lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Coppersmith

message: in  the early 18 centrycopper mines were operating in connecticut pennsylvaina   new jerssy ,  yielding  ores of good  quailty
As proposed, someone should definitely merge this with redsmith. They are the same thing! I'd do this if I knew the process. Maybe someone with the knowledge cares enough?
- My grandfather was a coppersmith in the RAF during the 1940s and later. He didn't specialise in artistic work, although my Grandmother had a model of a spitfire he cast from a single (old UK) penny. His work was on aircraft maintenance in copper, brass and bronze. No one in my family has ever heard of a 'redsmith' =- perhaps its a US term?
The Yowser (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Does one quench copper?  I thought quenching was for ferrous metals, and was a hardening technique.  This needs to be fixed in the article.  It starts out saying annealing, then describes quenching. PuggBottom (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quenching vs. annealing 

message: Phew this article needs a grammar tidy up, but not tonight!
My grandfather was a coppersmith in the RAF, this article misses that a great deal of the work is in brass and bronze. Pipework, manifolds, floats, engine part, brazing. Stub Mandrel (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues

message: The article claims that copper was probably the first metal used by humans.  That seems unlikely; gold must have been user much earlier.  Gold can be found pure in nature. Nuggets can be welded into larger blocks and formed into any shape by cold hammering. Gold can also be cold-hammered into thin sheets, which can then be formed by repoussé or chasing into complicated objects.  Native copper is much rarer, and is nowhere as workable.  It probably did not see significant use until humans learned how to smelt and cast it. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First metal?
Talk:Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo

message: The date of death given is before he is believed to have published his books. I assume it's wrong, so I deleted it. I can't find a correct date. Lagringa 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Death

message: The biography section seems to be an extension of the Introduction section's discussion of his written works.  A better biography is found at this website
And it would probably be better to discuss the works as a separate section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swazman (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Content lacks an actual biography
Talk:Bulkhead (partition)

message: Not Benjamin Franklin:
:As early as 1784, Franklin suggested following the Chinese model of dividing ships' holds into watertight compartments so that if a leak occurred in one compartment, the water would not spread throughout the hold and sink the ship. 
mikka (t) 06:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who invented

message: The scope of this article is really confusing, as it seems to focus on ship bulkheads, but is couched as "Bulkhead (partition)".  I suggest renaming to make this clearer.  How about "Bulkhead (structure)", or else "Bulkhead (ship)", and punt other uses to separate pages, such as "Bulkhead (aircraft)", for example.  Either way, some work probably needs to be done to the disambiguation page for Bulkhead. 70.251.150.167 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: Perhaps it should be mentioned that "bulkhead" is also used to refer to just walls in a building on shore, on Navy bases, especially at naval training facilities. Same goes for "deck".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.202.124 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not just on ships

message: This statement, while an interesting historical note, did not belong in the etymology section.  I have removed it, but I feel that it would be nice to have it somewhere else within the entry.
: The Song Dynasty Chinese author Zhu Yu wrote of Chinese ships with watertight bulkhead compartments in his book Pingzhou Table Talks of 1119 AD. A Chinese trade ship dated to 1277 AD was found off the southern coast of China in 1973, and had 12 bulkhead compartment rooms in its hull. 
-Athaler (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Section

message: The paragraph discussing EMP includes statment about cabling which doesnt belong here
DGerman (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cable discussion seems extraneous  
Talk:Wild Arms 2

message: Ambivalent.  The game is called exclusively Wild ARMs 2nd Ignition in Japan, but in North America this name is used primarily in the FMV movies, and the packaging and bitmap image title use Wild ARMs 2.  This makes for some ambiguity, so I say it could go either way as an article name in the English Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh 10:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Sections about Odessa (Wild Arms 2), especially the members of Cocytus, the Kuiper Belt (Wild Arms 2), and the side characters needs to be added. Also, an Odessa (Wild Arms 2) entry needs to be made.
:Fixed your links. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dikastis

message: Several descriptions of playable characters' usefulness in battle require rewrite.  In particular, I refer to "Several strategies rely on him to be the staple of a good party, and understandably so," in Brad Evans' section; "Once you acquire Tim, the only other magic user, however, her usefulness is debated. Many prefer her over Tim for solely personal reasons, however, as Tim is regarded as a weak character in the plot" in Lilka Eleniak's section.  Many of these I found impossible to edit without deleting the information all together.--Red Noah 17:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words
Talk:RIPEMD

message: This article is focused on RIPEMD-160, so it's name should be changed to RIPEMD-160 and it should be epurated from general info.
In RIPEMD should be placed a list of all RIPEMD's with more general information and links to all possible RIPEMD's pages (-128, -256, ...). --82.59.7.7 07:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The other approach is to make this page more explicitly about the "RIPEMD family" (this is what we do in the article on SHA family, which covers all of SHA-0, SHA-1 and SHA-2. I would favour this approach, because otherwise you end up with half a dozen tiny articles on a similar topic. — Matt Crypto 11:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: One should mention that there are reported collisiosn for RIPEMD, but the RIPEMD160 is secure nonetheless! 83.135.199.130 16:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: splitting the article

message: I don't see how this isn't spam:
"# Hash'em all! — free online text and file hashing with different algorithms (including RIPEMD)"
The site owner probably linked to it so he could get donations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by  99.224.115.100  (talk)  23:30, 23 February 2009‎ (UTC)
:The material in question was removed long, long ago.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPAM?
Talk:Silversmith

message: I don't understand this line: "Silversmiths may also work in copper and brass, although this is usually confined to practice pieces due to the cost of the metals.". Copper and brass are cheaper than silver, so I think the author means that practice pieces may be formed from copper and brass because they're cheaper than silver. Will edit accordingly.
"In Ethiopia the trade of silversmith was practiced by the Jews of Ethiopia, otherwise known as the Falasha Clan."
OK, but needs a little rewording to show that not just Beta Israel worked silver.
"The activity was considered (by whom?) to be inferior to others, as reliant on manual skills.[2]"
Inferior to...? I'm removing this. 
"Silversmiths has to know how to make silver and has to be strong."
Why is this even here? Removing it.
Do we even need a section titled Canadian Observations? Will leave it alone for now. 
Whole article needs to be expanded greatly with techniques, etc. or contracted a good bit. Sterling Silver is barely mentioned, yet is known worldwide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.226.170 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted the Canada mention as useless. David notMD (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has several issues 

message: This article is too brief for the loooong history of silversmithery, and decidedly Euro-centric. Nothing about pre-colonial and post-colonial Native American silver work? Middle-East? Asia? Really?? David notMD (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skimpy and Euro-centric
Talk:Bore gauge

message: This article currently reads like an instruction or how-to, not as an encyclopedic article. Is this a problem?
- Jolta (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructional 

message: The description of the dial bore gauge on the page is currently wrong. The page is describing an inside micrometer, a different tool for measuring bore size. I believe I can improve this page by changing the dial bore gauge to an accurate description. I will change the heading of the current dial bore gauge description since it accurately describes an inside micrometer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dringleton (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dial Bore Gauge
Talk:FAPSI

message: Please specify the problems with accurasy of FAPSI and Internet section.abakharev 07:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 
Talk:Feeler gauge

message: Looking through random articles, I came across one for Taper Feeler Gauges.  These both seem like fairly short and simple articles.  I'm not sure that the taper variety has enough information to warrant its own page.  Figured I'd post a message here to see if there was any argument against it.  --Onorem 16:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, I'm not real sure why taper even has its own page.  I'd add it here under 'types of feeler gauges'. Madness 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead with the merge assuming, due to only seeing 1 response in over 2 months, that it isn't going to step on many toes. --Onorem 15:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: Why is one gauge brass and the rest are silver and what is the difference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.181.30 (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, the brass one is for "transistorized ignitions"  Don't know why they would require a brass blade, but that's what it's for. Ahanix i'm bored  —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The gauges with a "silver" look to them are probably made of stainless steel. It appears that the customary inclusion of a single brass blade in some sets is due to historical reasons related to early electronic ignition systems. Hope someone else can expand on this. Sauer202 (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: it is brass because brass is non ferrous...iron can magnetize the gap making the part malfunction. Any small magnetism can easily be transferred...if that happens game over replacement is needed...its easier than demagnetize. 97.81.112.235 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Brass vs. silver

message: Different designs had patents on them, including the one which was previously included in this article but then removed:
*  Feeler Gauge Assembly, Andrejs Muiza, 
*  Gap Gauge For Spark Plugs, Louis A. Habicht and Howard H. Vogel, 
*  Feeler Gauge Holder, Fred Koenig, 
*  Wrench, Fred C. Shock, 
*  Porte-jauges circulaire, Devin Charles-François, 
Is any of them notable enough to warrant inclusion? --ClickRick (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patents
Talk:South East Point

message: Why was the redirect to the other page (South Point (Wilsons Promontory)) made?This article here has probably an incorrect title (because South EAST Point is the southernmost point of the Tasmanian and not the Australian mainland). I have already copied all information from this article here over to the other article (South Point (Wilsons Promontory)) before. -- Citylover 08:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the situation is more complicated than I thought. Somebody gave the incorrect information that the South EAST Point is the southernmost point of the Australian mainland which is not true. Because of this incorrect information, I incorrectly concluded that South Point and South EAST Point are the same. I have to separate the two articles again. On South Point seems to be no lighthouse, but on South EAST Point seems to be the lighthouse. -- Citylover 08:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Citylover 09:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the redirect to the other page (South Point (Wilsons Promontory)) made?
Talk:Glendora, California

message: What makes a Japanese and a Mexico city "sister cities?" Why 9is that section in there, does anybody know? Damotclese (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister City? 

message: The link to the Glendora page for the "Sister City" reference is dead. I suggest we relink to http://www.sister-cities.org/ or something suitable which explains what a "Sister City" is, lacking a fix from the Glendora web site people, or lacking a fresh link that actually works. Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister City dead link 

message: . For every 100 females there were 93.2 males.  For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 89.6 males. -- This is worded as if males belong as the property of females, as if we're talking about property, not people. There must be a better way to work the rhetoric to describe the percentage of gender mix without using the word "for" which in this grammar denotes the possessive case. Damotclese (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty standard language. Are people really interpreting that to mean there is possession involved? Udibi (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexist, possessive language 

message: I see that an unreferenced claim about low crime rate was removed. Crime rate statistics may be found at this location https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/glendora/crime if anyone wants to add the reference to the extant article. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime rate
Talk:Go/no-go gauge

message: is there any specific to determine whether testing is pass / fail. such as percentage of thread can be threaded for GO and limit thread can go for NO-GO.
pls advice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.76.98 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PASS and FAIL determination of GO and NO-GO
Talk:Marking gauge

message: Wikipedia article Wood scribe based on the contents of the article is identical if not entirely the same with the contents of wikipedia article marking gauge.  I believe that there is no clear difference between the two and also Image searches further show evidence of difference between the two.  One website also shows a clear representation of what is called in the page as "Wood Scribe" and therefor shows it clear that the two are indistinguishable. Kendelarosa5357 (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - "wood scribe" is just another name for a "marking gauge". Wizard191 (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Disagree - if anything, Wood Scribe is the more general form (without gauging built in), and marking gauge is a more sophisticated type of wood scribe (one which has a head for keeping a fixed offset for the scribe to mark). Any proposals to merge marking gauge into wood scribe instead of the other way around? Mean time, I'm going to add links between the two. Dovid (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From my searches across the internet a "wood scribe" can describe two things. The first is a marking gauge. The second is a "scribe for wood". This second definition is also explained in this book: . Right now the text at wood scribe simply describes a marking gauge, so it should be merged into this article and then rewritten to cover the non-marking gauge aspect and a hatnote added to explain the other meaning of the word. Wizard191 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Merger proposal
Talk:Engineer's spirit level

message: From the edit summary:
 20:07, 28 September 2006 AdamWeeden (Talk | contribs) (Should be merged with Spirit level, not enough content for own article)
* oppose Not enough content for own article?  There's no mention of it being a stub and if we're being arbitrary about the measure - it fills my screen nicely!
The article is specific to one style and use of a spirit level, being on its own page allows the metalworking template to be included without distracting from the other uses of a :spirit level. The main article has a short introduction and wikilink to this page, this article expands on that and links back so there is no problem with navigation or context. — Graibeard (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Spirit level
Talk:Spirit level

message: Spirit leveling is the act of, Spirit level is the instrument. No need to merge either of them. Reviewing the spirit leveling article suggests it's surveying related so in the absence of any cats there, :Category:Surveying has now been added to it. — Graibeard 00:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge request

message: :Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum, please direct any questions to the reference desk. Wizard191 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  spirit level bubble 

message: The link http://docnum.u-strasbg.fr/cdm/compoundobject/collection/coll13/id/27045/show/26409 page 605 (157) does not mention any air bubble and talks about a level shaped like a T which was called "hammer fish" in Italy, that time. This is a plumb bob level. A spirit level is not like a T and has no common features with the insect described in the book. (see: http://french.stackexchange.com/questions/17636/is-this-french-text-year-1558-describing-a-spirit-level-more-than-100-years-be) 
This text should be removed because it does not refer to a spirit level: "It must however be noted that the Frenchman Guillaume Rondelet mentions the spirit level in his scientific work called "L’histoire entière des poissons" in 1558. Here he compares the shape of the body of the dragonfly larvae to a spirit bubble level. (See Libellen (de)) Therefore, it must be assumed the spirit level was in existence in some form at least a century before Thevenot claimed to have invented it. To see Rondelet's original French work, go to paper page 157 (electronic page 0605) at the following link: http://docnum.u-strasbg.fr/cdm/compoundobject/collection/coll13/id/27045/show/26409. Here he describes the "Libella fluuiatilis" (the dragonfly larvae) and makes the comparison. Interestingly, this is apparently the historical reason that in the German language today the dragonfly and the spirit level are both named "Libelle". (As per wiki reference above.)"
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: The 1558 book refers to an ancient tool called hammer fish level (plumb bob level), not to a spirit level
Talk:Louisiana State Capitol

message: There are conflicts regarding date of completion and length of construction time:
* Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism (http://www.crt.state.la.us/crt/tourism/capitol/capitol.htm) 
* Lousiana State Legislature (http://house.legis.state.la.us/pubinfo/virtual%20tour/lacaphistory.htm)
* National Park Service (http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/louisiana/cap.htm)
Two pages say it was completed May 1932, one page says March 1932; two pages say 14 months of construction, one page says 29 months.
Also, is there any standing assumption concering the licensing of images provided on state and federal government sites? There are images available on those locations (e.g. http://house.legis.state.la.us/pubinfo/virtual%20tour/dayshot.jpg) but I am unsure as to the policy and attribution on these images. --Sertrel 09:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ::() 
here from the opening sentence because I'm not sure why it is there,  Any opinions?  Carptrash (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I just moved some French
Talk:Eurasian chaffinch

message: Is the reason for Linnaeus calling it coelebs due to late staying of males or early arrival? Theory suggests it should be the latter. Shyamal (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Late staying, I'll add this soon. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 19:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bachelor

message: To say that identification of the female is "obvious" is highly subjective, and in that sense doesn't belong here. To an untrained eye, a female chaffinch is not altogether unlike a female house sparrow. 84.44.152.142 (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  identification
Talk:Tape measure

message: afaik the tape measure (before Fellow's patent) originated in Sheffield. can anyone verify this? Interlude 111 00:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drurisucct4jyg7rtuif fueu.Fkfbv xjrbh.Gtl c vhyh 2409:408C:AEB5:CF09:D34:7235:54D3:4DCD (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I included a mention of those diamonds, even though I don't know much about them.  I put a link to a page that does know, so at least an interested reader can follow that.  --MathBV 00:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The pdf is saying that dual dimensioning is bad. Tape measures in the US have often dual dimensioningg in U.S customary and SI.
So i do not see your point that this isnt applicable here.
--Seppilesepp (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here.  In any case, as I said in my edit summary, the source you gave isn't talking about tape measures, thus it does not support the text you were trying to add to the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tape measure dual dimensioning 

message: Name of tape measure 136.158.28.153 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tle 

message: Medida 119.93.249.199 (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tle 

message: "Pocket tape measures have a tape 1 to 15 feet (0.30 to 4.57 m) in length" and later in the article there are pictures of two pocket tape measures, both 5 m long. 91.153.55.81 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: How to used it? 49.145.46.70 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  T.L.E
Talk:Thread pitch gauge

message: The first line references  "Threading gauges ... also referred to as pitch gauges". This does not seem to match the title. What is the best name for this type of gauge? Threading gauge, Pitch gauge, or Thread pitch gauge? bd2412 T 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Wizard191 (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title
Talk:HMS Glasgow (D88)

message: I have ammended the article to reflect the fact that the Alferez Sobral was not sunk by the Glasgow (she is still in service with the Argentine Navy). Megapixie 09:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alferez Sobral

message: This article needs to be filled out, as HMS Glasgow and its crew had a very distinguished Falklands war and were generally regarded as the most efficient and effective of the Type 42, taking into account Exeter's late arrival. More two could be said about the ships connection to Glasgow and the extent of Scottish bred crew on this warship.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.190.108.20 (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for more text on Falklands War and Captains and key officers on Glasgow 