lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Software build

message: "the source code for current versions of the Linux operating system is believed to consist of millions of lines of source code in thousands of files" -- Don't we know? Is there really any uncertainty about this issue, or is this an example of weasel wording? WP:WEASEL -- 201.50.249.78 17:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too found this statement too vague. I added a verification needed template. --Abdull 14:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "source code is believed to consist"? 

message: After almost two years the body of the Build management article... er, page... still consists of a single bullet list of five items. It looks like something from a PowerPoint deck on a software build management product or seminar. I'm not saying there is any evidence of WP:COI there, just that that does not meet "acceptable article" criteria. If there is no more to say about build management than that, it should be said here. WP clearly does not need a separate "management of the process" article for this particular "about the process" article. Jeh (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and hearing no objection or even comment, it's done. Jeh (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from [[Build management]] 

message: In looking at the build tools section there is no mention of the different classifications of tools as expressed in Build automation or List of build automation software. The list of examples is also inconsistent with those presented on the build automation page which lists: (like Make, Rake, MS build, Ant, Gradle etc.). I'd like to edit this section to provide consistency with the other related topics. I've never edited content on a WP page before and wanted to check first here.
Mark Edington (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed: Build Tools section improvements
Category talk:Assyrian Wikipedians

message: Would you look at :Image:-universalsyriacscout.png and see if you can make out what it says? It probably says something like "Be Prepared", or "Always Prepared", and I have need of the text. Thank you! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syriac text
Talk:Ministry of Jesus

message: There is the fact that the 4 sgosspels are simply not compatible, and that Mark has a time-reference 2:18 about the majority of the jews feasting, which can only be one specific holiday in the 7th month, making the lenght of Jesus' ministry only half a year.
And given how unreliable are Luke's datas, I wouldn't put much faith into his "30 years" claim either. 89.134.2.221 (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  So the entire 3 years comes from Gospel of John
Talk:One Beale

message: Memphis business journal article
I will be adding information concerning the approval of the building and resolution to the opposition later tonight. but right now i have to go to my thermodynamics class. haha Barcode 17:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Council approval
Talk:Vilnius Cathedral

message: Long night at work cause several typos in my "move" summary. "Genetive case" instead of "genitive case". Used "english" instead of "English". Finally "Viniaus" instead of "Vilniaus". My bad. Dr. Dan (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan, please look at these titles: Lancaster Cathedral, Salford Cathedral, and the entire category of :category:Anglican cathedrals in England. All of these are in England, and I assume they know a bit about English grammar there. Vilnius Cathedral is the accepted convention. Also, no "the" in titles per WP:THE. Please use WP:RM next time, thanks. Renata (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Title 

message: - he was baptized in a cathedral that he had build after he had been baptized?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mindaugas 

message: Sources contradict: that say 1993 and 1997 even at the same website :-(  vs . Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of restoration of the pediment sculptures
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Cultural depictions of core biography figures

message: Welcome to my worksheet talk page.  Right now this idea is in its infancy and there doesn't seem to be any standard place to discuss this in Wikipedia namespace, so I'm inviting interested editors to discuss matters here.  We can move this to another namespace if interest reaches critical mass. Durova 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is table formatted in keeping with standard practice for many featured lists.  This makes things easier on the reader and a bit harder on the editor.  So far visitors have succeeded in adding information with relatively few problems.  It might be a good idea to insert a hidden code note at the top of the page to suggest that non-tech editors leave additions on the talk page. Durova 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the yellow notice at the top of the page?  If so, looks good to me. Durova 14:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, something like that. Regards, David (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks good to me too. It could be copied whole, perhaps (or someone could turn it into a template?) Andrew Dalby 09:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re making it a template, do you think the wording is too specific...?  Maybe it could be a template with one or two parameters... Regards, David (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting for cultural pages 

message: While I agree that dates are very important, some date information at the Joan of Arc cultural list has simply been unavailable online - particularly for outdoor sculpture.  I add this information whenever I can find it. Durova 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case the date-range for the author is used ie. (1900-1985) -- Stbalbach 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: I've posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, WP:RFC, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.  If this generates a critical mass of interest I'll move it into Wikipedia namespace as a proposal. Durova 20:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WPBIO would be a suitable home for this. I'll move it. --kingboyk 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitations to comment 

message: Just adding some comments here from somewhere else. I think more on cultural depictions of Shakespeare would be good. Only one article listed, and that is Shakespeare on screen, which is rather limited. Also, don't forget that many of these areas have groups of articles that could either be merged, or given an overview in Summary style. An example is the articles grouped together at Template:After Tolkien navbox, and indeed in general the "After..." format might be worth considering. Carcharoth 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare and Tolkien comments
Talk:Germaine Tailleferre

message: Unsourced paragraph indicates subject was married to Ralph Barton in 1925 and divorced in 1927 or 1928. Ralph Barton and Carlotta Monterey pages indicate that Barton and Monterey divorced in 1926.68.178.50.46 (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of Marriage to Ralph Barton Problematical
Talk:Sonic Riders 2

message: I made this page a redirect to Sonic Riders because just deleting it isn't enough. Every so often someone comes though and notices the article doesn't exist, they seem to assume that it simply wasn't created instead of checking the deletion log and discussion, so they recreate it; this naturally leads to the article getting deleted again. In my opinion, the only way to ensure this doesn't happen is to make the article a redirect to Sonic Riders and place a message not to recreate the article until there is some more information released. I don't know if there is some obscure Wiki-rule against placing such a notice on a page, but since "Sonic Riders 2" relates to "Sonic Riders", I see nothing wrong with making it a redirect. -- VederJuda 17:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Artie Bell

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Artie Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041225210315/http://www.irishroadracing.co.uk:80/ugphistory/history47.htm to http://www.irishroadracing.co.uk/ugphistory/history47.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204624/http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article.aspx?county=0&articleID=399&cultID=0&townID=0&cultSubID=0&page=0&navID=0 to http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article.aspx?county=0&articleID=399&cultID=0&townID=0&cultSubID=0&page=0&navID=0
*Added  tag to http://www.iomtt.com/Home/TTDatabase/races.aspx?meet_code=ALL&ride_id=918
Both  with updated links ww2censor (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified
Talk:Ulster Grand Prix

message: "The event was cancelled in 1972 because of the political situation in Northern Ireland and in 2001, during the Foot-and-mouth crisis, when the North West 200 and Isle of Man TT were cancelled, the race was held."  I think this needs to be rewritten for the meaning to become clear!  Arrivisto (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence needs clarifying
Talk:Unit construction

message: While Triumph and BSA used and advertised unit construction, they did not invent it. Many other manufacturers have used it. The article only needs to mention the BSA/Triumph divide between "unit" and "pre-unit". Including the "unit construction" article in BSA and Triumph categories seems a bit POV as well. A Unit Construction article should not be about manufacturers, but the engineering, no? Seasalt 13:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But one needs to ask: Who propagates the engineering if not the manufacturers? indeed it is the manufacturers, so, IMHO, the important ones and their bikes should be mentioned, as they are, if they were proponents or significant manufacturers of this type of engine design. While the article could do with more information it is not badly balanced though the New Imperial could do with some more meat. ww2censor 15:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree to disagree. That's just how it looks when I read it.Seasalt 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you can. Let's see if anyone else has any strong feelings about this, but let me ask, where will we put the info about BSA & Triumph unit construction, if not here? Do we divide it up into the appropriate manufacturers article? ww2censor 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no problem with the large amount of Triumph and BSA info--it gives an excellent way to look at the history of Unit Construction.  But the utter lack of mention of its use by many, many other modern manufacturers is a problem.  And, why is it categorized under BSA and Triumph?--Pi3832 13:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rereading it again make me see that the BSA section is certainly too long and detailed in the overall article balance. Certainly other manufacturers could have some small sections if there is enough information available (that's the problem; finding info). The BSA and Triumph info from the history could possibly be gathered into the individual sub-sections and the BSA should probably be reduced by about 50%. Any excess, or the full, information for each manufacturer should be copied into the main articles as mentioned by [User:Seasalt|Seasalt]]. Do you want to work on that Pi3832 in the order suggested? Regarding the cats, I seem to remember that I did that because I though it was an appropriate cat to include it under especially for people interested in those manufacturers. ww2censor 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I just completed a merge and redirect of Unit single engine design (motorcycle) to here.  As best as I can tell all the referencable content is already here and referenced. Jeepday (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Proposed - the first two photographs be taken out of this article. They don't show unit-construction, they show engine/gearbox assemblies that don't have a primary drive because the drives are aligned and simply splined one on another. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A proposal to remove 2 photos
Talk:1908 Isle of Man TT

message: The information added by 107.133.4.147 in April 2020 seems a bit incorrect. Rem Fowler is set to be retired in lap 4, but also to make the fastest lap, in his sixth lap. The infobox says Harry Bashall made the fastest lap. Maybe someone can clear this?
In 1909 Isle of Man TT the information in the table does not conform with the infobox either. Harry Collie was quit faster than Jack Marshall in 1908 (seems like a copy-and-not-adjust error). I'll mention my questions on their user page as well. Thanks, RonnieV (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest lap
Talk:William Steig

message: Today I removed this unreferenced note from the lead.
* The New York Times said Steig was "triumphant in the quality of his prose."
Evidently that is from George A. Woods NYT review of Abel's Island (Praise for Abel's Island at publisher Macmillan US).
This is a cherry picked from the review of one particular book, albeit one it identifies as "the best book of the year". The complete sentence does praise both writing and illustration, as we say in the lead. ("And so is Mr. Steig triumphant in the quality of his prose-nor has he stinted on the quality and quantity of his illustrations.") Maybe it fits somewhere. 
--P64 (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triumphant ''Abel's Island''
Talk:2007 Isle of Man TT

message: Article is written in an unencyclopedic blogging style with too much detail.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Blogging style
Talk:Richmond Sockeyes

message: The Richmond Sockeyes still exist, but not in the BCHL. They play at Minoru Arena and just underwent an ownership change. I don't know enough about the team or the league it's in to write anything about it, but the Richmond Review and Richmond News would be good sources to start from, if anyone wants to write a disambiguated article about the current Sockeyes team. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they play in the Pacific International Junior Hockey League, but were not sure if they are the same team... or a team from the same town with the same traditional name.  DMighton 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very sure it's the same team. The news story from the Review or News (forgot which one) that talked about the team's ownership never said anything about the team folding, and the article went all the way back to the team's beginnings, if I remember correctly. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 01:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if you want, you can edit the article to imply that.  DMighton 02:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had the sources to back it up (besides my memory), I would... unfortunately, the Review and the News don't archive every single article (or they remove it from their website after about two days). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I update the article to include the pre-PIJHL and post-PIJHL histories? SportingFlyer 06:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... include everything!  DMighton 06:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright... I have one more stub to make for the KIJHL (two with expansion) but I'm getting a head start on the PIJHL now then. SportingFlyer 06:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: When you create a new hockey page... add a Ice Hockey WikiProject boilerplate to its talk page so it will be easier to monitor for other users... there is already one on this talk page... but a lot of the pages you are creating are without.  Good job though.  DMighton 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance on the talk pages? Not quite sure what a boilerplate is to be honest. Thanks for all your help. SportingFlyer 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This one: Template:Ice hockey  DMighton 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: gotcha. Thanks! SportingFlyer 07:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This team still exists...
Talk:Kiss Alive! 1975–2000

message: Anyone know if the Bestbuy ever made it right for those that got screwed?  C2s (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Buy
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Amy Cohen Banker

message: I am having difficulty, even after having read the comments about Amy Banker Cohen, understanding why you would not immediately accept this person for inclusion in Wikipedia. Amy Cohen Banker is a wonderful artist to say the least. Her art embodies Spirit, Light and her artwork is beautiful and meaningful.
 
Also, her participation in The Arts, her exhibits, her teaching among other things (including the Japanese influence, etc.,) is overwhelmingly substantial. It identifies her brilliance, energy, spirit, wealth of work and her willingness to share all this richness with others. Surely, this body of work and experience should be more than enough to be included in the Wikipedia web site.
I reviewed what Wikipedia does and does not stand for, along with the evident  pride it has in this site. I would think, that Wikipedia would surely want to include a person of Amy Cohen Banker's character, background and contribution to the art world along with so many other attributes, that it makes me wonder why I am writing at this time in an attempt to save her entry from deletion, when I should be reading accolades for her selfless contribution to your site and humanity instead.
Respectfully, 
 
Janice E. Nelson 
 
e-mail: jen65180@aol.com
*Janice, if you have sources that prove Amy Cohen Banker's notability, please provide them.  The article as it stands does not have them (and is still in need of cleanup), and that's why so many people have voted for its deletion.  However, AFDs stay open for five days, and there's nothing preventing you from editing the article before the vote closes on October 21.    If you haven't already, I'd suggest reading WP:BIO to see what we're looking for.  RedRollerskate 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Dance crazes

message: I would like to point out that now the text effectively blurs the distinction between "dance craze" and a very specific term "novelty/fad dance" used in contexts of the 2nd half of 20th century and line dances. I think "dance crazes/fads/revolutions" as historical phenomena must be collected into a separate section or even a separate article. 
What do you think? `'mikkanarxi 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent expansion 

message: Chubby Checker was not the first one to record "the Twist", although he did make it into a hit. How then can this be an example of a song being written to create a dance craze and sell more records. There are lots of others, though.Steve Pastor 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the Twist

message: Since these dances are around 40 and 20 years old respectively, and are still practiced today,are they really considered 'fad'dances? From what i understand a dance is considered a fad if it passes over time. Those two dance styles dont really seem to follow that trend..
----
...By this, Breakdancing (Bboying), Shouldn't be listed as a fad dance, for it hasn't shrunk, or vanished over time, it has expanded. -matthew  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Funderburgh (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cwalk & Melbourne Shuffle

message: The 69 Boyz single from which the song derives its name came out in 1994 and peaked on the Bullboard charts in early 1995. If there are any sources indicating the 1998 date, I believe they should receive individual footnotes. All of the dances should have inline citations, frankly, but accurate dating should be a priority since the page is effectively a timeline.
LiberGomorrhianus (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tootsee Roll listed in 1998? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Mailara5683 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ENGL A120 Critical Thinking

message: :
What does this mean? —Tamfang (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  bombing
Talk:List of Grand Prix motorcycle racers

message: Perhaps a separate article for Women in Moto GP would be more appropriate rather than the current page position. Agljones (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, though there aren't many, and, sadly, little indication of it increasing in the near future. I've a feeling if it were created it would end up at AfD and then being merged back here. If perhaps it could be beefed up with some more prose rather than being just a list it might have a better survival chance. Any books/articles on women in motobike racing generally? GedUK  11:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women in Moto GP
Talk:Pokey Reddick

message: IMO, this article should be at Pokey Reddick, as that is the name he is almost universally known by. Any opposition if it is moved?  Both this article, and Eldon "Pokey" Reddick should redirect there. Resolute 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it shouldn't be here at this "real" name. His "most common" name, as you said, is Pokey and that is where it should be. Masterhatch 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Edwards (engineer) § Request Edits December 15, 2020.  PC7956 (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:David Edwards (engineer)#Request Edits December 15, 2020|Talk:David Edwards (engineer) §&nbsp;Request Edits December 15, 2020]]

message: :Category:Chemical and Bio Engineering articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Chemical and Bio Engineering articles needing expert attention]] has been nominated for discussion

message: Hello.  I am new, so I apologize if this is not the correct way to express this.
I propose separating Biomedical Engineering from Bioengineering/Chemical Engineering.  Biomedical Engineering's distinct focus on clinical translation and human health differentiates it from the broader scope of Bioengineering and Chemical Engineering.  While both involve applying engineering principles to biological systems, Biomedical Engineering emphasizes direct medical applications and regulatory compliance for devices and therapies.
This distinct focus demands deeper understanding of human physiology, disease mechanisms, and medical ethics, setting Biomedical Engineering apart from the more general applications of Bioengineering and the primarily industrial focus of Chemical Engineering. Ambndms (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition to separate Biomedical Engineering from Bioengineering and Chemical Engineering