lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of Milwaukee County executives

message: The William O'Donnell currently linked on this page is not the William O'Donnell who served as Milwaukee County Executive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.101.57.226 (talk • contribs)  16:43, 26 June 2006 
:That was corrected 18:16, 5 December 2009 by User:RFD. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsigned note from 2006 

message: Milwaukee County Executive per WP:JOBTITLE, which states it should be capitalized when it is "formal title for a specific entity" and "is addressed as a title or position in and of itself", AND poor grammar: The "the" (in opening sentence) preceding the official name (a proper noun) is capitalized because it is the first word of the sentence and as such is always capitalized in English. . Consistent with all Wikipedia articles such as:
:The President of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America.
:The Mayor of Chicago is the chief executive of Chicago, Illinois,    
:The Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is the head of the executive branch of government in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 
:The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the head of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
:The Los Angeles County District Attorney or District Attorney of Los Angeles County
Djflem (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milwaukee County Executive
Talk:Shantungosaurus

message: It says here Shantungosaurus was one of the biggest hadrosaurs. What's bigger? Those footprints? Maybe we should change it to "biggest hadrosaur know from skeletal remains". John.Conway 18:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Biggest hadrosaur known from decent published remains"? (whistles innocently) J. Spencer 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're gonna have to dumb it down a little doc. John.Conway 15:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's just whistling innocently. It couldn't possibly mean he knows more than he's letting on... Firsfron of Ronchester 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you dumb it down a shade? John.Conway 16:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to be completely impenetrably mysterious. Some remains are both published and in the same size class as Shantungosaurus, such as Lambeosaurus laticaudus and Hypsibema, although both are pretty obscure unless you're a geographic booster ("This is the first named hadrosaur from Mexico!  This is the state dinosaur of Missouri!"). J. Spencer 22:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigger hadrosaur?

message: Are the 7t the weight of the mount, or of the live animal? The phrasing suggests the former, but the later would surely be the more interesting piece of information. Orcoteuthis 11:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's supposed to be the live weight, but it seems awfully light.  I'll have to check on that. J. Spencer 14:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight

message: btw, have bones with toothmarks been found for this genus? HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we have any direct evidence, but a contender could be Zhuchengtyrannus. There is a museum mount and some free artwork showing such an encounter, if we ever get a paleoecology section. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a quick glance at that almost-T.Rex tyrannosaur would make it almost certainly a predator on this species - at least on the sick/old and juveniles.  Taking on a (group) of adults would probably not be in its best interests to avoid injury. 20:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, we can't list potential predators if the sources don't. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  predators should be listed
Template talk:Infobox fictional organisation/Archive 1

message: I propose to add the "Current head" of the association in the template. Lag 21:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one opposed it, I have done it and updated all the articles that were using it. Lag 13:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. (Indeed, there are many articles about the HP universe that are written in an in-universe style.) I'll look to fixing this. How does "Leader(s)" sound? -Phi*n!x 04:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done now. In the code of the page, it will still say "current head" (just to avoid having to fix this in every article that uses the template), but it will display as "Leader(s)."  Someone with the capability of automating it could change the code within each page. -Phi*n!x 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a mission for AWB and/or too much spare time. I'll try to fire up/find one or both in the next few days. --EEMeltonIV 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I feel in the mood for a rote, mindless task. Plus, I'm finding that they all will need some manual attention due to the different connotation of the name. -Phi*n!x 20:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current head
Talk:Shuvuuia

message: The article states that Shuvuuia is the only dinosaur known to be able to flex its upper jaw independantly of the skull. But I remember reading somewhere that troodonts could do this, too. Or has that been disproven? 71.217.98.158 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Troodontids had no adaptations for prokinesis.--MWAK 07:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unique ability"? 

message: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0146638018302195 Dinomarek (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immunohistochemistry has been used to claim fossil protein preservation.
Talk:Siamosaurus

message: Were does the artical get the specific length of 9.1m for this anmial, as last i hered it only properly known from teeth? That said theres this artical called 'Asian Spinosaur Confirmed' it sais this about the material found 'The cervical vertebrae resemble those of Baryonyx walkeri in many respects (elongation of centrum, articular faces of centrum not offset, large epipophyses, prominent ligament scars). The dorsal vertebrae are similar to those of Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, with neural spines which are much taller than in Baryonyx (although not as tall as in S. aegyptiacus). A tooth found with the bones belongs to Siamosaurus, but whether it is from the same individual or is evidence of scavenging remains uncertain.' I dont think that there's much more than that? Whats interesting is that it seems that a spinosaur ansestor must have existed which had tall spines as suchomimus, spinosaurus and now this one described here, all have them.   thanks Steveoc 86 22:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , I know this comment is over a decade old, but that length estimate appears to have come from the "Scholastic Dinosaurs A to Z: The ultimate dinosaur encyclopedia". Found this out while doing research for my WIP draft of the article's expansion (seen here at the start of the description section) ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha! I have no memory of writing this! What am I waffling on about? Thanks for the info, I usually don't like having size estimates for tooth taxa but I think it's fine in this case because of the cautionary bit afterwards. Great job on the article expansion by the way! Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Siamosaurus
Talk:Siamotyrannus

message: In the article it says siamotyrannus is possibly a sinraptorid but the link for sinraptorid redirects to metriacanthosauridae. I feel the article's wording should be changed by changing the word sinraptorid to metriacanthosauridae to reflect a more accurate tone. Ceratosaur635 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group names
Talk:Sigilmassasaurus

message: Isn't S.Brevicolius synonymous with S.Aegypticus? I'm pretty sure they are  of the same taxa. If I  am wrong, please remove the sign from both taxons, but if I am write, please inform me, and I will merge the pages, or, merge the page yourself.
Please get this clarified  - PNSMurthy  (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated elsewhere, there are two competing views on this, so we shouldn't take sides, just explain what the views are. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree it's too early to merge. Unlike with Nanotyrannus, there is no overwhelming consensus on whether Sigilmassasaurus is valid or not. It was declared a synonym of Carcharodontosaurus by  Sereno et al. in 1998, then valid by McFeeters et al. in 2013, then it was synonymised with Spinosaurus by Ibrahim et al. in 2014, then considered valid again in 2015 by Evers et al., then considered valid by a few other papers in 2019, then synonymised again again this year by Smyth et al. - In short, this looks like it'll probably keep going back and forth until further North-African spinosaurine material is found. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

text: You could say the same about every taxon. It's all subjective where you draw the line, what matters is consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: True, true.PNSMurthy  (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second merger proposal
Talk:Sinocoelurus

message: I destubbed this because, even though it was on the short side, there's really nothing informative that could be added to this short of going through the Paleobiology Database and adding a ref for every review that considered it to be a coelurid before 1985 or so.  Any thoughts? J. Spencer 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, this isn't all that short. I think de-stubbing was just fine. I've seen articles that were much shorter have their stub tags removed. As it is now, this article is 3.45 kb. So, no objection from me. Thanks for expanding this article! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  destub
Talk:Sinosaurus

message: Previous editor had problems with uploading image but dubious anyway, so I haven't helped. Should we delete? - Ballista 05:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's coming from Yahooligans, so it's not free to use either way. Delete it.Dinoguy2 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree & done - Ballista 04:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: A new study by British paleontologist Oliver Rauhut in 2000 finds Sinosaurus to be a tetanuran, possibly related to "Dilophosaurus" sinensis and Cryolophosaurus. Rauhut also determined that "D." sinensis is also tetanuran. Therefore, remove "Dilophosaurus" sinensis from the Dilophosaurus article. "D." sinensis represents a new genus of tetanuran, which my best guess will be Jurassovenator ("Jurassic hunter").
:"D." sinensis will be removed to its own aricle when it's re-described. I'll change the Sinosaurus classification.Dinoguy2 22:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rauhut is a German :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reclassification of Sinosaurus 

message: Crusing on the internet, trying to find information of Cryolophosaurus paleopathology, I came across http://www.xinglida.net/pdf/Xing_et_al_2013_Tooth_loss.pdf this. The interesting part is on the last page, it, and all its information and images, are licensed by a Creative Commons Attribution license, and we are free to distribute and modify as long as we mention the authors. This could really help improve the article image-wise, as it includes an illustration (quite a good one), and many images of the pathology. IJReid (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it is acceptable on commons :commons:Category:Images from Chinese Science Bulletin includes freely-licensed images from the journal, so apparently these images could be uploaded. IJReid (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, the uploader doesn't link to a clear license either, I'll try to bring it up on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CC article
Talk:Sinovenator

message: I don't know who came up with the age range 139-128 Ma BP, but this seems a bit too old to me. Zhou et al.(2003) show an age of 128.2 Ma in the upper part of the Lujiatun beds, the lowermost unit of the Yixian Formation.So what's the age of the lower limit??? 139 Ma seems a bit exaggerated to me. 
--Rudolf Pohl (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That probably represents the age range for the entire faunal stage, not this one species. A lot of people have the false assumption that species automatically exist for the entire duration of the period in which they live. I'll fix it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Great Matt,you ajusted the fossil finds around 128.2 Ma.Likewise we have to mention now, that they correspond to the Barremian, Valanginian seems definitely out.Greetings from springy SW-France, from Rudy--Rudolf Pohl (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, 128.2 is solidly Barremian. Will rm Valanginian. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age
Talk:Leo Fortune-West

message: I guess he's notable.  What does "upsticks" mean?  What's "signing of other players"? Simesa 07:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Is his full name as listed here legit?  Roger Triggs' book on the players of Gillingham FC states that he was born Leo West and added the "Fortune" part himself at a later date.... ChrisTheDude 11:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: No need to even put it on hold. This article meets the full criteria of a GA. I've decided to pass it. iMatthew 2008 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is extremely far from being GA and has been delisted. It does not pass 3a at all, and was not properly reviewed. Do not promote an article to GA if you can not be bothered to properly review it and apply all criteria accurately. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA pass 

message: This rapper is the cousin of Jonathan and/or Clayton Fortune, but that doesn't necessary mean that Leo is also his uncle (in fact the fact that Kano's real surname is Robinson strongly suggests that he is not related to the Fortune side of the family) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kano (rapper)|Kano]]
Talk:Sonorasaurus

message: I think there may be a problem with the size comparison between Sonorasaurus and Brachiosaurus at the end of the first paragraph. It claims that Sonorosaurus was "about one third" of the size of Brachiosaurus, but based on the sizes listed on their respective Wikipedia pages, Brachiosaurus was only one and three-quarter times the length and one and a half times the height, of Sonorasaurus. Even given the statement on the Brachiosaurus page that this animal could have grown to be 15% larger than the size listed, Brachiosaurus still wouldn't be even twice as large as Sonorasaurus, much less even roughly three times its size. I think the statement needs a reference, at the very least. 70.210.251.211 (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By "size" I think it's meant volume.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008/10 Comments

message: Upchurch et. al. (2004) tabulate Sonorasaurus as a nomen dubium, but without justification. However, wouldn't you bother placing Sonorasaurus as Titanosauriformes incertae sedis until it is included in a cladistic analysis of Macronaria? 
Upchurch, P., Barrett, P.M. and Dodson, P. 2004. Sauropoda. In: The Dinosauria, 2nd edition. D. Weishampel, P. Dodson, and H. Osmólska (eds.). University of California Press, Berkeley. Pp. 259–322 68.4.61.168 (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomen dubium status?
Talk:Sphaerotholus

message: There are 3 species of Sphaerotholus goodwini, S. edmontonensis (incl. S. bucholtzae), and S. brevis. The synonymy of bucholtzae with edmontonensis is based on Robert Sullivan's conclusion that the holotype of S. bucholtzae is identical to that of S. edmontonensis.
:Then we have to establish who first published the combinatio nova Sphaerotholus edmontonensis and we need a reliable source explicitly stating that this is the name of a valid species.--MWAK (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see its validity is based on Longrich (2010). Still needs a date for a possible emendation though :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sphaerotholus taxonomy
Talk:NASCAR Racers

message: Everyone, pitch in! We need to fix every stub article in Wikipedia, so we can turn it into the greatest encyclopedia in the world. So come on! T-borg 21:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is this show American or Canadian? I noticed that voice actors in this show are mostly Canadian. I think that we should add something to this article.Temuera (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Excuse me, but something is incorrect
Talk:Spondylosoma

message: Spondylosoma has these characters that are present in both dinosaurians and non-dinosaurians: elongate cervical vertebrae with ridgelike epipophyses, dorsal vertebrae with hyposphene-hypantrum auxiliary articulations, well-developed cranial, medial, and caudal chonoe, and ribs of the two main sacral vertebrae forming a U-shaped articulation to the ilium. Although Galton (2000) identified the ventrally bent condition of the sacral ribs as a rauisuchian affinity, Langer (2004) finds a number of synapomorphies aligning Spondylosoma with Dinosauria: sacral ribs facing laterally, horizontal condition of the dorsal margin of the sacral ribs, and ventral condition of the ventral margin of the sacral ribs, and deltopectoral crest present on the humerus. Because these affinities are more like dinosaurs than rausuchians, I'd say that Spondylosoma represents a dinosauriform closer to Dinosaria than to Marasuchus or Lewisuchus, if new remains of Spondylosoma are found. Time will decide the systematic status of Spondylosoma. 72.194.116.63 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters found in ''Spondylosoma'' 

message: In a recent Ph.D. dissertation by Nesbitt (2009) regarding the relationships of basal archosaurs, Spondylosoma is left at Archosauria incertae sedis because it lacks any characters that would place in either Pseudosuchia or Ornithodira. While the discovery of Nyasasaurus dampens the notion that dinosaurs did not diverge from their closest relatives in the mid-Triassic, in the case of Spondylosoma, there may be an as-yet-unknown clade of extinct archosaurs.
NESBITT, S.J.2009. The early evolution of archosaurs: rela-tionships and the origin of major clades [dissertation].New York: Columbia University. Available from: Pro-Quest Dissertations & Theses [online database]; http://www.proquest.com (publication number AAT 3374209). 68.4.28.33 (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affinities
Talk:Squalodon

message: In their new paper describing two derived platanistoids (Platanidelphidi) from the Chilcatay Formation, Ensidelphis and Furcadelphis, Bianucci et al. (2020) use the combination Kelloggia barbarus for the squalodontid originally named Squalodon barbarus by Mchedlidze and Aslanova (1968), hinting that Kelloggia could be a distinct genus from Squalodon proper (it's no surprise that Squalodon is in need of revision because some nominal species are based on jaw bones or teeth). Maybe someone could create a new article for Kelloggia.
Giovanni Bianucci; Christian de Muizon; Mario Urbina; Olivier Lambert (2020). Extensive diversity and disparity of the early Miocene platanistoids (Cetacea, Odontoceti) in the southeastern Pacific (Chilcatay Formation, Peru). Life 10 (3): Article 27. doi:10.3390/life10030027.70.175.134.8 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article for Kelloggia?
Talk:Staurikosaurus

message: Staurikosauridae (Galton, 1977) is useless in modern and latest phylogenetic analisies, because has no definition, is a junior synonym of herrerasauridae and is redundant (altough very recently Staurikosaurus has been found to be an herrerasaurid, closer to Herrerasaurus than to neornithians  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staurikosauridae: an useless clade
Talk:Stegoceras

message: I have a personal record of other species, S. browni. Can anyone else verify this? Ninjatacoshell 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the type of Ornatotholus, a perpetual issue which is seemingly settling on "juvenile Stegoceras". J. Spencer 21:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More species? 

message: Apparently, Stegoceras has "reinforced" interlocking vertebrae that prevents twisting, which some have interpreted as a shock absorber and use this as evidence for head butting. I don't see this mentioned in the article. Was this in error, or is it true? Star Hound (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertebrae 

message: I don't know much about anatomy or dinosaurs, but on the Internet I found only the term "parietosquamosal shelf", as in the article "Sphaerotholus". Could someone change it, I'm not sure if I'm right. --77.77.250.84 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Took care of it; thank you ! (also found some other typos). J. Spencer (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shelp? o.O 

message: Just a heads-up: a new paper from the original describers re-asserts the validity of S. novomexicanum. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just saw it at the DML, was expected, I'll tweak the text today... FunkMonk (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Yeah, while writing this article, I realised the holotype was figured here as a specimen of Stegoceras, so I made two images from it... FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone got that paper, by the way? I think there might be some info that could be stuck into this article... FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paper 

message: I'm boldly moving the pronunciation () here, as the given pronunciation is 100% wrong:  It's missing stress, and the end "-as" is guaranteed to not be pronounced with an "oh" vowel.  Feel free to re-insert with a fixed pronunciation.  The template source code is in the source of this paragraph.–Jérôme (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem for me, especially since it was unsourced anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation
Talk:Magic Springs

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: Move to Magic Springs - name appears acceptable to all and presently redirects here. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Magic Springs and Crystal Falls →  – Park no longer calls the water park Crystal Falls —JlACEer (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I don't think the current page title was ever the correct name of the park. It used to be Magic Springs & Crystal Falls (with an ampersand).—JlACEer (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

text: *Switch to support this alternative. I also assumed this would be ambiguous, but if not, it's a better title. Havelock Jones (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 November 2021 

message: There are two news articles linked over at Incidents at independent parks regarding Twist and Shout.  They have conflicting info regarding the date the incident occurred and the age of the victim.  Can anyone confirm, please?  Thanks. SpikeJones 03:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  accident from 2006
Talk:Erwin von Lahousen

message: Should be renamed to Erwin von Lahousen from Erwin Lahousen  
Fluffy999 21:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Moved. RashBold Talk to me 18:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled