lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battles Without Honor and Humanity (film)

message: I've moved an earlier conversation here to Talk:Kōichi Iiboshi. -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Iiboshi ever a yakuza?
Talk:Ebor Festival

message: I appreciate that this isn't a great article and would really appreciate any additions that anyone can make to it --Wikipediatastic 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Chang Cheh

message: Did Chang Cheh produce ANY films on or involving Wushu, or is this a mistake?  I think the generic "Kung Fu" would probably be more appropriate here.  Also, I propose to change the title of "Five Deadly Venoms" to its original English title of "Five Venoms".  Any objections? Cal42 13:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wushu
Talk:Gordon Liu

message: Couldn't we use the picture from his character in Kill Bill? 71.236.169.89 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've removed the following from the text: "Through 1996-1998, Liu played in a rather famous chinese series, based on the classical book Journey to the West. He played as Ox King, the monkey king's best friend. In the series he worked with both Dicky Cheung and Benny Chan."
I can find no reference to him in this role.  It's been a long time since I watched this particular version of the story, but I think I'd remember seeing him (even heavily made up).  If someone can verify without doubt that he was in it, I'll put it back. --Cal42 07:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Journey to the West

message: this is NOT Gordon Liu! IMDB lists this wrong, it is Ji Chun Hua from the first shaolin temple movie. See also:  --AlexOvShaolin 03:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kids from Shaolin 

message: The transcriptions at the top of the page are a mess. I am however unsure as to what to do about them, i.e. which to remove and which to keep. I've added some information to the infobox though if someone feels up to the task. I may also add that Liu Chia-Hui is Wade-Giles transcription. Tasnu Arakun (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcriptions 

message: I replaced the characters, which were declared as Simplified Chinese but were in fact Traditional Chinese. Copy & paste doesn't always work, so some research would be nice prior to writing something into a so-called encyclopedia.
92.72.134.44 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplified Chinese 

message: There seems to be wrong birthday here, according to Chinese sources (and even the Chinese Wikipedia), the birthday is August the 22nd not November 30th. I will hereby change it, if there's anything else that proves it otherwise, change it back. Gw2005 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday 

message: Seems not unreasonable, given that he appeared alongside Lucy Liu in Kill Bill, for the article to indicate whether or not the two are related.  I'm guessing no, since it's not mentioned, but I'm sure many others come here seeking the answer to that question. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship? 

message: I can categorically state that Lau Kar Fai was NOT in that film.......  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.246.72 (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Shaolin
Talk:Politantric Circle

message: What's the point of the article?  The author does not describe what occured so much as lament days gone by, and the ruthlessness of authorities cracking down on drug use.  I would nominate it for deletion, but it might be fixable. Hypeer 15:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypeer's comment was made about an old edition of the article, one that was basically a lamentation of days gone by. Look in the history to see previous versions, and I believe you will agree. However, that is neither here nor now, as the article has been cleaned up and now conforms to a neutral-ish point of view. Hooray for community involvement! Miguel Cervantes 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Jesus/Languages Spoken by Jesus

message: I've started this subpage for us to gather scholarly citations on the languages Biblical scholars and historians believe Jesus spoke. --CTSWyneken 15:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Maurice Casey. Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. p. 65.
Mark's use of Aramaic words suggests that everyone knew that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek... --CTSWyneken 00:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maurice Casey 

message: David Wenham. Paul and Jesus: The True Story Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002. p. 7
It is likely that Jesus and the twelve apostles mainly spoke Aramaic (though the probably also spoke Greek and perhaps Hebrew and Latin as well)--CTSWyneken 00:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Wenham 

message: Geza Vermes. Jesus the Jew. New York: Macmillan, 1973. p. 53
Although the subject of precise dialectal differences is complex and still under debate, there can be little doubt that Jesus himself spoke Galilean Aramaic, the language that is to say, surviving in the popular and somewhat more recent paraphrase of the Pentateuch, the Palestinian Targum, and in the Talmud of Palestine. --Andrew c 01:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geza Vermes 

message: Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar. The Acts of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco: 1998.
: "Jesus' native tongue was a dialect of Aramaic current in Galilee that Judeans apparently could distinguish from their own form of speech, as suggested by Matthew's accoount of the confrontation with Peter in the couryard during Jesus' trial (Matt 26:73). The Gospel of Mark attributes several Aramaic expressions to Jesus (5:41, 7:34, 14:36, 15:34). We do not know whether Jesus could read and write; the story of Jesus in the synagogue reading from Isaiah (Luke 4:16-30) may well be a fiction invented by Luke, the author of the third gospel. [skip discussion on the adulterous woman] We do not know whether Jesus knew Hebrew, in his day only a literary language. There is now evidence that suggests he may have been bilingual; Greek was probably his second language, learned from the pagan environment that surrounded him in Galilee, especially in the Sepphoris, a Hellenistic city located only four miles from his home village. In any case, the written gospels were all composed in Greek... if Jesus did not speak Greek, very few of his original words have come down to us."--Andrew c 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar
Talk:List of Thai films

message: Wisekwai 15:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

message: I'd say go with whatever sounds best and has the most hits on a search engine. - Wisekwai 20:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean for naming articles? I lean more towards using the English names in English Wikipedia as the general rule, and giving the Thai name at the beginning of the article as an alternate title, but possibly with exceptions where the Thai name is short and/or memorable, or where the film is more widely known to non-Thai viewers by the Thai title. For example, I'd go for something like "Dorm (Thai film)" over "Dek Hor". In part, this is because there is no standard transliteration, unless we agree to use RTGS or some other system as a rule (for example, Dek Hor would be Dek Ho in RTGS). IMDb transliteration is horrible and inconsistent, but at present, more often than not the transliteration from IMDb is what ends up getting used on Wikipedia. The English title is constant and not subject to revisions of transliteration policy, as well as being more meaningful to English-speaking readers. rikker (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  English name or transliterated Thai name? 
Talk:Noises Off

message: I really don't like the "characters" section, as it devolves quickly into the sort of thing you would read on the inside cover of the published play.  The only thing it addes to this article is much needless plot summary.  I'm going to be bold and remove it but I'm sure someone might come along and put it back in.... --Dmz5 02:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the character list more brief and easier to read.  Let me know what you think!  207.237.198.152 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: I don't know how to reference one footnote from another.  If someone who does know happens by before I get around to seeking expert advice, please fix the occurrences of [1] to refer to  and the occurrences of [2] to refer to  —Dan Hoey 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Rated as Start - needs section on Critical Reception, as well as improved formatting and citations.--Dereksmootz (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added formatting and returned a better-summarized character list. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Theatre Assesment 

message: The version I just fixed called Brooke an "improvisational actress". In any version I've seen Brooke is quite the opposite - she continues doing exactly what her directions say, no matter how inappropriate they are to the chaos around her. Have I missed something? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dot is the one who improvises. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first act, Lloyd says to Brooke that he knows she used to play in a classy place in London where the actors made up the lines as the went along.  Unsigned  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Brooke

message: Ref 4 says it is a broken link, which, apparently it is not. But the ref is in the wrong place - it should be tied to "Weston-Super-Mare" not "(fictional.)" I would fix it myself, but I'm not sure how.ExpatSalopian (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for raising this, the link is indeed live. However, I looked at it and didn't see any reason to have this ref, as it does not support the WP text. It's also not needed to provide info on Weston-super-Mare, since that town is already wikilinked in the same sentence. So, I've just removed the ref. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References
Talk:Phèdre

message: I changed the graphic from a picture of one of the actresses to the first edition title page.  I think this makes more sense and works better historically. Portia1780 02:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphic
Talk:Tamburlaine

message: This sentence seems rather careless to me: "While Tamburlaine is considered inferior to the great tragedies of the late-Elizabethan and early-Jacobean period..." Who can say that a play is  considered "inferior?" This certainly has no place in an encyclopaedia, or in any academic writing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebobs (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that I am responding to an ancient comment, but value judgments such as this are in fact what much academic writing comprises.  There is such a thing as bad writing just as much as there is such a thing as good writing.  It is very possible to argue that one play is superior to another, and many have done and continue to do so. --Bajazeth.  And think to rouse us from our dreadful siege / Of the famous Grecian Constantinople 14:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inferior? 

message: A performance written as being in the future is given dates now in the past. If this happened, it needs to be changed to past tense. If it didn't, it needs to be axed.Thmazing (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance history 

message: "During this time, Bajazeth's son, Callapine, plans to avenge his father's death. Finally, while attacking an Islamic nation, he scornfully burns a copy of the Qur'an and claims to be greater than God."
The above is poor English.  The pronoun "he" can be understood to refer to Callapine, although it makes no implicit sense that way.
I assume, but am not sure, that the 'he' is Tamburlaine.  Somebody who can confirm, please change.  BTW, the line about Callapine seems irrelevant.  Maybe rewrite and note it as a sub-plot?71.31.147.72 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty obviously referring to Tamburlaine. --Bajazeth.  And think to rouse us from our dreadful siege / Of the famous Grecian Constantinople 17:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot - Who? 

message: The introduction includes, "Whereas the real Timur was of Turkic-Mongolian ancestry and belonged to the nobility, for dramatic purposes Marlowe depicts him as a Scythian shepherd who rises to the rank of emperor." While I agree with the nobility vs. shepherd dichotomy, Timur was born in part of Scythia -- Wikipedia tells me Scythia included "Parama Kamboja, corresponding to northern Afghanistan and parts of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan" and that Timur was born in Uzbekistan -- and this makes me worry that the sentence's reference to ancestry are misleading or confusing. Perhaps, however, improved verbiage would make the distinction helpful instead. Does anyone, perhaps with more expertise than I, whether in the historical character or the play, care to weigh in? Czrisher (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timur's and Tamburlaine's Origins 

message: I created Category:Tamburlaine. However, I couldn't find any other articles to place in said category, so said category could be deleted. What do you think? Or are there other articles that belong in such a category?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category
Talk:The Trojan Women

message: I added a link to Brad Mays' stage play production of The Trojan Woman. 
Smokingmaenad 05:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the evidence for the date of 415 for this play?Twospoonfuls (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Just thought I'd post here, as I'm uncertain on how to edit the table, but the text by the unknown translator is identical to the first text in the table, and therefore probably should be removed. 129.234.252.66 (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I've merged the two. Tim Smith (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: Deleted again:  the only external sources are from mirrors of an old version of this article. Original edit (thanks, WikiBlame) is here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical production at King Edward IV College 

message: I am concerned that within the article are four pictures and each is from the same production. I cannot see how this specific production contributes to our understanding of the play or to the wider history of the play. They may be relevant to the wikipedia page on the ARK Theatre Co, if there is one, but not to The Trojan Women. I think this amounts to the promotion of ARK Theatre, and not to our understanding of The Trojan Women and as a result all or all but one of the pictures should be removed.Bernardrieuxawake (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of pictures from ARK Theatre Co production 

message: — Assignment last updated by Johnstoncl (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Ancient Greece
Talk:Mebibit

message: I'm not sure about the validity of the statement “1 megabit equaled 128 kibibyte; 8 megabits were 1 mebibyte.” I understand it as  “1 Mb = 128 KiB; 8 Mb = 1 MiB.” However, it doesn't add up:
* 1 Mb = 1000000 b = 125000 B = 125 kB
* 128 KiB = 131072 B > 1 Mb
* 8 Mb = 8000000 b = 1000000 B = 1 MB
* 1 MiB = 1048576 B > 8 Mb
Could somebody with a better understanding clarify this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OlivierMehani (talk • contribs) 05:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty clear that this is meant in the context of binary use of SI prefixes as discussed there. You have to read the entire paragraph. Kbrose (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalence
Talk:Kibibit

message: Discussion about centralization took place at Talk:Binary prefix.
Shouldn't it say that 1 kibibit is 128 octets, and not necessarily 128 bytes? 8 bits is not universally defined as 1 byte, whereas the reader can determine for themselves if 1 octet = 1 byte in their world. Perhaps even make a note of this specificity and link it to an article on octet/bits/bytes?
:No, our anonymous contributor is mistaken.  It behooves us to avoid archaeism.  It has been at least a decade since "byte" meant a variable number of bits, as outlined in articles kibibyte, byte and octet.  Jim.henderson 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Exbibyte

message: The wording of this article places redundant words in the first sentences, rendering the popups for them useless. The statement "The exbibyte is a multiple of the unit byte for digital information" is pedantic verbosity, significantly improved by saying "The exbibyte is 2^60 bytes of digital information."  With the latter, the facts in the former are still obvious, and the only fact anyone really needs to know gets stated in the first sentence and appears in every popup. This problem affects every page of the series describing such terms (kibibyte, gigabyte, etc.). Someone (not me) should go fix them all. 192.31.106.36 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needed a change, and I changed it now in this article. When potential adjustments by others have been made, the wording can be copied to the other similar articles. --Jhertel (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uninformative
Talk:Gibibyte

message: A gibigbyte are 1000^4 byte.  it was invented to accompany the HRF (Human Readable Format) and uses powers of 1000, not 1024.
A gigabyte are 1024^4 byte.
look it up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.254.138 (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS DEFINITION IS EXACTLY WRONG 

message: How is gibibyte pronounced?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.58.228 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a pronunciation guideline in the Binary prefixes article.-- era (Talk | History) 19:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: "Giga-binary-byte" is rather silly, since the power-of-2 characteristic is the primary one - giga is merely the magnitude designator.  Much more sensible would be the call it 'Binary Gigabytes', or, seredipitously, 'bigigabyte' (pron. "big-iga-byte" or even, though less happily, "bye-gigabyte") with abbreviation BGB or bGB.  Establishing that as a new convention might be quite easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.113.179 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 March 2009
*The relevant standards bodies (IEEE, IEC) who define these terms are unlikely to see your suggestion on the talk page of a Wikipedia article. Perhaps you should contact those organizations directly. --65.121.28.16 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for change 

message: I went through and cleaned up what appeared to be a mass replacement of "gibi" with "giga". After checking the history it seems that someone did indeed think gibibyte was just a misspelling of gigabyte. That is unquestionably not the case and this is the page for gibibyte (however paltry it may be). Be sure to double check when using them if there's any confusion. Fofosfederation (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for checking this.  There were indeed some strange "test" edits that you mostly fixed.  To be sure of catching all of the changes, I have reverted to the last clean version.  Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gigabyte "misspelling"
Talk:2006 Texas elections

message: I have capitalized "Election" in the title of this article — which is contrary to most election articles — because the biennial fall election is usually called the Texas General Election, especially on state web sites. I will look to see if I can find further documentation. — Bellhalla 15:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the Texas Election Code, it appears that I was mistaken. The article should be called Texas general election, 2006 and I will make the change. — Bellhalla 13:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on article naame

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Texas United States state elections, 2006 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#Texas United States state elections, 2006 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Elli (talk | contribs) 18:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Texas United States state elections, 2006" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Time After Time (1947 song)

message: According to this site this song was released by Sinatra on 24 October 1946, so the date 1947 must be wrong.
Wocky 16:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Despite what a couple of academics may have written, "Time After Time" is not a song "about nostalgia." It is a song about love and appreciation, as any examination of the actual lyric will reveal.
22:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "About Nostalgia"
Talk:Loving v. Virginia

message: The article says "the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9–0 decision", but wasn't the decision actually 8-0 with Marshall recusing himself because he used to be a top lawyer at the NAACP which was involved in earlier phases of the case? Not sure Marshall personally was involved back then, but other sources are pretty clear that he did not participate in the SCOTUS decision. At the very least we can cite one of those sources and change the wording to "8-0 decision with Thurgood Marshall not participating". Anyone object? Jef (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind! I looked more closely at the dates involved. The Loving decision was issued on June 12th 1967, as the article says; Thurgood Marshall was nominated to SCOTUS the next day, June 13th, confirmed on August 30th, and sworn in at the start of the next term on October 2nd. He was not involved in the Loving decision because he was not yet an associate justice. So then the question becomes, were there nine justices on June 12th? And the answer is yes, for at least part of the day: Tom Clark retired that very day. So there were only eight justices from June 13th to October 2nd, but that's not relevant to the Loving case. Wikipedia has it right, the other sources I found are wrong. Jef (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the only 1967 decision from which Marshall recused himself was Katz v. United States. There were probably others given the nature of the Solicitor General position, but I don't think they're notable.  White Whirlwind  04:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thurgood Marshall 

message: Due to the statement that substantive due process may be an unconstitutional overreach, by the opinion of Clarence Thomas in Dobbs 2022, several commentators have stated that miscegenation may be soon made illegal in the United States once again. 
Seems like this could be added to this article -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Under Dobbs 2022 SCOTUS
Talk:THQ Digital Studios UK

message: The current version of the article is heavily biased against the company; an earlier version was heavily biased towards the company. I'm at a loss here. Alphax τεχ 16:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait Six months and they will have gone bust.--84.9.192.124 01:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: I propose that THQ Digital Studios UK be merged into THQ. The current state of this article does not really prove notability, and would do better inside the THQ article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Most of it is unsourced anyway and none of the current sources appear to discuss the company in depth.  czar 16:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal