lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Victor Hugo

message: As Writer was Hugo's main occupation (obviously) and since it is what he is generally known for, his infobox should reflect that per MOS:IBX. His political offices can fit within a module, so the opposite of the current set up. Aeengath (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing Infobox from [[Template:Infobox officeholder| officeholder]] to [[Template:Infobox writer| writer]]

message: He is included in the Rosicrucians category, but that doesn't appear anywhere the article. Are there good sources on his involvement, and which of the many Rosicrucian Orders he may have belonged to? AnandaBliss (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosicrucian? 

message: Indeed Victor Hugo seems to be linked to the occult, secret societies and the NWO and even mass mindcontrol psyops/cults. Does anyone know exactly why this historic worthy has been known as the “poete de Satan”? 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:B9C5:EBE3:D19F:32C2 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was Victor Hugo known as the “poete de Satan” (poet of Satan)? 

message: I don’t get how it is possible to push a Victor Hugo/Napoleon III beef and yet there seems nowtlikewise between Victor Hugo and the (proto Communist/Fascist) Jewish bankers, the Saint Simonians - whom are on record as being hardcore backers of Napoleon III. What gives? 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:6C74:6F3D:68ED:95CF (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Victor Hugo was such an foe of Napoleon III then how comes there is (somehow) nowt beef between Napoleon III’s powerful backers (the SAinT simoniANs) and Victor Hugo? 

message: This information was removed from the article: Composer Eugenie Santa Coloma Sourget used Hugo’s texts in her songs. Source: https://www.lieder.net/lieder/get_settings.html?ComposerId=39387
 T. E. Meeks (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the editor who removed the text; see this thread on the original poster's talk page for more context. Graham87 14:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenie Santa Coloma Sourget used Hugo’s texts in her songs
Talk:Music of South Carolina

message: In general, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists. We do not, for example, have a "List of people from New York City" that includes random non-notable people. Instead, List of people from New York City is limited to bluelink notable people from New York City.
By the same token, there is nothing encyclopedic about a list of bands from South Carolina that includes notable bands and a random selection of the tens of thousands of bands that have existed in the state over the past 230 years. We do not include the West Podunk high School Marching Band or that annoying garage band your neighbor's son has been trying to get going for the past 3 months.
This list, as with all lists on Wikipedia, requires objective, verifiable selection criteria. The applicable guideline suggests three common criteria:
1) "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." This is blue link notability, used in thousands of similar lists.
2) "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria." This is generally used for limited membership groups as an adjunct to other articles. The example given is List of Dilbert characters: Dilbert, the pointy-haired boss and a few others are individually notable, but there is encyclopedic information on the remaining characters as well. This obviously would not work for the tens of thousands of non-notable bands in the state's history.
3) "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." If we are going to have a list of the mayors of Key West, Florida, we are going to list all of them. There is, of course, no way that we could possibly list every band that has ever existed in South Carolina (and we wouldn't want to, if we could).
IMO, blue link notability is the obvious choice. It is simple, objective and verifiable. Opinions? - SummerPhDv2.0 14:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of bands inclusion criteria 
Talk:Luna Lounge

message: from VfD:
A bar in New York. Doesn't establish notability, except to say that there's a foosball table and that it might get demolished soon. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages or a bar guide. PMC 01:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

message: While I understand Anonymous57's urge to make the Wiki citable, there is a great deal in this world that is verifiable but not citable.  City guides, innumerable articles of no individual special merit, and the day to day experience of 8 million New Yorkers and a few thousand bands are sufficient, in my opinion, to support the reality and details of the Luna Lounge, as is the sourced weblink. The simple act of jotting down what thousands have already experienced does not constitute original research.  In general, the history of the recent is often unwritten, and yet easy to check on, and appropriate for the Wiki.  Unless there are reasonable objections to the contrary, I'm going to remove the unsourced tag, which I think is misapplied and irrelevant here and in similar contexts. - Corporal Tunnel 18:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Sources 
Talk:War in the Vendée

message: I’m confused. On this page it says that the First Battle of Châtillon was a great Republican victory in that “Jean Baptiste Kléber arrived from Mainz with a veteran army to suppress the rising. At the First Battle of Châtillon, southeast of Cholet, he inflicted one of the first defeats on the insurgents.” 
But on the Wikipedia page for the “First Battle of Châtillon” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Ch%C3%A2tillon it says “The First Battle of Châtillon (5 July 1793) during the War in the Vendée saw the Vendean Royalists defeat a French Republican raiding force led by François-Joseph Westermann. The rebel Catholic and Royal Army virtually destroyed the Republican column, only Westermann and a few hundred cavalrymen escaping the disaster.”
So who won the battle? The Republicans lead by Jean Baptiste Kléber or the Royalists defeating Westerman? What am I not understanding?
VFF0347 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire war is confusing. I have come across so many conflicting articles on it it's not even funny. It seems both sides have a different POV. (Although I do believe that many of the Republican views are exaggerated; part of their old propaganda, if you know what I mean.) Oh well. I've been writing about one of the Generals, François de Charette, and every way I turn I find something contradictory in all the accounts I find about him. I've gotten to the point that I just write one of the versions and leave it as is. Accuracy is next to impossible. Mlle. Renée Marie (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency? 

message: Note that the film makers and the awards they have received and the film festivals where they got prizes are all a sea of red. It seems pretty clear that these are obscure anti-Revolution accounts of the Roman Catholic side of the story. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films 

message: Should we describe the term "antienlightenment" to describe the rebel forces?  This carries a lot of assumptions.  Royalist could be the least problematic term. PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Antienlightenment?
Talk:Elvetham Heath

message: There is now a gallery of photos. 82.1.160.158 (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery
Talk:Heretic (video game)

message: Vikrant Phadkay recently made some deletions in this article that seem to take out valuable information. Is there a previous concensus somewhere on removing information about games? I'd like to be pointed to it. Until then, though, I'm going to re-instate the information. -Phoenixrod 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the deleted information is available at strategywiki (now that I fixed the link), but I'm still not sure why it's not in this article. -Phoenixrod 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent mass deletions 

message: Previously, this game was listed as having been released on Mac and RISC OS. However, I was not able to find any solid evidence of this other than the appearance of unofficial third-party source ports. If someone can provide actual evidence that the game was published for these platforms, please do so. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platforms 

message: I found a mistake with the description of the ending - as stated in the end of Episode 4 (and in the source code), "you thought you would return to your own world after d'sparil died, but his final act banished you to his own plane."  This is reflected at the beginning of Heretic II, but I'm not sure the flow of the paragraph I changed is correct.  Can someone review it just to be sure? --76.10.151.22 (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to plot end 

message: Are we allowed to list source ports? If so I can write up a list here for submission.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwan1980 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Ports 

message: I was confused by the game having allegedly had a "mixed" reception and an aggregated score of only 62 on Game Rankings, which is contradictory to the reviews I remember from back in the day. So I checked the source and it turns out that for whatever reason Game Rankings only had a ridiculously small sample size of three reviews for Heretic, the worst one of which (50/100) is from 2001. It goes without saying that as such the summary "Heretic received mixed reviews" based on Game Rankings alone, is factually wrong.
I am not sure how to appropriately improve the article, however. The most honest thing I can think of is to omit Game Rankings and use more individual reviews from 1994-1995. European reviews would also have to be treated carefully since some of them may be from the year of the game's heavily delayed European release, when Heretic would already get unfavourably compared to the much newer and far more advanced Duke Nukem 3D.
--F4LL0UT (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reception" section is heavily flawed
Talk:Langer–Giedion syndrome

message: what are some older treatments for curing the Langer-Giedion syndrome?
Lager-giedion syndrome? 
Research on the internet leads me to believe that it's lager, not langer, also on the worksheet i have it's called lager  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.194.85 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If anyone need journal articles to improve this page feel free to get a ahold of me.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Info

message: My daughter has TRPS2 and shes been getting the bone growths and the doctors say theres nothing they can do but thats just not good enough for me. Has anyone had a child who had a bone growth in there joints or on there growth plates and if so where you able to have some sort of treatment done to where it doesnt stop there growth and also can a child with this genetic syndrome live a full life? My daughters 5 and Ive never had the courage to ask that question Im I gonna out live my child?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.142.29 (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need answers
Talk:Matthias Jakob Schleiden

message: This article was mainly taken from Encyc Brit. If you want a recent assessment, see  Harris H. 1999. The birth of the cell. Yale University Press, New Haven. He shows (chapter 9) that D & S were popularisers of the already published ideas of Jan Purkyně. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularisers, not originators 
Talk:Ludacris

message: In "Personal Life" his current wife Eudoxie is identified as a model. She isnt a model. Please delete that. 173.13.246.253 (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but this:  "In Costa Rica on December 26, 2014,[33] Ludacris became engaged to Mbouguiengue,[34][33] and the two married later that same day.[35][36] In early June 2015, Eudoxie announced that the couple had welcomed a baby girl.[37] In May 2021, Eudoxie shared on her 35th birthday via Instagram that she and Ludacris were expecting their second child together. " Is Mbouguiengui the same person as Eudoxie??? This isn't well explained at all.  This needs to be fixed, I can't because I have no clue what this is talking about?2600:8804:400:9E50:B876:D4AA:929C:F0D3 (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Request

message: Number of children 4, baby Chance was born on 7/28/2021 2600:1017:B123:FF0B:FD98:73C0:3A4A:6B2E (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello please provide statement. Baking man (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021 

message: Ludacris has another daughter. His wife posted on her Instagram that Chance Oyali Bridges was born on 7/28/2021 2603:6081:8307:6100:EC13:3131:EC53:E1D9 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021 

message: A little confused by the article.  Twice it says he moved to Georgia at age 9 and began rapping.  But then it claims he graduated from Oak Park high school, which is in Illinois.  Did he move back? 2601:249:1781:7250:499D:ED28:E78:A050 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to GA at age 9, but attended and IL high school? 

message: Luda voiced himself in this video game. Bwgriffin (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBA Ballers: Phenom 

message: There's some very bad grammar in this entry. Someone should edit it. 47.205.57.111 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar
Talk:Party of Christian-Popular Union

message: I moved the original article here:
:Where is the reporting of the great Christian revival which is occurring in Ukrane.  The Thousands who are involved in a peaceful protest are mostly christians.  I haven't heard the mainstream media report any facts about this.
...since it appears to discuss a relevant, current issue — but I know nothing about it, and Google doesn't help. (Is there another, more common name for this party?) 68.81.231.127 03:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Astronomical unit

message: The table "Examples" in this article gives a wonderful sense of relative sizes, although not strictly required in this article on the astronomical unit. / / 
I would like to suggest two lines be added at the bottom: distance to the nearest extra-galactic object, and distance to the nearest galaxy.
I would attempt to add them myself, but I would only have wikipedia to go on, which I believe is not quite the standard required. Nick Barnett (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: why is Earth the only planet that people living on it 41.121.99.100 (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because on Earth 🌍 there is Water 💦,Soil and Air 41.121.99.100 (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two more examples 

message: This article in #Development_of_unit_definition:
> 1 astronomical unit [..] ≈ 499.004783836 light-seconds
Same article, in the table at #Examples:
> Light-second [≈] 0.0019 [au]
I would expect that rounded value to be 0.002 or more, not less. 2A10:3781:11DB:1:1993:C326:C2A3:B78 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Light-second expressed in au is 149,597,780,700 / 299,792,458 = 0.002003989. I made the change Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rounding errors, or contradicting sources
Talk:Heavier Things

message: Let's not call this album his "Second album" -- as he released an independent album before Room for Squares. Room for Squares could be considered his major label debut, but his second album. Any thoughts? Mattbrundage 03:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Changed. Nubby 14:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's not call this album his "Second album" 
Talk:List of United States branch mints

message: Moved all this info to United States Mint as requested by a user on that talk page. I've left this page up for now because I'm not completely happy with ditching the tabular format, though I don't think there's a non-intrusive way to integrate a table into the United States Mint page. Chris Lawson 03:45, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Here is an example: The listing for the "Denver, Colorado" mint is linked to the Wikipedia article about the city, not the Wikipedia article about the Denver mint.
What are your thoughts: Should the links go to the mints, or to the cities?
Guroadrunner 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should go to the mint article first.  Maybe it should say "Denver Mint in Denver, Colorado."  Joe  I 21:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, to the mint article first.  The city should not be mentioned.  The mint page provides a very easy further link to the city, more naturally.  Lalaith (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the wiki-links go to the cities of origin, or the articles on the mints themselves? 

message: I do not believe this was ever a us mint location.
The article referenced was a spoof article...a farce  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.53.133 (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youngstown OH
Category talk:Cities in Western Australia

message: I would like to suggest that this category be removed.  I believe that category :category:Western Australian cities should not be distinguished from the category :category:Western Australian towns, because of the tendency to become confused between whether a place is a town or a city.  For example, Geraldton was previously listed in the town category, whereas it is in fact a city.  Similarly, Kalgoorlie is currently listed as a town, whereas Kalgoorlie-Boulder is a city, and Kalgoorlie is only a town in an informal sense; formally, it is not a local government area at all.  A category "towns and cities of Western Australia" is an option, but I believe that this would simply duplicate the category :category:Local Government Areas of Western Australia (see Local Government Areas of Western Australia for its potential content).  Your opinion? (I have placed a similar comment on the :category:Western Australian towns talk page.)  Snottygobble 03:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Tunku Abdul Rahman

message: I'm surprised that there is no mention of this subject in the article. Grant | Talk 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Konfrontasi

message: I've read through the article and can't find reasons for the tagging done. Please explain whats wrong with the article. Nsaa (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief scan over it shows that it is full of uncited anecdotes, many of which are defamatory in nature. This person is an important figure in Malaysian history, and appears to be the target of defamation in this article.—Tetracube (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup? 

message: "remaining Prime Minister following the formation of Malaysia in 1963, when Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore joined the federation, until his retirement in 1970."
It is unclear to what is meant by the word "federation" within that sentence because the word "federation" is used as a noun. Technically speaking, the act of federating Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and Federation of Malaya formed Malaysia. To say that Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined the federation (assuming federation refers to Malaysia) is a confusing and misleading statement because there is nothing to be joined in the first place. It is also wrong to say Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore joined the Federation of Malaya simply because the Proclamation of Malaysia does not say so. The Proclamation of Malaysia states very clearly that the Federation of Malaysia is formed by the act of federating the sovereign states of North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak, Singapore and Federation of Malaya.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.38.234 (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation of Malaysia 

message: . 121.122.69.39 (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chad
Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 2

message: At this time, I have created basic outlines for most of the sections.
I will slowly flesh them out as the week progresses.
Once I have finished fleshing out the Sources section I will merge it with (i.e. replace, having already merged the info in here, restructured it, provided more content and made it more NPOV (which is not finished yet, it looks POV at the moment)) the Sources of Jesus article, summarise the section and link to it instead. This section is the easiest to write as it doesnt take much analysis to produce.
I will then attempt to sort out the mystery religions bit (the syncretisms section), integrate the content and explain the Jesus-as-a-mystery-religion theory. Then this too will be budded off into some new, as yet untitled article.
Then the most difficult section, about the various biblical and associated texts, and the pointers to Jesus-as-a-gnostic-belief-to-start-with (i.e. Gnostic Priority rather than Literalist Priority).
I will leave the  tags in (for some reason it only renders the first few, the remainder are left as Template:sectstub written in the text) until I am satisfied that I have finished the various bits.
When I take one of these stub messages out you are quite welcome to edit the section, as I will consider it finished. (please check the base of the section first for any stub message which isn't displayed)
Note, however, that the 3 sections (Sources, Syncretisms, Gnosticism) are eventually destined, in my design scheme of this, for seperate articles, so don't worry too much about their current size, or the size of the article.
I would welcome comments on the bits so far (though note that they are not finished so don't worry too much about NPOV issues, as I haven't got round to sorting that out yet).
CheeseDreams 21:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general rule, it usually works better to work on large changes like this in scratch pages, maybe even inviting other to join in editing there. You really can't expect everyone else to ignore your edits for a week or more. Wesley 02:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't expecting them to. I was about to sort out the previous article part (mainly syncretism) and merge it in to the newer article part, which would have taken only a few hours or so. After that point it would have had a strong semblence of a normal article, though lacking in content in a lot of sections, and with the wording not being as nice, complete, or NPOV as it could be. But it was locked from editing late the previous night/early morning, as the admin (one of the group who are monitoring Sam's edits) decided it needed to be locked as Sam was about to delete it or something. CheeseDreams 22:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress on developing the article
Talk:Mii-dera

message: This entry is currently a work in progress. The books I have at the moment do not cover later events (i.e. George Sansom's book "A History of Japan to 1334")
I do intend to continue to put work into it. I suppose you're all welcome to add to it yourselves, that's how this all works, after all. But I do plan to add to it, and soon. In other words, please don't scold me for not finishing it yet.
domo.
LordAmeth 04:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Two dozen photos in Commons -- take your pick! Also see Japanese Wikipedia. Fg2 00:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks. LordAmeth 11:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled