlach

message: The Academy for Jewish Religion, California (www.ajrca.org)is a pluralistic Rabbinical, Cantorial and Chaplaincy School based in Los Angeles at The Yitzhak Rabin Hillel Center for Jewish Life at UCLA. It is not affiliated with the Academy for Jewish Religion in New York. The "Parsha of the Week" page on our website: http://www.ajrca.org/parsha_of_the_week.shtml provides a D'var Torah or commentary on the weekly Torah Portion. It is written by AJR, CA faculty, administrators, alumni and senior students. We would very much appreciate your adding a link "Commentaries from the Academy for Jewish Religion, California" to the Commentaries section of Wikipedia's page on the weekly Torah portion. Thank you for your consideration and should you have any questions, I can be reached by email: cheryl@cherylazair.com.
Cheryl Azair
Director of Communications
Academy for Jewish Religion, California
66.245.192.202 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Commentaries from the Academy for Jewish Religion, California to the weekly Torah Portion page 

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Genesis 32 is a Bible chapter, not a parashah
There is no justification for Genesis 32, which is also part of the Christian Bible, automatically linking to a rabbinical discussion of a parashah.
A majority of potential users of English Wikipedia are not practicing Jews. I will elaborate: a majority are not Jewish, and not all Jews are practicing Judaism and rabbinical studies, but all these people are potentially interested in the Bible for their own cultural and religious reasons. Therefore, when the topic is a particular Bible verse shared by Jews AND Christians and, frankly, the entire humanity, the Bible passage is of interest, not (just) the parasha & discussion in Judaism. Thank you for considering this.
The discussion can be concentrated on  this page. Arminden (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genesis 32 is a Bible chapter, not a parashah
Talk:Yitro

message: *REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: All the other Parsha appear to have counts for letters, words, verses and lines.  This entry has no info on the # of lines. Does anyoneTpbrownec (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing count of number of lines
Talk:S. E. Cottam

message: Reference no. 1 -- the site with the URL http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/bradford.htm is dead and should be updated to the current site http://rictornorton.co.uk/bradford.htm
Rictornorton (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References
Talk:Rubber hose animation

message: I second that notion that it does not actually explain WHAT (the fuck?) "rubber hose" animation is. At my best guess, I thought they were referring to the trend of an industry to react to the actions of a small few, analogous the motion of one end of an actual hose whose energy travels down the rest of its' length.99.225.52.60 (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that it's both that and the fact that the limbs and necks of rubber-hose characters look and move like rubber hoses - long, floppy, boneless - thus the name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.195.152 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Backing up

message: "The rubber hose animation gradually faded away when further sophistication of the cartoons was introduced, especially by Walt Disney..." (Emphasis mine.) I would like to see some support for the claim made in this paragraph (at least by implication, since no other animator is mentioned) that Disney was the prime mover in this trend. Disney had a serious and influential rival and competitor in Fleischer Studios. Max Fleischer demonstrated his commitment to sophisticated and realistic animation early on ("beginning in 1915") by inventing and patenting the Rotoscope, which made practical the basing of animation on live action models, an approach which is still used today in the conceptually equivalent technique of digital motion capture. The article on rotoscoping suggests that Disney did not use the technique in a publicly released film until 1937 (because he used it regularly thereafter). The Fleischers developed and introduced other sophisticated reality-enhancing techniques as well, such as the construction of miniature sets placed on rotating platforms to serve as backgrounds to shoot animation cels against.
I do not know who did what first, nor whether Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck had (and have) better public name recognition than Betty Boop and Popeye. Fleischer Studios may no longer exist, but their cartoons are still run in syndication to appreciative audiences. I would like to see some support for the claim that it was "especially Walt Disney," more than any other, who drove the transition to more sophisticated and realistic animation. --96.251.9.196 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported claim of primary influence? 
Talk:Cunizza da Romano

message: Hello! This is for anyone who wishes to know what sentences I removed from the article: 
As a young girl, Cunizza married Riccardo di San Bonifacio, Lord of Verona, but eloped with the court poet Sordello, who took her to his parents' house. 
Later she married Aimerio of the Counts of Braganze. 
She spent her last days in Florence in the household of Cavalcante de' Cavalcanti, where Dante came to know her in person. 
I still have this information in the article as well. 
Audreymccarthy (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Sentences 

message: The following paragraph was removed, but can be recovered here for reentry: "Cunizza is featured as a character in the third canticle of Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, Paradiso (Canto IX, lines 13–65). Here, Dante stages an encounter with Cunizza in the Heaven of Venus, which groups souls that lived under the influence of this planet and therefore pursued a life devoted to love. In this sphere, Dante talks to three souls—Charles Martel, Cunizza, and Folquet of Marseille—with whom he discusses the state of politics of Italy..." Audreymccarthy (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Sentences
Talk:The Honeydripper

message: Does anyone know if this is the inspiration for the name
of the band Honeydrippers, formed by ex-Led Zeppelin members? tharsaile 15:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Honeydripper" was quite a widely used term in the blues before this song, basically meaning "a superlover - the one you love, or hope to love" .  So, they could have got it from this song, or from Roosevelt Sykes' nickname, or from any one of a number of blues records.  Ghmyrtle 20:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honeydrippers Band Namesake? 

message: What is a "sweet" quote/unquote guy? Varlaam (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black slang for a "sweet" guy
Talk:Bullies (film)

message: The plot section -- thin as it is -- appears to have been lifted from IMBD (specifically here) and was added here. --Calton | Talk 15:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyvio removed. MER-C 19:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio
Talk:Brown Publishing Company

message: Most of the text in this article dealt with the free weekly Dan's Papers.  This information was unreferenced and was undue weight considering it has numerous paid dailies.  I removed that material and added more details about the company after it filed bankruptcy.  Unfortunately Brown's Publishing website sucks so you can't get the true details of its multistate empire.Americasroof (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dan's Papers
Talk:Travel City Direct

message: Now that the XL group has gone into administration, the pages linked to as references are inaccessable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.113.108 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference links 

message: Sorry had to edit this one. TCD is NOT an Airline! Its a holiday company. --Carl1880 21:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airline? 

message: Ive ceared this up a little I feel. --Carl1880 21:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft
Talk:Lioré et Olivier LeO H-246

message: I understand that, according to the convention of the era, the H242 and H246 were considered variants of a single type - the H24. I therefore suggest the creation of a new article with that title, and composed of the current articles on the H242 and H246. These current articles would then become redirects to the new one. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[H24]]