lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 2

message: There has been no comments on whether or not to merge these pages, so unless someone has some objection  I will redirect the New Nine article to this one.
JM 23:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged the topics, but the format (by which I mean appearance) of the page isn't very easy to read (for me at least). Can anyone suggest a better way to organize the information? -Jokermage 19:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: There is a quote by Michael Collins in his book that this was, in his opinion, the best astronaut class, better than the original 7 or the ones that followed (including his own class, the third picked). Worth including?DrBear (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, this is now included. Kees08 (Talk) 08:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best class opinion? 

message: I removed: "Commander, first mission to dock two manned spacecraft in Earth orbit and exchange crews. " from Jim McDivitt.  Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5 did it a couple of months earlier.  Might could say something else, such as commanded the first mission to test the Lunar Module.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they were docked, but did an EVA to transfer to the other spacecraft.  Apollo 9 was the first to do it without going outside.  Perhaps it could be phrased that way??  Bubba73 (talk), 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First to exchange crews? 

message: The chart linked on this page (and other pages) is the most convoluted thing I've ever seen.  A chart should be easy to understand and you shouldn't put every tiny piece of information you can think of in it.  It clutters it up and makes people not want to use it at all.  The small preview pic will dissuade people from wanting to find out more except as a curiosity: "Why would someone make a chart like this, I've got to check this out".  72.177.54.190 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Astronaut Chart

message: Someone seems to have replaced the original picture with a picture of 11 middle eastern men. I doubt the astronauts would have included the crossed blades in their time in Nevada. Would someone more knowledgeable about what belongs there please take a look and correct it? Teseractime (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Nine picture in the training segment
Talk:Golem (Pokémon)

message: So here is the geodude page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodude
Read this in specific
Geodude most frequently are found in fields and on mountains. It is precisely this that makes people step or trip on them from time to time, thinking they were rocks. Its arms are so strong that it can use them to climb mountains. Many people in winter enjoy Geodude fights, in which they hurl snow-covered Geodudes at each other. Strangely, the Geodudes have no objection towards this.
Totally plausable, right?
Now look at the Golem page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem_%28Pokémon%29
Golems are also popular for "Golem fights" during winter, in which people hurl snow-covered Golems at one another.
Weight	661.0 lb (300 kg)
I'm not going to change it though because I'm not an expert on Pokemon 'folklore'.
68.42.213.177 08:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolutely Ridiculous Incorrect Fact
Talk:Eisbein

message: Originally translated from German Wikipedia. Tfine80 05:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: pls redirect from pork knuckle to here, this is quite more common --58.185.21.234 09:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: created redirect from pork knuckle to Schweinshaxe. --Komischn (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pls redirect from pork knuckle to here 

message: Bein and Haxe may both be terms for leg (or part of a leg), but these two terms of food are certainly not interchangeable. Anyone that was served Eisbein (disgusting overcooked thing!) when order Schweinhaxe would be understandably upset! I plan to rmv non-Eisbein info from here (hopefully finding a better article to put it in).
*"disgusting" is in the eye of the beholder, and "overcooking" is just a necessity with this cut of meat. Eisbein, and in particular the (boiled) Northern German eponymous dish, is for many serious meat lovers/ purists the best part of the pig. So please leave your personal opinions for yourself or be a bit more differentiated about them....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.58.184 (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eisbein /= Schwienhaxe

message: The article says about the skin: "It is meant to be peeled off and not eaten." This is absolutely not the case. Of course there are people who don't like the skin and peel it off. But many German Eisbein lovers think the skin is the best part of the dish. It's a matter of personal taste. There is no "Eisbein etiquette" that expects you to peel it. 79.251.4.43 (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it. -- tooki (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft Skin 

message: Do Poles have to troll each and every single german article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.193.243 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Golonka
Talk:Emotional tone scale

message: Scientology's own material uses the word 'disinterested' at point 2.6 on their Tone Scale - and this article reflects that. However, any educated Scientologist or Wikipedia editor must know the difference between the two unconnected words 'disinterested' and 'uninterested'. The former meaning 'unbiased' and the latter meaning 'not interested' or 'lacking interest'.
It seems rather obvious that Scientology intends the meaning 'lacking interest' when it incorrectly uses the word 'disinterested' - so whilst it is not possible to change the wording of the Tone Scale from what The Church of Scientology themselves have dictated, may I suggest that the learned editors of this Wikipedia article insert [sic] after the word 'disinterested' to indicate that it is an error relied upon by the original author/writer/creator.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.82.34 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: say "2. not interested; indifferent." While it also has the meaning you mention, most English readers will recognize the correct definition, especially since it is right above "boredom" on the scale. "Uninterested" might have been a better choice, but "disinterested" is not so off that a [sic] is needed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "disinterested" on the Tone Scale
Talk:Blue Jay Way

message: I removed "...and features a sitar" from the article. If the song does indeed include a sitar, it is not easily discernible, much less featured. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sitar?

message: The lyrics mean "be long" - the other possible meaning given in the article that of "belong" should be cited as a straight misinterpretation by the cultured people who claim that;
Please don't be long
Please don't you be very long
Please don't be long
The citing of it possibly being "belong" (the way "very" is put in the middle) in that context is clearly wrong.
i.e.
Please don't belong
Please don't you be very long
Please don't belong
(That doesn't make any sense in the context even though the Beatles did often purposely write nonsense song of course. It is like the "information" "in formation" debate over the 1967 Prisoner TV series opening narration. It is "information" and "in formation" is an incorrect overinterpretation due to the coincidental series subject matter of conformity).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "belong" or "be long" in the lyrics 

message: ringo starr play drums but it have a peculiar sound, sound with a metalic sound  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.195.161 (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  drum's characteristics? 
MediaWiki talk:Sidebar

message: --Yair rand (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MediaWiki talk:Contactpage#Proposal: Change to "Contact us"]] 

message: Please change the line:
to
after the page moves. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Izno (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 13 Nov 2019 

message: {{subst:trim|1=
{{Sidebar 
Founder: Jeff Bezos
}} Nhuggins (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: malformed. — xaosflux Talk 18:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 14 November 2019 

message: 2 requests:
On MediaWiki:Sidebar,
Can you please change this bullet point from * interaction to * contribute?
On MediaWiki:Interaction,
Can you please move the page to MediaWiki:Contribute?
Related discussion: WP:SIDEBAR20 Interstellarity (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is necessary and the changes from the RfC have been actioned successfully. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Disabled as no response from OP — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 12 June 2020 

message:  needs updating. From what I can ascertain, this requires admin permissions. Chrisdevelop (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Edit/Template:LGBT sidebar should only require autoconfirmed. You are in entirely the wrong place. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to edit Sidebar
Talk:Yankees Suck

message: This very topic is inherently subjective, and if the whole of Wikipedia feels that it does not deserve deletion, then it should at least be merged into the Red Sox Nation article.  Checking this article right now, I suddenly noticed a completely subjective note written by a Mets fan, attracted by the ridiculous title of this article: "Yankees Suck."  This is not an important enough phrase or chant that it requires it's own page, and it is watering down the quality of Wikipedia's sports-related articles.
Djdickmutt 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inherently Subjective Qualities of This Article 

message: Is this subject worthy of its own article?  While "Yankees Suck" is a common phrase, it's not as if they are the only group to use the expression that their rival team "sucks" as a battle cry.  In theory, based on this article, Wikipedia should contain an article for any sort of cheer or jeer that has entered popular mythos, but that simply isn't feasible... I'd rather not see scores of articles named "___ Sucks."  To me, it seems that its content could easily be merged with Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry.  (For what it's worth, I hate the Yankees too, so my thoughts are not based out of bias against the subject matter!) --Kinu 20:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...except Red Sox-Yankees is the biggest rivalry in American sports.  I'd see your point if it was "some random college teams sucks".GreatGatsby 03:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefulness of Page 

message: The 2, 3, & 4 references for this page are unreadable unless you have an account, and I don't even recognize the source.  Any comments? Djdickmutt 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're from the Boston Globe. Just type in some fake Massachusetts library card number- 14 numbers or thereabouts- and you should be able to read them. Stilgar135 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: edit: alright, I see your problem. The main page is http://mblc.state.ma.us/books/magazine/newspapers.php. Put in a number, select "databases by subject", choose "Boston Globe" from near the bottom of the list, and search for "Yankees Suck" and "Nick Cafardo" for the first reference, "Yankees Suck" and "Mets" for the second. I just remembered the second is actually from the Herald. Type in "ejection" or "arrest" or something. I know this is a bit of work, but these are absolutely real references from two very respected media sources. Stilgar135 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Problems 

message: I've completed the merge of Yankees Suck to Yankees-Red Sox rivalry.  Please review and fix any problems as you notice them.  Thanks! Djdickmutt 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the merged material has since been removed, I have now redirected to New York Yankees#Critics. It is currently the only Wikipedia article that uses the phrase. — Satori Son 15:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Yankees-Red Sox rivalry]]
Talk:Tunguska

message: We have duplicated content here.  The Tunguska article does more than describe the geographic location, it also tells the story of the Tunguska event.  This is problematic because there is an entire article on this at Tunguska event.  That article is much more detailed and that's where people should be going for info on that event.  
There is a problem with having info in two places:(a) updates need to be made in two places and (b) differences emerge.  It is better to have this article be a geographical article and let the detail of the event be handled by the Tunguska event article.  
Toward that end, I am going to be a bit bold and remove most of the coverage of the blast event from this article while ensuring that those wanting info on the blast have a clear link to get there.  I am also going to add a geo-stub notice to this article in the hope that somebody with knowledge of the regiion will turn it in to a bona-fide geography article.
Tobycat 06:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Same content...two locations
Talk:Bill Murray

message: Did you know that Bill was the only choice for Garfield? If he had said no, they would've gone with a Bill Murray impersonator.
It's true! I heard it on a documentary I was watching on TV this morning!
:I know that Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious place but every once in a while I like seeing these little jokes in the talk pages as long as every single article doesn't have one PlasmaticGrain (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fun fact 

message: So with the feuds sub article on the page I was wondering if it is  really that necessary to showcase them to those who worship him like the pope or Jesus Christ Kirbopher2004 (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feuds 

message: I just made some editing suggestions and found this article very slow-loading because of its length. Would it benefit from being split into a separate Filmography article, for example? – AndyFielding (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divide to reduce length?
Talk:Star Wars (radio series)

message: Bill Murray filled in for Perry King a couple of shows I believe. - Sparky 07:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

message: I'm struggling to find a reliable source that actually says that the radio dramas are no longer canon. This Lucasfilm announcement from 2014 is clear that former Expanded Universe works dealing with narrative post-Return of the Jedi are no longer considered canon, but it's not so clear about stories set earlier in the saga timeline. It also makes no mention of the radio dramas at all. Can anyone shed more light on this? Cnbrb (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be impossible for Lucasfilm/Disney to articulate in general terms all the media and projects that are not canon; instead, look instead to the affirmative list that has been embraced by the Empire. Absent an explicit inclusion of the radio dramas, it's safe to conclude they're not part of the fold. --EEMIV (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, personally I would agree with that. It's just that in terms of Wikipedia, there would have to be a more concrete statement either way. Drawing an inference from Lucasfilm's press release strays into synthesis, so I was hoping to find a better reliable source. Canonicity is an interesting question, especially with any potential overlaps with the upcoming Rogue One story, and it would be nice to improve the article with something clearer. I just wondered if there might be something buried away in an old SW Insider or something....? Cnbrb (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

text: And interestingly, this author interprets the Lucasfilm announcement differently, stating that "the 'Expanded Universe' of Star Wars outside of the films, radio and television series, is noncanonical..." (my italics) - which rather underlines the ambiguity of the announcement.Cnbrb (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonicity 

message: I don't know what the "re-issued on NPR several years later" verbiage refers to, but no matter -- the title of the ORIGINAL broadcast in 1981 was "The New Hope".  I own cassette recordings that I taped myself in 1981, and they clearly say "The New Hope" before and after every episode.  Kingpin (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already covered in the article. Cnbrb (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title
Talk:Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa'h

message: When this page was originally put up, it reflected a traditionalist Sunni POV, praised the Sunni, and used the pious PBUH when referring to Muhammad. Of the two links, one is to a traditionalist-Sufi leaning site, and one is dead. I de-piefied, de-Sunnified, and removed the links. I couldn't find anything that was sufficiently non-POV or inclusive. DMOZ didn't help, since there's no category there for Sunni. Zora 07:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous.  The word "Salafi" is derived from "salaf as-salih" or "righteous predecessors".  The word is found not only in the Qur'an but throughout all of Islamic history, among many traditional Islamic thinkers.  This is based on the hadith from Muhammad, "the best generation is mine, and the one after that, and the one after that".  This refers to first three generations known as the sahaba, the tabi'een, and the taba'tabi'een - the salaf.  So yes, it does have a long history in Islam.  The dispute comes in over who is actually following the example laid down by those  generations.  As it is, this article reflects an extreme bias toward blind followers of madhahib and toward the Ashariyyah and the Maturidiyyah - in fact, this article falsely claims that those are the only two schools of aqeedah, ignoring the athariyyah entirely.  This really isn't acceptable and this article needs to reflect what is already acknowledged by other articles on this very site. MezzoMezzo 21:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

message: Upon looking at this article, half of it was taken up by sections on taqlid and the sunnah, which are pointless as both already have their own articles here on Wikipedia.  Of the three external links, one of them was commercial and the other was about the sunnah, not the term "ahl as-sunnah wa'l-jamaa'h".  The first two paragraphs were blatantly biased in favor of the Sufi point of view, and left out the third traditional school of aqeedah.  On top of this, there is a section on Shi'ism which I am not sure about, I am not Shia so I may not be able to pick up on any bias as well as a Shia individual would.  Regardless, the necessary edits to remove the extreme bias of this article cut it down to almost nothing.  I strongly support the merge of this article with the article for Sunni Islam. MezzoMezzo 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further review
Talk:Svadhyaya

message: I merged the first few sentences of Swadhyay into this article, and removed the rest which was very POV (the previous version of Swadhyay). This page was chosen because according to Google, Svadhyaya is the more popular spelling. Svadhyayaa, which was also suggested here, got practically no Google hits at all. - ulayiti (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article then? - ulayiti (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: * I will do the redirect if no one responds in a day or so. -- Superdosh 23:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged
Talk:Fort St. George, India

message: Added a page and put some basic information. Request your help in expanding it.--Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan 05:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[St._Mary%27s_Church_Chennai|St. Mary's Church]]

message: This is a dubious statement, since it is well documented that the villages of Madraspatnam and Chennapatnam already existed in the area, which was far from barren -having been an arena for trade from the time of the Phoenicians to the Portuguese, before the British arrived.
(Azariahmoreno 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barren Land?

message: The 4th picture in the body of the article is inverted. Someone who knows how should correct this :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.100.17 (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is an upside down picture  
Talk:Rhysling Award

message: Something is completely off here, https://www.sfpoetry.com/contests/14contest.html lists a different long-form winner for 2014, but the second place is here listed as the first for 2015. Zirconcode (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: winners

message: Should the winners of the Dwarf Stars awards also be included?  They are not "Rhysling" awards but are presented at the same time as the Rhyslings and by the same organization.
===2006===
* Winner: Ruth Berman Knowledge OfNominees and winners for the 2006 Dwarf Stars
* Second Place: Peg Duthie The Stepsister
* Third Place: Greg Beatty Prayer Causes Stars
===2007===
* Winner: Jane Yolen Last UnicornNominees and winners for the 2007 Dwarf Stars
* Second Place: Jane Yolen Troll Under Bridge
* Third Place: Sandra Lindow Dwarves
===2008===
* Winner: Tim Pratt Place Mat by MoebiusNominees and winners for the 2008 Dwarf Stars
* Second Place: Sonya Taaffe Muse
* Third Place: Ann K. Schwader Dancing to Van Gogh
--Marc Kupper|talk 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that an article already existed at Dwarf Stars Award and so added the list of winners to that page. In looking at the SFPA page about the awards I also found I had the timing wrong. The Dwarf Stars are not awarded at the same time as the Rhysling awards. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dwarf Stars 

message: * Winner: Tim Pratt Place Mat by MoebiusNominees and winners for the 2008 Dwarf Stars
* Second Place: Sonya Taaffe Muse
* Third Place: Ann K. Schwader Dancing to Van Gogh
--Marc Kupper|talk 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found that an article already existed at Dwarf Stars Award and so added the list of winners to that page. In looking at the SFPA page about the awards I also found I had the timing wrong. The Dwarf Stars are not awarded at the same time as the Rhysling awards. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008

message: This Wik page has the 2009 winners, but the official Rhysling page doesn't seem to list any winners for 2009.  Whence the information? Kdammers (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009