lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Irish Wolfhound

message: Sam of the Sam & Max series is based off the Irish Wolfhound. Don't know if it belongs in the article, just sayin'
:Signed and dated for archive purposes only. William Harris • (talk) • 09:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Freelance Police

message: This portion is confusing.  Does this double negative imply that they are favored for loyalty?  The section below needs a re-write.
 
Irish wolfhounds are often not favored for their lack of loyalty, affection, patience and devotion. At some points in history they have been used as watchdogs, unlike some breeds, the Irish wolfhound is usually reliable in this role as they are often not friendly toward strangers, their size can be a natural deterrent. That said, when protection is required this dog is never found wanting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.50.223 (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That was vandalism -- I've fixed it. Anna talk 06:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperament follies 

message: At the end of the first paragraph of the "Pre-19th Century" portion of the "History" section of this article, there is a reference given for The New Complete Irish Wolfhound by Joel Samaha. Despite this fact, there is a notation of "citation needed" in every single sentence of this paragraph. 
Has it been determined that the information presented in this paragraph is not contained in the book referenced? Or was the person inserting the repeated requests for citations positing doubt as to the credibility of the reference itself? If it is the latter, a single notation regarding the reliability of the source should suffice. Lunarmovements (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly over enthusiastic use of "citation needed" 

message: Why is this article using the American Kennel Club as a point of reference? Why not the standard of the country of origin, which is also the internationally-recognised FCI standard?109.255.138.92 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Kennel Club??? 

message: The Magnificent Irish Wolfhound or The Irish Wolfhound Guide by Mary McBryde both seem to be 1998 books. I presume it is at least one of these books that is being cited.  Antiqueight discuss 00:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone know which McBryde book is being referenced?
Talk:List of political party symbols in India

message: I think both of these lists would be better served as tables, especially the state  parties list (as there are three distinct pieces of information per line). 
In the first section, i would like to see the list orgaized either alphabetically by device or by party name. 
In the second section, (the state political parties) it seems to me that it would again be better to organize by symbol or by party, as some of the parties use the same symbol in various states.  
Vynce 00:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Jecht

message: If someone prints a page with this template in it and are unskilled in Japanese, how will they know it is Japanese? Also, a simple "(Japanese: ジェクト Jekuto)" is much better than a "."  ⇒  JarlaxleArtemis 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Why would they print this..?  And could they not click the nice little blue question mark while they're here?—urutapu 04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless [[Template:Nihongo]]
Talk:Paraconsistent logics

message: There is a similar article with the name "Paraconsistent logic" (without the s)
This article should definitely be merged with Paraconsistent logic (which should be the main article).  I plan on merging it (no earlier than January 21, 2006), if no one protests.  Dbtfz 18:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Category talk:American film directors

message: Why does the category for African-American film directors need to be separate from this one?Thomasiscool 14:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of Pages 

message: I don't see John Sayles on the list of American Film Directors71.198.247.1 06:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American film directors
Talk:An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)

message: The section that mentions pro-family groups as "extremists" should be revised, as they are extremists from a liberal perspective, but not from a conservative perspective. There seems to be a liberal bias on this article.
:Agreed, I'll change it - Jord 21:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section revision

message: :"(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."
This is the key statement of this article, bolded term in emphasis as it is the added one. The terms from before were straightforward. Skin color, ancestry, religion, country of origin. They're very straightforward concepts, at least to me. Perhaps others can give examples of blurriness. But to me, well I would like to know what the courts define a sexual orientation as. For example, does it refer to only what sex you are attracted to? As in, would it only apply to hatred incited against heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals or asexuals? Or would it include protection of people with preferential attraction to black people, or people with gerontophilia, or people with BDSM fetishes, or having furry fandom fetishes, or someone who prefers cartoon pornography to non-cartoon pornography. Currently the sexual orientation article is broad and does not address the specific national definitions for these terms which are important for people to know in recognizing their rights and protections and ability to charge terrorists. Tyciol (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have a look at McAleer v. Canada (Human Rights Comm.) (1996), 26 C.H.R.R. D/280 (F.C.T.D.), among others.  It is well defined legally, as it is in the field of psychology, as referring only to gender preference.  I don't know that this is necessary to add to this article, because I'm not aware of any significant challenge to this meaning.--Trystan (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sexual orientation]] legal definition?

message: It seems to me that the "Homophobia" category would be fairly obvious one for a bill that limits the promotion of hatred and genocide against gay and lesbian persons.  Any comments on its recent removal?--Trystan (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Homophobia Category

message: I've changed the infobox from the old CA Law one to the generic one, for three reasons.  First, the CA Law appears to have been improperly merged with state law templates, on the assumption that CA meant California.  Second, it doesn't display properly on all browsers:  it worked on my safari iphone, but not on my Chrome.  The generic works on all browsers, so far as I can tell.  Third, the generic infobox was recently heavily modified to eliminate problems that prevented properly tracing the legislative history in parliamentary settings, and is now much more flexible and adaptable.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed the infobox
Talk:The "Hole in the Road"

message: from VfD:
The basis for placing this on speedy deletion appeared to be that the city was unnamed: which is why "what links here" was invented, revealing that it is in fact Sheffield, UK.  I think a decision needs to be made on whether this is notable enough for an encyclopedia i.e. whether it's made up or whether it needs clean up. -- Francs2000 | Talk  00:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Actually Sheffield has had a dangling hyperlink, pointing to this, for some time. Uncle G 02:11, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
*Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: *I suspect that it grew out of the dangling hyperlink in Sheffield in the first place.  Sheffield has a lot of links to separate articles for its landmarks, a lot of which have been written.  If you are going to merge The "Hole in the Road", then you'll have to merge all of them as well, otherwise you'll make things terribly lop-sided. Such a merger will be a lot of work. I don't think that you'll get it done. Uncle G 13:30, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
*Merge and don't redirect. If it's included there, it'll have a better chance of being expanded, if that's at all possible. 131.211.210.157 10:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Ugg

message: from VfD:
Reasons for deletion request (as of Deletion Policy):
*This article presents no kind of use
*Incomplete
*Not Comprehensive, and Lengthy enough
— Vlad Cletus via Uncle G 01:02, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
*This is pure advertising.  Delete.  --L33tminion | (talk) 01:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
*Not necessarily pure advertising. Anyway, redirect to Ugg boots. -- Hoary 03:45, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
*Delete, retail ad. Wyss 06:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Million Book Project

message: It's 2005 and a quick Google search doesn't suggest much about the current status of the project; the latest info in the FAQ at http://www.library.cmu.edu/Libraries/MBP_FAQ.html#current is only recent as of June 2004. Does anyone have more information on this?
-- Schultz.Ryan 01:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Status

message: The below mass of text was cut and pasted into the article by Denise Troll Covey. I've removed it here, if anyone is up to turning into an encyclopedia article and wants to re-add it. -- Stbalbach 21:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent addition

message: any updates?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  it's 2009, what has happened since 2007? 
Category talk:Endangered species

message: hey all, wondering if anyone would be willing to update the Bornean Flat-headed Frog article in regards to the information found at http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/10/frog.indonesia.ap/index.html . The article in question says that only two of those frogs have been found, and neither disected, but the page on cnn says that recently some guys have cut open another 8 frogs that they captured in the wild recently. just hoping that someone would update this. thanks, patrick. 72.147.1.104 (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for update

message: Does the House Sparrow really warrant being in the category Endangered Species? You'd be hard pressed to find many species that aren't endangered somewhere in the world in some part of its range. Shouldn't the category endangered species be for ones listed as endangered of extinction as a species, rather than a county/state/country? Sabine's Sunbird 01:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it isn't. I've removed it from the category. - MPF 23:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: House Sparrow

message: While I enjoy a joke once in a while, I really don't see why a wikipedian should qualify as endangered (check under 'U'). If they really are endangered they should be put in a zoo and offered a proper breeding programme ;) Sauronmaiar 15:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endangered humans 

message: Does the above category system exist somewhere? I'm trying to figured out why we have Category:Endangered species but not Category:Threatened species, etc. Is this category a catch-all for all statuses? I realize that conservation statuses are subject to debate, and vary by classifying organization, but a more fine-grained approach seems like a good idea. Outriggr 05:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species by conservation status? 

message: Perhaps the species (animal or plant) could be listed like the lists at CITES - ie appendix 1, appendix 2 and appendix 3.  Appendix 1 is an endangered species (about 800 on list).  Appendix 2 is a vunerable species that would decline and become endangered if it was not protected (about 29,000 on list).  Appendix 3 is a species not endangered world wide, but one country wants to ban the trade in an animal or plant and by agreement it has been added to the appendix 3 list.  All the lists are on the CITES website in a very organised way. 
What is the definition of endangered on this page as it stands at the present time. Snowman 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CITES 

message: Are there additional categories for endangered species not listed on the IUCN Red list? For example, Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) is a federally listed endangered species by the United States, but is not included on the IUCN list.--Texas Whitt (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional categories?
Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/January 12, 2005

message: Please warn arachnophobes before they open their talk pages!  I nearly had a dicky fit... -- Francs2000 | Talk  01:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have checked List of Wikipedians by phobia :-) I guess Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 10, 2004 was a bit of a concern too. -- Solipsist 08:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and there was another one too though I can't remember what date it was featured. -- Francs2000 | Talk  22:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Designer stubble/Archive 1

message: It's cool to have an old painting in the article, but this one shows virtually no stubble whatsoever, so I've replaced it with a proper stubbly face. Chamaeleon 02:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Queued image]]

message: Living in today's über-scientific era, any thoughts about quantifying the length of hair that defines stubble (e.g. 1 mm, 2 mm, etc.)?  At what length does stubble become a beard? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.137.153.136 (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definine stubble in terms of length 

message: I have added a picture of Jimmy Wales as another visual example of the "stubbie".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Birdman (talk • contribs) 07:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to say, "Why not add a picture of Jimbo," when I saw the above edit. Why was it removed? Would it not make sense to have a picture if Jimmy Wales on the Wikipedia article "Stubble"? Invmog (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Another example added

message: No mention on how popularity of this style is held in check by how kissing someone with stubble hurts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but this is a user created source and reliable according to WP:RS. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  18:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kissing 

message: The name of this article should be changed to "designer stubble". There are plenty of sources for it. The word "stubble" is too general and creates a situation for a coatrack.Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk •  18:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and make the change. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  21:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name change
Talk:4th Time Around

message: An essay about a single song by Bob Dylan, which says it's Dylan's version of the song "Norweigan [sic] Wood", or maybe "Norwiegan [sic] Wood". I realize that Dylanology is still a booming business, but this song is no "Blowing in the Wind" and I wonder if it's all that notable; meanwhile, this article as it now stands contains what I'll charitably term "original research". -- Hoary 03:39, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
*Delete, a song that is barely notable, certainly looks like a POV original research. Megan1967 04:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: from VfD

message: I don't suppose there's any way of confirming this unless it was recorded in some way at the time, but although Dylan normally gave oblique/meaningless/indecipherable replies to questions about 'Norwegian wood'/'4th time around' I'm sure I once saw a street interview in which he just said "It needed finishing", which I took to mean that '4th time' was the end of the story started in NW.  So I tried listening to them in that light and it does work, but... well, can anyone confirm from a reliable source that he said it, and am I interpreting it correctly? --Deke42 (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Norwegian wood
Talk:ReWire (software protocol)

message: This page was proposed for deletion December 2004.  The archived discussion is available at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ReWire. Joyous 03:45, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
"licensed only to commercial software"?  So you can't use the protocol in a linux-based system? - Omegatron 15:02, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
The page said "proprietary" software, because you can't use it if you want to disclose your/their source. ◗●◖ falkreon (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

message: The article mentions "mixer applications" and "synth applications". What's the difference? Is there an article about that? Khullah (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specify and link
Talk:William Thurston

message: In the section The geometrization conjecture, this passage appears:
"To complete the picture, Thurston proved a hyperbolization theorem for Haken manifolds. A particularly important corollary is that many knots and links are in fact hyperbolic. Together with his hyperbolic Dehn surgery theorem, this showed that closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds existed in great abundance.
"The geometrization theorem has been called Thurston's Monster Theorem, due to the length and difficulty of the proof. Complete proofs were not written up until almost 20 years later. The proof involves a number of deep and original insights which have linked many apparently disparate fields to 3-manifolds. "
In this passage it appears that the words "the geometrization theorem" is essentially referring to the hyperbolization theorem for Haken manifolds.
If so, I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject will make that much clearer.
If not, I still hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can clarify just what theorem "the geometrization theorem" refers to in this passage. (Clearly it is not the full geometrization theorem proved by Perelman.) 2601:200:C000:1A0:F1F8:E82B:D49B:F6DF (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as i know the name "monster theorem" concerns hyperbolisation for Haken manifolds, as you guessed, so i made the edit you suggested. It would be good to have a reference there, one i am aware of is the intro to Misha Kapovich's book "Hyperbolic manifolds and discrete groups" where he calls it "the big monster". Does anybody know another? jraimbau (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, jraimbau!  That passage is much clearer now. 2601:200:C000:1A0:204A:C88A:A06B:3595 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear passage 

message: The article states that Thurston was born in Washington, D.C.
Certainly he lived in the D.C. area for most of his life before going to college.
But I had thought he was born in the Netherlands. Is that not the case? 2601:200:C000:1A0:204A:C88A:A06B:3595 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in D.C.?
Talk:Russian (spelling)

message: This page and its sister page have been suggested for deletion.  You'll find the deletion vote page here: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Russian_%28usage%29#.5B.5BRussian_.28usage.29.5D.5D Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 22:08, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vfd
Talk:Piano quintet

message: Could someone add the keys and opus numbers to the works listed?  It's great that they have years, but the other information is usually more important in identifying and referring to a work.
Also, Mahler wrote a piano quintet (or maybe part of one?) -- I think it may be from his student day's but it's probably worth including... 76.103.30.165 (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mahler wrote an unfinished piano quartet, not piano quintet. mcoverdale (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keys, opus numbers, and more 

message: The "List" section reads pretty decently well as is, but it might be helpful to have it (maybe additionally to its current form?) in table form - in particular so you could organize across the centuries by alphabetical order of composer's name, and by year - seeing the chronology I think could be particularly useful. Sorry I lack the expertise to execute my own suggestion! 171.66.208.5 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table for list section 

message: Without laboring to recall which bewigged character from two or three centuries ago quoted (in a film much newer than he), in beginning an instructively direct seduction, Confucius's doctrine that the beginning of wisdom is "calling things by their right names", I suggest that the use of the aforesaid alchemical term in the section "Schumann and the Romantic piano quintet" is in itself ill-conceived, and that using it in both the opening and closing 'graphs of the section amounts to a pretentiously slapstick blunder.   (I also beg colleagues' indulgence for my self-indulgence, and my pretentiously meta use of a pretentious term, on the grounds that we all just wanna have fun. And...) I leave, to those with greater facility than I, the task of working out a better wording.--Jerzy•t 11:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: perfectly typical or representative of a particular kind of person or thing.
The word stays. mcoverdale (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Quintessential" 

message: I am the editor who added Taneyev to the 20th Century section last year. Then the list in this section was of significant piano quintets (which Taneyev's certainly is). But at some point in Mcoverdale's revisions, it has turned into a list of noteable composers who wrote piano quintets, and in that company Taneyev looks a little out-gunned. I suggest that either the original wording is restored, or else that Taneyev is removed. (I will do this myself if nobody else does, but I'd rather the decision was made by Mcoverdale, or someone else involved with the recent revisions.) 
JBritnell (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than remove Taneyev, I have removed "notable." Notability is in the eye of the beholder and all that. mcoverdale (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taneyev
Category talk:Musical forms

message: I don't think that Bimbo (song) fits here as it is a specific song, rather than a musical form. Will delete for the time being.Ck lostsword 17:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Points of discussion

message: I think we should add Jazz forms as a category and include under it forms like Twelve bar blues and Thirty-two-bar form76.166.177.72 (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories
Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Significant Omissions

message: I am retiring my portion of this list, because I now believe that the LaRouche articles have reach a state where they are in conformity with Wikipedia NPOV policy. I'll let Weed decide if his suggestions still need to be addressed.
--Herschelkrustofsky 03:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant Omissions from the current version
Talk:Waiting for the Sirens' Call

message: Designer Peter Saville purposefully left the apostrophe out of the title, so the name of the article is actually wrong as it stands.
-So that apostrophe there on the album cover - is that just my imagination? Ortac 13:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostrophe in title 
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-01-10/Credibility

message: Googling found an infobangs reference to the actual Larry Sanger's article, for me.
- sabre23t 04:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Sanger's New Year's Eve Kuro5hin article 

message: Later on, Shirky posted a Wikipedia screenshot containing the output of a script he had written, which showed below the title of the article how many times it had been edited, by how many users, and the dates of the first and most recent edits.  The patch for this is trivial, but doing it fast enough is not.  See the discussion at:
Jrincayc 13:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit count and so on for articles
Talk:Smile Empty Soul

message: wtf dude there not alternative metal there alternative rock
their songs inspire me to shot my self
jwlx 02:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Split - Song ranked Top 20 and has a music video that can be described in detail.  Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottom of a Bottle 