lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ḥaʼil

message: I have expanded this stub a bit, however, as the article now stands it is heavily "tilted" towards the Rashidi period. There is far too little about the present-day town. Also, the history pre-1836 could be expanded. I hope other wikipedians will contribute here. Regards, Huldra 19:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—188.48.43.127 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some tweaks in the formatting, but I see nothing wrong with the coordinates themselves. In the absence of any explanation on your part, I'm closing this request for correction. If you still think that the coordinates are erroneous, please post here again, specifying where the error lies. Deor (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: Leo1pard (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page views 

message: Hail has the best temperature in whole of Saudi Arabia 151.254.196.81 (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature in Hail
Talk:Arcadi Volodos

message: Why remove the photo? Just out of curiosity, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zophras (talk • contribs) 19:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: I have deleted the two youtube clips.  Unless Volodos's transcriptions are public domain, we must assume they are under his copyright.  It is not enough that the original compositions on which the transcriptions are based are public domain, the arrangements must be too.MisterCSharp (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio Samples

message: I cannot find any supporting online claim to back the article description of this subject as a "composer". Even his own website does not use this term in any sense of the word. He never studied composition and there are no references to any works. Yes, he has two "arrangements" that are popular, but this does not make him a "composer"; just like it does not make Vladimir Horowitz a composer simply because he dabbled in composition. I am removing this from the lead since there is nothing in the article that covers this claim. The two "arrangements" should not be under the section compositions either. Maineartists (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Composer"
Talk:Weinberg–Witten theorem

message: This article begins with this sentence:
::: Steven Weinberg and Edward Witten consider the so-called emergent theories to be misguided.
This doesn't tell the reader whether this article is about sociology, economics, psychology, biology, literary criticism, linguistics, or whatever....  You've read all the way through the first sentence and you still don't know that. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociology?? 

message: I am a Physics Master's student, with a good knowledge of QFT and there are substanaial part of the article I have trouble understanding parts of the article. This is an encyclopedia and such an article could do with simpler, better written text not an abstract for a scientific paper.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.252.248 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical?? 

message: " So, they came up with a no-go theorem that excludes, under very general assumptions, the hypothetical composite and emergent theories. "
Can't we do better than this tone wise? It's pretty embarrassing. --69.147.132.194 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Why is the spin in the first para identied as "spin j"?  The variable isn't referred to anywhere else and the phrase "particles with spin greater than one" is perfectly clear without needing any variables at all.  Unless there is some significance to j that I'm missing, this needless insertion of a variable is just puffed-up writing.  Ross Fraser (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just the style commonly used in papers, talks, colloqia. User:Linas (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Particles with spin j greater than one"  --  Why j?  Is this someone's favourite variable? 

message: I'm worried that the sections on conformal field theory and infraparticles may reflect someone's personal research agenda and should be removed.  Two obvious problems are the 1) the implication that Weinberg-Witten doesn't apply to noninteracting singletons (i.e. free fields) even though we see the statement contradicted at the end of the section on Seiberg duality; 2) the claim that infra particles violate the continuity assumption even though Weinberg and Witten explicitly say they don't need a continuity assumption.  When I've understood the proof of this theorem a little better, I may try to edit the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.62.33 (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  conformal field theory and infraparticles
Talk:Aneta Langerová

message: NEW FANPORTAL
http://people.freenet.de/aneta-langerova/
This Website isn't empty.
--Kplasa 20:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Not Terribly Good Club of Great Britain

message: I'm going to leave the 3 spelling errors I can see in the text, so the article can at least be called a partial failure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.126.194 (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And we all appreciate it. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling errors 

message: However (not wanting to be a spoilsport, but) do we have any evidence that this ever existed and wasn't just invented for the preface to the book? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a form in the back of the first book. Personally, the man I would most like to meet is Stephen Pile :-) He's a bit of a hero of mine. Strange but true! Ta bu shi da yu 12:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can back this up; I have a copy of the first edition, complete with application form. Might even be worth a bit... 86.11.124.189 17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tenth edition of the book in paperback also still has the form at the back :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.148.163 (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this exist? 

message: If the NTGCOGB has made it to Wikipedia, I'd say it's a failure. Again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.192.250.154 (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure
Talk:All-American Comics

message: Anyone who knows comics knows that the suggested merger is a bad idea.  All Star is a major comic book, All American a different comic book, and finally All American Comics was the name of the publisher of All American and All Star.  How do we remove the suggestion of a merger? Rick Norwood 20:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done. (See Talk:All Star Comics). --Brian Olsen 22:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Philippic

message: I think this page should either be moved to wikkitionary or merged into Demosthenes
This page could go two ways. First, it could (and I think should) stay where it is. Second, the definition of philippic could be moved into the wikitionary while the sections concerning Cicero and Demosthenes could be moved into a seperate article called "Philippics." As it is, this article needs grammar lovin', more detail, cited sources, and some links to the texts in question if any are available online in the public domain. I think this article could be structured in the following way. It could start with the definition of the term philippic. An expanded discussion of the political context, subject, and textual content of Demosthenes' Philippics would follow. Then, a discussion of the political context, subject, and textual content of Cicero's Philippics would be in a section below that. That would ideally improve the expansiveness and utility of this article. I think it would be great if someone with some expertise on either Philippics were willing to take this up, because I am not very familiar with these works or the issues concerning them. trireme 18:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: Should the sections concerning Cicero and Demosthenes could be moved into a separate article called "Philippics"? --MahaPanta (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Philippics

message: This article could use some serious proofing, but if I did it would be like an egg laying a chicken. --MahaPanta (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: We need some links to the texts mentioned in the article. It would be really nice if we could get a copy of each in English and properly sourced. --MahaPanta (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. mathwhiz29 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Philippica and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#Philippica until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Philippica" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Room to Roam

message: The phrase Room to roam is also found in Macdonald's book Lilith, the other book Mentioned by Scott in 'Universal Hall'  - the same verse is used in both (creference: both volumes can be got from Project Gutenberg)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The page says that the words are Scott's but the tune is traditional - does anyone know what's it called and whether it has any "traditional" lyrics? Thanks. --Duncan MacCall (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Up, Further In 
Talk:Sexual Harassment Panda

message: The expression *sad panda* or similar seems to be pretty popular online. I'm guessing this episode is the source for that? Maybe something should be included about that? Cine 12:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already mentioned under "Trivia": "Quotes from this episode sparked the "sad panda" internet meme." Do you think that sentence should be expanded? Catamorphism 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm a saaad panda 

message: Due to the fact that this article details very specific information towards a character in this episode and does nothing to describe the episode as it shoulder be per WP:EPISODE I have nominated it for deletion --Amaraiel 14:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Bullshit. I don't even see what you're referring to. 203.100.216.25 08:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh? 

message: We've got a challenge to the notability of this article.  Suggestions? - Denimadept (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a lot of earlier episodes are being tagged for notability. Perhaps remind the South Park wikiproject about it? A while back they were doing sterling work providing a lot of extra information about individual episodes. With the series still running, there should be ample time to provide the necessary notability. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:AB Standard (New York City Subway car)

message: For educational reasons, can someone please upload a picture of the interior of the AB Standard? It will really help those who are curious on what it looks like on the inside. PS: I recommend using Wikimedia Commons to upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidng913 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AB Standard Interior Pictures
Talk:BU cars (New York City Subway car)

message: Where are the specifications? Are they lost in the mist of time? Peter Horn User talk 14:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 
Talk:Bluebird Compartment Car (New York City Subway car)

message: The Bluebird design was not based on the MS. The MS design was based on the experimental Zephyr and Hornet cars. The Bluebird was a new concept based on PCC technology and (as the BMT said in its Bluebird brochure) an outgrowth of PCC streetcar design. The only thing the Bluebirds had in common with the MS was that they were articulated, but so was the D-type and various other non-BMT equipment. What is the source for the statement that the Bluebird had a balancing speed of 39 mph? -- Cecropia 01:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design basis 
Talk:R143 (New York City Subway car)

message: First, is the operation on the M only on weekends or is it also during the night, when the M is also a shuttle?
The closest thing I can find to a reference is two New York Times articles, "Riders Skeptical of Plan for Conductorless Trains" and "A Plan to Cut Conductor Jobs", which say that the M is conductorless on weekends. --NE2 10:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a reference for M usage

message: The first photograph has a copyright notice on the photograph itself, which belongs to a banned user (Eddie Segoura).  I have deleted the text corresponding to the photograph.  If Wiki admins would like to restore it, they can do so. 02:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Alert

message: R143 (New York City Subway car) →  – There is no reason to disambiguate the page, per WP:DAB. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I've seen some recent videos of R143 cars running on the J/Z train that suggest that some of the cars might have been reassigned to that line. Can anyone confirm this? DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  R143s on the {{NYCS service|J/Z}} 

message: Where did you hear about the combination strip maps? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a pic floating around of these strip maps, from a source we can't use here. At least one was displayed in 2 Broadway. epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  J/L strip maps
Talk:R33S (New York City Subway car)

message: SUBJECTPAGENAME = 
:Because:
:
:
:
:
:Vcohen (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 105#Curious result when comparing the SUBJECTPAGENAME variable with the actual page name – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Vcohen (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Just testing

message: According to MTA documents during the 1980s, when all old cars were being overhauled, the "R33WF" cars were constantly referred to as R33S. By extension, all R36s (whether they had the R33-style windows or the R32-style ones) were referred to as R36s.
 do you have any thoughts on moving the page. I have already made an edit that can be reverted to in the case we agree to move the page from R33WF to R33S. Mtattrain (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with this, but I think this needs to be discussed more thoroughly at WP:NYCPT. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Page has been renamed successfully based on designation. Davidng913 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing "R33WF" to "R33S"
Talk:R33 (New York City Subway car)

message: Formal request has been received to merge the article R33 World's Fair (New York City Subway car) into R33 (New York City Subway car); dated: October 2018. Proposer's Rationale: They are basically the same car types, the only real difference is their window design. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose -- If we can have World's Fair Lo-V (New York City Subway car), there's no reason we can't have an article on the R33 World's Fair (New York City Subway car). ---------User:DanTD (talk)  12:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:R36 (New York City Subway car)

message: Formal request has been received to merge the article R36 World's Fair (New York City Subway car) into R36 (New York City Subway car); dated: October 2018. Proposer's Rationale: They are basically the same car types, the only real difference is their window design. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose -- If we can have World's Fair Lo-V (New York City Subway car), there's no reason we can't have an article on the R36 World's Fair (New York City Subway car). ---------User:DanTD (talk)  12:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Formal request has been received to merge the article R36 World's Fair (New York City Subway car) into R36 (New York City Subway car); March 2020. Proposer's Rationale: After a good amount of research, we have recently discovered that all R36 cars, including the World's Fair types, are designated as such. Therefore, there are a total of 424 R36 cars: 390 WF types, and 34 ML types. At this point, I am now proposing to merge article R36 World's Fair (New York City Subway car) with R36 (New York City Subway car) to reflect this discovery. The latter page has also been updated reflecting the official MTA designations.
For reference, you may look at the list of the official designations here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127872292@N06/48294055022/in/album-72157709666433846/
Davidng913 (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of R36 and R36 WF articles
Talk:R36 World's Fair (New York City Subway car)

message: I know the two car types differ cosmetically, and that this discussion was had before, but based on a bunch of agenda documents uploaded by User:Kew Gardens 613, it is heavily implied that the R36 and "R36WF" orders were all ordered under R36. This is an example . Thus, I propose the merger of the R36 and R36WF pages. Can't say the same for the R33 and R33WF pages, as the MTA classfies the R33WF as a different type ("R33S"). Maybe I'm wrong, but yeah. Mtattrain (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of R36 and R36WF
Talk:R40 (New York City Subway car)

message: "The cars on the J train are R-40's, built in 1968 and 1969", Matthew L. Wald, New York Times, Crash on the Subway: The System, [[June 6][], 1995, page B5 --NE2 10:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference for former use on the J

message: The current picture shows a picture of an R40 running on the N. These cars haven't run on the N since last year. They only run on the B now. Should we get a more up-to-date picture? Krisricky627 (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture? 

message: Folks: the table of contents goes at the beginning of the article, not the end. This is not a case of me being offended that someone undid my revision...it simply doesn't make sense to have a full description followed by a table of contents at the very end. There's supposed to be a brief introduction, followed by the contents, and then a full description. Stop undoing that.Gotham77 (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't let the intro get overgrown 

message: Several IP users have vandalized this page a good number of times. Please ask for semi protection, which would block IP users from vandalizing the page. Davidng913 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect The Page
Talk:R40A (New York City Subway car)

message: I didn't see this discussed there. The content being reverted (over and over) appears to be some info based on a future line assignment (Sept 2006). Seems the obvious solution is to note that future assignment (assuming it is verifiable) and the reversions should end. What am I missing? Gimmetrow 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information about the  train is unsourced and most probably false. No one I have spoken to has any idea of what this anonymous editor is talking about, and I have found no source anywhere that even remotely suggests the service and car assignment changes that he is documenting. The  is planned to be the full-length route of the Second Avenue Line when it is completed—sometime after 2010. There is no evidence to suggest that the route will replace the  as the Sixth Avenue Express. In addition, let's assume that maybe this anonymous contributor is correct. He refuses to provide sources, discuss the issue, or stop editing after repeated warnings (see User talk:162.84.213.11). --Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I hadn't finished my comment. That one at the top isn't mine, that was from a while ago. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  OK that explains things. Gimmetrow 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 9 

message: R40A (New York City Subway car) →  – There is no reason to disambiguate the page, per WP:DAB. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:R42 (New York City Subway car)

message: "the M train uses R-42's, built in 1969 and 1970", Matthew L. Wald, New York Times, Crash on the Subway: The System, [[June 6][], 1995, page B5 --NE2 10:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference for former use on the M

message: If the R42s are still in service, how does it make sense to say the R179s replaced them fully to the max then? Just because NYCT took down the builder plates from the cars, does not mean they are truly "retired" for good. That is not a very good source. An actual source by the agency and whatever or whoever else is associated with them can confirm their actual retirement. The R179s right now are undergoing testing all over again and it'll take a while before they are all back in service. It is likely that the R42s (and the R32s) will remain in service even after the R179s are back in service till the R211s. Last thing the MTA needs is a car shortage. The MTA is back at square one all over again like they were following the mainline R44s' retirement. Unless we get further information sooner or later this year, we should not say that the R179s have replaced the R42s and may retire some R32s in any of the articles.
So...any thoughts to this matter? Jemorie (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , According to the Twitter of Dan Rivoli (a transit reporter), the MTA was planning to retire the R42s until the R179 fiasco happened. Rivoli cites an unnamed source for his claim. However, I don't really trust this statement as much, since (1) this is hearsay and (2) this is not the verified Twitter account for that reporter. epicgenius (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed "retirement"... 

message: So on the Forums, some people have stated that some R42s were transferred out of ENY. I believe 18 cars are left at ENY or something like that. Can we change the number down to 18, or will we need a source for that as well? TheThingISee28 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I don't think we need to mention that yet, as it is trivia. The average riders does not care where the cars were transferred to or stored. It would only be important to mention if the fleet has already been officially retired from service. And yes, we would need an accurate source to confirm that, but it should be something other than the usual Twitter, because even they don't know the full story behind the scenes with the MTA unless it goes out to the public. Jemorie (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  R42 amount in-service