lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Tobin Bridge

message: The article said: "It was constructed in 1948 and 1949 to carry Interstate 93." Is that true? It doesn't carry Interstate 93, and as far as I know it never has; it carries Route 1. AJD 09:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the following from the article:
"By contrast, drivers crossing into Boston from the northwest via the Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, which was built as part of the Big Dig, do not have to pay a toll."
Most people that cross into Charlestown on the Tobin Bridge will continue their travel on the I-93 and therefore also use the Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge and the Big Dig tunnel system. The parallel Charlestown Bridge is also not tolled - In fact, both only "cross into" Boston Proper and not the City of Boston.
Right now, motor vehicles that cross the Mystic River (and the harbor it flows into) to get to Boston on ALL routes are tolled - Those are the Tobin Bridge, Route 1 tunnels and I-90 tunnels. All other bridges leading into Boston are not tolled. This is not an issue of the Big Dig, but of where both bridges are located - If you come from the East, you have to pay a toll, if you come from the North, South or East, you don't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.27.194 (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolls on Tobin and Bunker Hill Bridge 

message: Toxic levels of lead paint were found last year to be chipping off the bridge, including into very densely populated neighborhoods in Chelsea. 2601:19C:4382:5DE0:B5A7:299F:4584:26A0 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the current lead paint situation? 

message: Why are you repeatedly removing section headers and splitting up paragraphs without explanation? The existing formatting of the article is follows the guidelines that I linked in a precious edit summary; your edits do not. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections
Talk:Oromo people

message: I have previously made major contributions to this article. I have a keen interest in this topic and have noticed a few areas where I believe the article could benefit from updates and improvements. Abrasax123 (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Tollens (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2023 

message: @JUMPp1harm is there a reason why you are switching the photos around? Abrasax123 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: is there a reason why you are switching the photos around? JUMPp1harm (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not changing the photos around: I am leaving the status quo. I'm more confused as to why you are changing the positions of the photos. Abrasax123 (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not changing the photos around: I am leaving the status quo. I'm more confused as to why you are changing the positions of the photos JUMPp1harm (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are clearly not leaving it the status quo as you first changed the photos position yesterday at 19:56. Abrasax123 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Abrasax123 @JUMPp1harm Can both of you guys stop? You got the Amhara people article locked and now you're trying to get this page locked too. Both of you need to let this go, otherwise a permeant block is imminent. Socialwave597 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  JUMPp1harm, why are you changing the pictures around? 

message: While the bead crown worn by the woman depicted in the photo by user Abrasax123 resembles other availible photos of Oromo bead headwear, the term used to describe it, "Qarma crown," can be found nowhere else on the English speaking internet. Her clothing does not resemble other pictures of Oromo attire availible on wikipedia and elsewhere.
More importantly, I am almost certain that the light skinned woman in the picture is not Arsi/Oromo.
This image should probably get deleted, but I'll leave that to a more experienced editor as I'm not aware of the policy around that. 142.112.183.63 (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "An Arsi Oromo attending an Irreechaa celebration"
Talk:Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine

message: the treaty of Neuilly:
it dealt with bulgaria and made them pay, as they were the central power iof ww1
:As any student of the Near East and Balkans would (I hope) be able to explain, Modern Bulgaria never had "coastline.. to the Mediterranean" except as an occupying army during the very short time it allied had itself with Germany in World Wars One and Two.
:This is a transient claim to Turkish and Greek Territory Bulgaria was forced to renounce. At the time of the treat Bulgaria actually lost no territory it had held except by force of arms and it had only held that territory for five years.72.75.63.86 04:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Is there a reason why western Thrace and the southern Dobruja are almost ignored in this article? The map (to be found on several Wikipedias, included the Bulgarian one) does not even indicate the lost southern Dobruja and therefore seems to be as incomplete as the article. An unbalanced article can be expanded, but what about this map? Fransvannes (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the map indicates changes that this treaty operated with respect to the status quo established at the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest. Southern Dobruja was occupied during World War I by Bulgaria (and, as such, a de facto part of it), whereas Western Thrace had been a de jure part of Bulgaria even before WWI.- Andrei (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text: The map shows the changes of the borders between the moment Bulgaria enters the war (15 October 1915) and the signature of the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine (27 November 1919). In 1915 Southern Dobruja was part of Romania while western Thrace was in Bulgaria as defined by the Bucharest treaty in 1913. --Ikonact (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Thrace and Dobruja 

message: Does anyone have access to Genov's work? If so, what information does he provide on what Bulgaria actually ended up paying in reparations by the time they were abandoned?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  G P Genov's 'Bulgaria and the Treaty of Neuilly'
Talk:Gino Severini

message: Added a new category to this page  Mike Lawrence Turner 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:E-11 blaster rifle

message: :See also Talk:DC-15 blaster rifle.
*I restored this file because its replacement at Blaster (Star Wars)#E-11 blaster rifle is so short that this page was in effect deleted, not merged. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with whoever did the original merger - most of the content was disregarded because it was in-universe crap of the sort that needs to be purged from our articles. Once this article has been edited to bare minimum standards, it's going to contain about three lines of content - the point of that having it's own article is? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored
Talk:Wolf–Hirschhorn syndrome

message: "statomoric"? I cannot find this world in a Google search, is it an obscure medical term, or a typo? -- Karada 11:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: note

message: A recent WSJ article claimed the incidence was 1:50,000 rather than the 1 in almost 100,000 claimed here previously. I found a white paper from the (US) NIH which confirmed the 1:50,000 frequency so made the change. I don't know how to include the reference to the page:https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/wolf-hirschhorn-syndrome#statistics. If someone would do that, I'd appreciate it!98.17.180.195 (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidence 
Category talk:World War II films

message: I propose splitting this category into at least two subcategories: :Category:World War II films (Pacific theater) and :Category:World War II films (European theater) — deferring to WWII buffs on the actual names. Maybe even splitting the European theater into Western Front and Eastern Front.
A lot of movies won't fit into just one theater, of course; but a whole lot more films take place only in the Pacific, or only at Normandy, or only in Russia, and so on. It makes sense to me to categorize them according to that criterion.
Discussion? (And implementation? I'm not volunteering to recategorize every article in this cat by myself.) --Quuxplusone 20:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to a split, but I'm not sure those would be the most useful or intuitive divisions. A category on D-Day/Normandy films might be useful, and there are one or two others that could work. Carom 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm opposed... as we have WWII films setup now movies like Au Revoir Les Enfants, Grave of Fireflies are WWII films... and, they are... but I wouldn't say they belong to either theater.  Theaters are for battles... not for civilian centric films.  Holocaust films are WWII films but they are not European theater WWII films.  I don't mind sub-categories like D-Day, "Battle for the Pacific" or some good title for films which aren't war films but about people affected by the war... but, I don't think we should clear out this category ever since I doubt we will come up with all inclusive sub categories. gren グレン 02:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How many films do we have? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, 330 articles in the main category. There are considerable more in the subcats, particularly :Category:World War II propaganda films and its children. Carom 14:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better for a category containing 330 articles to be splitted. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm opposed. I'm not sure this split would cause anything but confusion. It runs counter to the traditional methods of sub-categorising films, ie by genre, by star or by director. A sortable list would be handy though. Roger 05:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would have no objection to :Category:D-Day films or something similar. Carom 23:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I split off :Category:World War II navy films some time ago as it was a means of cross referencing :Category:Seafaring films. I considered at the time other splits to the category including geography but as they weren't intuitive to the average film viewer I decided against it. As such I would oppose this kind of split except D-Day and Pear Harbour as major individual events. Perhaps an aviation category would be workable? Mallanox 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split
Talk:North Jutlandic Island

message: The article tells us that the name "Vendsyssel" is not quite correct to describe the island. Is there any reason not to move this article to an appropriate name? Kosebamse 12:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article tells that the name Vendsyssel locally (in Danish) is not used for the island, but for a part of it. But that does not prevent that "Vendsyssel" traditionally is used for the whole island in the English language - I do not know if this is the case, or if the original creator of the article maybe was misinformed. Byrial 12:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The name "Vendsyssel" seems to be caused by a misunderstanding. I will move the article to "Vendsyssel-Thy", which is name the used by Danish authorities. See for example this list of islands. Byrial 11:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: This is absolutely not correct. Vendsyssel is the name of the landscape Vendsyssel, which is only the easternmost part of the island. However, the island is not really regarded an entity of its own in Denmark. People usually refer to North Jutland, which includes more than the island. More specifically, people refer to Thy, Hanherred or Vendsyssel. Until about 5 years ago, there was only one usage of the name "Vendsyssel-Thy": in lists of Danish islands by size. I think the name has been promoted in recent years for one reason: because Google Maps use it. --Sasper (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true. I've heard the area north of limfjorden called Vendsyssel lots of times, though the term was ambigious. If you look at the name historical this is also the original meaning of Vendsyssel. This history is also covered in the danish wikipedia http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendsyssel Carewolf (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: The odd flag proposal seems to be re-inserted into the article again and again. It doesn't belong here, but in the article Vendsyssel - if anywhere at all, being irrelevant from the fact that most people don't use or know the flag. --Sasper 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: There seems to be many misunderstandings arising from keeping the article under the name Vendsyssel-Thy: 1. The area is frequently mistaken for Vendsyssel (as in the flag case mentioned above). 2. The facts that the area has no real authorised or common name, and that it is not regarded an island in traditional sense, are forgotten. 3. Since many versions of Wikipedia copy their info from the English article, these somewhat misunderstood facts have spread into other Wikis. I have written separate articles about Thy, Hanherred and Vendsyssel, but it seems the damage can't be undone just by that. I'll take the step to move this article to North Jutlandic Island. This name is slightly more common and traditional in Danish than Vendsyssel-Thy, and hopefully it will solve some of the problems. I'll of course keep the synonyms. --Sasper 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to North Jutlandic Island
Talk:Walvis Bay

message: I would like to add an external link to a street map of Walvis Bay, <http://www.namibia-1on1.com/Namibia-Map/Walvis-Bay-Map.html> Are there any objections?
Keith Irwin 14:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link to Street Map of Walvis Bay 

message: This article is heavily skewed to the history and political status of Walvis Bay.  There is no mention of many of the other topics mentioned in other city articles, such as government, population statistics (other than a mention in an infobox), etc. User F203 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely right. Unfortunately, there seems to be currently no Wikipedian from, or with much interest in, Walvis Bay. --Pgallert (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: article improvement

message: According to the latest census WB's population was closer to 63000 and Walvis Bay is not a tourist centre. It is a functional industrial hub and although the town has virtually no redeeming touristic features, the lagoon area and activities there are of interest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.156.215 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism centre and population 

message: * http://www.namibian.com.na/indexx.php?id=20409&page_type=story_detail&category_id=1
* http://www.channelafrica.co.za/sabc/home/channelafrica/multimedia/details?id=03101cec-0bc5-48cf-8f2c-e9836b477476&title=African%20Dialogue#.VHXSU5zKJFs.twitter
* http://allafrica.com/stories/201411200944.html
Worth noting? Hcobb (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese naval base 

message: In line 1 of the History Section, it mentions a reference to Bartolomeu Dias and his flagship the São Cristóvão. However, when clicking on the link to redirect to the page on São Cristóvão, it redirects to a page about the municipality São Cristóvão in Brazil, instead of the one about Bartolomeu's ship.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the Second37 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect for São Cristóvão
Talk:Tom Friedman (artist)

message: The NYArts article should not make up the body of this article.  It is not NPOV; an actual article should be written in its stead.  A link to the article, if one exists, is the usual protcol.  I've listed it as needing attention. The bottom line is a real Wikipedia article needs to replace what currently stands.  It isn't remotely encyclopedic to just dump an outside article and call it a day.
Curtsurly 13:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has been removed. Ganymead 20:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: WikiProject Chicago has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 February 2024
Talk:Band geek

message: I think the social band geek section is immature, stereotyped, and extremely unprofessional.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.125.248 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Random

message: "It should be noted that actual band geeks do not usually find it amusing when someone who is not in band repeats this line to them. Many find it to be overused, and an extremely inaccurate depiction of band geeks." doesn't actually need to be noted, and is personal opinion anyway. Sure, it's correct but... Deleted.
The Sando 09:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removed junk

message: The article needs to be organized, reworded, and insterad of just siting a bunch of outside sources, those sources need to be written into the article and then sited under a notes section.  This article has potential, but it definitaly isn't encyclopedic right now. PRueda29 14:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I am a band director and certainly I feel that the term "band geek" deserves an entry.  But there was a LOT of simply incorrect and immature information presented for this entry.  I have attempted to clean some of it up to be more well-rounded.  It's got a ways to go, but this is probably a good start.  --Jfulkerson 02:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update and Legitimacy 

message: This article now has taken out the humor and is more factual and objective. --Jfulkerson 18:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard 

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: Why is this here?  Why is it that when someone removes it, as 71.128.255.102 did, it is identified as vandalism?  That section has no place in this article. It is written in the form of one of those nature documentaries, and contains information such as "The woodwinds are natural enemies of the brass, despite being in the same herd".  I think I'll remove it. I think the section itself is vandalism. Sittingonfence 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: your right. get to it. it is insulting. -Tobi4242 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band Geeks in Natural Habitat
Talk:The Whole Story

message: I think it's incorrect to call the version of Wuthering Heights on this album a remix with new vocals. Having heard both versions many times over the years, I am of the opinion that the 1986 version is a re-recording. Does anyone know? For what it's worth, the wiki-article on the song calls it a re-recording. 23skidoo 04:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It first appeared as the B-side to "Experiment IV" just before The Whole Story was released, and the single lists it as "Wuthering Heights (New Vocal)". I think we should refer to it as that. 88.104.6.64 (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wuthering Heights - remix or new recording
Talk:Terence Cooke

message: The previous biographical link was broken - I found a new one.
terence cooke is a relitive to the traceys and the courtneys  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.213.235 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Link broken

message: There is a link here which asserts that Cardinal Cooke had a meeting with the allegedly anti-Catholic Freemasons. Although I am skeptical about the link and the likelihood that Cooke met with Masons, it would be interesting if we would be  able to confirm that he did have such a meeting.  ADM (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Meeting with Masons

message: An edit which introduced POV into the article has been reverted. It may also have been a WP:COPYVIO. Autarch (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 
Talk:Michael Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham

message: I have just checked Debrett's Peerage 2019 and found that he blazon for Walker's shield of arms specifies three acorns Or, not four as had been written here originally. I have corrected both the text and my illustration. I notice that the text which was here before had no source listed. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blazon
Category talk:Football venues

message: See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Football venues for Round 2 of CfD discussion which was again unresolved.  -Kbdank71 16:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CfD

message: I've created a subcategory for American football venues. Osomec 15:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: American football venues