lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Chital

message: The first paragraph of this article calls the chital a "large" dear, yet late describes it as otherwise:  "A chital stands about 90 cm tall at the shoulder and masses about 85 kg."  A height of 90 cm is not large at all, in comparison to human size nor other species of deer.  Why?  Slow Graffiti 05:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What is the plural of Chital? --CyclePat (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plural

message: I'm going to need a citation to believe that a deer eats it's own antlers. 142.36.61.58 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: antler eating?

message: I see this was nominated for GA, but it does not fullfill the comprehensiveness criterion, as there is no taxonomy section, and no mention of the two subspecies or what separates them. It would also seem that all info at Sri Lankan axis deer could simply be merged into here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy section 

message: I'm a bit confused by the pronunciation listed on the page, as it must be wrong, considering it uses "ch" instead of "tʃ"?
I would just fix that myself if that were the only issue, but I'm unsure whether the "i" should be "ɪ" or "iː" (or perhaps it is "i" like in "serious"?), and then a little unsure whether the "a", listed as "ə" should be "æ" or if "ə" is correct...
So yeah, in summary I don't know enough to fix this pronunciation, but would be really happy if someone would get it fixed!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.184.239 (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chital. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612095752/http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/Pitra%20deer.pdf to http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/pitra%20deer.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120626141712/http://www.staradvertiser.com:80/news/breaking/159949735.html?id=159949735 to http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/159949735.html?id=159949735
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 First failed because of robots.txt, second is okay. Worldbruce (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is it that the Axis (genus) redirecred here to this page? I think the genus is worthy for article creation. Is this the type species for the above named genus? Thanks Jp2593 (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Inquiry

message: I added scientific data regarding new confirmed sightings in Colombia. I has scientific background but another user just removed it. Mapache1998 (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information about confirmed sightings in Colombia.
Template talk:Communism sidebar/Archive 1

message: I don't like where this is going. Let's leave it as it is, and if it doesn't fit on a page, then we'll just have to link to it.
The way things are headed, we'll argue and argue and this -- like every other heated debate I've seen here -- until the article is thoroughly destroyed. Already the hammer and sickle is gone (an image which fit quite nicely in the horizontal version, I might add...)
Frankly, I was happy with the horizontal version -- you can see it in the history, but at least (although I suspect ONLY) one person didnt like it, so it was killed. Pity; I was quite proud of it, too...
Anyway, I'm going to pout some more and lement my lost horizontal template... *sob*
Good luck finding a solution.
-- Oceanhahn 08:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is long, ugly, incomplete, arbitrary, lacking meaningful integrity: the only thing that unites it is the word "communism". There are reasonable suggestions here, to be implemented:
*to split
*to horizontalize the pieces
*to use small font, see, e.g., :template:CEG: you cannot tell that it lists 54 (Fifty Four!) items.
Mikkalai 21:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I endorse your idea. The only thing I have to add is that things like Anti-Communism and the rest of the "other" category should be included in the main communism template. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsettling Trend 

message: For communist ideologies, can someone explain to me what the difference between the Left Opposition and Trotskyist ideologies were?  I've removed Left Opposition and Right Opposition.  Those were factional fights, not ism's. Ruy Lopez 04:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  template changes 

message: This template is called "Communism" but it actually about authoritarian movements who have hijacked the term.   Therefore, no anarchist movement belongs directly in it, and it is insulting for anarchists to be associated with "Communism" in this sense.  However, anarchists are communists in the literal sense of the term, so Anarchism (Anarcho-communism if you insist) should be added at the bottom as a "see also", just as the Anarchism template has a "Related subjects" section. — Chameleon 09:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll support this compromise. —thames 13:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is and it isn't 

message: Why is Stalinism (as well as the TERM) Marixism-Leninism always deleted from the infobox. They were under the RELATED SUBJECTS section. Surely they're RELATED SUBJECTS.
: Jareand 23:54, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree that they are related, but the related subjects section seems to be only links that are related to communist theory.  Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism, (along with Juche--also routinely removed) are all governing ideologies.  They are more unique to their country than to communism, in theory.  That, and they contribute to template bloat.  Links to Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, and Juche are only one click away from the template itself. —thames 01:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Subjects
Talk:WCW World War 3

message: The pictures are all messed up. The World War 3 '96 poster shows the WW3 '97 picture. Tyler Warren  (talk/contribs)  00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the pages for each pic. WCW used the date they released the VHS tape (i.e. they released World War 3 1996 in 1997, so they used '97 on it). Don't know why, but they did. TJ Spyke 02:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Nash elimnated both Luger and Hall at the same time to win the match, not just Hall.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.137.34 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1998

message: I know it says 1998, but the videotape box you have listed for 1998 is from 1997. That's one of the closing scenes of the show.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.198.148 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It was set up correctly, but someone changed it for some reason without looking into it. I fixed it now. All you have to do is research and you'll see that WCW messed up. There are countless reviews that point this out on various websites as well as product listings that show the proper year of the event. TheGary (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1997 box in 1998 

message: " Each ring was assigned a number. From left-to-right on the TV screen ring #1 was on the left, ring #2 was the center ring and ring #3 was on the right."
Bolded was inaccurate for ring numbers for the 1995 WCW World War PPV at least.  I haven't seen 1996, 1997 or 1998 World War 3 PPVs to check if they also follow 1995's ring numbers system or if they follow the ring number system in the World War 3 article.
I was watching the 1995 WCW World War 3 PPV on the WWE Network today and during the PPV the commentators referred to center ring as Ring #1, the commentators referred to the ring that was the closest to the entrance as Ring #3 and the commentators referred to the ring farthest away from the entrance as Ring #2. The source for these ring numbers would be the 1995 WCW World War 3 PPV on the WWE Network. (The Ric Flair vs Sting match at the 1995 World War 3 PPV used all 3 rings) So the ring numbers on the 1995 World War 3 PPV were different to the ring numbers in this WCW World War 3 article.
The rings were also laid out in a triangle formation and not in a straight line. (I feel that mentioning the formation layout of the 3 rings is important to the article because someone who has never seen a World War PPV would think that the 3 rings would be in a straight line like I thought before watching the 1995 WCW World War 3 PPV.), each ring had 2 commentators with the Top Left being Eric Bischoff & Dusty Rhodes for Ring #2, Top Right being Chris Cruise & Larry Zbyszko for Ring #3 and the Center ring being Tony Schiavone  & Bobby Heenan for Ring #1 and finally the 3 giants in the World War 3 PPV were Hulk Hogan in the center ring,
Yeti was in the ring that was closest to the entrance and The Giant was in the ring farthest away from the entrance.- 2A02:C7D:C28:4B00:69F9:B3:3471:1742 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ring numbers either varied from War War 3 PPV to War War 3 PPV.
Talk:Stand on one's head

message: This subject here isn't really worth having its own page.  This is just a saying hockey people use to say a goalie has played well.  It doesn't have a history, such as the term "Hat Trick", nor does it having any conflicting views or something of that type.  This can very easily be added to the Goaltender article, and would make much more sense there.  Kntrabssi 05:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be put into the goaltender article, but I am fimilar enough with wikipedia to do that.--68.45.76.174 01:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:André Harvey (MP)

message: Is this the same as A.V.M.J.B. Harvey of Scouts Canada, who was awarded the Bronze Wolf, the only distinction of the World Organization of the Scout Movement, awarded by the World Scout Committee for exceptional services to world Scouting in 1974? Chris 05:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to know too because the article says nothing about it either way, so I'm leaving the article unrated for now.  If anyone can confirm either way, please let me know. Rlevse 12:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity
Talk:Vendo

message: Who wrote this ? Vendo's sales department ?
:It's a clear copyvio from [www.vendoco.com/history.php].  I've marked it as such, and will move the earlier pre-copyvio page to the temp article. -- Kaszeta 14:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it was definitely a copyvio from the history page. I rewrote it including information from sources other than the company's website, so it's not a copyright violation anymore. I also removed the stub tag, as I believe it is clearly beyond stub-class.Sesamehoneytart (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint
Talk:USO (disambiguation)

message: Someone please make a page about Unidentified Submerged objects. I just saw that on the history channel and thats a amazing phenomenon...Way more kool then UFO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.64.114 (talk • contribs) 
:   Someone please consult amazement, phenomenon & wikt:phenomenon.--JerzyA (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Great Turkish War

message: --98.152.71.2 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that somebody had already remarked. But I want to reapat. Great Turkish War began in 1683 by the second siege of Vienna.  The clashes between 1667-1681 were not a part of the Great Turkish War and after the peace of Vasvar in 1664 Austria the main belligerent was not involved in such clashes. Thus the first section of this article should be deleted. (It can be linked to previous wars if desired.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree about the classification, but it can stay as a background section assuming actual historians feel the wars are linked. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

message: Some sources list the Kingdom of Hungary being on the side of the Ottoman Empire in the war. Apparently, Hungary was divided between Protestants, Catholics, and Muslims at the time. Should it be deleted from the Holy League side or added on the Ottoman Empire side as well? -Dominator1453 (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom of Hungary 

message: This article needs a complete rewrite.  It's badly organized and the dates show  up without accompanying years so that it's  impossible to follow events within sections or see how they relate to events in other sections.
100.15.120.122 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article clearly needs a lot of work and especially clearer organization. Chamboz (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article needs a rewrite, and if I may notice, the German version of the article, gives a far better overview of the events and important battles. Here in English version it all ends with Siege of Vienna, which makes no sense. Unfortunately, my German is not good enough to translate it to English, but I suggest just translating and incorporating the important events (Siege of Buda, Second Battle of Mohacs, Battle of Zenta, etc) from German version here. Franjo Tahy (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite 
Talk:Jorma Taccone

message: It was revealed on the first TLI podcast that his birthday is March 19th (1977?). It's not hugely important to me, but a lot of people have been wondering, so it should probably be added to his page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.27.179 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jorm's Birthday 

message: The 'R' is not silent. It's pronounced Yorr-mah. But the guy is free to pronounce his name like he wants. See Jorma Kaukonen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalli (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jorma is a Finnish name 

message: is not an snl digital short.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.221.23 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  We Like Sports
Talk:Fetal protection

message: Go Fetuses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chooserr 06:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Talk pages are not a place to post nonsense that doesn't pertain to discussion of the article. That is the purpose of a user page. -Kyd 07:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I find it quite POV that under the "See also" section is the link "Partial-birth abortion". For one, this is not a medical term, but an example of biased language, and in addition, the term is redirected since the actual article is Intact dilation and extraction. I think that the "See also" should reflect the actual article title, and am thus going to change it. If anyone disagrees with this, please voice your concern here. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 20:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" section
Talk:Italian War of 1551–1559

message: With respect to the other wikipedias, I propose to move the section "Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis" to a separate article. --Rudoleska (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think that's a good idea at the moment.  While Cateau-Cambrésis might, indeed, have enough potential material to warrant a separate article at some point, all splitting will do now is turn one almost-stub into two stubs, which won't really benefit the reader. Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cateau-Cambrésis 

message: I'm surprised to see there is no mention of this battle which happened in 1552 and arguably was the worst defeat of Charles V.90.9.27.67 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege of Metz 

message: Search of Wikipedia for the 16th century "Anglo-French Wars" automatically redirects to "Italian Wars", but the Anglo-French conflicts of that century had virtually no connection with what was going on in the Mediterranean. Much of the conflicts between France, its Scottish allies and England at this time (particularly the 1540s and 1550s) resolved around naval conflict in the Channel, but the articles ignore this theatre totally and ignore the separate conflicts involving the northern states. If the "Italian Wars" articles are not going to discuss what was happening with conflicts in the non-Mediterranean world, can the redirect be removed so that useful articles on Anglo-French Wars (16th century) can be input? Rif Winfield (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, keep in mind that many of the articles in question—and this one in particular—are quite incomplete; they omit the northern theater simply because that material hasn't been written yet.  So, if you have the time and inclination, please feel free to add in the missing sections here.  Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Ottoman participation was inconsistent, unfocused, and for this conflict mostly engaged by privateers. This explains the lack of any grand strategy. The ottomans remained in low level conflict with Spain until almost 1580! Conflict was the Safavids were the Turks main focus Joeykev (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-French Wars 

message: The article on Pius IV refers the "disastrous experience in the Italian War of 1551-59", but this article does not mention that the Papacy was involved at all. Can someone correct this omission?. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE19:6A40:1C14:8DC7:244E:92D9 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the statement about alba is incited I added another statement about how alba sacked settlements in the Papal States in his preemptive attack. More info can be found on Italian Wikipedia under “salt war” Joeykev (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papacy
Talk:Hatzor Airbase

message: The date of the base takeover by IDF is obviousely wrong, since the Brittish left Palestine no later than May 1948.--Nitsansh 06:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hebrew article (he:חצור (בסיס)) specifically mentions Nov 9. I couldn't verify this either way from other sources (inc. the IAF's website). altmany 10:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that on the Hebrew version too, but it can't be right. The Brittish left Palestine no later than May 14th, the date of Israel independence.--Nitsansh 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true, but some British bases were taken over by Arabs and only captured by the IDF later in the war (Ben Gurion International Airport, then called "Lyddia Airfield" is a good example). altmany 19:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IAF takeover date

message: Also the date of the burning of airplanes by the Irgun contradicts the article on the history of Kibutz Hatzor in its website. That article mentions that incident as being several weeks before the Kibutz settled there, and the date they settled is said to be June 17th. Where did you find verification for that October date?--Nitsansh 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that on the IAF's website. I fixed the date (simple typo) and added the external link in the article. altmany 19:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Night of airplanes
Talk:American Embassy School, New Delhi

message: Note:  Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under :Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag  TALK2ME 07:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Delhi Addition 

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because it is notable and had been previously an article as well.
If it still doesn't satisfy, then it can be merged/redirected to either Embassy of the United States, New Delhi or India–United States relations. But please, i don't recommend deleting it, i am against that.  --Utkarsh555 04:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: Just leaving a pointer to User_talk:Star_Mississippi#American_Embassy_School where @Liz, @Rusalkii @WhisperToMe and I had extended conversation. Feels like it belongs in the Talk history as well. Star Mississippi 22:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended conversation
Talk:Vulval vestibule

message: see the vulval vestibule discussion in Talk:Vulva Gringo300 06:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: see discussion

message: i'm under the impression that the skene's ducts open into the vulval vestibule, but i really don't know enough about this so far to add anything about it to the article. Gringo300 06:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: impression

message: How mine looks 41.116.31.122 (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vulva
Talk:Battle of Siffin

message: This article is so anti-Muawiya in general. Muawiya's parents being torturous to Muhammad is irrelevant to the Battle of Siffin's background. Can I reach consensus here, before removing this unnecessary stuff.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.112.131 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Background
 

message: I've separated out works that were in the Bibliography but not called as references into a Further reading section. I've then alphabetised the Sources by author surname. This should be helpful to both readers and editors. New sources should be placed appropriately according to author surname (and then by date if there's more than one work by that author) - it's a lot easier to do this at the time rather than waiting for several to build up! DuncanHill (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and Further reading