lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Stansbury Park, Utah

message: The Stansbury Park listing states that tennis courts, basketball courts and children's play areas are available.  I am aware of the two tennis courts (one near the swimming pool and one near the original elementary school), but cannot remember seeing a basketball court.  Of course the most significant children's play area is the playground near the new observatory; the Woodland Park should also be mentioned.
Readers may not be aware (or remember) that for a time (around the year 2000?) Stansbury Park had its own library, housed in the basement of the clubhouse.  It finally folded (after about a year of trying), probably due to lack of patron usage.  The main librarian was Raini Heap. Raymondwinn (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Basketball court?

message: Little or no crime? there was a murder in 2006
http://www.tooeletranscript.com/pages/full_story?article-Bevan-sentenced-to-prison-for-murder%20=&page_label=results_content&id=95468-Bevan-sentenced-to-prison-for-murder&widget=push&open=&  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.167.110 (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, OK, a little excitement every 41 years or so . .  Raymondwinn (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime

message: A previous version of thr Stansbury Park page stated that the nearby Benson Grist Mill was owned by a prophet of the LDS Church, Ezra Taft Benson, thus the mill's name.  That is not correct, but there is some confusion on the subject.  At the formal dedication of the restored mill, President Benson spoke.  He said that his great-grandfather (? - some people think he said it was his grandfather) was on the LDS Church-formed committee charged with creating the mill.  The mill was built in 1854 by George Lee, a contractor hired by the Church.  A member of the committee (not Benson) moved his family to the site in 1854 to be in charge of the mill.  In 1866, the Church did sell the mill to Benson; a deed in the Tooele County Courthouse record shows that ET Benson gave a note ($3333.33) to Brigham Young for the mill, all appurtenances thereto, and all outbuildings on the land.  He kept the mill for a few years then passed ownership to another.  (This data from "History of Tooele County" Vol. 1). Raymondwinn (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Benson Grist Mill clarification
Talk:Dodge Shadow

message: I have heard this before too....but then I heard that it was the Spirit (similar, I know..), then I read another report that said the Jeep Cherokee was...then more recently that the Acura Intergra was...so with this said, saying that it is the most stolen wouldn't be "untrue", but perhaps wouldn't  be authoritative, as there have been so many independant studies, many of which yielded different results. With this said, I can say that the Shadow, or similar siblings Sundance...Spirit (not saying that Spirit and Shadow are "the same")... Acclaim etc.. usually appear on the majority of those "Most Stolen" lists. Personally, I doubt the Shadow model is stolen anymore than the Sundance, or even the  Acclaim etc...because they all featured similar "corporate" steering columns etc, which is had a big influence on wheather or not the car could be easily stolen. These are just my toughts...a nice article over all Jon the dodgeboy 02:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadow most stolen? 

message: Wikipedia has been combining articles for badge-engineered cars for some time. While I am pushing for the K-cars to use the Plymouth Reliant name since it outsold the Dodge Aries as well as having the Dodge Omni article moved to Plymouth Horizon for similar reasons, this is around the time Dodge started outselling Plymouth in general. I'm not biased towards either name since both cars had similar sales figures (I'm using the Dodge Shadow's talk page since the Plymouth Sundance's talk page is garbage.), but if we do merge, should we use the Dodge or the Plymouth name?
If we end up using Plymouth Sundance, we should also delete the nonsensical talk page for the current Plymouth Sundance article and move this talk page to Talk:Plymouth Sundance. If we use Dodge Shadow, we'll just do a redirect of Talk:Plymouth Sundance to this page. Jgera5 (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pro-merger, badge-engineered vehicles create unnecessary redundancy.VX1NG (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and merged the two articles, removed duplicate information and placed the finalized article here. VX1NG (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The Shadow and Sundance were not in any way replacements for the Alliance. For one, they were launched nearly a year before Chrysler acquired AMC, and competed with the Alliance for the 1987 model year. For two, no version of the Shadow/Sundance was ever sold out of the Jeep/Eagle dealers that were brought about through the AMC buyout. Therefore, they didn’t replace the Alliance in the showrooms the Alliance was sold through. For three, Chrysler did offer a small car in Jeep/Eagle dealers to replace the Alliance after it was canceled at the end of 1987... the Eagle Summit. That car should be listed as the replacement for the Alliance. Not the Shadow/Sundance. Farrahnicks76 (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an Alliance replacement
Talk:Army–Navy Game

message: In the results table, what is the meaning of the notes that appear on some lines, e.g. "No. 21"? Is this explained somewhere that I didn't see? Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: They are the ranking (probably the AP or CFP) of the team entering the game. I agree that they should be referenced or explained somewhere. They seem to be on every rivalry page. For example, see Egg Bowl. As with the above discussion, this is handled so uniformly across college rivalry pages, I feel as if there must be a standard somewhere. I wouldn't know how to find it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3665047379b (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is now annotated, as is customary with other rivalry pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:c6c0:5cf0:d1cf:f929:8a4:bc72 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to ask the same thing. It's rather presumptuous and wrong to write an article that is only understood by the nation who is writing it. What's the point of a global encyclopedia is the rest of the world doesn't understand it? The numbers don't make any sense because they are still not explained? Besides what does the ranking mean, is that a rank against other college football teams or in the league as a whole? Also think about the terminology, what does ranking mean in this context, the rest of the English speaking world uses Seed (sports), which implied favourite to win, whereas ranking is where a team is currently now, eg a position in a league. When you have to ask these questions like this, you have to realise people learn nothing from these articles because knowledge is capped by the people who write them.146.200.202.126 (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results table 

message: History section needs to mention why the one Army-Navy Game was played there (WWII) 2600:1004:B16D:42A:0:51:8253:7B01 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army-Navy Game
Talk:Bayou Classic

message: The use of the word "refugees" to describe people who left New Orleans for Houston following the storm is inappropriate.  Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:
"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."
The key word here being, "country".  New Orleans residents evacuated to Houston were still residing in the United States.  Portraying New Orleans as some sort of third world country lends itself to racist stereotypes about the city, even if that is not the intention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbondate (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refugees vs. evacuees.
Talk:1988 Notre Dame vs. Miami football game

message: As the term was invented in 1988, "Catholics vs. Convicts" only applies to the games from 1988-1990 when both teams were at the top of college football -- KelleyCook
:Actually, if you want to get technical, the term applies ONLY to the 1988 game.  If this were an article only about the 1988 game, you'd have a point.  But it's not.  It's an article on the rivalry between the two schools during the 80s, and an understanding of its origins is necessary to understanding the intensity of latter games.-66.254.235.231 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: This article is pretty ridiculous.  Catholics vs. Convicts refers to one particular game in the Miami-Notre Dame rivalry, that being the 1988 game..  I'm reining this thing in to a proper scope.-PassionoftheDamon 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coverage

message: Anyone with a working knowledge of college football will understand the implication of the "convicts" appellation directed at Miami, given the reputation of the Miami teams fielded during this time period. However, given that not every potential reader certainly knows about Miami's history, I feel like providing some context in the way of specific incidents (instances of particularly rough play, off-field legal problems) would be helpful and would only make the article better.  AndrewPF1992 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context
Talk:Target market

message: marketing management 112.209.41.187 (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is market target 

message: The current article title "Target market" is nebulous and ambiguous. In marketing literature and in venture financing circles, what is described in this page is invariably referred to as Serviceable Obtainable Market, or just simply SOM. For some reason, searching for "SOM" or "Serviceable obtainable market" redirects to this page (Target market) - which does appear to be logical. In other words, this redirect should be the other way around
Aspirationally, the target market is Total addressable market (TAM) or (ideally), at least, Serviceable available market (SAM. IMHO, Target market should be (a new page, after this page is renamed) an introduction to TAM, SAM & SOM and this page should be renamed "Serviceable obtainable market (SOM)" – so as to be consistent with, and complimentary to, the other two pages (TAM and SAM). Comments?
Enquire (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to rename: Serviceable obtainable market (SOM)
Talk:Three (novel)

message: Does it say the movie comes out Jan 5? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where on IMDB.... 

message: No references? Please someone add something.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaN Flayer (talk • contribs) 03:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References?
Talk:Airbus A330

message: Shouldn't the six A330-700L Beluga be added as delivered aircraft? All six have now been delivered to Airbus transport services. https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/airbus-rolls-out-sixth-and-final-belugaxl-transport/153988.article 84.213.85.235 (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Counting the original A330 deliveries and the A330-700L Beluga deliveries would be double counting aircraft here.  The Beluga deliveries should be covered at Airbus BelugaXL instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A330 Beluga
Talk:Commission on Superhuman Activities

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project
Talk:Dutchman's Shoes

message: If I were still at RPI, I'd get a picture of the trophy. It's in a display case in the lobby of the '87 Gym. Go get a picture of it before Union wins them back. Besselfunctions 22:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Flash was a little bright, but the other pictures were too dim. Danski14(talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I think the article should reflect that the score of the first game is disputed. Maybe add a footnote or something. 67.81.46.216 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Game Disputed Score
Talk:Frank Leahy Memorial Bowl

message: Frank Leahy Memorial Bowl into Holy War (Boston College vs. Notre Dame). The content is repetitive and the trophy is notable primarily because of the rivalry, where information about it would best be presented in the appropriate context. It also follows the established precedent of other rivalry trophies being described or merged within a parent rivalry article. Please also see the discussion at Talk:Holy War (Boston College vs. Notre Dame)#Merger proposal. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge per CrazyPaco. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have completed this merge. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger
Talk:Rhode Island–UConn football rivalry

message: I propose to change the title of this article to Connecticut–Rhode Island football rivalry, or something along those lines. I think that would more accurately represent the information in this article, especially since the trophy has not been presented in the past few meetings.  The Ramnapping trophy can be included in it's own paragraph of the article, as it is still a big part of the history of the rivalry. Mjs32193 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, some rivalry. The last seven games have all been played at Connecticut, and they haven't played at RI since 1995, according to the article. Seems that the Ram has been permanently 'napped. wbm1058 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's not much of a rivalry anymore, especially because URI is FCS and UConn is FBS, but it was a big rivalry for a long time. The schools proximity to each other are the reason why it will continue to be one to some extent.Mjs32193 (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title Change? 
Talk:Notre Dame–Purdue football rivalry

message: I know it looks like a dick but you need a picture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.229.106 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  why isn't there a picture?
Talk:Slab of Bacon

message: It could not have been lost in 1945 because Wis won that season. I included all scores from 1930 first year of award to 1947. Since the Axe started in 1948. I figure might as well include all the years up that point since it is not clear what year in the 1940s the "Slab" was lost Smith03 01:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Year it was lost
Talk:Brazzaville (band)

message: I won't say it's rock band.
I am not a pro, but I have two their albums and they don't really sound like rock. --Akral 15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Members" section text introduced 1 June 2008 was apparently copied and pasted from the band's website. The text has been removed as copyright infringement. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of copyvio 

message: I reverted 14 edits to the 8 May 2008 version due to further copyright infringement from the band's MySpace page. The entire June 1 expansion was copyvio. The article is back to a clean stub. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted to 8 May 2008
Talk:Software (disambiguation)

message: Is "software" used by anyone in modern society to refer to Clothing?  If so, it should be mentioned in the Clothing page (and added to the Wiktionary software entry).  However, as I understand it, the primary goal of a disambiguation page is to help someone looking for "software" to find the relevant page.  I'd suggest that no one who is looking for clothing would type in "software" and so it should be removed from this page. Mikepelley 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally concur.  I submit that the term "software" is indigenous to the computer industry, and all these other uses are suspect. HuskyHuskie 05:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest that Clothing category be removed
Talk:Retail banking

message: A separate page is required. Currently, the contents may be small - but merger shall noever allow the page to grow. I am removing the merger tag. Millions of google hits crop up for retail banking. We require editors who can expand the page - killing the page by merger is not a good idea. --Bhadani 15:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To understand the issues in a comprehensive way, please read and understand User:Angela/Stubs. Thank you. --Bhadani 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A merge does not kill an article; it merely puts it in context.  See . --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate page
Talk:Cheeze

message: Why is this redirect here? Is cheeze some British variant? I thought we weren't supposed to have redirects to misspellings.--Josh Rocchio 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we do have redirects from misspellings - we even have a template for them . --Tim4christ17 talk 14:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:The Comet (Great Escape)

message: IMHO it is worth noting that for many years, while still at Crystal Beach, this coaster had the distinction of being listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the longest track of any coaster in the world. I do not have dates, but this can easily be verified by someone with access to real data.
It may also be worth noting that prior to about 1967, there was no minimum height restriction. I rode it as a very small child, then couldn't for a couple of years before I grew tall enough to ride it again.
Typofixer76 (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guinness world record holder; no minimum height in early days 

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for The Comet, which places the roller coaster in Chatham or Ghent, NY instead of at Six Flags Great Escape in Queensbury, the Great Escape coordinates are 43.350991°N 73.690112°W
—74.209.4.61 (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: . The coordinates in the article appear to be correct. (Indeed, they're very close to the ones you've given above, though in degrees-minutes-seconds format rather than the decimal coordinates you've given. Chatham & Ghent are about 42°21' north latitude rather than 43°21' north.) Deor (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error
Talk:Euclid Beach Park

message: I'm sorry, I'm kind of a newbie and I certainly don't want to create an unnecessary fuss.  However, after spending a lot of time editing the small things on this article, I got around to looking at some of the External Links.  Much to my surprise, the text of the article is, at best, a poorly disguised restatement of material found in other places.  At worst, it might be considered a cut and paste copy of some items, including awkward phraseology.
See, for instance, the material to be found at the following site which is linked in the "External Links" section at the bottom of the article:
* http://www.citizendia.org/Euclid_Beach_Park  Many similarities with the WP article lead me to ask which came first?  Is there a question of a copyright issue here?
Compare and contrast with the article as it stands today.  Am I being excessively prissy (I think not, however I'm due to make my mistake for this year...)? NorthCoastReader (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Citizendia article is a copy of this one. There's an attribution line at the bottom of the page. - Eureka Lott 03:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw that and I thought that it was sufficiently unclear that I was not sure just what it meant.  Thank you for pointing that out.  I apologize and I shall now shut up and continue digging.  NorthCoastReader (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. It never hurts to ask. Because Wikipedia is published under a Creative Commons license, the articles get reused on lots of sites. - Eureka Lott 03:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

text: As refinement of the article progresses perhaps someone can find an appropriate way to make mention of the variant spelling given the ride by park management.  Whether one should then continue the "rr" spelling throughout the article is another question.  While looking at The Carousel Works website, I came to the conclusion that "carrousel" is merely a variant spelling of the word "carousel" and not necessarily idiosyncratic to Euclid Beach Park.  At this time, I have no particularly strong feelings on the subject though I wonder about how the casual reader would react to a spelling which deviates from the norm.  I also, of course, wonder about the reaction of an editor or of editors unknown who might stumble upon the article while holding a much different opinion...  :-)  NorthCoastReader (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I have just done some work on the section.  Is that what you had in mind or are you thinking of something I may have missed in the way of recent news?  NorthCoastReader (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can This Article Be Saved By A Massive Re-work?
Talk:Lullaby (Palahniuk novel)

message: I agree 100% with the statement under this, but it is POV. Despite it being my POV, I am going to delete it. You can put it back in if you have a RS backing it up.-- ¢² Connor K.   22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtext

message: The song doesn't have an article on Wikipedia but it's from the album Blaze (2003) and it looks 100% inspired on this book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.140.10 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Song from Lagwagon
Talk:Zinc nitrate

message: Before removing the  template, you should add a fact that shows its importance. Anything will do: a use, an interesting chemical phenomenon, even a piece of trivia, as long as there's a single reason why anyone would be interested in this substance. —Keenan Pepper 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick perusal of Google turns up solubility of zinc nitrate hexahydrate as 200g/100ml (J.T. Baker) and 324g/100ml (http://www.petrik.com/PUBLIC/library/microsources.htm).  I don't have a reference book on hand.
As long as I'm here, I added a chemical reaction.
24.159.247.111 03:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Irish Film Archive

message: This article contains irrelevant information and is poorly written. It mixes up RTE and the IFI Archive and leaves out important information 78.19.17.82 (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree,  it needs to be rewritten 78.19.21.99 (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly written