lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Sidri

message: I'm the original creator of this article, and I'd like to voice why it should be kept. I really don't see any argument for claiming that the article is unencyclopedic. It doesn't fall under any of the categories in Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not. It's an encyclopedia article; it briefly summarize the key information about a particular topic of note and interest. I don't see any reason for that tagging.
One could make an argument that the article is not important enough, but I think that arguments fails and the article is important. An article on the Sidri would be of interest to comic book readers and X-Men readers in particular. With the success of the three X-Men films (the franchise has grossed over a half a billion dollars in U.S. alone), interest by the general public in X-Men articles may be high as well. Alien races such as the Sidri form a whole category of Wikipedia articles. There are many articles on comic book villains. There are many articles on fictional characters in popular culture media. To delete the Sidri article would be to embrace the deletion of large numbers of these articles. Stories in which the Sidri have appeared were published in Uncanny X-Men, one of the highest circulation comic books in the United States. Furthermore, those stories have been reprinted several times: in Classic X-Men, in the From the Ashes trade paperback, and in the Essential X-Men tradeback. So many copies of those stories exist. Furthermore, another editor believed the Sidri were important enough to create the link back in October 2005 through which this article was established. --JamesAM 05:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say keep it.  The Sidri tie into the origin of Shadowcat and Lockheed's relationship, which is why I mentioned it in Lockheed's article. Nightscream 03:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why to keep this article
Talk:Nikkatsu

message: Nikkatsu is most famous for making porno movies.. this is how wiki works ..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.212.105.197 (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALDL 
Talk:Pat Frank

message: My copy of Alas, Babylon says Frank was born in 1907. However, it gives no more specific date. Anyone else know better? --OneSeventeen 05:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My copy (Harper Perennial) says on the outside 1907.  However, inside there is an 'About the Author' section by Hal Hager, and he states Frank was born on May 5, 1908 in Chicago. Unless anyone else provides new info on this, I'm gonna remove the 1909 claim, ok? Cheers Raystorm 21:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Born?

message: You will want to add this link and perhaps information from this Jacksonville Florida newspaper article 
http://jacksonville.com/lifestyles/literature/2009-06-12/story/pat_franks_alas_babylon_50_years_later
Regards, Rumjal 
rumjal 16:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New Reference

message: Just in case this article should eventually be removed from the Internet.--Thunderbuster (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Jacksonville Florida-Times Union. Florida newspaper article about Pat Frank
Talk:Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department

message: 1103 patrol cars and 16000 horses? Is this vandalism, ignorance, or simply extremely unlikely?
-Yasha80.41.48.212 01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Horses

message: Does anyone have the postal address of the headquarters in Kasumigaseki? 
On the website it is 東京都千代田区 
霞ヶ関2-1-1 
Chris 17:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical address
Talk:National Public Safety Commission (Japan)

message: It is quite confusing, but NPSC (国家公安委員会) isn't a security agency. NPSC is a commission to study and maintain neutrality of Japanese police and isn't policing communists nor nationalists nor terrorists, although the word public safety (公安) usually refers to security agencies, such as Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department Public Security Bureau (警視庁公安部) or Public Security Intelligence Agency (公安調査庁). --Oyoso3 (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion of NPSC with security agency
Talk:Acuity Insurance

message: Here is a reserve image of the Acuity flag. A better image is on the article. Royalbroil T : C 00:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reserve image

message: Removed the following from article, and copied here, along with user's name Haploidavey (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag dimensions
Talk:Sapphire Princess

message: Some of the photos and ship info overlap. Can somebody fix this?
71.193.162.77 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which browser and what screen resolution are you using? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap 
Talk:My Little Pony: A Very Minty Christmas

message: The movie is good, but I used to have it on the reissue instead of the normal disc. I hate the fact that it says "Classic" on it because the movie isn't classic. THEY ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO BE CLASSIC! Plus, there's no bonus episode. I found the original disc in the store and I bought it. Then I gave the reissue to someone else. I will not allow these lies in my house. THE MOVIE AND THE OTHER G3 MOVIES ARE NOT CLASSIC! THEY ARE JUST OLDER THAN G4! They have to be 30 or 20 years old to be classic. The original My Little Pony, G2, and Tales are classic, but G3 won't be classic until they are 20 years old.
If you go to Shout Factory's reissues, you will not have A Charming Birthday, and you will see the stupid Classic My little Pony Movie thing, EVEN THOUGH THE MOVIES AREN'T CLASSIC! If you have the reissues, just know that the movies aren't classic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:4101:642F:645E:95B4:24E7:E212 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie was reissued, but the reissue says "Classic" even though the movie is NOT classic
Talk:My Little Pony: The Princess Promenade

message: Does this deserve a page? Its "high ratings" were clearly trolling.  [ dotKuro ] [ talk ] [ contribs ]  16:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDb's high ratings of the film are obviously dubious, but I think the film itself is clearly notable, for a number of reasons. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Wedding registry

message: Department stores kept bridal registries on computer long before 1993, so it's not strictly accurate to call this the first electronic registry. The referenced patent is for a registry in a kiosk with a touch screen. Prior to this system customers had to ask the sales staff to get them a printout from the registry. So perhaps it would be better to call it the first self-service gift registry? Can anyone think of a better term? Lee Choquette (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added "self-service" to the article as nobody raised an objection. Lee Choquette (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "electronic gift registry" to "self-service gift registry"?
Talk:Gastrectomy

message: No need for separate articles, can readily be covered in 'gastrectomy', reexpanded at a later date if needed Tom (LT) (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with merge. Klbrain (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Reichel–Polya operation]]
Talk:US history of exporting democracy

message: As per the deletion tag:
"You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced."
Re: object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.
Full explanation of why I removed the deletion tag is above.  WP:NOR has no merit.  NPOV is adressed in the article, with three conflicting view points, which any user is welcome to develop and expand upon.
Re: If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.
As per the tag: Please do not replace this template. Travb (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion tag removed

message: I am putting this article up for a vote to be merged with Foreign relations of the United States, as per the excellent and insightful suggestion of User:Bmk 
Please vote here: Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States#Merge_voteTravb (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tag
Talk:Wolfhound

message: Since not all wolfhounds were bred to hunt wolves (some are called that because they are wolf-dog hybrids) I broke it up. I noticed that the Wolfdog entry says that many people prefer that term over wolf hybrid or wolf-dog hybrid because a hybrids are crosses of two different species, while dogs and wolves are in the same species. According to the Hybrid entry this is false. It reads "Hybrids between different species within the same genus are sometimes known as interspecific hybrids or crosses. Hybrids between different sub-species within a species are known as intra-specific hybrids. Hybrids between different genera are sometimes known as intergeneric hybrids." I will look into correcting that if I get a chance to first verify it. Bigdoglover 06:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broke up into two sub-lists

message: Image found on commons - part of Western power's intervention in the 1918 revolution - User:Leonard G. 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another meaning

message: The implicit theory that would be needed to justify the present top-level organization is that "wolfhound"
# is an ambiguous term when applied to dogs and
# also has many metaphorical uses for things that are not dogs:
## groups of people (a band, teams, and military units including 1 mentioned on this talk page that so far has no article),
## models of military equipment (2 instances), and
## titles for discursive  literary  well, let's try communicative works.
One impulse i feel is to ignore WP:INCDAB or bend WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by treating something like Wolves and dogs as primary. But barring support from colleagues, i'm going to try something vaguer: moving much of the excessive prose of the first section into two (conceivably three) separate articles. Let's see what evolves.--Jerzy•t 21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary topic? 

message: :   The opening section, as noted in the section one level up in the section hierarchy of this talk page, says way too much. The two parts of it discussing
# recent dog/wolf hybridizations and
# breeding, without wolves, for wolf characteristics
: are, per the distinctions drawn the first graph, not even legitimate parts of the accompanying dab.   That's where the cleanup starts.--Jerzy•t 08:05 &09:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:    ... and i'm not even sure which parts of it say something plausibly consistent. I'm going to probably have to look at some of the history to see where the confusion started.--Jerzy•t 09:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-wolfhound material
Talk:Edible

message: This page needs to be added to and in a correct format. Jam 06:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Enhanced the header text, added an image, and added one section: edible items in nature. Could definitely use more eyes on all. Another useful section would cover processed edible items (underwear, tableware, etc). Mozby (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions made

message: The current article is making a bold claim that any plant that goes through this checklist is "safe" to eat, and makes no references or remarks. It mentions it as a "survival skill" but that's it.
In fact, this method is a last-ditch survival effort when no "known" food is available and provides best-effort safety (as an alternative to starving).  Definitely, among 400,000 plant species, there are those that will pass the test but kill you later. Death cap mushroom as one obvious example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPGremlin (talk • contribs) 15:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A description of this method can be seen in an earlier version of the article: I've removed it now as it wasn't reliably sourced. – Uanfala (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the edit! The edibility test definitely should have been presented with more nuance, if at all. But I was curious about your reasoning for rating How Stuff Works as an unreliable source. I used it because I've often seen PBS cite is as a classroom resource, but its name is certainly not as authoritative-sounding as other sites. I ended up starting a thread about it on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, just to see what other editors think, and I'd love to hear your take if you're interested. Mozby (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsafe!
Talk:List of American comics creators

message: I've just done some cleanup on what was becoming an unreadably cluttered list-page. The bluelinked names don't really need descriptors, and there was no consistency as to what credits to include and how many; someone with just a couple of comics to his name might get the same amount descriptor space as someone very established. Then others, some well-known, some household names, might have nothing. These differing weights attached to some names and not others can give skewed impressions to a non-comics reader (i.e., the general-interest audience at which Wikipedia is aimed).
This page needs more work, and we should probably have a discussion here to determine a uniform policy.
Additionally, I sourced what redlinked names could be verify via reliable sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency, style

message: ZoltanWiki (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommend To Add

message: It's weird that this list separates the deceased subjects into a sub-list. This isn't standard procedure among most lists I've seen on Wikipedia, and there is no way it's up-to-date. It would be far more useful to integrate these people into the other sections of the page, wherever they belong. Personally I'm done with this page, but it would be great if someone with an interest in the topic would take this on. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Deceased" section
Talk:Smeal College of Business

message: I just wanted to get this project started. Please contribute as much as you wish!
Is anyone going to start adding an alumni part to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.31.143 (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is just a start

message: Unless anyone is of the mind that the Nittany Lion Fund article can be expanded past its present form, I propose merging it with this article as a program of the college. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nittany Lion Fund]] 

message: WP:NOT#STATS
Wikipedia is not a list of stats. This article needs to be expanded to included body text --Flyguy33 (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Statistics
Talk:Scooby-Doo! in Where's My Mummy?

message: What does the sentence in the Goof section even mean? I understand it's something about Cleopatra and dates but otherwise...who knows? Lots42 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: B.C was the old way to refer to years before the year zero (i.e Before Christ, Christ was born in year zero). This has since been changed to B.C.E, which stands for Before Common Era, and that is now the "correct" term for years before zero. So they both mean the same thing. Rhino131 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goof 

message: The plot reads like a variant of Scooby-Doo and a Mummy, Too (1969) from the Scooby Doo, Where Are You! TV series where the mummy of Ankha "the most feared and richest leader (ie Pharaoh) of Egypt is shambling around supposedly turning people to stone while looking for his coin.--2606:A000:7D44:100:458:AA9D:1708:12D (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anything that connects this with Scooby-Doo and a Mummy, Too (1969)?
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of the Order of the Stick comics

message: The purpose of this article is to collect all the various bits of OotS media into a single reference.  The primary use would be searching for specific articles, though special notes about individual pages should also be included where appropriate.
There is no official way of searching for OotS comics, though that have been several fan attempts on the forums.   The downside with these attempts is they rely upon a single person for maintance.  I am not aware of any usable lists that are even remotely close to being up-to-date.
It is likely that this article falls under the domain of fancruft. It likely only prove useful to readers of the webcomic.  Searching Wikipedia, I can find many examples of lists such as this, documenting all media information on a subject along side brief descriptions.  Admittedly, OotS is likely much less popular.
I would not resist the deletion of this entry if everyone feels that it shouldn't be here.  Please voice any concerns that you have.  In the mean time, I'm going to try and maintain this myself.  When it is suitably comprehensive, I'll link to it off the main article. – Gunslinger47 06:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An article of this sort would be more appropriate on Comixpedia than here.  –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right.  I'm working on moving it over right now. – Gunslinger47 20:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hrm...  I'm encountering two main problems.  Firstly, it hasn't defined the "wikitable" CSS class.  Secondly, they are using an earlier version of MediaWiki that doesn't support references. –Gunslinger47 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be able to use HTML tables.  As for references, those can be kludged, too.  It's not ideal, but I doubt this would survive an AfD. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article purpose
Talk:Super Rookie

message: Yep, the two are the same - Super Rookie and New Employee. But, I don't know how to merge them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.228.226 (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agee, these two are the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nprigoda (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The content of this Wikipedia article seems to be directly from This Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nprigoda (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

message: There is a more detailed plot summary here. Not sure why it wasn't included as part of the merge, it dosen't appear to be a copyvio. PC78 15:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary
Talk:Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon

message: The big list of quotes should probably be placed in a subpage (such as Talk:Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon/quotes) rather than cluttering up the talk page. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quotes 

message: I know this isn't the best place to ask, but does anyone know if this is possible? --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably only be on the Wii's Virtual Console because it was exclusive to the N64. There are some N64-exclusive games (Banjo-Kazooie, GoldenEye 007) that are on the Xbox Live Arcade and not Virtual Console, but that is only because Rare, the developer of those games, is owned by Microsoft now. Konami is still independent. Tezero (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the odds of some sort of rerelease/PSN/Xbox/Wii Network download? 

message: For step one for WP:FAR, I am raising concerns on some issues the article has. The first problem I have is the sourcing. Some of them (EX: Sakekan Game Reviews, 64 Lightland) seem to be unreliable. Another issue is the Length. Primarily the Plot section, which contains unnecessary content like an entire section for the Humor in the game. GamerPro64 03:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR step one
Talk:Northwestern California University School of Law

message: "As a result, graduates are generally not permitted to take the bar exam outside of California.[2]"
^^^ Is that accurate? Because here it shows that most states have an in-road (though comparatively difficult versus ABA law school grads) to sit for its bar exam for non-ABA law school grads: http://www.sjcl.edu/index.php/prospective-students/why-sjcl/practicing-outside-california
Granted, it's not like you can go from unaccredited law school directly to sitting for the bar in an outside state, but the possibility to do it after meeting state specific requirements is generally there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.4.103.242 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Accreditation

message: Hi,
I've spent about an hour and a half trying to get the article wifified and cleaned-up without making any progress. Could someone please help? In particular, it does not even appear on any searches or in the US/California universities and law schools categories.
Thanks,
Suran.
== non-advertisement changes made ==
Hi,
I made changes so that it no longer appears like an advertisement, but it still doesn't appear on searches. Are there special tags that I need to add?
Please help,
Suran.
== New user; first article; please help. ==
Hi,
I made even more changes so that it does not appear like an advertisement. Could someone please advise? Why isn't it appearing in the US/California universities categories and the law schools categories? Why doesn't it appear on any searches?
Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks again,
Suran.
:Please sign your posts with four tildes (~'s) so that we can identify your work.  Start here for why the page is considered too advertisement-like for a Wikipedia article.  For suggesions on how to rewrite the article, see the Wikipedia Manual of Style  Dynaflow 06:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ==

message: Hi,
I made even more changes so that it does not appear like an advertisement. Could someone please advise? Why isn't it appearing in the US/California universities categories and the law schools categories? Why doesn't it appear on any searches?
Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks again,
Suran.
:Please sign your posts with four tildes (~'s) so that we can identify your work.  Start here for why the page is considered too advertisement-like for a Wikipedia article.  For suggesions on how to rewrite the article, see the Wikipedia Manual of Style  Dynaflow 06:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user; first article; please help. 

message: This entry  from the Bar Council (http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/), shows a Mr. Michael Clancy (without the e) as a member Barrister. The search did not reveal any Michael Clancey as a Barrister. Nor does a search on this website: http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/qualityassurance/onlineregister/ for either Clancy or Clancey. (But this website searches for Barristers practicing, so it may not be accurate.) Accordingly, the info about him being a dual member is deleted.--S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clancey as a Barrister?
Talk:Morris Albert

message: Since the part about the Offspring's version of "Feelings" got removed twice, I'm not adding it back to the article. I wonder if the song really deserves its own article... it would be a short one for sure. antiuser 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This information was initially listed in this article (which I started), but it was later removed and instead added to the article about the song itself. - ||| antiuser 11:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Feelings

message: Much of this article is unencyclopedic in nature. Unfortunately I don't know the correct way to put that tag on it so have left the word in triple {s there as a flag Martyn Smith (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unencyclopedic