lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Meat pie (Australia and New Zealand)

message: End the war between Australia and New Zealand and change the name to "Take-away Meat pie".--Lukeblake (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change name to Meat pie (take-away) 

message: Does the Penpies thing really belong here? It seems like a bit of an advertisement.106.68.252.33 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising? 

message: There probably should be a section about the history of pies being sold in australia and new zealand. I've found a few links about this below if it helps anyone. Of course i may start writing this section myself,  but i would need to do more research first. Feel free to discuss sources or contribute here.
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-04/meat-pie-exhibition-tracks-history-of-australia-iconic-fast-food/7297216
* https://travelwireasia.com/2011/11/a-brief-history-of-the-australian-meat-pie/
* https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/inner-west/meat-pies-are-australias-national-fast-food-choice-with-australians-eating-270-million-every-year/news-story/3ab90bcb3467d1b57203cfbbc065fdbc
* https://australianfoodtimeline.com.au/great-australian-pie/
Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the pie
Talk:Carlingford railway line

message: Is the platform at Rose Hill really sixteen cars long? It seems unlikely because CityRail doesn't usually operate Electric Multiple Unit rolling stock longer than 8 cars... Techelf 10:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose Hill platform 

message: Great work on this article! --Alexxx1 07:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great job 

message: i have seen pictures of oscars and milleniums operating on the line.... do they still operate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartie52 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  mileniums and oscars 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northern railway line, Sydney which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: This pairing of infrastructure and service are very much intertwined. Both articles are very short and are always going to have considerable overlap. The split was performed without discussion so there is no consensus for the current structure. Gareth (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 
Talk:Cassiopea

message: In case anyone is still thinking to have this speedily deleted, let me vote Keep quick, since its content has been almost completely altered into a legitimate substub.  Tomer TALK 10:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Add my vote to that, in case it's needed. This article, short though it is, should definitely be kept. --Stemonitis 07:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy deletion

message: So, is this genus called Cassiopea or Cassiopeia? The article uses both spellings. Orcoteuthis (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling
Talk:General manager

message: Does retail deserve a separate article?
Rlquall 10:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This article and others can't seem to decide... it seems the capitalized version is the common one? Ryan Norton 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: The usage and primary topic of  is under discussion, see talk:General Motors -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "GM" 

message: While not pleased to have to do this I am at the end of my nerves when it comes to listening to the news broadcast. Is it not possible to put Bruce Frisco or Paul Hollingsworth on the News desk for Todd Batis?? Stephanie Tsicos’s voice is like nails scratching on a chalkboard. I have to turn the channel and I can’t watch the late news anymore. I know it’s not her fault but it’s still very annoying. Can she not work behind the scenes instead of on air?? This has really ruined the news broadcast for me. Thanks for listening. Deborah Winstanley 76.11.20.143 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  News Anchor
Talk:Ernst Stueckelberg

message: Having access to the Lacki et al biographical book, I'm now starting a major rewrite of this article. Any help greatly appreciatedRobma (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision work

message: I have no idea why this person is getting to dominate this particular wikipedia entry. Who is this guy? His website is clear hint of something dodgy -- Renormalisation is a serious issue plaguing QFT that mathematical physicist would be seriously interested in. Yet, this man claims to have an equivalent of a braindead method to solve this problem. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and it is even silly insinuating that the entirety of the QFT community failed to try the equivalent of "10-20-30" solution. Instead, I hear more of the "oppressed victim" trying to spread the word, which is why his links are spread over the page. 220.255.2.232 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone (can't remember who) wrote that being attacked by anonymous people on the internet is a bit like being assaulted by dwarfs in the dark. I concur. The article is about Stueckelberg, not me. Showing that at least one person (me) followed up on Stueckelberg's 1934 ideas, even if unintentionally, is worth mentioning as it helps demonstrate the value of those ideas. This accounts for just one link to my work which is the only self-promotion, or whatever you want to call it, here. Talk pages OTOH are more free format and interest in discussions is not necessarily just because I am looking for attention. Deal with it. Cgoakley (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CG Oakley 

message: Yukawa came up with the idea of mesons in 1934; see his profile on nobelprize.org. So he certainly did not "rediscover" this idea after Stueckelberg abandoned it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.52.117.72 (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The idea of mesons "rediscovered by Hideki Yukawa"
Talk:Baseball positions

message: The schema of numbering the positions is unusual enough -- with 1-2 being vertical, 3-4-5 being right to left, 7-8-9 being left to right, and 6 being out of place -- that an explanation of the historical reasons would be worth including in this article.  I surmise that SS is #6 and out of order because traditionally the SS was more of a roving shallow outfielder.  That should be in the text of the article.  And why does the infield go R-L while the outfield goes L-R?  Some historian out there must know the answer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.96.255 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A History Section is Warranted

message: 67.35.253.89 has added "There are 10 (previously 9) fielding positions... each position has an associated number (from 1 to 9)". --- Why 10? Ojw 12:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, unless someone somehow thought that DH was a fielding position. I changed it back to 9.Kevin M Marshall 13:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: In the 1870s, each baseman generally guarded his base, and the shortstop was a roving fielder who might be positioned anywhere.  (Bob Schaeffer, a SABR expert on 19th century baseball lectured on this subject.)  When the numbering scheme evolved, the shortstop was neither infielder nor outfielder. WHPratt (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fielding positions

message: I have no idea why someone thought this was a "baseball position".  It should be deleted. T. Wong 03:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup Batter?

message: Currently Fielding (baseball) redirects here. I think we definitely need a separate article for it, just as we have one for Batting (baseball). Duoduoduo (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a separate article for Fielding (baseball) rather than a redirect to here 

message: — Assignment last updated by Patrickgleason6 (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Industry Theory and Practice 74252
Talk:Endless Love (1981 film)

message: Sorry if this isn't a good question, but why isn't there an article for the book this movie was adapted from? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for the book? 

message: The plot section mischaracterizes David's family. The Axelrods were openly leftist activists, socialists.  This is expressly stated and shown. Very tolerant. It's implied this helped foster David's "outside the box" behavior.  Jade's father and older brother were the conservative ones, hardly Bohemian. AaronCBurke (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axelrods NOT conservative
Talk:Green Arrow

message: Hello all! I have done some condensing and cleanup, and have archived the talk page, as there had been no user activity since 2012. Archive can be found at Talk:Green Arrow/Archive 1. Etzedek24 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page archive and new additions

message: Bring back green arrow hawkeyes dad! 2604:3D08:B97F:FDC0:1C8F:7AE1:404B:EEBE (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawkeye in these new movies is good but why not bring his dad into it? He was after all the original green arrow! I wondered why hawkeye was chosen he was not as popular as his dad to begin with. 
Talk:Foe (Coetzee novel)

message: How does one 'attach' a story to someone else's story and yet not be guilty of plagerism??DasV (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To plagiarize is to attempt to falsely present another person's work as one's own work. Did Coetzee try to make people think that he wrote "Robinson Crusoe"? 96.235.138.179 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagerism
Talk:Ihara zeta function

message: It would be very helpful to have, at a minimum, Ihara's full name, his dates, and the year that this zeta function was introduced.
: Done, methinks Sodin 19:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

message: I believe the correct definition should be that the product is over all elements of the cycle space. We do not have an article for a prime walk. Calling this a "prime walk" seems misleading since primes are always a base or a generating set for something, whereas the product in the ihara zeta is not over just a generating set, but over all cycles in the cycle space, right? Also, the current definition in the article seems to place special importance on "no backtracking", but I think this would be automatically taken care of by restricting to simple graphs, (i.e. only one edge per pair of verticies), and then restricting to cycle space. Right? 
Hmm. on the other hand, I am reading an article that does call these things prime cycles, so this seems to be common usage, even though they aren't 'prime' in the sense of cycle space. On the other hand the product rep of riemann zeta is over prime numbers so I guess that's ok. linas (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: cycle space

message: Can it be that since 2004 nobody noticed that the one thing this article is missing is the definition of Ihara's zeta function:
\zeta_{G}\left(u\right)=\prod_{\left[p\right]}\frac{1}{1-u^{\mathrm{len}(p)}}
It seems that the author meant to write this, because the article does say "The product in the definition of the Ihara zeta function is taken over all prime closed geodesics p", but the definition itself is missing...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.120.126.58 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok this is hilarious
Template talk:Judaism

message: I've just started fooling around here, trying to come up with a Judaism template, similar to the templates  and ... help me out!  Tomer TALK 09:51, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
This idea was spawned by  and 
*The "solution" to this is to use the  template, which already has the major Judaism subjects on it. IZAK 05:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tomer's idea

message: :You bring up a very good point IZAK, but what I'm proposing is not necessarily an entirely new concept, but the subsuming of all of, or parts of, already-extant templates.  For example, the Jewish_language template (in the development of which, you might, or might not, have noted, I've played a tremendous rôle...) has a bit to do with Template:Jew and about 1/5 that much to do with my proposed Template:Judaism.  The Templates "Books of Torah", "Books of Nevi'im" and "Books of Ketuvim" have only minimally to do with Template:Jew and only parenthetically to do with my proposed Template:Judaism, inasmuch as they are crucial to the understanding of the single link to Tanakh within the "Religious texts" section, under "Tanakh".  The Template:Jewish_holidays jingaling is "nice", and so perhaps that section of my proposed template should be pared down a bit accordingly, but I fail to see how the existence of that template should be regarded as jeopardizing my proposal.  The Template:Israelis, with all due respect, has almost exactly nothing to do with my proposal.  I respect your dissent, but I think that, while I regard "Jewish identity", i.e. the purview of Template:Jew as basically synonymous with Yehaðuþ, I think that every subject presently included in those subjects proscribed by Template:Jew can easily be divided between Template:Jew and my proposed Template:Judaism, my recent argument with you (IZAK), over kosher wine, notwithstanding.  Tomer TALK 06:34, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
*Tomer, see my response below. (I am not in the least concerned about past debates with you, I have them with people all the time! So cheer up old chap, as they say, no hard feelings at all!) But, what are you saying here, that you would eliminate all the Tanakh/JewishHolidays etc templates? Please give some CLEARER reasons what you are saying and why so. ThanksIZAK 06:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tomer's Rebuttal to the points brought forth by the respectable editor IZAK

message: I would like that the link is consistent with the name of the article, as in "Christianity and Judaism," not "Judaism and Christianity."
* Judaism and Christianity
* Christianity and Judaism
 JumboSizedFish (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To be consistent with the other links in the section, I have removed the "Judaism and" from the bullet point; it now reads *Christianity. HouseBlastertalk 12:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and I didn't really pay attention to other details when it comes to "Christianity and Judaism" and "Christianity." JumboSizedFish (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2023
Talk:The Drive-By Truckers

message: There are two Wikipedia articles for the DbTs - someone might try to combine them?
--borborygmus 13:05, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
To clarify, the other article is at Drive-by truckers. --82.182.24.17 00:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

message: This page should be moved to "Drive-By Truckers", as that is the correct name. --PEJL 21:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Drive-By Truckers"
Talk:Rats & Star

message: It's per Wikipedia style guidelines. This from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Avoid_overlinking_dates
:Avoid overlinking dates
:If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links.
:Usage of links for date preferences
:* year only. So 1974 → 1974. Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic.
:* month only. So April → April. Generally, do not link
:* century. So 20th century → 20th century. Generally, do not link
:* decade. So 1970s → 1970s. Generally, do not link (Including an apostrophe [1970's] is incorrect)
:* year and month. So April 1974 → April 1974 Generally, do not link
:* new year and month. So April 2000 → April 2000 Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic. Presently, articles only exist for combinations from the year 2000 to current
:* day of the week (with or without other date elements). So Tuesday → Tuesday. Generally, do not link.--Tenebrae 04:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for deleting wikidate overlinkage

message: Is the Discography section a list of songs or a list of albums? (Songs should be formatted with quote marks and albums should be formatted with italics.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography and formatting
Talk:San Marino euro coins

message: I never got one of these. It seems very beautiful. -Pedro 13:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Eddy (Ed, Edd n Eddy)

message: What is the point of this article?  It seems to be nothing that belongs on Wikipedia.  First, so little is known about the characters of Ed, Edd n Eddy that they hardly need their own pages.  Second, this article is so poorly written it seems like it's from a fansite.—Quickbreak 14:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. There isn't a reason to have a separate article for this character. Krazykillaz 23:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose?

message: I saw The Day After Tomorrow. It had tidal waves, tornadoes and hail. In Flea-Bitten Ed, the characters (except the Kankers) are ambushed by bunnies, which came out of the Eds' scam, Eds' Pet Boutick in the ending.
:And there's a point to this? Krazykillaz 23:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool spoiler in Flea-Bitten Ed
Talk:Noon

message: Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 08:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time/Assessment|WikiProject Time assessment rating]] comment 

message: "In addition, p.m. is often associated with night so 12 a.m. may seem to be midnight."  What does this mean?  Should the a.m. in that sentence actually be p.m.? --Banyan (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo?

message: I grew up knowing "high noon" as equivalent to "solar noon", rather than simply "noon", as would be implied by the unqualified link to this article from high noon, followed by this article's silence on the term.  Tomertalk 06:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an older article that makes a similar point, and here is a Stack Exchange question exploring the same topic (in fact prompted by imprecise wording in an earlier draft of this very article). It seems credible to me. I note that the distinction is not made at Sun transit time, Culmination or Meridian altitude. Something that isn't clear to me from the sources is whether "solar noon" most precisely refers to the sun's meridian transit or to its highest altitude. Ibadibam (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  High noon 

message: Do you know what the name of the day in which the earliest sunset occurs (about 2 weeks before the solstice)? Any clues? Ol'Campy (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar day - name? 
Talk:Road House (1989 film)

message: "Road House is a 1989 American action film directed by Rowdy Herrington and starring Patrick Swayze and Sam Elliott as bouncers at a seedy roadside bar who protect a small town in Missouri from a corrupt businessman."
This is incorrect on a number of levels. Elliot's character does not work at the bar in question, never having been employed there. His only involvement abetting Swayze's character comes outside when they are fighting with the businessman's henchmen while the booze is getting delivered. Furthermore, Elliot's character makes no intervention in the businessman's affairs indeed, he warns Swayze's character not to get involved.
So it needs a re-write. Will do so further to discussion here. --89.211.140.36 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: I haven't seen the movie, but was just reading the entry about it. The "Plot" section has a couple of problems.
About five graphs in, there is a first reference to a character named "Emmett" but no identification of who the character is, his relation to the story or who plays him. The character is mentioned again in the next paragraph without further identification. (Oh, in the "Cast" section, Emmett is spelled "Emmet" with on t. I'm not sure which is correct.)
Also, the James Dalton character is mentioned as specifically driving a "1965 Buick Riviera" in the second paragraph, but four paragraphs later the car is described as "Dalton's Mercedes."
As I mentioned, I have not seen the movie so have no idea how to correct these problems. Thanks. Wlampkin (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *He has two different cars. There is no error there. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

text: *Thanks. I recast that sentence to make it clearer that it's not necessarily his car, but that he's driving it. Wlampkin (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *He owns both. He drives the Mercedes to the town, purchases the Buick, drives it for most of the movie and uses the Mercedes again near the end in the final action sequence. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: I collected some info about original cut of the film, which is said to be three and a half hours long, but i seem to be having trouble finding reliable source in order for this to say on site. Any help is much appreciated, original 1989 article with interview with Elliot is online but something's wrong with it, at least on my end, and right now as i'm writing this the making of documentary and director's commentary seem to be no longer online. Just in case, here's what i originally wrote; Andrew Ryder (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Original 210 minute cut
Talk:The Reign of Terror (Doctor Who)

message: There is no reason Twitter can't be a reliable source. Even though it's full of nonsense, impostors, satirists pretending to be impostors and impostors pretending to be satirists, it could, rarely, be good. This particular feed, while unverified by Twitter (the tick of approval) does appear to be 2|enteratin's feed. Having said all that, my natural inclination when seeing such an unlikely claim backed by such an unverified source, is to give a great big delete. Which I suspect is what most people would feel. So I suggest that while you could use it, subjects as trivial as upcoming releases DON'T have to be updated continually. We can wait until something's released before considering it notable. MartinSFSA (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twitter as a source 