lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Online chat

message: I've looked around at various sources and found that "online chat" is often used to mean instant messaging, but can sometimes refer to any kind of synchronous conferencing, typically in chat rooms. Is "online chat" really a clearly defined concept that differs from these other concepts? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imprecise terminology 

message: This isn't exactly a standard merge proposal, but I'm not sure what to do with this article. "Online chat" does not have a clear definition, and nothing in this article seems to cover what Instant messaging and Synchronous conferencing do not. The article's current state is a jumbled mess that mainly focuses on instant messaging, but also includes synchronous conferencing and computer-mediated communication in general. 
This article is also a level-5 vital article, so it would also have to be removed from the list if it is merged.
Side note: this article was created at a time when "instant messaging" primarily referred to private messaging on commercial apps such as ICQ, excluding IRC and similar anonymous, group-based chat services. This definition is outdated, and instant messaging now refers to any kind of real-time text-based computer communication. Online chat encompassed what is now called instant messaging. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Synchronous conferencing]] and move usable content to various articles
Talk:Fend Flitzer

message: Hi DJ Clayworth, 
Please accept my apologies once again.
Here you can find a rewritten version of my earlier
attempt. I hope you can accept the new version and disregard the old one.
Fend Flitzer
In 1948, in Roseheim, Germany 1948, a former aircraft designer, Fritz Fend (lived 1920 -2000) introduced a small single-seater 3-wheeler named the Fend Flitzer. Initially it was intended to be an invalid car for those disabled as a result of World War II. Small motorcycle engines were used (38cc or 98cc).Small bicycle wheels were later replaced by scooter wheels. The project was taken over by  Willi Messerschmitt so the Fend Kabinenroller FK175 model became the Messerschmitt 175.
In 2000, Fritz Fend created a new 4-wheeler prototype vehicle but his sudden death caused the end of his project.
http://www.3wheelers.com/fend.html
P.S. I hope the above version will do.
--Millisits 17:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier

message: A new section is needed on service availability since commissioning. This is particularly important with only two ships in this rôle. S C Cheese (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Somewhere, and I can see that from Australia, there is a bungle and the ship is being cannibalised as it says elsewhere. She will be out of action for long - if that is to be believed. Failures must not be swept under the carpet; in this sector that amounts to deceiving the population. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:50B8:CF93:1AD8:9D7C (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I just thought maybe the propellers are made of titanium, or partly. Russia and China have an edge in titanium processes so as the ship is part of the war planning against these, there could be a supply issue. At the time of commissioning the enmity between the West and Russia/China was not as active as today. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:50B8:CF93:1AD8:9D7C (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Both out of action again. 213.31.166.19 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section needed on service availability since commissioning 

message: It's been 11 years since the last review, perhaps time for a reasessment? Figured I'd bring it up here first before going to GAR, so... thoughts? - wolf 23:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA status 

message: A parliamentary written response confirmed that the carriers are expected to serve until 2069. This should be added to the article. 
Source (I don’t know if UKDJ is considered reliable):
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/out-of-service-date-confirmed-for-aircraft-carriers/ 2A00:23C4:E851:C701:25B4:6A8D:676F:9214 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of service in 2069 

message: this section should be removed. It does not make any valid point Ncox001 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. A major public procurement of this type will always have opposing arguments. And this one wasn't run particularly well, increasing the critcism. What is there is valid in my opinion, and probably should be expanded on, for example the struggle of the RN to fully crew all of its fleet and the related slow procurement of F-35s. Mark83 (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Program criticism
Talk:Peapack-Gladstone, New Jersey

message: How can there have been 675.894 families in the Census of 2010? Aapjes (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird figure
Talk:This Is the Place Heritage Park

message: It's been years since I've been there so the park may be way different. Also I don't remember the nams of the people he was with or what he was sick with. Actually there are a lot of details I'm missing, so please add them. Also does anyone know if there is an article that discusses the LDS being kicked out of Nauvoo, and Missouri, etc.? Links to those might be helpful if you know where they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.93.197.67 (talk • contribs) 
Can we get a photo showing the view of the valley from the park? --NE2 22:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ntsimp (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Chain of command

message: I think this article should be set up differently. It should focus less on the military use of the term "Chain of Command" and more about the general use of the term. The term is also used very widely in business, and I feel that this article is biased towards the miltary use. Is anyone else with me? --Wornwinter111 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of "chain of command" is only euphemistic in business, since the actual use is management hierarchy or better still corporate structure. The aspect of command is inherent to the military so I would largely disagree that the article is biased towards the military--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea for this article
Template talk:Shortcut

message: Please place the shortcut list div inside of the anchor list div, instead of after it. Currently, the browser (Firefox) scrolls not to the box, but about two line heights above it. In the case of MOS:DABBLUE, this makes it look like the shortcut points to the bullet item above the intended one. Paradoctor (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Redirected target to module (Where the change would need to be made) Terasail[✉️] 16:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

text: it is not clear what you want to change.  Please make your change in the sandbox here: Module:Shortcut/sandbox, test your change, then reactivate the immediate edit request.  If you want to simply further discuss improvements to this module, feel free to continue below. — xaosflux Talk 19:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 27 February 2022 

message: Description of suggested change:
I'd like to suggest creating an additional anchor for the input, without the prefix (before the colon character); i.e., "" would create anchors for both "MOS:SECTIONCOMMENT" and "SECTIONCOMMENT". It'd cover a common use case, in which an anchor is manually defined before the shortcut:


fgnievinski (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. Could you make the required change to Module:Shortcut/sandbox? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deactivating pending response to Martin's comment. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Ha, I just came here looking for guidance on exactly this use case. Sounds like a good change to me. — Will • B [talk] 18:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 11 September 2023
Talk:In Memoriam A.H.H.

message: As a general rule, in order not to be a mere text dump, entries that quote poetry ought to discuss it, for the quotes are like illustrations of points, which should be made in the entry itself. Wetman 20:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: When typing In Memoriam into the search a page for a"symphonic poem by the american composer Douglas Moore" comes up instead.  As I assume that Tennyson's In Memoriam is the better known of the two this page should be the one that shows up in a search and not the other or there should be a disambiguation page.  Would anyone like to fix it?  Kakaze 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "The British 19th century" sounds a bit odd, as if that century belonged to the British. (I suppose in some ways it did.) I'd rather see "one of the greatest British poems of the 19th century" or simply "one of the greatest poems of the 19th century" if anyone can find a source for the broader claim. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Adoniscik(t, c) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "The evangelical idea of unquestioning belief in revealed truth taken from a literal interpretation of the Bible was already in conflict with the findings of science ..." This is an unnecessarily editorialized comment. Evangelicalism as a religious movement would not exist for almost 125 years after the writing of this poem. This seems like anachronistic reference for the purpose of highlighting a contemporary political debate. --68.183.11.35 (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It was and is used by both those opposed to and in favour of the theory of evolution.[3][4][5][6]
All the references for this sentence are or irrelevent or broken link.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.169.85 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The State of the Art

message: Hi there.  Just to clear up why I deleted the date linking (now restored).  Basically, it seems silly to link dates that have little bearing on the article at hand (context is everything).  The case in point was linking dates that referred to broadcast dates of stories.  This seemed silly to me because, first of all, other dates, such as the publication date (which seems more relevant to the article) aren't linked.  I don't support the linking of them either as, more importantly, it's not obvious why a browsing reader would move from a book to the article on the year that book was published.  Regarding WP style, this point is still debated.  The style manual says very little about when dates should and shouldn't be linked (the most relevant page is this one), and there's division on best practice.  Anyway, that's my POV, but I thought I'd explain it.  Cheers, --Plumbago 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, and normally I would heartily agree that unnecessary links should be avoided. I think though that it is entirely uncontroversial that full dates like 15 July 2006 should be linked so that users' date preferences will work. --Guinnog 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The page is quite confusing right now: the article refers to the collection of short stories, first published in 1991, but the information on the right refers to the single short story of the same name, and gives 1989 as the publication date (indeed the date the short story was first published). Eldacan 17:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 
Talk:Luxembourg

message: Alright, I have a question. Why on earth shall we use American English for a country that teaches British English in its schools, and when spoken, more use British English, with the exception of Americans or those who lived there. Just asking, but doesn't it make more sense to assign the template "Use British English". Personally, it seems more logical. Please let me know your fellow inputs and opinions on this matter. I go to school in Luxembourg City and they teach British English and it's quite literally the case in most schools across the country. Kindly do let me know your opinion.
Thank you and have a nice morning/afternoon/evening/night! Atharva210 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using British English
Talk:Torrijos–Carter Treaties

message: I noticed that the article states that William F. Buckley disagreed, together with Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, on the Canal treaties.  In fact, Buckley agreed with Jimmy Carter on returning the Canal to Panama.  Here is a link to his remarks when debating this issue with then Gov. Reagan www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J9TTllu8eU --Schonbrunn (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  William F. Buckley 
Talk:Flag of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic

message: Article says that the constitution stipulated:
:The state flag of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic presents itself as a red rectangular sheet with a light-blue stripe at the pole extending all the width (read height) which constitutes one eighth length of the flag.
So what about hammer and sickle, was it optional to put it on the flag? And what does this width (read height) thing mean? --Romanm 20:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag description

message: Should not the dark blue version of the flag be treated as the official version and the light blue as the variation? 
Even the state organs of the Russian SFSR such as the Supreme Soviet used the dark blue version of the Flag
--DarkoRatic (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what the law says. If the law says light blue it would be the official version, even if in practice it was rarely used. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour 

message: What was the RSFSR's naval jack pre-1922? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval jack
Category talk:Gardens

message: This should be the category of individual gardens, such as the entries on list of gardens, while :Category:Gardening should be for topics in general. No article should be in both "gardens" and "gardening" category, that's mixing two different things together. Stan 21:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of this way; a category is in many ways equivalent to a list (thus the pluralization for instance), so for instance this category is the "list of gardens" while :Category:Gardening is the "list of gardening topics", we having to add the word "topics" to make it grammatical. It doesn't make sense to put greenhouse on a "list of gardens", likewise it doesn't make sense in :Category:Gardens. What you're suggesting sounds more like a category that would correspond to a "list of gardens and types of gardens", which seems rather awkward, plus it's unnecessary - types of gardens will invariably be included in the "gardening" category anyway. Stan 13:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: In an effort to ensure all articles relating to gardens & arboreta, etc. are rolled up & connected in a logical & organizaed way, I recommend the following order or levels for categories & subcategories for this broad subject.  This way all of these categories end up connected to location, which I don’t believe they are under the current scheme.  I realize this is not a perfect solution.  For this org structure, Level 2 is a subset of Level 1, etc.  
Level 1: Country, state/province or city: such as :Category:Texas
Level 2: Visitor attractions: such as :Category:Visitor attractions in Texas
Level 3: Gardens: such as :Category:Gardens in Texas
Level 4: Botanical gardens; Herb gardens; Arboreta such as :Category:Botanical gardens in Texas
The three categories in Level 4 are connected to Level 3.
I believe these categories may have originally been setup this way, but morphed over time.  Also, I can’t tell, but Arboreta may have been at one time a subset of Botanical gardens.  In any case, I recommend formalizing & documenting a scheme to keep the categories organized in a standardized way that makes sense.
Another possibility is combining connecting Levels 2 & 3 directly to Level 1.  I personally like that option because it flattens the organizational structure & makes it easier to navigate.
Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizing related categories into logical hierarchy
Talk:Belvedere

message: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), especially Individual entries. -Exucmember 22:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines

message: This entry does not belong here, as it's not referred to as "Belvedere". See WP:PTM. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lizzano in Belvedere 

message: Belvedere, Illinois 68.12.129.162 (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belvedere - Places
Wikipedia talk:All system messages

message: If anyone ever checks this discussion page... it seems to me that the second column in this table should be a msg: of that Mediawiki page, rather than a plain-text version. I don't think I have the effort to manually go through each one, but perhaps someone with some scripting knowledge could do this.   – Jrdioko (Talk) 21:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's embarassing... it would help to actually read the titles at the top of the columns. I completely missed the "Default text" part. Nevermind the above. I am curious about what the int: method does though.   – Jrdioko (Talk) 21:52, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: You could, but as it is automatically updated by a bot, so you would have to do it all over again next time it's updated. Angela. 23:44, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: It can be changed in InitialiseMessages.inc. Angela. 14:19, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Phases of water cycle

message: Cecilia, congratulations.  This article is very well written (I don't think I would have done that well at that age) and it shows you understand the material pretty well.  I was going to change some of the article, but decided against it.  It's pretty much fine the way it is; as long as it exists, yours will probably be the version of the article that is easiest to understand and most concisely written.  Good job.  --Abqwildcat 21:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Talk:David Drake

message: The summaries for "Ranks of Bronze" and "The Forlorn Hope" were removed due to lack of notability. Whta is notable about "Birds of Prey" and not those two books? David Drake himself is notable in the realm of military science fiction, which I think would permit the summary of all his books to available to interested parties.
Barton Foley (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: According to David Drake's official web page (here or here), he did not write "the romance novel Strangers and Lovers, published in 1986." I've removed it, but I wanted to leave some breadcrumbs for others. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.145.2 (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strangers and Lovers

message: For David Drake's comments about the RCN series, see here. I've put some of this info into the article. (My take: Leary is a lot like the young Aubrey but with Maturin's interest in flora and fauna; Mundy is an "Aspie".) BTW, the next RCN book, Golden Harbor, is due Sept 2006 (in hardcover). CWC(talk) 16:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The RCN Series

message: I've just finished a substantial reorganisation of the article. I've added some interesting information. OTOH, I've taken out some information, mainly because I couldn't see a good place to put it:
* that DD is a "former bus driver"
* that "Drake has a wife, a son, and various pets." (He also has grandkids, BTW.)
Feel free to edit this stuff back in. Please.
By the way, fans of Drake's work and of SF in general will find much interesting material on his web site.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes made 13-Jul-2006

message: Could a better picture of drake be found?107.77.229.217 (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current photo of drake 

message: Removed multiple issues | BLP sources|date=November 2017 one source|date=November 2017 templates because there are now at least five sources. DanQuigley 06:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed error templates 

message: Drake died 10 Dec 2023 (per top entry at https://david-drake.com/) and the infobox and verb tense have been updated but he's still in category 'living people'.  (Not sure of correct way to fix that but wanted to note it in case someone with more clue is watching the page) Rmd1023 (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drake's death vs page categorization
Talk:RISC iX

message: I recall being able to switch to one of several TTYs through a chord of keys. Acorn called this virtual terminals IIRC. Was it their innovation or did it come as part of 4.3 BSD? We see something similar today in Linux but back then it may have been novel and worthy of mentioning. Ralph Corderoy (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual Terminal support through keyboard
Talk:Pope Clement XIV

message: It's not easy to begin with a period piece like this. Wetman 22:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Where is the section of this article about Clement XIV's death? It is an important, albeit morbid, part of any person's biography, and it is totally missing from this page. Death circumstances should be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death? 

message: I mean, honestly, this page is so partisan in praise of this pope that it reads like an argument in support of his actions, rather than a fact-based article.
I'm not taking a side, nor am I familiar with the controversy. I take issue with the fact that the author takes a side, in what should be an objective work that avoids bias.
I lack the historical knowledge to fix the article myself, but I really hope that someone does so.
Here are examples of what I take issue with:
"There cannot be any reasonable doubt of the integrity of his conduct, and the only question is whether he acted from a conviction of the pernicious character of the Society of Jesus or merely from a sense of expediency. In either case his action was abundantly justified, and to allege that though beneficial to the world it was detrimental to the church is merely to insist that the interests of the Papacy are not the interests of mankind."
And
"No Pope has better merited the title of a virtuous man, or has given a more perfect example of integrity, unselfishness, and aversion to nepotism."
Both of the above have been pasted from the article as it appears on 03-Jan-2004.
This is not the type of thing expected in an encyclopedia article. People come to Wikipedia to learn the facts, not to read an opinion piece.
I request that anyone qualified to edit the article to conform to the expected standards of Wikipedia would do so ASAP.
:The thing is taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia.  A lot of pope articles really ought to be gone over and entirely rewritten, I suspect. john k 03:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The major criticism of the article's POV is from 2005 and is without signature. It's a drive by that's been left up too long. I'm going to pull the NPOV tag as long outdated and artificial. TMLutas 17:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs to conform to a higher standard of impartiality. 
Talk:Skidoo, California

message: Wouldn't it be more sensible to put all this information and this good image at Death Valley National Park, with a redirect there from Skidoo and Skidoo, California? Is there a Category: Ghost towns? Wetman 22:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this to ghost town status. It it is totally uninhabited, no buildings left and has been that way for years.Asiaticus (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled