lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Extensis

message: From VfD:
* All that is said in this entry content wise is: "Extensis is a software company based in Portland, Oregon, and owned by Japanese technology firm Celartem Technology Inc. One of its products is Portfolio."  It also has two links to its own website.  If we keep this then we should keep them all on.  Does not demonstrate any notable characteristics to this company.  Google hits for "related:extensis.com" are minimal and all seem to be dual marketing campaigns rather than news or other notable content.  mbbx6spp 17:08 (EDT) 31 Jul 2004
*Delete:  Not notable enough.  The article does not explain significance. Geogre 21:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:Svenska Akademiens ordbok

message: The SAOB is a dictionary "on historical principles," like the OED, with definitions, etymologies, citations, etc--I just don't see it as a thesaurus, so I've changed the word back to "dictionary". I'd be happy for Mic or anybody else to change the word right back, yet again, only it would be nice if you'd post a comment on this page, if you do.--Bishonen 21:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Propose move to "Svenska Akademiens ordbok" Same problem as always with Swedish titles in an English wiki. This article is currently named "Svenska Akademiens Ordbok" following the spelling of most English dictionaries with caps all around. But the title is in Swedish and that way there is no cap in "ordbok". See the official website. The sister project Svenska Akademiens ordlista has no cap either and in the Template:Swedish language there is no cap on "ordbok". Comments? w.carter-Talk 08:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose move
Category talk:British television presenters

message: Since this category is a subcategory of :Category:British people, then everyone listed here should be British. However, that leaves a gap: non-British presenters on British television. For example: Des Lynam, Graham Norton, Terry Wogan (all Irish). Putting them in this category as it stands is clearly wrong; but these individuals, and no doubt others, clearly belong somewhere in the vicinity of this category. Any ideas? -- Avaragado 22:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question. Even though he made a name for himself on American TV, should Richard Dawson be on this list because he was born in England? JB82 20:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

text: So...is it "(British television) presenters" or "British (television presenters)"? Burns flipper 11:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British television or British presenters?
Talk:Villa Lante

message: The water rill down the table recreated a literary description (Pliny? Suetonius' description of Lucullus?) from ancient Rome... I think. Wetman 22:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote
Talk:United States abortion-rights movement

message: I noticed the article on the anti-abortion movement had a section on violent attacks by activists, but this article does not, even though violence has been committed by abortion rights activists as well. Would it make sense to include that for the sake of neutrality?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimasterclmaster (talk • contribs) 02:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. See the recent discussion of this point at Talk:United States anti-abortion movement. NightHeron (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So I understand that violence from anti-abortion activists has been common historically, and portraying it as equivalent would create a false balance, that being said, I feel it is still misleading to not mention violence from abortion rights activists at all. Obviously we should mention that it's been less common that from the other side, but would not it make sense to have even just a brief paragraph about it? Aimasterclmaster (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the discussion that just took place at Talk:United States anti-abortion movement. Among other things pointed out in that discussion, in order to include that material it would have to be something that's covered extensively (meaning not just news of the day) in reliable secondary sources. NightHeron (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: — Assignment last updated by Racoon dolphin (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing
Talk:Joey's apartment

message: You know, some total git just deleated the bit I spent a while doing on the entertainment unit. I don't care if you think it's over the top, you've got no right to delete it. Edit it, yes but to just delete something just because you don't want to read it is just ignorant. Whoever you are, you get go forth and fornicate with your self (Am I allowd to Swear, cuz if so, I'll change that last bit). Cheers Dick.
--Crestville 22:43, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entertainment Unit 

message: Just copying what I said on the discussion of "Monica's apartment", cause the same applies on this entry:
But what kind of entry is "Monica's apartment" ?? I dont think this belongs in Wikipedia. "Friends" however DOES belong in WP and that's were the info over Monica's apartment should go. Jees what's next? "Estelle's funeral" ? If people want to know that much about the series they should go and watch them.
(dont get me wrong on this, I really like Friends but I like a good encyclopedia as well)
: Here.  I'll just post a link.  Talk:Monica's apartment  No need to discuss it in multiple places. -- Dpark 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging wirth main article 

message: Joey and Chandler have had both apartments. Can I suggest moving this article to Apartment 19 (Friends) or similar (I think I have probably got the the wrong number, so please correct it. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 22:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Naming Conventions Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.  Very few people know the apartment number.  (In fact, I believe it actually changed.)  People who know Friends at all will think of the correct apartment when they hear or read this title.  For most of the show, they lived in that apartment together.  It's an accurate title. -- Dpark 18:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing title 

message: This article was to be merged with and redirected to 'somewhere' as a result of an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Please do read that debate before proceeding. -Splash - tk 22:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate
Talk:Demographics of Belgium

message: This section is OR (and the total numbers are unsourced): "The country is populated by a Flemish majority of about 6,010,000 people speaking Dutch, a French-speaking minority of 5,480,000 people (Walloons and French-speakers in Brussels and in Flanders (400.000) (...), as well as 73,000 German speaking people in Wallonia, near the German border." This section is WP:SYNTH. Someone has brought together multiple numbers to advance one position (summed up in two numbers). So, in Flanders French-speaking families are counted, but not the Dutch-speaking families in Wallonia. So this is home language counting, but only for Flanders. In Brussels however the street language is used (what you used outside of home), rather than the home language to count French-speakers. This is synthesizing to advance a position. What we should do here, is not our own research, but what credible sources are saying directly. UlyssorZebra (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research / Breach of [[WP:SYNTH]]
Talk:Bill (payment)

message: I renamed this article from "Bill of Lading" as the latter term has a different, specific meaning (see article Bill of lading) -- Picapica 23:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Renamed

message: I agree with the merge suggestion.--Ethnicstage 09:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to invoice 

message: ... since it is likely that there could be thousands of types of bills articles all dealing with more or less the same thing. And since this article look fairly small as it is (there being no need to spin of subtopics). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Telephone bill]]? ... 

message: For such an essential and commonplace topic, this article is surprisingly (and painfully) short. --Intelligentsium 22:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment
Category talk:Propaganda

message: By my count the vote was 15 to delete, 10 to keep.  The misleading feature of that tally, though, is that the "keep" voters included people voting to keep different versions of the category and how to handle it.  AndyL said "Keep and remove contested topics."  Similarly, Willmcw wanted to delete the examples as being too subjective, while Mikkalai said, "Just the opposite".
It's naive to think that the term "propaganda" has no negative connotations.  The result of this inherent POV, and of keeping the category, is that, in practice, the category consists of articles about propaganda, plus some specific examples by propagandists (Nazis, etc.) who have few or no supporters among currently active Wikipedians.  I expect that we'll continue to see occasional additions of Michael Moore or one of his films to the category.  I'll continue to remove that listing.  I agree with Moore's views and disagree with Leni Riefenstahl's, so her detractors will still be able to use this category to express their disapproval of her. JamesMLane 03:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my idea: articles about propaganda should be placed into this category. This includes general classes of propaganda, such as heroic realism. Specific examples belong in Propaganda examples. Accusations of propaganda in articles otherwise unrelated to propaganda should be removed. Pcu123456789 05:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The deletion discussion

message: The definition of this category as primarily political has lead to some discussion on Category talk:Anti-gay propaganda. Anti-gay propaganda could include religious propaganda and so could be argued to not be a suitable child of this category based on its current definition. A similar argument could be applied to :Category:Antisemitic propaganda and Corporate propaganda topics which are currently children of this category. Are there any thoughts of refining the definition to extend the primary definition beyond government sponsored propaganda or explaining how to interpret "easily classified as propaganda" when the item in question may not be government sponsored?--Ash (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I dealt with this issue in April of 2012 at this diff. CarolMooreDC 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on category definition 

message: Given these discussions Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_14#Category:Collective_consciousness where several people call for deletion and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_18#New_Categories_synonymous_with_Category:Propaganda which I started and which one other person so far agrees needs deletion, do you understand that:
*The Classification header is problematic because the categories are? (And I still don't remember seeing "Classification" instead of "See also" for relevant categories before and it looks like an extension of the WP:Original research problem with your four new categories. CarolMooreDC 00:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Category Deletion discussions
Talk:The O'Reilly Factor

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support, per sources suggested by  and by , as well as: The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, and Deadline. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Switched to oppose per latest news that the series is ending soon. Man, it's fun to see the controversy while it lasted. George Ho (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, I believe our lead is inappropriate. Over 2/3 of the lead deals with the recent news of the shows ending. I'll let others weigh in, but if we can't get an improvement I'm going to boldly remove what I view to be the violations. Surely there's more to write about this show that ran for such a long time instead of just the way it ended. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Solution is to expand the intro more. The few sentences about the termination is appropriate. Sagecandor (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Lead 
Talk:Llangrannog

message: Llangrannog is indeed in Ceredigion. However, it is also in Cardiganshire and best practice would tend to favour the latter. I changed it to Cardiganshire because local government in this country is subjected to such frequent and arbitrary reorganisation that it makes far more sense to give the location of places with their traditional county which they always have been in and always will be in. Ceredigion is an artificial county invented in 1996, if my memory serves me correctly. Most of these made up administrative divisions are here today, gone tomorrow. It's also important to note that the traditional counties were never abolished (and whatever government is in power at the time of a shake-up is always at pains to emphasise this), it's just that they cease to correspond to local authority areas. See Traditional counties of Wales for a bit more on all this. It's essentially your article so I won't change it again. Just thought I'd leave a note to explain myself. Trilobite 01:10, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 10:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardiganshire or Ceredigion? 

message: Need help with postcode district, and postcode area for the Infobox.  Thanks.  ~Geaugagrrl talk 02:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox adjustment 

message: wrth cwrs Ceredigion.  there is now a noteable statue of the saint, by a local artist, on the headland to the right of the panorama.  does anyone reading this know enough about it to add to article?  if not i will researc further in the pub next visit.  Daiyounger (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Statue

message: My link isn't working. I've put the  around it as usual. Why isn't it working? Jwpkanutin (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You used a return in between the two words, which causes the fault. I've repaired the link. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help
Category talk:Space launch vehicles

message: I strongly propose we only ever add flown hardware (success or failure) to this category. Otherwise the category will get swamped and overwhelmed with pipe dreams. I've just removed two nonexistant (or never flown) rockets for which someone felt they could use this category as an advertising platform (even quoting prizes).
It possible of course to make a second list which could include everything ever planned, but this one just shouldn't.
Ropers 01:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about this theory. The name implies *all* space launch vehicles, not just those that have launched; that means lots of people will misunderstand it anyway. Wouldn't it be better to make this the superset, and create subcategories for actual and proposed vehicles (or somesuch)?WolfKeeper 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added Category:Proposed spacecraft to this category. It seems both correct and proportionate.WolfKeeper 02:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual hardware only

message: Maybe all vehicles that have a RLV, ELV, or PRLV, should be removed from the SLV category to reduce the clutter.  So that only none categorized vehicles, that don’t yet have a category are just left under the SLV category.--aceslead 18:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clutter
Talk:Fushimi Castle

message: Japanese Wikipedia has article under Fushimi Castle; Momoyama Castle is a redirect to Fushimi Castle.
The last sentence in the article currently says that the castle "was closed to the public in 2003."  Could someone elaborate on that by stating why it was closed to the public, when it will reopen, etc.
Shirokuma1 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese language article
Talk:La Bayamesa

message: WHO? Removed this mysterious floating name from the text's beggining. 200.191.138.182 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashtyn Elizabeth Bailey 

message: Isn't there some other song named "La bayamesa"?
It is a slow song, and it is about a woman from Bayamo.
-- Error 02:10, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: About a woman

message: There are 2 sentences in the "Lyrics" section:
"First, because it hurt the pride of the Spanish. Furthermore, it was well seen in the lyrics of one nation to another is not respected."
The second one is in bad English, I do not understand it. But it seems to me that it repeats in another words the first sentence. 132.66.40.161 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please correct 

message: There are 2 sentences in the "Lyrics" section:
Fifth stanza 
...
Behold those that have fallen
...
Should refer to the Spaniards, "Behold THEM that have fallen" would be closer to the meaning.
 
Sixth stanza 
...
At the cannon's terrible stampede.
...
Should be "terrible Bang" or "Boom" (Loud sound - estampido) not (stampede - estampida)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.217.112.15 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please correct 

message: I've come across two versions of this song, an abridged version and an extended version that is slightly longer (by around 17 seconds) and repeats the last few lines. Which one is more up-to-date or "correct", or are they both equally valid? FWIW, the shorter version is a more recent recording than the longer one (circa 2016 vs. circa 2003), if that means anything. Regards, – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Encarta Encyclopedia's rendition also seems to be the shorter one, with no repeat at the end. I'm taking that as a sign that the shorter version is more recent and thus "official" than the longer. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abridged version 

message: Somebody removed second and third verses from the cuban anthem Princessp2008  13:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second and third removed from article
Talk:Harry Potter censorship

message: I'm redirecting this to Harry Potter, for two reasons:
1. Most of this information is discussed in the Controversy section of that article
2. There is practically no citation in this article whatsoever. By Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Removing unsourced information from this article would amount to blanking the entire article, so I'm simply redirecting it to Harry Potter, where work can focus on making that article more up to speed. 
If there are objections, please discuss them here on the Talk page. Thanks, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting
Talk:Media controversy

message: NPOV: This article fails to address why different organisations restrict access to the media, and debate the pros and cons of these positions.  The underlying assumption of this page is admirably censorship free, a position that most people would disagree with.  Further the title is quite confusing, I thought the page would be about controversy in the media not about the media.  Why is there a list of links to mainly religious organisations down the bottom, provide an explanation of the practises of each of these groups --Fermion 04:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: What is the purpose of this article in the first place? How is it helping the reader at all? K-UNIT 01:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  purpose?
Talk:Vinyl roof

message: The final factory vinyl roofs were offered on the 1996 Buick Roadmaster and Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. The 2002 Lincoln Continental did not offer a factory vinyl roof. The last Lincoln factory vinyl roof was the 1991 Town Car. 64.19.140.69 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Factory Vinyl Roofs
Talk:Ample vector bundle

message: So, is this article talking about line bundles or vector bundles?  --Ardonik 06:26, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
It's funny - nowhere in the article the
notion of "ample vector bundle" is defined.
I think it should be renamed to "ample 
line bundle", to avoid confusion. --Tiphareth 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

message: * This article is called ample vector bundles but makes no mention of ample vector bundles except the statement that there is a theory about them.
* I cannot make sense of the second sentence, neither mathematically nor gramatically, and I do speak English.
* The following sentence in parenthesis does not make any meaningful statement. 
* In particular, it mentions some RHS without having an equation anywhere in the near.
* There is a more general theory of ample vector bundles. is a great example of nonsensical blah.
In essence, I consider this is a great example of what Wikipedia should not be like. --129.132.146.66 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: I cleaned up the article, because - as was pointed out - it was partly unreadable. Moreover, I moved it to ample line bundle, because ample vector bundles are not discussed (yet). Jakob.scholbach 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup
Talk:History of history

message: It's a good idea, but I don't understand the scope of this article at all. By it's own defintion, it should really be called "History of recorded human history in the West." In fact, it sounds more like a history of the West, and not a history of history. Whoever created this article doesn't really understand what the article entails, it should not look at any true historical events, but it should examine the events, trends, changes, etc., in the field of history as an academic subject. Historiography is the theory of history, the way it is written, interpretted, etc.; does not refer to any past events as such. But, presumably, a history of history should trace the past events in the field of history(new innovations, trends, etc.), not just theory. It's a valid idea, just a completely misguided article currently.--Dmcdevit 17:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: I don't see here any academic references discussed to substantiate the term usage. If they will not appear in 1-2 days, I am  afraid the article is for VfD, rather than for COTW. Mikkalai 21:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Original research]] ?? 

message: On April 20, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion.  The result was redirect.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/History of history for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD