lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Hilary Duff timeline

message: I've suggested merging Hilary Duff timeline into the Hilary Duff page.  I was tempted to AfD it, but despite the year-by-year breakdown of how old Ms. Duff was in any given year, it does contain potentially useful information on her career towards the end.  Powers 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline merge 

message: I dont think we should merge the two page together. The timeline is too big. Besides it's like the hurricane pages. And it will get longer too as she progresses into 2007, 08, 09, 10 ,11, 12. And there is soooooo much that still needs to be edited onto that tinmeline as well. Plus it's going to be edited a lot better when I get done with it. Tcatron565
:I also oppose the merge.  But I think the timeline will have to be much improved to justify its existence.  Reciting individual episodes, and birthdays, is a little excessive.  I think if you tell people somebody's birthday, they can deduce when they become 1,2,3,4,etc... without use telling them.  --Rob 22:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article ought to be merged into Hilary Duff if it contains any useful information that isn't already in the Hilary Duff article.  That does not mean that the timeline should be included in Hilary Duff, simply that any relevant information that is here and isn't there should be moved over.  If there isn't anything in here that can add to the Hilary Duff article, this article ought to be deleted.  We have many, many biographies on Wikipedia and none of them have timeline articles attached to them.  I'm going to leave a similar comment on the Hilary Duff talk page too, because that's where this discussion ought to be taking place.  NoIdeaNick 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed my mind. I'm going to nominate the article for deletion.  If there's anything worth merging here, then the AfD will most likely opt for a merge. NoIdeaNick 03:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft

message: The use of the extra words Daimler Motor Company anywhere in the article but particularly at the very beginning leads to unfortunate confusion between this business and the unrelated English or British business known as Daimler Company. There is a disambiguation page here Daimler. If translation is required in this article and I do not see why it should be, then it should be more literal like Daimler Motors Society just to avoid the steadily growing confusion between the British and German businesses. What is the best solution?  Eddaido (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft (DMG) (Daimler Motor Company)  

message: RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of article 

message: Is this true? I thought it ws Mercedes-Benz. Eddaido (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  trade_name = [[Mercedes (marque)]] 

message: Wasn't this the French Gp of 1914, and not in Paris? RacingPhreak (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia
Talk:Trade card

message: There are currently at least seven separate articles on these cards: trade card, cigarette card, trading card, sports card and hockey card/baseball card/football card. Do you think we should amalgamate them into one comprehensive article? --Skillymagee 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many different articles?

message: Over the years the term trade card evovled into what term we use today????
: The subject is very confusing, even in French today with carte de visite which means business and visiting cards !  -- Spiessens 19:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comment
Talk:Stamen

message: The intro says "an anther ... pollen sacs".  That makes no sense.  Corvus cornix 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: I propose this article be titled Androecium to be consistent with the Gynoecium article. Stamen should redirect to Androecium. In denoting the parts of a flower, androecium is the higher category, that is, it includes the concept of stamen within it. True, most people would search for stamen rather than androecium but the correct term for stamens in total is androecium. Thus the concept of an androecium allows for a more comprehensive treatment of the subject. Petal and Sepal are treated as articles rather than corolla and calyx, so another possibility is to change gynoecium to carpel, however, I would favor treating all floral whorls by their collective name. Thoughts anyone? Michaplot (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to revert article title to Androecium 

message: The stamen (plural stamina or stamens) is the pollen _producing reproductive organ of a flower.Collectively the stamens from to he androecium 39.48.36.79 (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamen
Talk:Halohydrin

message: Can a stable halohydrin be formed in which the halogen is bound directly to the carbon atom with the hydroxyl gronup (example: chloromethanol CH<Sub>2</Sub>ClOH)? Polonium 22:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

message: I have the impression that the last 2/3 of this paragraph concern the synthesis of epoxides from halohydrins, and not the other way around. 
* The first sentence seems to say, without source, that chlorohydrin precursors to important epoxides are produced from (other?) epoxides. Which ones? Seems a bit strange to industrially produce propylene chlorohydrin from propylene oxide (I don't see any other epoxide that can be used for that), to then produce propylene oxide from propylene chlorohydrin. In addition, the article about epichlorohydrin says it is produced from 2,3-dichloro-1-propnol and 1,3-dichloro-2-propnol, the first one been produced from  allyl chloride, the second either from allyl chloride or glycerol, and never mention an epoxide precursor to these chlorohydrins.
* The second sentence is about the fact that ethylene oxide used to be produced from 2-chloroethanol. What does it have to do with the synthesis of halohydrins from epoxides?
Regards, Rhadamante (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis from epoxides
Talk:Islam in Iceland

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 22:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good it was created though. I wouldn't have started Religion in Iceland if it hadn't been. (I actually thought there probably already was an article on Religion in Iceland at the beginning of the delete vote.)--T. Anthony 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: What does the attack have anything to do with the practice of Islam in Iceland? It didn't introduce the religion in Iceland from what I can tell. JanderVK (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section

message: This article, which says there are no mosques in Iceland, directly contradicts the Reykjavik Mosque article, which claims the chapel at Ármúli 38 as a mosque. Which is correct? 24.90.153.235 (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mosque or not?

message: please remove urdu wikipedia interwiki links from all european islam by country articles  — Preceding unsigned comment added by عرفان ارشد (talk • contribs) 04:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  request 

message: The Islamic Centre's article is one sentence long. In fact, the section in THIS article has more information in it than the standalone article. It feels like an obvious merge. Thoughts? EBY (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a merge is a good idea as the other article is tiny and the section in this article would not be too big. Instead of deleting the old article, it should redirect to the relevant section of this one. AadaamS (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Done --Swift (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Merge Recommendation
Talk:Use of saffron

message: The saffron trade article was supposedly split out back in 2015, but nothing was removed from trade and use of saffron, and saffron trade remains quite short.  Should it be merged back into this article?  —  AjaxSmack  23:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be simpler to delete the trade section from Trade and use of saffron, and to do a technical move to Saffron (use) (or similar). Klbrain (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[saffron trade]] back into [[trade and use of saffron]]?
Talk:Human male sexuality

message: Do you guys think there should be a section on asexuality? For a top-importance article on sexuality, I was surprised that before my edit today, there was no mention of it in the article (besides the template.) The same thing was/is missing for the human female sexuality article. Paradox Marvin (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There would need to be sources specifically connecting asexuality to male sexuality in particular, discussing how it specifically applies to men. Most sources on sexual orientation do not discuss it, focusing on the presence and direction of sexuality, so WP:DUE is a concern. Crossroads -talk- 18:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the Kinsey book I linked not about male sexuality? I'm pretty sure it was. Paradox Marvin (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is, but you'd have to point out where exactly it speaks of asexuality. The Kinsey Reports are also not an ideal source per WP:RS AGE and WP:MEDRS (which also speaks of age). Also, any material on asexuality shouldn't go under a "homosexuality" section. Crossroads -talk- 07:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah okay, I wasn't aware that it wasn't a good source. I put it under homosexuality because it mentioned bisexuality too so I thought it would just be a catch-all section for different sexual orientations. Thanks for helping me out! Paradox Marvin (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on asexuality? 

message: Hello
why is not the name male Human sexuality? I am wondering, on the ground that this topic is a branch of "Human sexuality", so the word male comes as a second adjective. Abu aamir (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human male sexuality
Talk:Sinigrin

message: Being a sulpher containing gluoside it is called a Thioglycosides and sinigrin degrades to allyl isothiocyanate, which creates the 'sprouts' smell. --Aspro 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Ralph Reader

message: Has any one got definite info on RR's place of residence? Albatross2147 03:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Place of residence

message: No mention here of his wartime work as an impresario. Spicemix (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars in Battledress 
Talk:Tom Nugent

message: "Under Construction. Start Date 01/25/2006. Please do not add to this page until I'm done with it. This page, when complete, will be a comprehensive bio of Tom Nugent, 1913-2006, former NCAA Division 1A Head Football Coach, sportscaster, PR man, and Inventor of the I Formation.   
    
Thank you. John Nugent (son)."
I have transferred this info from the page itself, where it was inappropriate (see edit summary) Joe 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think Misfit is entirely correct.  The College Football Hall of Fame database doesn't include Nugent; I had assumed it was simply a clerical error, in view of the frequency with which the claim about his being in the CF HoF was repeated in his obituaries, but I have come to believe he wasn't therein inducted.  Surely his son, if he returns to compile the biography, will let us know if he believes the case to be otherwise.Joe 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hall of Fame
Talk:Gaelic clothing and fashion

message: Despite common misconceptions, the common clothing of Gaels in the middle ages and earlier did not at all involve a 'kilt'; the kilt did not exist until the Victorian era. Instead, clothing was generally a leine (a knee-length shirt, sometimes dyed with saffron), a brat (a very short cloak or mantle with plaid or other coloration), a belt, and sometimes trac or trews (tight trousers). Additionally, various types of coats, robes, boots, and shoes were worn. What women wore is less known; it is often suggested that it was similar, though 'dresses' existed, though these may have just been female versions of robes.
(This statement is inaccurate. The Great Kilt existed during and possibly before the Jacobite period in Scottish History. The Small Kilt (being the Kilt that most are familiar with today) was possibly developed around the Victorian period. Considering that there was a ban against wearing Tartan that lasted for decades after the '45 Uprising (which predates the Victorian Era), it is unreasonable to state that Kilts didn't exist until the Victorian Era. Somebody please edit this section, and include some facts to back up the statements. I would do so personally, but I do not have the time to spare.
                                                              Slainte,
                                                                 James Satterlee   )
:The above has been removed from the main article; if either party wishes to work out the differences, they are free to do so, however please keep such things off the main article; I'm going to attempt to work it all into a coherent piece. Canaen 23:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:CARICOM Single Market and Economy

message: To all: In the future, if adding in new info (and accompanying references), please read through the existing paragraph that is intended for editing. In all likelihood the existing paragraph already contains sentences which may all derive their information from a single following reference. If a new reference is added within the existing sentence structure, then the referencing for some of the info will be lost. A recent addition to the first paragraph of the "Single Market and Economy" section did just that unintentionally. I have tried to clean it up, but of course the added reference no longer had anything to do with the sentence (it doesn't seem to have had much to do with the paragraph in particular to begin with, but seemed more like a general reference), therefore I put in the references section as a general reference (not wanting to lose a useful reference.72.27.5.17 08:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and if some new referenced info can be added, then the best thing to do is to duplicate the existing reference and add it again (using multiple referencing) to the parts of the paragraph to which it will now apply. For example if "Sentence A. Sentence C.[1]" is referenced by "[1]" and "Sentence B" with reference "[2]" can be added in to expand the article, then the new edit should look like: "Sentence A.[1] Sentence B.[2] Sentence C.[1]"72.27.5.17 08:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding in new info and references 
Talk:A Wild Hare

message: I have deleted the External Link to the Daily Motion site's video of this cartoon, because it refuses to work. It'll get a page with the note "www.dailymotion.com does not exist or is not available" followed by a Yahoo search engine result list, and one entry thereon is that very address. Clicking on it takes one right to the site, and the video of "A Wild Hare" is easily found and played. The address there is almost exactly what was in the link here, except an "X" was capitalized rather than lower case. Changing that didn't help matters at all. If anybody can restore that link and make it work, more power to you. Ted Watson (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Daily Motion ext. link 

message: I am the one who puts the "Wild Hare" Original Card in the spot of the card slot. Do not remove it. Or just put it somewhere else in the page. Thank you for listening... Aria1561 - DoubleA (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not necessary. We already have the lobby card which s essentially the film's poster. In truth the article do without both screenshots. Sarujo (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen doc, I need that picture to be SOMEWHERE on the page other wise it will be deleted. Aria1561 - DoubleA (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep it in There!
Talk:Puss Gets the Boot

message: 😼           vs         🐁  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.247.80.33 (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom and jerry
Talk:Dacrydium cupressinum

message: We need an image of a whole tree (also need a commons cat and to move the existing pics there). Richard001 11:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

message: There is a difference of opinion over the best name for this page, hence this note on the talk page to try to resolve it. Arguments for Rimu (tree) are that this is the English Wikipedia, and that as there is an English name for the tree, we should use it, and that this is the name by which this species is known worldwide (by people with varied interests, not just dendrologists). If there are reasons why scientific name should be chosen instead, please post them here. SP-KP 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For consistency in page naming: all of the other Podocarpaceae are at scientific names (because most of them don't have English names at all). It makes nonsense of indexing in :Category:Podocarpaceae to have one species listed out of order with the rest because it is indexed under its Maori name, rather than its scientific name. - MPF 10:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and move it, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). The same should be done for the other trees in the family. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 18:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fauna? But seriously, Rimu is most certainly the common name or 'English name'.  It should be under Rimu_(tree) IMO.  The overall convention ("if there is a common name, use that") should trump whatever has emerged with the other Podocarps.  Certainly most of them in NZ have common names (Rimu, Totara, Kahikatea, Tanekaha, Matai etc..)  Dougalc 08:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The best name for this page 
Talk:Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fabulous Stains

message: There should probably be a link to The Professionals as I think they are the band that play in the film. Jack 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were and they should be. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: (Clarification) Cook and Jones portrayed two of the members of the band that were called The Professionals in the film. I do not know for a fact that the rest of the fictional band "The Professionals" were portrayed by the rest of the real band. If I am able to confirm this, I'll see if I can cobble something together on this. --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The band in the film is actually called The Looters and sing the song "(Join the) Professionals".  The band includes Steve Jones and Paul Cook from the Sex Pistons, Paul Simonon from The Clash and actor Ray Winstone on lead vocals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.245.5 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good catch, 65.244.245.5. Thanks. It may yet be a while before I can get ahold of a copy of the film, so I'm putting this one on my back burner. If you (or anyone else) can add to all this, please do. --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Professionals 

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 

message: Is it really necessary to list every date the movie has been shown for the past thirty years? Jeez, why not give us the days of the week, too? It'd be nice if the article actually told the reader what the movie was all about. You know, the plot? The writer here seems determined to convince us this is an IMPORTANT MOVIE, because it's been shown THIS MANY TIMES, in THIS MANY PLACES!
Ridiculous 66.189.189.169 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the plot? 

message: The bus driver isn't named "Lawnboy" -- that's a derogatory name he's referred to by the guy played by Fee Waybill. I don't think they ever mentioned his name. 
Robko626 (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawnboy? 
Talk:Patti Newton

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 23:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: Note: IMDb says she was born 4 February, which seems to be a confusion of the digits: 2/4 = 2 April, 4/2 = 4 February.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Date digits mixup
Talk:Schott's Miscellany

message: Not sure the first line is correct - Ben Schott wasn't born until 1974 129.67.2.244 23:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Schott's Almanac' page says that 2006 was the first edition. Trixovator 13:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

message: The article mentions that The Guardian called it the 'publishing sensation of the year' in 2005, but it was published in 2002.  Surely the Guardian wouldn't have a special section of G2 magazine in '05, 3 years after it was published? Trixovator 13:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, didn't see it was reprinted in 2005. Trixovator 13:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G2
Talk:West Point, New York

message: Are there any objections against inserting information that West point originally was projected and built under supervision of Kosciuszko? Szopen 16:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have a problem with this first part of the history section - "West Point, (then Fort Clinton)". Fort Clinton was further south on the opposite side of Popolopen Creek, four or five miles away from the West Point encampment above the Hudson River chains. I would really rather not edit this article but this is false information. 68.117.81.38 (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Fort Clinton is not West Point

message: I arrived at this West Point page from a Revolutionary War article link. I fully expected this West Point page to be 80% about the military academy and 20% about the land. I skimmed through this short West Point article a bit confused, and almost not realizing that the West Point academy is linked twice from the United States Military Academy (without "West Point" in the name). It's not that the Revolutionary War article link that got me here was wrong - in that context it did refer to the land - but more that I expected to learn about the academy when arriving to this page. "West Point" is generally synonymous with the academy, at least when I've heard the term spoken. I might suggest adding another "For..." link at the top, so that it's clear to anyone arriving to this page that the content focuses on the land. Then they'd also have a handy link to the academy. Something like:
   For the Military Academy at West Point, see {The United States Military Academy}.
   For other uses, see {West Point (disambiguation)}.
Jeffhoy (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Prominent Redirect? 

message: Not clear who or what is at West Point, other than the Military Academy. Valetude (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining West Point 

message: It would be simple to look at a map and say that West Point is indeed in the New York City Metropolitan area. However, it may not be so obvious, so do we need to cite the part that says "It is part of the New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY–NJ–PA Metropolitan Statistical Area as well as the larger New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT–PA Combined Statistical Area."? ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍  ‍  03:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need to cite? [[WP:SKYBLUE]] or [[WP:NOTBLUE]]