lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Duke of Rothesay

message: This article has a conflict over whether the title goes to the heir apparent or to the first born son of the reigning monarch.  One could be the heir to one's grandparent.  Someone more knowledgable than I should fix this. -65.66.103.43 23:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I know that the eldest-living-sons-who-were-also-heir-apparent of the Monarch of Scotland were called Duke of Rothesay pre-Union of the Crowns.
I also know that Charles is currently styled DofR North of the Border.
What do any of us know (with sources if poss.) about the usage of the DofR title in-between?
Did James VI's son Henry Frederick cease to be known as DofR when his father became James I?
Apparently Albert Edward was known as DofR in a similar fashion to how Charles is, but do we have contemporary sources to this effect?
And what about the Hanoverian Dukes?
Many thanks etc DBD 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no idea about whether Charles I or Charles II ever visited Scotland as Prince of Wales, but I don't think any of the Hanoverian ones ever did - George IV was certainly the first monarch to visit Scotland since Charles II left in 1651.  john k (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's "re-established" (i.e. recreated). If I understand it correctly, both titles were created only once, in the Middle Ages, by charters that stipulated who would hold them. That means that the title now held by Charles is the exact same title as the one held by the future James IV, not a recreation. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the title

message: I'm surprised to see a plain label azure; haven't I seen it somewhere with a label checky azure and argent? Or was that someone else? —Tamfang (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  arms 

message: I assume this is a feudal barony(being in Scotland), which suggests there is a barony attached. Is there any information on this? or is it in fact a UK barony, based on a Scottish parliamentary lordship?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.155.53 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  renfrew barony 

message: See Talk:Baron of Renfrew (ship)#Requested move for a move discussion that affects this page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related move request 
Talk:NForce3

message: No introductory text to describe what exactly nForce3 is (eg. "nForce3 is a ... produced by nVidia, and is ..."). The current contents of the article read as though they should appear much later on, in a more lengthy article. It is not entirely clear what the list in the middle is supposed to be.
--TheParanoidOne 23:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup
Talk:Antipope Constantine II

message: The article currently states that Constantine II died on August 6, 768. This is incorrect, as he was still alive in April 769 when he was condemned at the Lateran Council (769). I am in the process of expanding and rewriting this article, so I will correct this in the next couple of days. Oatley2112 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with date of death
Talk:Ryan Merriman

message: "Dwight H. Little wanted Merriman to play Jin Kazama in his upcoming Tekken movie, but Merriman turned it down for an obvious reason, so the role went to John Foo."
What is the obvious reason???  I didn't see anything in the article to make it obvious why he'd turn down any given role.  I don't need a response here, but if anyone knows the answer, it shouldn't hurt to actually state it in the article for future readers.  I'm not going to make so bold as to remove the "for an obvious reason" at this juncture.
134.48.162.39 (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Obvious reason" cited, but nothing in the article makes it obvious 

message: Nothing at all on this winner?  2001:56A:F414:D300:45F7:9FB4:13EB:7B54 (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Independence Daysaster
Talk:Pangkor Treaty of 1874

message: Hello ! @ ".....  given a title and a penchant of $1000 a month ...." - my question is : what was the normal currency there 1874, was it maybe US$ ? This has to be fixed, but I can not help I dont know - sorry! Regards --Lofor 00:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The three major currencies used in Malaya at the time were the Indian Rupee, the Mexican Dollar, and the British Pound Sterling.  Other silver dollars (or pesos) were in circulation, such as those from the USA, Hong Kong, Peru, and Spain, but the Mexican dollar was the most popular (in addition to being the only dollar that was official currency in the Straits Settlement in 1874). Bastin8 17:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you sure that the Mexican Peso was the official currency in the Straits Settlement in 1874?  I have a degree in Southeast Asian Studies and I never read of the Mexican Dollar being legal tender.  Can you provide a reference for this?  Thanks.  --Roisterer 00:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, it is untrue (the Mexican Dollar itself was not legal tender).  However, most countries in East Asia pegged their fledgling silver standards to Mexico's at a 1:1 convertability.  Because of the minimalist approach to economic government in the area, most coins were actually Mexican, not the local equivalent.  I advise reference is made to the Mexican Dollar in the article so as to provide a better context (rather than the 'Straits Dollar', which is a worthless expressionp; or $, which is misleading). See: http://users.erols.com/kurrency/asia.htm Bastin8 10:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Longhorn beetle

message: "longhorn beetle"? Where on earth did that come from? Stan 01:12, 2 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The name

message: What is the purpose of having several species from the family listed under the "see also" heading. I though that was supposed to be more of a internal references and related subjects section. I am changing the heading to "Notable species" instead, although I don't think that is much better of a heading. I would most prefer the entire section to be removed. Anyone else have any thoughts?--Entoaggie09 20:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Long horn beetle (singular) is a single specific Species Ergates faber - which incidentally is not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia under that name. If there has been a change of genus, then the Ergates faber should redirect, since 99.99% of resources about THE longhorn beetle use that name, Ergates faber. There's no consensus about any other name, just look at the various species databases. The Ergates genus isn't even mentioned under the subfamily. What a travesty. It has an article under Ergates faber in all other languages but English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.52.211 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: See also?

message: Can someone help me identify this?
From looking at this page  It looks like Dorysthenes(Prionomimus)pici,
but it also looks like Image:Ergates_faber01.jpg and Image:Titanus.giganteus.jpg
--Joi (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It cannot be identified unless you can state where it came from. If it is from the United States, for example, then it is a species in the genus Prionus. Dyanega (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with identification
Talk:John Tayler

message: He was NOT Acting Governor, but Governor. When Governor Tompkins resigned, he, as Lieutenant Governor, succeeds automatically to the post, sworn in or not, in his own right, this being one of the attributions of the office of Lt. Gov. Differently, when the office of Lieutenant Governor falls vacant, the Majority Leader of the State Senate becomes Acting Lieutenant Governor, because he was not elected to be Lt. Gov., he just steps in. Kraxler 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wrong there, but I corrected it, with explanation. Kraxler (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Coinage Act of 1792

message: This article uses a lot of "was to", as though this act were never implemented.
:It was implemented, and is still in force, although many of its provisions are being flagrantly violated today by people in positions of trust, and are not enforced due to dereliction of duty by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. --QuicksilverT @ 07:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the provisions of the act have been superceded by other U.S. laws. For example, the finess of the gold coins was changed to .900 about 1837 (?) and the weights of the silver coins were reduced becuse the imbalance in the world price ratios of gold and silver. The laws were passed by Congress and are carried out by the Executive Branch. What issues are you concerned with that indicate "dereliction of duty"?--TGC55 01:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: I've suggested a merge of this article with Mint Act of 1792 as they appear to be different names for the same Act, passed on the same date. If they are different, please remove the merge tags. --Canley 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mint Act of 1792 

message: That act did not provide for any mille coins.  Reading the source http://nesara.org/files/coinage_act_1792.pdf the coins listed are eagle, half-eagle, quarter-eagle, dollar, half-dollar, quarter-dollar, disme, half-disme, cent, and half-cent.  The mille is only listed as a unit of account, not as an actual coin XinaNicole (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milles 

message: This page says that the half-cent is
"5 1/2 pennyweights (8.55 g) of copper"
but the actual article on the half-cent lists the mass of the half-cent as:
"6.739 g (1793–1795)
5.443 g (1795–1857)"
?
165.154.120.84 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 
Talk:One Communications

message: On 27 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion.  The result was keep.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ChoiceOne for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 01:56, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Needs to be edited.  Choice One Communications no longer exists; the article should read "One Communications."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.160.207 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vfd
Talk:Xeon

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Xpert Engine On. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Xpert Engine On" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Anybody have any information related to the etymology of the brand name/construction of the brand? I feel that would be relevant to go over in the overview section? Titfortat-skag (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Xeon 

message: The E5-2600 and D-1500 Broadwell product lines are missing, but they were much more significant than the very small E3 Broadwell release for the 1150 socket; I'm almost certain that the E3 Broadwell release only went to systems integrators. Beeslouise (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  E5-2600 & D-1500 Missing for Broadwell.
Talk:John Galsworthy

message: I have a question which I could use some help with, if anyone knows.
A book, Ten Famous Plays by John Galsworthy () has a play entitled "The Roof" as its last selection. However, that play is not showing up in the complete works of Galsworthy. Anyone know what is going on, if it is authentic Galsworthy and where I might find this play online? --GreetingsEarthling 02:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: I own a set of 26 volumes (numbered 1 through to 26) of the Grove Edition of books by John Galsworthy.
The Wikipadia article on John Galsworthy states that there are 27 volumes in the Grove Edition.   Does anyone know for certain that there ARE 27 volumes - and in that case, what the title of volume 27 is?   
I have searched the internet, without success, for a definitive list of the volumes in the Grove Edition.
Gmh 22:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grove Edition - 27 or 26 volumes? 

message: I belive that the movie "A Summer Story" was an adaptation of Galsworthy's story titled "The Apple Tree".  Would be nice to mention that as another adaptation of his works.  And is a wonderful movie also, starring Imogene Stubbs.  Think4yerself (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Apple Tree 

message: I would appreciate some sort of classification being introduced into the "Selected Works" section. As near as I can make out, it currently lists novels, plays, and individual essays and short stories together indiscriminately, with no indication of which is which. This significantly reduces its usefulness as a source of information. -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Kind of Works? 

message: The article variously attributes G's death to both a stroke and a brain tumour. Can this be resolved? Spicemix (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death 

message: I added subsections for readability.  Matuko 00:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsections 

message: Page 154, the author mentions John Galsworthy 'as a writer of sorts' 84.203.16.126 (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in Lolita by Victor Nobakov 

message: I am proposing to work on this article with the aim of getting it up to FA standard, as with Arnold Bennett, Somerset Maugham, Hugh Walpole and others. Comments from other editors gratefully received. Tim riley talk 08:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And now done. Putting it up for peer review if anyone cares to look in. Tim riley talk 15:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul with FAC in mind
Talk:Gooseneck (sailing)

message: Is this device substantively different from the device used to join a tractor to a semi-trailer? If not, could they both be covered here by someone that's familiar with how they work? MrZaiustalk 16:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  See below... -- RobLa (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Just sailing?
Talk:Gremolata

message: Gremolata's popularity has increased significantly in recent years.  It is currently served in many top restaurants and is considered fashionable in some circles.  It perhaps deserves its own WikiPedia article for this reason (like, say, Tabouli).
Please add information about the origin of the word; how it is different from salsa, etc. I find it is being used for many chunky dry sauces. For example in The Week issue June 27, 2008 contained an article quoting Melissa Clark from The New York Times using the term Gremolata to describe a mixture of orange chunks and zest, olives, almonds, parsley and garlic for use on roast bass fish. 98.207.230.186 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular & fashionable
Talk:Hispania Nova

message: The text above is poor (and sometimes incomprehensible) English: not good enough for Wikipedia.  The text of the main article is clearly wrong, since Marcus Aurelius (161-180) reigned over a hundred years before the Diocese of Africa was created by Diocletian (284-305), and I have grave doubts about the idea of the province being called Hispania Nova.  What is the authority for Hispania Nova (or is it just an invention of a Spanish patriot)?
Mark O'Sullivan 16:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. --Ecemaml 00:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracy
Talk:Handrail

message: The following user comment was removed from the article:
"I added the words "[minimum?]" and "[maximum?]" above because they seemed to be inadvertently omitted, though I'm not certain if that is what the original author intended.  If anyone knows, please fix this and delete this comment.  Thanks.  -- DBooth 05:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User comment in article 

message: This article doesn't make a lot of sense and seems to include some OR about the origin of the word 'banister'. I suggest that the etymology and extreme sports sections be removed and the remainder merged with Baluster. Pburka 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I have removed this from the article " The term has now come to refer to the balustrade, or the whole baluster balustrade assembly." Because it is misleading - the top, or coping, of a balustrade is broader than a handrail and as a consequence cannot be grasped by the hand and used to assist in climbing stairs, where as a handrail can. A balustrade is more an ornamental safety barrier. Giano 15:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: The photo shown in this article is not code compliant. US -- and most European codes -- require that there be no opening in a guard that would permit the passage of a 4" (100mm) sphere. The baluster spacing in this photo is not consistent and seems to be in violation of this safety requirement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyleto (talk • contribs) 13:38, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
: Photo shows a handrail so might be worth leaving until another is found. Article is on handrails, not code-compliant handrails. Thoughts? --mgaved (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone delete the photo? 

message: Did not expect to see this as a website. Koonboi (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 05:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow...

message: FYI: The IBC Type-II handrail has the following requirement:
"Edges shall have a minimum radius of 0.01 inch (0.25 mm)"
"Rmin = 0.01 inch" is absurd. I've tried to have it changed; 
however, the last time I checked it still is in the IBC.
HalFonts (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBC Type-II H.R. Min Radius 

message: The entry for baluster calls handrails and banisters the same thing. Yet, I don't see the mention of the word in this entry. Are they the same thing? --206.209.221.240 (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that they are the same thing? The only relevant sentence I can find is "The word banister is also often used erroneously to refer to the handrail of a stairway". In other words: According to baluster, they are not the same thing, but some people incorrectly say "banister" when they actually mean "handrail". --Tobias K. (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handrail = Banister?
Talk:Headquarters

message: Mere curiosity - is this a difference between British and American English? I've always heard and used "head office". Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headquarters/ Head Office 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:HQ § Requested move 15 September 2020.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:HQ#Requested move 15 September 2020|Talk:HQ §&nbsp;Requested move 15 September 2020]]
Category talk:Botanists

message: This de-subcategorization is so lame I'm nearly speechless - somehow this proposal got by under my radar, and now botanists are unlike every other occupational category of comparable size. As you can see, the category is already too large to be displayed all at once, and the decategorization process deleted useful nationality info that had been painstakingly added by dozens of people, so now for instance the :Category:French people is now incomplete - not all French people can be found by going to subcategories. This change was just not well-thought-out. Stan 02:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled comments

message: I have recently created an entry Heinrich Wawra von Fernsee. I don't know how to get it into the lists of botanists. Tusbra Tusbra 17:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this was taken care of long ago.  --Lockley (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heinrich Wawra von Fernsee]]
Talk:Heresiarch

message: Question:  Why is this statement's neutrality disputed?
"The first official heresy of the Christian church, Arianism, was created by heresiarch Arius." [neutrality disputed]
It seems to be an exact fit for the definition:   Arius is the founder of a set of beliefs considered heretical by the group calling itself orthodox.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.235.6 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: The example given seems quite dubious, since Henry VIII was much more of a schismatic than a heretic -- Henry VIII made few doctrinal innovations to traditional Catholicism, and probably wouldn't have split at all if the Pope had given him a divorce... AnonMoos (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry VIII?

message: Monophysitism (Μονοφυσιτισμός), Nestorianism (Νεστοριανισμός) and their heresiarchs should be covered here. If noone is willing to add them I might do it when I get the chance. In my last edit summary I wrote more "POV", but of course I meant NPOV; i.e., it should be made clear in the article that the concept of heresiarch is a relative one (just as the concept of heresy) and that nowadays it is a term of mainly historical/descriptive importance. Omnipedian (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I intend to expand this article very soon, four years after the original debate. I have a good selection of scholarly material on Christian history and the history of dogma; I believe The First Seven Ecumenical Councils by some Jesuit in the "Theology and Life" series (I forget his name, but not the fact that it's Theology and Life Vol 21), and the earlier installments of Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Dogma will make fine sources. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 20:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Orthodox Christian Heresiarchs

message: I cut the paragraph on Arianism, which seems to have been included only to use the word "heresiarch" at the head of a paragraph. It was also untrue. Arianism was the first heresy to be condemned by the whole church all at once in, but there were earlier heresies dealt with piecemeal by local and regional councils that are every bit as "official", seeing as the relevant councils were ratified by later Ecumenical Councils. The third-century Sabellianism is an example. The subject of Against Heresies by Irenaeus of Lyons in the 2nd century is gnosticism, which is certainly a heresy by Orthodox Catholic lights. There may be other examples. 192.35.35.35 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arianism
Talk:Geography of Brazil

message: A controversy has erupted over the choice of map for this article. The two candidates are shown here, along with any others that other Wikipedians may choose to enter. Feel free to make any comments. The lower map may also appear in the corresponding Geography article for this country. Kelisi 02:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: This article is just TOO BIG!! it should be divided into things like
Climate
See main article: Climate in Brazil
Anyone? algumacoisaqq 13:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size 

message: Chiming in to say that I agree Starghost 00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes
Talk:Geography of Colombia

message: == Map ==harry styles
Discuss at Talk:Colombia --SqueakBox 02:50, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, use both. I like the second one, it's more detailed. --F3rn4nd0 BLA BLA BLA 08:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

message: This article seems to deal with only the physical geography of Colombia, while I argue that human geography of any region is just as important as the physical geography. "Geography" is a broad a term, and should mean both physical and human geography. What I suggest then is that someone knowledgeable in the area write a section in this article to include it. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human geography 