lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Crossroads, Bellevue, Washington

message: Use this section to post links (or full citations) of coverage from reliable sources that you'd like to see included in the article.  Seeing how slow edits to this page are, I'm guessing it will be just me posting here; but anything helps!  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I removed many unsourced statements today which have not had citations for over a year.  Please remember to cite one's sources and use correct footnotes.  Thanks --DerRichter (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statements
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Parapsychology

message: Question (for anyone who might be listening): I think it might be handy for editors to have ready access to a bibliography of parapsychology papers that have appeared in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals.  Where would be the most appropriate place for such listing?  A user sandbox? A subpage of this wikiproject? an article?  Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 01:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: A requested move has been relisted at Talk:Ectoplasm (paranormal)#Requested move 17 May 2018. Your rationale and !vote to support or oppose this page move would be greatly appreciated!  Painius  put'r there  19:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please come and help... 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
*John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
* John Smith "" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from ,  and .
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
-  Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  User script to detect unreliable sources
Talk:West Burton, North Yorkshire

message: It looks like it was rebuilt in the 1980s, judging by the before and after photos here. - Dudesleeper talk 22:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market cross 
Talk:NANDA International

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added stub class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review
Talk:Nursing care

message: This article seems like it is missing a lot of information. As a beginning nursing student, I notice this page lacks many core issues covered in my fundamentals class. I'm not a very good article writer; I just thought I'd mention somewhere that this page is nowhere near all-inclusive.  Eyknough (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

message: *Support- This article is incomplete at best, and needs to be merged with Nursing.jsfouche  ☽☾ talk 16:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Nurse registry

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added stub class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review
Talk:Anthony's poison arrow frog

message: This article was recently copy/pasted to the new name Oro phantasmal poison dart frog. I have reverted it to preserve the edit history as described in WP:MOVE. per WP:TITLE and WP:NCFAUNA, Anthony's posion arrow frog should be used in as is occurs in books and publications (e.g. here and here). Unless it can be shown that "Oro phantasmal" dart or arrow frog is more common in reliable sources, this title should remain Anthony's. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding common name and move
Talk:National Nurses Organizing Committee

message: California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee ( in case anyone is watching this page).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Clothes (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: MERGED

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added stub class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review
Talk:NCLEX-RN

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to mid per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added start class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review

message: This article's grammar and spelling appear to have been formulated by a non-native speaker, and therefore the article needs extensive cleanup.71.171.138.251 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea... go for it! :)  Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar and Spelling

message: Likely an expandable, notable subject. Hopefully we can do more article writing and less advertising in the future. Not averse to seeing this taken to AFD is sentiment to delete remains.   Dlohcierekim  15:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  declined speedy, despammed 

message: Please discuss HERE
I don't see a reason why NCLEX-RN should have its own page, I think it should be merged with the NCLEX page. It's confusing and needless that NCLEX-RN has it's own page. Further, NCLEX is almost devoid of information, it will simultaneously expand that page while getting rid of this redundant page. AriTotle (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging article with NCLEX
Talk:Nursing ethics

message: Considering that this is never going to be a particularly long article, I think it has enough verified content to be fulfil the criteria for B class. What do people think? --Vince (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Class

message: While one can fixate on the ethics of patient care, there is not enough concern being voiced regarding a lack of respect for the supposed caregivers themselves. This is a two-way street. Nurses can dish out respect for their patients until the ends of the earth, but until our society fully appreciates the work they do, there can only be quantified respect. I have heard it said that "nursing is the most well-respected occupation" in public opinion polls, but when subjected to the impossible demands of the job, nurses are treated like dirt. And they take it.
98.160.200.242 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Respect
Talk:List of nursing specialties

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to mid per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added stub class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review

message: The title is misspelt and it needs changing.Vorbee (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Title misspelt
Talk:List of nursing organizations

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added stub class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review

message: I removed all the entries without their own articles. Are there some good directories we could add instead per WP:ELMAYBE? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkfarm
Talk:Delridge, Seattle

message: Whoever wrote this article has personally invented the notion that many other West Seattle neighborhoods are part of some Greater Delridge concept. They're not, and never have been. I've lived in West Seattle and South Seattle for 60 years, and no one has ever used the term "Delridge" like that. You're just plain making this stuff up for your own intellectual gratification. It has no basis whatsoever in common usage. 
Delridge is only the neighborhood that stretches along Delridge Way, an arterial that runs east of Longfellow Creek. It isn't a whole region that encompasses other neighborhoods. 
As just one example, High Point isn't part of Delridge. 35th is a mile west of Delridge Way, and High Point is geographically separated from it by huge steep forested ravines and the almost road-free terrain where there's little civilization. You can't just look at a flat city map and see distances as the crow flies. Practically everything runs north and south separately in those corridors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.13.44 (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After further digging about, it seems that people here on WP are being entranced by the City's astute naming exercises. Pish posh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.13.44 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this approach is essentially unwikipedian original not just research but original nomenclature. --Haruo (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 
Talk:Ameerega trivittata

message: Moved from Ameerega trivittata, which was obviously an error; this frog has always been 'trivittatus' and the content of the page uses that spelling universally. Leperflesh (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ameerega trivittata is the correct binomial name for this species. The genus Ameerega is feminine and so the masculine 'trivittatus' becomes 'trivittata'. This is just one of the rules of taxonomy, see: binomial nomenclature. Cf. :'Ranitomeya fantastica' formerly 'Dendrobates fantasticus'. --DSWebb (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Talk:NCLEX-PN

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added stub class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review

message: Please discuss HERE
I don't see a reason why NCLEX-PN should have its own page, I think it should be merged with the NCLEX page. It's confusing and needless that NCLEX-PN has its own page. Further, NCLEX is almost devoid of information, it will simultaneously expand that page while getting rid of this redundant page. AriTotle (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging article with NCLEX
Talk:Shrine of Baháʼu'lláh

message: Just noting that there are currently several different views of the Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh available in Wikimedia Commons, under the Bahá'í buildings in Acre category; it may be appropriate to add a Commons link to this article. --dragfyre 23:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey - to follow up on this, I've created a new Commons category for the Shrine and added the  template to this page. --dragfyre 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shrine photos 

message: This article desperately needs expansion, especially since the UNESCO World Heritage inclusion.  It's positively ridiculous for an article on a World Heritage Site to be so short o_O  Any thoughts on restructuring the article? —dragfyre (talk 15:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion? 

message: The shrine is right in the centre of Haifa! Why is this not mentioned. Haifa is a much lager much more important and famous city than Acre, which is some considerable distance away.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.227.171 (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are referring to the Shrine of the Bab which is in Haifa, but the Shrine of Baha'u'llah, which is the subject of this article, is just north of Acre.  -- Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: "Why" is the "History" section "written" like this for "most" of the latter "part" of the "section"? "it" just looks "awful" and I'll "edit" it to not "look" as bad. SeriousTIEM (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section Does Not Read Well 

message: Support – Not enough material to justify separate pages. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging in Mansion of Bahjí
Talk:Cardiac nursing

message: I have rated this article as 'mid' importance according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nursing/Assessment#Importance_scale.  If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it. Also added 'stub' class. Cheers, Basie (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NURSE]] priority check
Talk:Nursing agency

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added stub class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review
Talk:Master of Science in Nursing

message: Can we include the Master of Nursing degree in this article or should another article be created instead as an MN is not an MSN. I'm not sure of the difference, though. Info for the MN can be found at this website: http://www.msj.edu/view/academics/graduate-programs/nursing_2.aspx
I'm not sure that most people are even aware that a MN degree option is available for people with non-nursing bachelor degrees to continue their education. I would really like to see mention of this degree here on Wiki. Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.250 (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MN (Master of Nursing - not an MSN)

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added stub class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review
Talk:Nursing pin

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added C class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review

message: I should like to suggest that the oldest nursing pin would be of significant historical interest. I would argue that some nurses do not wear pins even when they are available and the significance of the pin is varies depending on context. For example, trained nursing graduates may find the utterance of their title holds more social kudos the their uniform, in some circumstances. My local training institution for vocational nurses no longer issues nursing pins, nor does the national Australian Health Practitioner Registration Authority. However university nurses from my state are able to purchase them on graduation in a choice of enamel or silver plate.Tradimus (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: historical interest

message: Images should not be longer than the body of the text of the article. See WP:Photos. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image overload
Talk:Book of Saint Cyprian

message: This is odd.  The three links are, well, one is a link to a site selling this 'famous book', the article reads like an advert, the two supporting links vaguely touch on the subject, and this has been somehow slipped into a crapload of occult articles in reference and had this page linked to.  Ie: 'Which is outlined fully in The Great Book of Saint Cyprian' with a link to this article.
All seems a little .. odd to me.  Anyhow, I'd like to see a crapload of references added here and the POV / pishposh cleaned up if anyone of the creators of this article is willing?  Jachin 23:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimate? 

message: I've overhauled the article based on what reliable sources I knew of.  The previous version was based on one website's recollection of an article that I'm sure almost none of us have access to (not that makes it unreliable, but it does make verification more than unnecessarily difficult).  I'm probably not going to add anything on/about/from Jake Stratton Kent's "The Testament of Cyprian the Mage," since it's goal is occultist historical revisionism.  Wikignomes needed and welcome.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhauled
Talk:Diploma in Nursing

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added stub class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review
Talk:American Museum of Nursing

message: I have rated this article as 'low' importance according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nursing/Assessment#Importance_scale.  If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it. Also added a stub assessment. Cheers, Basie (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NURSE]] priority check 

message: The external links are dead, and it no longer seems to be listed on the ASU museums website. --Delirium (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this museum still exist? 
Talk:List of nursing schools in the United States

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to low per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added start class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review

message: Hondros Nursing needs to be added to this list under Ohio. The URL is http://nursing.hondros.edu/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.110.17 (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Schools To Add
Talk:Canadian Journal of Nursing Research

message: I have rated this article as 'low' importance according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nursing/Assessment#Importance_scale.  If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it. Also added 'stub' class. Cheers, Basie (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NURSE]] priority check
Talk:Clinical nurse specialist

message: I have rated this article as 'mid' importance according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nursing/Assessment#Importance_scale.  If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it. Also added 'stub' class. Cheers, Basie (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NURSE]] priority check
Talk:Gedney Island (Washington)

message: Note that there is a Washington Natural Resources Conservation Area on the island.  It goes by the island's other name: Hat Island NRCA. W.stanovsky (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRCA 

message: I propose merging the relatively new (2013) Hat Island, Washington into this much older (2006) article.  There's not much distinction in the topics between the island and the census designated place, and certainly not enough material for two articles on the same place.  The only significant paragraph, on the ferry, is already duplicated into both articles.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A merge would be welcome, but the confusion over the island's name would need to be resolved before we move it to a permanent page name. SounderBruce 05:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Georgetown, Seattle

message: I removed a claim that the old Rainier Brewery is on the National Register of Historic Places. I have no idea why it's not, but I can't find any evidence that it is. - Jmabel | Talk 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registered Historic Places 

message: There is an MP3 linked directly (no intervening explanatory page) and simply described as "interview of Manny and Roger". I'm not following up to an unexplained MP3 on my slow connection to find out what's going on, but someone should. Who are "Manny & Roger"? What is notable or interesting about the information to be found in the MP3? - Jmabel | Talk 21:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been months, no one has explained, removing. - Jmabel | Talk 21:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manny & Roger? 

message: *http://seattlepi.com/local/347094_rainier11.html: P-I article explaining why it was being demolished.
*http://www.crosscut.com/seattle/10854/: Crosscut article on the demolition
The demolition took place Saturday night, Jan 19, 2008.
- Jmabel | Talk 21:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes toward writing about the Stock House demolition

message: The original brewery where Rainier was brewed was a wooden building located on the land next to I-5 where the last Rainier brewery (now Tully's coffee headquarters) is. The massive complex in Georgetown was the second location. No brand new brewery could have afforded to build something like that. I'm not going to edit the article right now because I don't have sources at hand, but I wanted to note this as a commonly-held, but incorrect, belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.27.178 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Rainier Brewery Was not in Georgetown
Talk:Orthopaedic Nursing (journal)

message: As part of a review of all nursing wikiproject articles, I have changed this article's importance to stub per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing/Assessment#Importance scale.  I have also added low class. If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it.  Cheers, Basie (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NURSE]] priority review