lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:1890 New Zealand general election

message: With this edit, the party strength table was changed back in 2011, with "two from Other to Liberal - Maori results were 2 Liberal, 2 Independent" as edit summary. The whole affair is unreferenced, but I see that the original info comes from Wilson (1985). Party strengths are recorded in a table on pages 287f, and the votes and percentages are in a table on pages 289f. So, I could add references to the original version of the table, but the 2011 edit has changed party affiliation, and that means that the votes no longer correspond to the number of politicians. Can I thus suggest that:
*We restore the data as they were originally.
*I will then provide proper referencing.
*We record the 2011 edit summary as a footnote to the table.
Any thoughts? Schwede66 17:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party strength 
Talk:Persianism

message: I've removed the section that referred to the Shi'i and Sufi schools of Islam as "Persianisms" due to the complete inaccuracy of such an idea. Iran was not even Shi'i until the Safavid conquest 500 years ago, and Persian culture has NOT had an effect on the whole of Shi'ism. Interestingly, while Iranians have only become Shi'i relatively recently, Sunnism has had a wealth of contributions from Persians, and many of the most important thinkers of Sunni Islam, such as Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Bukhari, have been Persians themselves. If anything, Sunnism, particularly the Hanafi madhab and those who recognize the contributions of Sahih Bukhari are more worthy of the title "Persianism" than are Shi'ah.
Bodhicide 06:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:1911 New Zealand general election

message: It would be good if this page said which party actually won the election, or even which party each politician represented. I know there were a lot of independents at this point, but this page is still massively unhelpful. --Helenalex 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a deadlock. The Liberals were able to appoint a Speaker, and won a confidence motion on his casting vote. They then prorogued Parliament for a few months, and immediately lost a confidence vote when it reconvened. See the entry on Joseph Ward for some of the details. IdiotSavant 22:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:1928 New Zealand general election

message: Is there a reason that United is shown as first place in the infobox despite winning fewer votes and seats than Reform? And for that matter, why is Reform listed as winning 27 seats when they appear to have won 28? I'd imagine the answer to the first question is because United formed government after the election, but (apart from my personal dislike of this approach) this is applied inconsistently - the same arrangement isn't followed in 2017, for instance. Erinthecute (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer the latter point, both won 27 seats but the page (for some unknown reason) counts a former Reform MP Douglas Lysnar alongside the Reform Party total despite the fact he had run for re-election as an independent candidate. Party affiliations were not as concrete as they are today and it was not uncommon for independents to take the side of a particular party. If independent supporters of the respective parties are included then the totals would be 31 for United and 28 for Reform (instead of 27 each). Michael Bassett confirms the 31 seat total here if you're interested. Kiwichris (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election infobox
Talk:1935 New Zealand general election

message: I can't seem to make the numbers add up to 80. They only amount to 77 seats won. It says that Reform won 9 seats and United won 7 seats. Which I can't get to make sense. In this article on page 110 it says that Nationals won 17+2 seats. https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/11031/Rollo_thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Then in this Wikipedia article it says "The coalition went into the 1935 election under the title of the "National Political Federation" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_National_Party#History
All this is also supported by this chart:
https://teara.govt.nz/en/interactive/37132/parties-in-parliament-1890-2014
This is my first comment on Wikipedia.
JurijFedorov (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The table doesn't add up, and it also doesn't match the Electorate results below (I count 7 independents). According to Nohlen's book, the difference is in the United/Reform seats – the book has them at 19 seats, three more than in the results table. My guess is that the three independents who were affiliated with the United/Reform coalition have been omitted from the main results table (which is why there are only four independents listed). As they are listed in the Electorate table as independents, I'll bump them up to 7 in the main table. Number 57 22:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Seat numbers
Talk:1946 New Zealand general election

message: The following text was unreferenced and I've moved it here:
:The outcome of the election was probably affected by the abolition of the country quota the previous year. This had required rural electorates to be smaller than urban electorates, thus increasing the importance of the rural vote. Since National was more popular than Labour in rural areas, the change may have cost National the election.
This may well be true. It's certainly what the opposition was insinuating in late 1945 when the Electoral Amendment Bill was being discussed. But it should really be referenced as it's quite a big claim to make. The expert on the matter is (was) Robert Chapman; anybody got access to one of his books? Schwede66 00:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved here from article
Talk:Bute Inlet

message: As with Waddington Harbour, at the head of the inlet, there's a lot of history yet to be added here.  This article has some very interesting tidbits quoted from sources in the course of its thesis/speculation about Tsilhqot'in and Hwemelthkwu (Homalco) settlements and activities prior to the Waddington episode...and speculates about Major Downie covertly destroying a Hwemelthkwu village by blasting an avalanched down on it...the article also has their name for the inlet, and the Homathko and Southgate rivers.Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  quite a bit more history out there 
Talk:1987 New Zealand general election

message: WAs there a reason why the election was held in August rather than November? Not stated in article. Hugo999 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous election was the snap election of July 1984. This one could not have been held in November 1987 as that would have exceeded the maximum parliamentary term. Schwede66 18:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing of election
Talk:1996 New Zealand general election

message: Note that the 2003 reference says that there were 21 party lists in 1996 (p22), but the 2007 reference says 22 not 21 (p87). I have taken the 2007 book as correct (particularly as the chapter is by David Henry the Chief Electoral officer. But the article Party lists in the New Zealand general election, 1996 lists 6 successful parties who mad it to Parliament plus 15 unsucessful parties, total 21 not 22 (?) Hugo999 (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you still have your actrix email address, you will have the relevant info in your inbox by now. What I've sent you are the official party lists. 670 people were put nominated on 21 lists. Schwede66 03:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Registered parties with party lists

message: I've reverted you photos changes. License on the old ones looks okay and they are a lot nicer. Could you explain the reason for your substitution? - SimonLyall (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: mostly cause they didnt fit time wise for 1996. like Anderton 2010 (+14 years) vs 2000 (+4 years), bolger 2008 (+12) vs 1996 (0), clarke 2005 (+9) vs 1997 (+1), Peters 2008 (+12) vs 1991 (-5). the prebble photo i just cropped cause it looks weird to have heads and then one full body photo. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  okay. It's a bit of a balance between the two requirements. Especially with limited numbers of photos available. I was prompted by this comment on twitter - SimonLyall (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok im not gonna change it, though i think maybe some compromise could be not the directly most recent photo but closer than the ones you reverted back to TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

text:  im going to copy this conversation over to the talk page for the article TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos in [[1996 New Zealand general election]]
Talk:1993 New Zealand general election

message: Need to correct page by saying that after election the Alliance had 2 not 1 MPs, Peters now not party's sole MP!! Hugo999 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A recent edit resolved a discrepancy in the vote total compared to the listed party totals so I decided to check these against my data, and to find other sources. Due to conflicting information regarding parties that stood in this election, and the number votes and of candidates standing I've reduced the dataset to verifiable results only. Gone is Natural Law Party, as that article has an uncited claim the NZ NLP was formed in 1995, and the only reference I have found stating they contested this election is from the UK Natural Law website - and suspect this is a circular reference to this article. Gone also is the vote count for Mana Māori as I cannot find proof for this, or any of the other minor parties. These are now collectively listed as Mana Māori, other parties and Independents. Numbers of candidates was previously given as 682, where the Parliamentary Library gives 689 - without any breakdown of numbers. Finally, NZES (which seems to be the main source of electoral data) has an anomalous negative tally, -119, listed for Papakura/Other meaning the "Other" and Total figures are likely out by 238 votes. Fan | talk 12:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party vote totals 

message: There are errors on the map, such as "Lyttelton" being callined "Banks Peninsula" (which was created in 1996).
How can the map be corrected?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.242.115 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good spotting. However, if this is not the only mistake, let's make a list of all the errors first before we embark on updating the map. What else is wrong? Schwede66 03:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Electorate Names 
Talk:2002 New Zealand general election

message: The infobox lists Alliance 8th, but they came 10th. This is wrong and contrary to usual election infobox practice. See discussion at Talk:New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Sixth_Party. Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please confine your dispute over the  to that article's talk page, since you already know where it is. Escalating this by tagging other such articles needs to wait until consensus is reached there. Fan | talk | 20:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox dispute 
Talk:Canada's Worst Handyman season 1

message: * :Canada's Worst Handyman →  — People are most likely searching for the franchise/series, or the latest season, and not season 1 — 
*The later seasons are at Canada's Worst Handyman 2 etseq. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: I am concerned over the descriptions of the trainees.  In particular, I am concerned that the comparison of Merle to a character from a video game lapses from WP:BLP and WP:NOR.
Did an WP:RS make this characterization?  Geo Swan (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* WRT WP:OR */
Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird in popular culture

message: Deleting this article is not neccessary. After all, there are many other articles of the exact some nature. Sure, some editing would help, but deletion is NOT needed. Caterfree10 23:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, any editor can remove the PROD tag at the top of the article.  If you feel like the article should not be deleted, you can remove the tag. Neier 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion?
Talk:Julian Richards (director)

message: There were a lot of categories on the page (too many really) and some had no reference.  All were formatted wrongly.  I fixed a few, but feel I cant add many of the rest with out a reference.Obina 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: categories

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Julian Richards (director) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Richards (director) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Julian Richards (director)]] for deletion 
Talk:The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (film)

message: The version that I saw had nothing about "Gabriel Mateo, out for revenge on the Brandons for the murder of his father by Ann's father in a dispute over ownership of their South American mine." Has anyone else seen a version that contains this information?Lestrade (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I haven't heard that in any version I've seen either. Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: South American Mine Dispute
Talk:Stanley, British Columbia

message: BCGNIS says that Van Winkle is the same as Stanley but I'm not so sure about that; I know there's a Stanley-ite monitoring/editing this page - could you clarify that please?  My impression is that it was a distinct place from Stanley proper, in the same way that Camerontown and Richfield were not part of Barkerville proper, but today are (more or less) part of the same place; I don't want to add it to the Van Winkle disambiguation page without being clear about this; I note in the text of this article it's distinguished and still red-linked....Skookum1 (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Van Winkle, British Columbia]]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China/Archive/Awards

message: I think we should have a (or multi) awards specifically for this project. I just made these two, hopefully as an example, tell me if it's suitable =)!
Image:UniChina.png|For contributions on all platforms of China while consistently maintaining politically neutral.
Image:Chinese Barnstar.png|Great contributions on Chinese articles in general.
For the second one, the award thing can be like this:
AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the "dragon star"... the, uhm, barnstar + white sun + PRC seal lining (is that what that is?) is a bit unclear... not to mention POV. What about monarchists eh? ;) -- Миборовский 04:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this one is much better :p
-- Миборовский 04:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha, I agree. Forget about the first one. The ROCstar though... Isn't it for ROC only? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 16:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the plan. It's called the One China Policy. :D -- Миборовский 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks nice, but it might be easily mistaken as the PRC part of the star is not readily apparent. –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 22:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Man this is tough. I guess the star is already considered by some to be a symbol of PRC, so its inclusion into the award can always be interperated as trying to be POV. Sjschen 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not good with graphics. If anyone can design something else, please do =D! AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: Do we really need a project-specific award? Isn't there a more productive way of using creative brain juice than making up awards?? *hint*writearticles*hint* If you feel someone deserves an award, there's plenty at WP:BARN to choose from already. -- 我♥中國 02:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it might be a waste of time, but it's kind of awkward for not having any award related to China. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait just a minute
Template talk:The Sopranos

message: After adding the timeline and family tree, I realized what's really needed is to separate links related to the show's fictional universe from those related to the series.  All but one of the links in the template (as of 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional universe vs. the series

message: I've been trying to move Bobby Bacala up to the primary characters section, but I keep getting stopped by a moderator. If Bobby Baccalieri is a larger character than Big Pussy Bonpensiero, yet he is up there and Bobby is not.
:Primary characters are based on contracts from the distributor.  Most of the time, that means that an actor who is credited with being in the episode, but isn't, is on contract to be credited with being in the episode regardless of whether or not s/he make an appearance.  That's what it's based off of, just like other television templates.  IMDb is a good source for determining this, as well as billing order (i.e., the order the actors' names appear in the credits).  Steve R. Schirripa is only credited with playing Bobby in episodes Bobby appears in, therefore, according to HBO, Schirripa isn't a main cast member, hence… Bobby isn't a primary character.  Vincent Pastore is credited in all 26 episodes from seasons one and two as playing Big Pussy Bonpensiero, despite only appearing in 21 of the 26 episodes in the first two seasons.  On a more superficial level, Big Pussy Bonpensiero was a main character from the beginning.  The fact that Bobby appears in more episodes than him is meaningless, because one can counter-argue that Pussy's character was longer (from the start to finish of the show, despite being killed off in "Funhouse" .  Bobby was an add-on character that first appeared in the second episode of Season 2, Do Not Resuscitate.  In retrospect, Bobby is not a larger character than Pussy based on the fact that Pussy was always intended to be included in the show, and he continues to haunt Tony, Silvio and Paulie years after his death and seasons after his story arc.  Bobby was never a powerful enough character to fit these shoes.  All in all, the difference between primary and secondary characters is based on contracting, which is based on fact.  If we did it your way, we wouldn't be adhering to WP:Neutral point of view since the division of primary and secondary characters would be based only on opinion.  Geeky Randy (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bobby Baccalieri

message: Should Pizza Land be included on this template in the related section? I think it should because while the local pizzeria has nothing to do with the show itself, its inclusion in the opening sequence is what made it quite notable and a local tourist destination. Another editor who has talked about his disagreements with me on this says it shouldn't. I'm looking for views of other editors to see whether or not the article should be included. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pizza Land
Talk:Ghost Trackers

message: Since this topic was started about the tv show and this talk page says the artical is about the tv show. I undid all edits about the Research Group and moved them to Ghost Trackers Paranormal Research Group.R00m c 09:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 👋 I'm a fan from AFRICA in Namibia 105.232.28.180 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the tv show not the Research Group. 
Talk:Matthias Schoenaerts

message: I edited Schoenaerts' article, as in a paragraph therein it was being implied that he is wholly of Walloon descent. In the source provided, there was no stating him being of Walloon descent or even partly of Walloon descent, but merely that his maternal grandmother is from Liege, and thus (we may infer) very likely a Walloon. I left that part (the one reporting his grandmother's place of birth). Schoenarts is bilingual, his last name is unmistakably Flemish, and his father Julien Schoenaerts was a Belgian Flemish actor who starred only in Dutch-language movies, among which De Leeuw van Vlaanderen, wherein he portrays Pieter de Coninck, perhaps the most notable Fleming, the one who opposed the Frenchmen in the notorious battle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max9844419087 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walloon or not Walloon?
Talk:Terror by Night

message: The film is called Terror by Night but the time of day seems to have very little importance in the story. Action occurs during a train journey under artificial lighting in which the outside conditions have small relevance.Lestrade (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Would it be possible for Inspector Lestrade to become fully aware of the situation regarding the false police without being told?Lestrade (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick study
Talk:Fast multipole method

message: external link * JAVA Animation of the Fast Multipole Method is broken, and I couldn't find an alternate location. Pity, it was nice...
--Goulu 08:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I propose that Multilevel fast multipole method be merged into Fast multipole method. They both say pretty similar things, and any extra info will be useful to expand this article a bit. If no-one objects, I'll start merging them in a few days. ―JuPitEer (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not agree. Multilevel fast multipole method seems biased versus a specific implementation, and towards Feko (see the page). The Fast Multipole Method is a well known, distinctly recognized numerical method. Further elaborations over this method (there are many) can find space in additional pages. Unless you are proposing to talk about the FMM first, and then all the known variants of the method. This would be ok, but listing only the multilevel FMM would be really limiting. Enrico.di lorenzo (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 
Talk:The Doomed City

message: Why the reference to the "Noon Universe"? The article states that this story is not part of the "Noon Universe", but why would I think that? Without an explanation, it may as well say "This story does not feature dolphins."178.15.151.163 (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Sequiter? 

message: The title of the novel is actually a reference to John Bunyan and must be The City of Destruction in English. In Russian, Grad Obrechennyi is a translation of Bunyan's The City of Destruction128.72.116.212 (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Title
Talk:Ayaspaşa

message: == wrong coodinate ==
For this place the coordinate is wrong  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.14.3 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: For this place the coordinate is wrong  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.14.3 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong coodinate
Talk:Allen Mendler

message: Amazon List of Dr Allen Mendler Books and videos on clasroom management
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-4729813-9272661?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=allen+mendler
Does this page stirke anyone else as reading in quite a biased way? Perhaps if we could include some information on this fellow rather than simply a list of books?
138.251.97.149 13:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled