lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Cd (command)

message: "it is also a Visual Basic function which changes the working directory"
What is the purpose of mentioning this? 
If every programming language that has implimented an API to the system call would be mentioned (which is virtually every decent language worth the name) a very long list would be needed here. Therefore I conclude the purpose of the comment is not to be informative but to promote a certain brand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.33.210 (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: I noticed that "chdir" and "cd" are both incorporated into this article, with preference and precedence given to "chdir". Why is this? "cd" chronologically preceded "chdir" by decades, and was indeed the inspiration for "chdir". In addition, Unix has been around for longer and is more important that DOS, so one would expect the title of this page to be "cd (command)". If there are no objections, I would not mind moving this page and correcting the broken links. --Maru (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On Linux, chdir is the system call that is used to change directories.  cd is a shell builtin that uses chdir internally.  (chdir as a system call has been in UNIX as long as cd.) The article should discuss this distinction ... dbenbenn | talk 16:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: "PowerShell is based on the .NET Framework and has a different architecture than previous shells, all of PowerShell's cmdlets like ls, rm etc. run in the shell's process. Of course, this is not true for legacy commands which still run in a separate process."  These comments look a little confused to me.  Consider: ls and rm are not true commands in PowerShell but only aliases for PowerShell's own equivalents; nor do legacy DOS-style or cmd.exe-style commands like dir and del exist in PowerShell except as aliases.  So what is meant by legacy commands here?  And in what sense do they "still" run in a separate process - do they do so in cmd.exe - bearing in mind that the article that explained previously that cmd doesn't create subshells as often as unix does? -09:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PowerShell 

message: Should we add a section describing the use of . for the current directory and .. for the parent directory? I know this applies to many commands and system calls, but I think that information is most relevant here. —Voidxor (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  cd .. 

message: Under DOS, command line cd (as cd or chdir both) behaves as two distinctly different DOS functions:
*CD       (without parameter) is Get Current Directory (function 47h)
*CD name  (with parameter) is Change the Current Directory (function 3Bh). 
Naaman Brown (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  strictly speaking 

message: Info about where it first appeared would be nice. E.g. in Un*x, it has appeared in Research Unix v7; v6 had only chdir (at least according to TUHS images), not sure if it can be made into ref. —Mykhal (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin
Talk:West End of London

message: Moved to "West End of London" to match East End of London -- The Anome —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 17 December 2002‎
:Does anyone actually call it that? Google has hardly any hits for that, compared to "London's West End" and "West End" London. Shouldn't we call it "West End (London)"? Kallog 22:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's also misleading, because it's not actually the west 'end' of London, it's part of central London.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.136.194 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's history for you. Anyway, I think this article would be much better off as West End (London), because nobody says "West End of London".  — Scott • talk 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Does anyone really consider the areas west of Park Lane to be in the West End?  I live in Bayswater and definitely wouldn't consider it so?  Gerry Lynch 14:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a largely historical usage. Bayswater was definitely in the West End in the 19th century. CalJW 03:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: West of Park Lane

message: I'm not sure half the areas listed here are in the West End by any common definition.  Bloomsbury?  Holborn?  Marylebone?  I live in Bloomsbury and I really don't think I live in the West End Lfh 12:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloomsbury?

message: Can a map be added here? Jikbusai 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: I'm listening to West End Girls, from the Pet Shop Boys (it's over now, now it's Tom Waits); and figured I could come on here to find out the street definition of West End, and didn't find it.  I'm sure the loyalists will be bothered by the idea of saying something potentially negative in the article, but I think we need to disregard these feelings.  I assume West End Girls means theater-district prostitutes, but it could in my mind also mean rich literati, the sociopathic kids of the rich literati, girls who party where the dance clubs are, the secret lives of repressed financial district girls, etc.  A) May I have the answer, and B) should the international reputation, whatever it is, of West End be integrated, even in one line, into the article?--Mrcolj 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In such cases, it's best to look up the actual song title on Wikipedia, which gives the answer to your question: West End Girls. Softlavender (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Street definition of West End

message: The current picture lists Piccadilly Circus as the Heart of the West End, but surely it would be more Leicester Square? Are there any references to this? Justgravy (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart of the West End 

message: Is not (and except for ten years under the Tudors) has never been a cathedral. 51.6.82.220 (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westminster Abbey
Talk:Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler

message: One minute after creating this article, someone (195.38.93.131) added information that, to the best of my knowledge, is unfounded and at a minimum, not from a NPOV. Too, whoever decided to use their genius to add to my hard work, can't bother to check spelling and horriffic grammar. Changing an article is one thing, screwing it up with crap and neglect, another.....DW
:I am willing to go and check that Kahnweiler that decamped from France prior to outbreak of hostilities but I afraid that it is absolutely true that Picasso thought Kahnweiler had deserted him and that the two broke from one another during the wartime period. Kahnweiler did again become Picasso's agent but much later. Kahnweiler felt that Picasso was not being realistic and was refusing to recognise the reality of his situation. Neither men were very NPOV I am afraid, but declaring their views is.
:Apologies for my "horriffic" spelling and grammar, pot-kettle-black etc. You do not actually need a comma in every sentence, particularly if you are not pausing in your phrasing. Also "damp" causes damage to objects not "dampness".
:Anon
The new section on the WWI years is drawn from John Richardson's A life of Picasso Vol. 2.
Anon
Is this NPOV:? Kahnweiler was one of the most extraordinary and unique art connoisseurs of the 20th century -- Zoe
It would be nice to see some academic references on the front page; I've been reading Kahnweiler's published interview with Francis Crémieux (Thames and Hudson, 1971) and Kahnweiler's own account of the WW1 situation and in fact of his own long relationship with Picasso (maybe predictably, but it all reads very matter-of-factly) is rather different. VK  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.227.11.233 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick edit
Talk:Beatlesque

message: This should have citations. No self-publicity, and no POVs. --andreasegde 22:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beatlesque

message: HELLO!?
:They were created to parody The Beatles. It doesn´t mean they sounded like them but merely meaníng Beatlesque.--andreasegde 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Monkees 

message: The comparisons to The Beatles as individuals is pointless. What has this to do with being Beatlesque? Certainly not by the definitions mentioned. Signinstranger 16:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen

message: This page is getting to be a drop-in centre for POVs. It needs to be cleaned. --andreasegde 13:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Apart from one or two people, nobody is signing in. Why not? --andreasegde 19:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sign in

message: This article has been cleaned, but now it needs more evidence that the bands/artists mentioned really are Beatlesque. Comparisons of songs and instrumentation, song titles, vocals, etc. should be included. --andreasegde 11:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned

message: As this has aticle has been given a "Merge" tag, I think it could be merged into The Beatles trivia. Is there anybody out there, or I am talking to myself?....... (Sound of deafening silence). --andreasegde 08:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am merging..... --andreasegde 19:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I have a feeling this probably doesn't count but i'm pretty sure the The Pete Best Band's album "Hayman's Green" has been compared to the Beatles typical discography. Would that be applicable to add if sources are found? The band itself isn't very notable but it's fairly notable in the context of Beatles history.--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pete Best Band
Talk:Trans-Siberian Railway

message: "The track was a single track and as such could only allow train travel in one direction." 
This is nonsense. Single track railroads, including the Trans Siberian, are always built with passing tracks and sidings, signals and timetables allowing operation in both directions.
Yes, of course! Have amended article to indicate this. I have a quote from the Tolstoy or Moscow Conference (1944) that Stalin said the daily capacity of the Trans-Siberian was 36 trains of which 26 could be spared for military use. Will work it in somewhere. Hugo999 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single track? 

message: So the railway was built as single-tracked, but the article does not tell if this is still the case. Is it currently single-tracked, double-tracked or a combination of these? If it is not entirely double-tracked, are there any plans or work in progress to make it so?
130.234.6.147 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK it was double-tracked and electrified throughout, during Soviet times. Some achievement! Moonraker12 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double-tracked? 

message: The Route description section had an update notice, reading "There are now eleven time zones in Russia, which currently observe times ranging from UTC+02:00 to UTC+12:00. This may affect the number of time zones the Trans-Siberian Railway runs through".
This is actually not correct (see map): The old Soviet Union stretched from UTC+2 to UTC+12 (11 time zones), but western Russia is in UTC+3 (ie. Russia itself covers 10 zones). However the text stated that the TSR passed through seven zones, while the correct number is eight (from Moscow, UTC+3 to Vladivostok UTC+10). I have corrected the text and removed the update notice; I trust that is OK with everyone. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, Kaliningrad is in UTC+02:00 so Russia actually covers 11 time zones, not 10. However, this is not really relevant to the Trans-Siberian, I agree with your wording in the article. Salmin (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for concurring on the time zone issue: and my apologies, I had forgotten about Kaliningrad! (What an admission!) Moonraker12 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time zone update notice 

message: after all, mos info about it is now nearly 10 years old with no info if proposed plan worked as expected.
2A00:1028:9198:E50E:7C36:3949:13E7:B9D7 (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  status of modernization ? 

message: The article does not say much about what condition the railway was in during this time. Jokem (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII Condition
Talk:Battle of Kosovo

message: As the previous RfC highlighted; infoboxes are designed for quick fact-checking. Thus, the inclusion of the belligerents itself bear the same exact issue by violating MOS:INFOBOX:  This issue centers around: the Knights Hospitaller, Principality of Muzaka, and Jonima Family, which all has considerably low scholarly consensus, as reflected in the article's lack of overall coverage on their involvement.
The belligerents' inclusion to the infobox stemmed from the incorporation of their leader, a decision which the latest RfC demonstrated to be a mistake. Edit history shows that neither the inclusions of the belligerents nor their leaders were backed by overall RS/consensus among editors. Additionally, conflicting information from RS adds to their lack of credibility:  (John V. A. Fine, p. 409). I trust that the previous RfC provided valuable insights into relevant guidelines for all involved editors, with the hope of preventing yet another RfC about the article's infobox. --Azor (talk). 21:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC was about the commanders section, not the belligerents section. You can file a discussion at RfC about changes to the current version.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belligerents
Talk:Fylingdales

message: Fylingdales is the correct spelling of this place.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevilley (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 December 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Now i may be as thick as a whale omelette (c. Blackadder) but why no mention of giant golf balls on this page?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybriggs (talk • contribs) 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are looking for information there is a mention on the linked article RAF Fylingdales. Keith D (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Golf balls

message: There is conflicting information on the location of RAF Fylingdales in the article. The reference given really does not spell out where it is just uses the name. Has anyone information as to which parish it is in with reference. Obviously to takes its name from this parish but the original planned location and later moving is that sourceable? Keith D (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I had something useful to add here. Using Magic I think I see that the RAF station is in the parish of Lockton but I wouldn't quote me as a verifiable source on that - I find Magic quite hard to use, may have messed up, and have NO idea how my personal observation on Magic could be, in a month of Sundays, transformed into anything even vaguely citeable! (It's currently of the form do this, click this, select that then deselect those, and finally click there then read what it says in the popup window.) I thought OS Maps gave civil parishes but I have not found it on the relevant ones if it's there. Probably due to incompetence. Tsk. I suppose the other thing could be to say that the station is on the A169 between Eller Beck Bridge and the Hole of Horcum, or whatever? Hmmmmm ... DBaK (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit confusing on the OS map as the parish boundaries skirt the base. It had me looking for my reading glasses!!. There is a planning permission online here, so definitely Lockton, but this may not be permanent enough to use as a ref. (Interesting background stuff lower down the ref page, though)--Harkey (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have removed the contradictory bit and inserted a note indicating it is named after the place. Looking at the map it is not in Scarborough district which this parish is it is over the border in Ryedale. I have left the rest for now hoping to get a reference for it. Keith D (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RAF Fylingdales
Talk:Waterways in the United Kingdom

message: Have moved incomplete canal listing to a new page of its own similar to the UK rivers page. 194.168.3.18 10:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moved

message: I prose a Waterways of the United Kingdom project (along the lines of the UK Railways Project). Please add your support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Waterways of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett 14:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project proposal

message: The canal system of the UK is about to undergo a shake-up, with canals in England remaining under the UK government, but Scottish canals gradually becoming charities (or similar). I'm a member of a cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament concerned with waterways, and I'm happy to pass on the latest changes. Renata (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there has been a very recent political U-turn, British Waterways (in England and Wales) is to become a third sector charitable body similar to the National Trust, and British Waterways Scotland is to remain under the Scottish Government, though perhaps merged within one grouping with other water-interest bodies such as Scottish Water and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.  Jamjarface (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Break up of UK waterways
Talk:Cover version

message: This reads like a kid's essay or something. Nothing is necessarily false but it doesn't really add anything beyond the author's speculations about cover intent which isn't very relevant IMO  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.231.153 (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: The 'Incentives to make duplicate recorded versions of a song' section

message: I am 71, I do not recall hearing this word before the 1990s. I may have, but as memory serves me, a began to hear it a lot rather fast, in the scheme of things. I submit that it became a buzz word, or what the Fowlers called a "vogue word", and as such indicated ones sophistication, insider awareness, or hipness when used. Hence excuses were in place to use it as much as possible, so that artists viz. singers or instrumentalists didn't perform a song anymore, they did, or made, a cover, and their rendition was a "cover" i.e. they "covered" it. Gag me with a spoon as Moon Unit Zappa used to say. I like to sing in the shower, and this morning I did a cover of "Ol' Man River". I don't know whether I'd covered Jerome Kern or Paul Robeson (who probably 'covered' it himself).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.112.111 (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Gag me too! Can't stand it. Has there been any published criticism of the hysterically frequent use of this term? Who started it? What huge power made it so universal so fast? My main thought on this has always been: a great song covers a fine singer, whereas a great singer does not try to cover a fine song. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with these concerns - I raised them a few months ago at WT:MOSMUSIC#Use of term "cover version" in popular music, but no-one seemed keen about taking any action.  What is the best course of action?  A coordinated approach, but where? WT:WTW?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV? Undue weight? I don't know. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

text: The term was not (note: not) normal in the 1960s. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cover" a buzz word  

message: The redirect Youtube Vocal covers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  TartarTorte 17:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Youtube Vocal covers]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Apple pie

message: The picture as currently shown isn't a pie, it's cheesecake. :)
I don't know how to fix that; could we have the old picture back?  Not that I don't like the new one--but it doesn't illustrate the topic. --Minority Report 21:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think my idea of replacing it with a pic of Alyson Hannigan is best :-) .... Icundell 21:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The picture has changed

message: Read the article sugar beet. People did not consider its use in sugar production until nearly the 19th century, and it was only in that century that production actually became commonplace (in France and Germany due to war). As far as I am aware, Sugar Beet sugar only took over in the British Isles during World War II. We would probably not use sugar beet in Ireland now but for the fact that its production became essential to the farmers here (and it does grow really well), and so it became part of Western agricultural protectionism.
I've no idea when sugar beet started to be used in the US, but I don't believe it's as common there as cane sugar (beet sugar is near universal in Ireland by contrast).
Mind you, friends from abroad have told me they like the distinctive taste of the beet sugar, and certainly I am quite accustomed to it. (Cane sugar is nice IMO, but I wouldn't feel the need to switch!)
zoney ♣ talk 15:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sugar beet

message: Does/did this thing exist, outside of Wikipedia or its spawn? As of today, New York seems to be served by the New York Apple Association, which doesn't mention a predecessor. Vermont and Connecticut have "Marketing Boards", but that seems about it.
Dubious indeed. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Marketing Board of New York? 

message: In the gallery section of the article, there are two pictures of open-topped dishes. The Wikipedia article on Tart suggests that tarts are open topped and pies are covered with pastry. Note that this isn't strictly true in the UK, where "apple tart" is the common name for a covered top apple dish.
The pictures should be removed. While "tart" can refer to open or closed topped dishes, is the same true in reverse? --82.2.5.153 (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery: pies or tarts? 

message: In the Pie section on wikipedia it's recorded that the first Pie recipe is from an tablet from 2000+ BC in Sumer, it feels highly unlikely that it took 3300+ years before someone came up with the idea to instead use one of the most common fruits in history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.128.2 (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin should be something like 'earliest record'
Talk:Stinking badges

message: This article was created in 2002, 15 years ago. About 10 years ago the Popular Culture lists were removed. I believe, that over time the consensus of what constitutes a proper Wikipedia article has evolved. In particular the idea that an article about a common phrase, or cultural trope (meme), is a proper topic for a Wikipedia article has taken root, and become consensus. The norm for what constitutes a list and not an article in this particular subset of articles has evolved until I now see a great many articles with lists longer than what I put in here. I think that the list I inserted in not common and acceptable.
I do not have time right now to reference them all. Please be patient and the references will appear. Or put them in yourself to help me. Thanks, Nick Beeson (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I put in a lot of work contributing to this article only to find it reverted. Thanks assholes 2600:100B:A008:689B:61B3:2809:AFEB:99F2 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Transformers episode 80 Ghost In The Machine