lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:4D (train)

message: I don't think the picture is an 'artist's impression', it looks like a real enough photo to me. Too small to tell though. █ T █ P █ K █ 12:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm in the process of obtaining a replacement picture for the article as well as some interior shots of the 4D (to replace the one that is currently up for speedying). Hope to have this is a couple of days. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 22:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I came across what 4D stands for once in a forum, and I thought we should clarify that in this article. It is sometimes called the Tangara, but more popularly known as the 4D, which is a short form of "Double Deck Design and Development". Of course, a forum comment wouldn't really hold out as a source, but I wonder if I can use the info from here: http://melbourneoldschooler.blogspot.com.au/p/train-history.html Fauzi (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added a note from Vicsig, which says it's the "Double Deck Development and Demonstration" train. That should do for now.Anothersignalman (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Would it be fair to have it as the alternative title? Fauzi (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably could, with a redirect from that to 4D or viceversa, but I'd prefer to hold off until we're certain the Vicsig definition is correct. Anothersignalman (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if anybody has this book handy. https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Melbourne_Rail_Rollingstock.html?id=T37XbwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y Fauzi (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long form of the name 4D
Talk:Marie Thérèse Rodet Geoffrin

message: Hello! I am first time wiki editor. I am attempting to write a biography for a school project and am quite nervous about other editors changing my work. The assignment is due on monday, so please be careful about changes to it until after then. Thanks--Histstudent421 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Did she visit Poland, and if so, when?--85.226.44.19 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visit to Poland?
Talk:Triviality (mathematics)

message: This is a common mistake, but you're right in that it should be should be detailed here. However, the usage you mentioned is not an origin: it is one of the earliest known uses of the word in (Middle) English. It dates back to a work from 1432-50 mention of the "arte trivialle," an allusion to the three liberal arts that made up the trivium, the lower division of the seven liberal arts taught in medieval universities: grammar, rhetoric, and logic. 
It's still good information though, so I'll reformat this entry slightly to show that.
ClockworkTroll 13:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  arte trivialle 

message: Two things:
#Everything but the Mathematics section is pure dictionary definition (and etymology), and would seem to belong better in Wiktionary, no?
#I just saved this article with an expanded Mathematics section. However, I'm unhappy with the final paragraph (the one about proof by cases). What I'd like there is (appended to what's there now) an example! But, alas, I can't think of one in which the trivial case is not one concerning a trivial object. (An example of that nature would just confuse the two uses of trivial.) There are plenty such examples, though, I know: can someone please fill one in?
 —msh210 19:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics 

message: The story about the two mathematicians is nearly quoted from Surely_You're_Joking%2C_Mr._Feynman. Please refer to it.59.93.255.117 09:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to "surely you're joking mr. feynman" 

message: Should we include a section on triviality in proof? We often say "proof is trivial" or "it is trivial to prove ____." I mean, we could easily concoct an example:
Definition: An integer k is odd if it can be written k = 2n for some integer n.
Theorem: For integers n and k such that k = n×2, k is even.
Proof: (Trivial)
--Cheeser1 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "trivial proof" 

message: I can think of a wide variety of examples... 83.145.69.50 (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surely "trivial" is not used only in maths... 

message: #Nontrivial is in :Category:Mathematical terminology
#All examples are mathematics examples and the entire Examples section can be retitled to "In mathematics" and have the first sentence be an opener for that section.
#Nontrivial has only the definition "not trivial", and is not used very often in English when you remove its instances as describing mathematical terms, see this graph for what I mean.
#Defining the meaning of the adjective "nontrivial" outside of the scope of mathematics should be on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.
Penitence (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page should be merged 

message: The 2nd paragraph has no reference or footnote; it should be dropped if it is unsupported.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: No Footnote: 2nd Paragraph
Talk:2004 United States presidential election/Archive 2

message: I've heard claims that (buggy and tamper-prone) electronic voting in this election will lead to problems which will dwarf those of the Florida ballot fiasco of last election. Should those claims be addressed on this page? --NeuronExMachina 19:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  more on electronic voting? 

message: I was thinking maybe we could add 2 more sections to this wikipedia article and I was looking for feedback-
1. Campaign Controversys- this would basically be about the controversys that have taken place over the course of the campaign. I.E. 9/11 Commission, Unfit for Command and the Swift Boat ads, Bush's guard allegations, Bob Woodward's book, etc.
2. Issues- this section would basically detail what are considered to be the most important issues of the election. I.E. War on Terror, War in Iraq, Economy, National Security, Healthcare, Gay Marriage, etc. Perhaps it could be divided into Domestic Issues (economy, healthcare, etc.), Social Issues (abortion, gay marriage, gun control), and National Security issues (war on terror, war in Iraq, Iran with nukes, North Korea with nukes, etc.)
What do you think? Daddydog 16:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Either could be good, but especially issues.
Maurreen 13:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sectons in the article? What do you think? 

message: There's a list, "These states are considered possible swing states, by either the political campaigns or by pollsters." While the possibility was open a while back, I don't think anyone thinks California would seriously come into play at this point.  South Carolina strikes me as extremely questionable (and I'm an Edwards fan) and New Jersey, Connecticut and probably Georgia fairly questionable. These may have seemed swingier a months or years ago, but at this point? There's a much better list and discussion in Wikipedia here. Maybe we should link to this information, or import? 64.229.33.211 09:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Swing states still?

message: New York State has a law that allows parties to cross-nominate candidates for office. Historically, the NYS Conservatives have nominated the GOP candidate and the Liberal Party of NYS have done the same for the Dems. Four years ago, the then-new Working Families Party endorsed the Dems as well. Since the NYS Conservatives and Working Familes should do this again this year, I think it's a good idea to add this. - iHoshie 04:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we include the Fusion parties?
Talk:Argentine Grand Prix

message: The article says the Falkland Wars caused the 1982 race to not be run, but something wrong here.
Wikipedia says
"The war was triggered by the occupation of South Georgia by Argentina on 19 March 1982 followed by the occupation of the Falklands,"
However, the Argentinian GP was scheduled for March 7th 1982 (found a contemporary 1082 source saying this), which was before this occupation and before the war was triggered. My source suggests it was the FISA-FOCA war that canceled the event, but my source is weak.
So... what happened?? I have removed the Falklands assertation, but am very open to putting it back if there's a fact. Guroadrunner (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1982 ARG GP
Talk:Pescara Grand Prix

message: It seems to me that the Pescara Grand Prix is the same race as the Coppa Acerbo, only this name was just used for the year the race was an event of the formula one championship. Should the pages be merged? In part, they contain the same information. John Anderson 11:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd generally support this, so long as redirects are maintained. The race also went by the name of the Circuito di Pescara in some listings, although I have also seen Pescara Grand Prix used for non-Championship years in some cases. However, the numeration relates to the Coppa, so this should probably be the parent article. Pyrope 23:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody else contributed, I went ahead with the merger. Pyrope 11:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Coppa Acerbo?
Talk:Swedish Grand Prix

message: "In typical FIA style the win was allowed to stand, however, which cost Arrows their chance of victory in its debut season."
That sounds like somebody talking bad about the FIA.  I think this should be changed, am I correct? --72.164.215.194 (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. If you see anything like that then feel free to change it. Readro (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks.  I took out "In typical FIA style".  I asked because I'm not a regular here, and don't want to get everyone angry, as I don't fully understand the workings of Wikipedia. --72.164.215.194 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, quick lesson - Wikipedia is supposed to be written in a "neutral point of view". So in this case, someone has edited the article with a biased viewpoint and the article needed to be changed to make it neutral. Generally, something non-neutral can only be included if for instance it is an ad verbatim quote from someone and is relevant to the wider picture. Readro (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks, I've got my proper login now as well.  I'll keep my eye out. --Wes (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1978 Race 

message: According to http://forums.autosport.com/lofiversion/index.php/t62977.html the Swedish Summer Grand Prix was held in Stockholm, acoording to http://www.kolumbus.fi/leif.snellman/gpw3.htm it was held on May 29th in Skarpnäck borough in Stockholm.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsten Freier (talk • contribs) 09:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Skarpnäck is also supported by http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns17976.html. Updated. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1949 Swedish Summer Grand Prix
Talk:Lady Windermere's Fan

message: "…first published…with incidental music by Walter Slaughter." Really? First performed with, quite possibly; I don't believe it was ever customary to publish plays with incidental music, even in the heydey of incidental music. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidental music

message: I'm not clear on why this exists, can it be explained better at the head of the article? Carl Reinke (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: i have removed the claim that play satirize 'Victorian' morals and 'marriage' due to several reasons. 
in addition to having no critical work cited for this claim, following should be noted; 
1/ play satirizes morals in general,not limited to any particular time, or set of morals.
2/ 'Victorian' is a vague term. 
3/ 'marriage' is not morality as article sentence implied.
4/ marriage is not satirized in play.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sittingnut (talk • contribs) 11:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: satirize 'Victorian' morals and 'marriage'?

message: Does Windermere, the largest lake in England, rate a mention in this article? Did Wilde take the name from the lake?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   Windermere 
Talk:Ben Linder

message: While Linder's politics probably matched Corrie's and Willson's, he was not killed during a non-violent protest. Stewart's death seems far more similar. I'm not sure whether linking Corrie and Willson makes sense, but since I found all of the articles interesting, I will leave the links. --Habap 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reading “Blood of Brothers” by Stephen Kinzer, there is no mention of Ben Linder being shot in the head at point blank range. In the book, the author, states that Ben was killed by a grenade. Stephen Kinzer was a New York Times journalist who reported from Nicaragua for many years. The book is part of David Rockefeller Center Series on Latin American Studies. 2601:6C0:C200:42D0:0:0:0:8A22 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: See also
Talk:Hayes, Bromley

message: I found the article much too 'chatty' and with little substance as to the actual village itself. It is NOT a 'place' but a village, for example! The ancient village is hardly mentioned at all, and yet one of the two external links gives a great deal about it - and it included a link to the 1872 map. It also mentioned the two Pitts, and gave the church dedication to St Mary. The main thrust of the original article seemed to be about any London suburb one could mention - surely Wikipedia needs better than that? Peter Shearan
:Be Bold! 213.253.35.7 13:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chatty

message: In this section:
"Both William Pitt the Elder, 1st Earl of Chatham (1708–1778), and William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806) lived at Hayes Place.[8] The house dated back to the 15th century, was rebuilt in 1972, but then demolished in 1933 by the developer Henry Boot"
Clearly "1972" is incorrect. Is this supposed to read 1872, or perhaps some other date?
Invertzoo (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date error 

message: See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Historical_county. MRSC (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical county
Talk:Kecak

message: I think that The monkey chant is pretty cool. I like monkeys. I have a monkey named muffin.
:I have some audio and video of this, but don't know how to upload it. Carfiend 18:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: earlier comment

message: I am suggesting 
* either a removal or blending of the in public culture section - whose public culture? I do not think any such claim can exist without qualifications or WP:RS to verify whose public culture it refers to SatuSuro 09:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe someone responded by putting all the random listings under "Anglo-American popular culture" and leaving a couple non-American listings out. However, people were just adding to the list, and some non-"Anglo American" (as well as non-American) media was listed; I've just grouped these according to media. I think "Popular culture" is enough--that term refers to this kind of media. I think this list has a point, since many people outside Indonesia first encounter something like Kecak through pop culture, whether it's a total distortion (like the larger part of the listings), cultural appropriation, documentary (i.e. Baraka), or even in-group popularization of it (like the actors did in Tarsem's movie). Efrafra (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In ''whose'' public culture?

message: The tag is there are no cites in the first section - the external links might be sources but they are not tied in any way to the article SatuSuro 09:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some references. What else needs to be verified or cited? Hyacinth (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: the pop culture section should be deleted because it is not important to the Kecak dance. the kecak dance is a cultural/ religious dance not a video game or movie dance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.97.208.48 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pop culture section
Talk:List of Honda engines

message: Come on. This article sounds like a sales pitch for Honda. "superior oiling system" is just the start of it, and what I will use as an example. Superior to what? Where's the proof? Why would this ever be considered NPOV? I could see "different oiling system" or even "techologically advanced oiling system" and then text to back up the claim, but the entire article needs to be turned into NPOV. Wikipedia isn't selling anything; we don't recieve grants, so there is no reason our articles need to sound as if we are picking sides. --CTwikipedier 02:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I moved the article from Honda Engines to the (style-conforming) List of Honda engines.  I also changed the individual links to conform as Honda X engine instead of Honda Engine (X). --SFoskett 15:05, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Honda found a replacement for turbochargers in its VTEC engines. - I removed this because I don't see that VTEC is a replacement at all. VTEC will never be able to double your engine output whereas you would be able to, in the correct configuration, with a turbocharger. Triddle 17:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: The engines are listed by their series, and this has lead to some engines being listed under their series. There is a separate VTEC section for engines with VTEC. For example there were a few B-series engines that had VTEC; however, these engines are listed only under the B-series, they are not listed under the VTEC section, even if they have VTEC such as the first VTEC engine the B16A. The B16A and other like engines that do have VTEC are listed alongside other non-VTEC engines in the B-series category on this page such as the B18A1. The list also seems to be somewhat incomplete for example the B18A or the B18A2 is not listed, but the B18A1 is listed. I made no changes to the article reflecting any of this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.13.94 (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  VTEC
Talk:Florida State Road 15

message: See User Talk:Zigger for why I reverted it (and then fixed all the typos that he corrected). --SPUI 15:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Nepalese Civil War

message: Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox "Result" 

message: Nepali is the word that denotes people of Nepal in the Nepali language. Nepalese was the term introduced by the British. People of Nepal prefer to call Nepali instead of Nepalese . Nepal government has already declared Nepali and Not Nepalese. Samirshass (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Use Nepali not Nepalese. Need to use official representation. Thanks 49.181.37.115 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'all are demanding a genre change outside of the scope of this article. If we discuss only this article's name specifically, no English-language books or articles have used the term "Nepali Civil War". Yue🌙 05:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepalese or Nepali .
Talk:Union Station (Los Angeles)

message: Can someone please add the coast daylight to the list of proposed services? I tried to do it myself, but it didn't work. 192.203.40.252 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? 2600:4041:7B25:C500:1D7E:C12C:80B2:E95A (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coast Daylight restoration 

message: I personally don't believe that we really need the "Future services" module in the infobox for now. CAHSR has no solid timeline for reaching Union, BLW has not even come close to making any concrete plans yet for expansion further than Rancho Cucamonga, let alone to Palmdale, and even then the implication is that they'd be reliant on CAHSR's completion of two separate phases with again, no clear timeframe of completion at this time. The Metrolink infill stations have no solid timeframe of completion, and even if they did, there is very little justification for including them since they won't substantially affect service patterns. The same goes for the Metro Rail's B and D Line station in the Arts District. As for the Southeast Gateway Line, it isn't forecast to reach Union until 2043. (Though to confess the Metrolink and Metro Rail entries were my contributions.) Its just all around WP:TOOSOON at best and WP:CRYSTALBALL at worst for extensions that may not see the light of day, at least in the forms predicted in this infobox. Thoughts? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future services module unnecessary
Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 6

message: A request for mediation was filed yesterday by FT2. I hope this will lead somewhere; if it doesn't, either FT2 or I will file a request for arbitration. -- Schnee 00:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation 

message: I'd like to ask everyone who's involved in this discussion (in particular, User:Ciz) to check out the filed request for mediation on WP:RFM, read User:Sannse's comment and get involved in the mediation process. -- Schnee 15:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please get involved in the mediation process 

message: "It may require setting aside preconceptions and media impressions"? What are you trying to say?  
::See below, the popular concept of Zoophilia is highly inaccurate. FT2 14:09, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
And for the whole 'is zoophilia a nonpov term' debate; just read Finalgamer's response to prove my point on how 'neutral' the term really is. --Ciz 02:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ciz, I think it's been made fairly clear by several members that Wikipedia articles must carry a neutral point of view, and this means that all views on a subject must be addressed. While I understand your dislike of the matter, it is your own opinion, Wikipedia is trying to be a definitive place for knowledge, not personal opinions. Stating that the name is biased, the article is biased, et al is biased, using other people's opinions or interests as foundations of arguments, etc. is not productive and looping this conversation. Are there any other grounds that are reasonable and well thought-out for your arguments? Xanadu 07:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "may require setting aside preconceptions and media impressions"