lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Mississippi Highway 25

message: The phrase “largely controlled-access” in the opening paragraph is incorrect. I have driven the Jackson to Starkville segment many times, most recently a few months ago, and in no way can it be considered controlled access. There are a number of interchanges on the multi-lane highway, but only two along its entire route through metro Jackson, and one of those interchanges is with I-55. The divided roadway, in its suburban and rural segments, features about four or five turn-around / left-turn access lanes per mile. It is only in Starkville and the surrounding area that MS Highway 25 is limited access. There may be other freeway segments north of Starkville that have been upgraded in recent years and I’m not aware, but the segment between Starkville and Jackson is not at all controlled-access, as of Fall of 2022. 50.86.50.82 (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Controlled Access”? No. 

message: The text of HB 725 as concerns MS 25 appears to be completed. And to clarify that we can't simply modify tense to state that it is already complete, there are other 2-lane segments, such as from south of Fairview to US 78, and from about Tishomingo County Road 281 (assumably, from a square label on Google Earth) to the Tennessee state line. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future 
Talk:American Falls Dam

message: *Cost figures for original dam construction.
*Irrigation area of both dams
*Cost figures for second dam
*Teton dam collapse
*Height of falls
*Flora and fauna
*Anthropology
*Present day operations
--Robbie Giles 04:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To-Do
Talk:Sari Nusseibeh

message: Great source of material: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/books/29bronner.html.  --64.230.126.140 04:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NYTimes article

message: I found this -> http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/jensen/20020208.html <- which is an almost-credible source for the quote
"A Palestinian state should be demilitarized - not because that's what Israel demands, but in our own interest."
This claims to be a reprint of an editorial by
Holger Jensen was International Editor of the Denver Rocky Mountain News and Foreign Affairs Columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service"
But I can't find this article anywhere else. I'm not going to use something this flimsy, maybe someone else can find more. Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source? 

message: Please add :Category:People educated at St George's School, Jerusalem to the article --Abubiju (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add 

message: suggest add mention of his article on israel war situation; "Our dream of a future for both peoples is the victim of this tragedy" https://www.ft.com/content/b672a880-1e24-48e5-bf3f-7e66077ef520 Asto77 (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: If his article is mentioned by someone else in an article, sure. Otherwise, no. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  02:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023
Talk:Mississippi Highway 28

message: So the page says the eastern terminus is in Calhoun, but there's an MS 28 shield all the way back in Laurel at the intersection of US 84 and MS 15. MoiraPrime (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Terminus in Calhoun or Laurel?
Talk:House of Antelminelli

message: I will add more information soon.  Thank you  Eddie
*I removed the tags because the article asserted notability. Please add references to the article to have it kept on Wikipedia (see WP:CITE for more info). Thanks! Rockstar915 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved   (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: House of Antelminelli →  – No need for disambiguation, there is only a redirect. Gryffindor (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 January 2021
Talk:Aerie of the Slave Lords

message: Collecting some possible refs:
: reviews slave pits review, secret review, Assault review, dungeons review, acaeum,
: its from tournament: , 
: slavers history or something
: hackmaster: hackmaster version
- Peregrine Fisher 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original module pages: Slave Pits of the Undercity, Secret of the Slavers Stockade, Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords, In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords. - Peregrine Fisher 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References
Talk:Taxi!

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. There is no consensus on how to apply WP:SMALLDETAILS here, ie. whether or not one/three exclamation marks is sufficient disambiguation. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2 exclamation point title can just redirect to the 3 exclamation point title. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 July 2023
Talk:New Mexico State Road 14

message: Very little in this article is actually about NM 14. Because of this, this article would be a good candidate for a rewrite. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

message: The information on the trail should be split off, as NM 14 is not the whole trail, only part of the trail. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further review, the information was a copy vio from  - deleted. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turquoise Trail 

message: An editor has wiped out the intermediate towns between Tijeras and Santa Fe.  Gave no explanation for choosing Tijeras as valid and Madrid, NM and Cerrillos, NM as not.  As to his charge that the inclusion is not documented, I refer to mapquest page: http://classic.mapquest.com/maps?city=Madrid&state=NM&country=US&latitude=35.4067&longitude=-106.151901&geocode=CITY Dogru144 (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a reflection on whether or not those towns should be included in the article; they should, but not there. The junction list is for listing actual major intersections, which are normally junctions with other state highways (Interstate, US or state). All towns and cities should be mentioned in the prose "route description section", but inclusion in the "major intersections" is determined by the relative importance of the intersecting road, not the location. Imzadi 1979 →  00:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As the editor in question, I'll respond here.  The Mapquest link confirms why I took them out.  There are no major intersections on either of those towns, while there is in Tijeras.  Imzadi1979 is right, however, they should be mentioned in a prose section.  I'll leave it at that. –Fredddie™ 02:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I wasn't clear, so I bolded my rationale for removing the towns from the junction list.  I cannot stress enough that I think they should be included in prose, but if there is no major intersection, it shouldn't be listed in the junction list.  Period. –Fredddie™ 21:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias in included towns
Talk:River Darent

message: Add photos of Valence pump, Sundridge Mill, Chipstead Mill, Longford Mill, Otford Mill, Upper Mill, Shoreham, Wood Mill, Eynsford Paper Mill, Farningham Mill, Horton Kirby Paper Mill, Phoenix Mills, Greatness Mill, and any others which illustrations can be found for.
If only I knew how I could add a great unpublished lithograph of Phoenix Mill, 1855 ...
Add wildlife section. Expand fords section if further information can be found - Otford? Longford?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the last external link, aimed at a cambridge university project, appears to be broken. i searched, but couldn't find a working link. I'm a novice here, any fixes possible?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.48.158 (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find an alternative, so I've removed it  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: To do

message: Why is it so important to put the spelling in bold? And why has the editor not considered the possibility - near-certain likelihood, even - that the spelling has changed over time and once was Darenth? It's unprofessionally done, sloppy, and messy. Get RID of the brackets, get RID of all the lecturing, and find a reliable source that gives the HISTORICAL spelling of the word. Yes, it bloody well matters. 24.244.29.64 (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: The article plainly contradicts itself as to name origin. The Irish / Derwent oak tree river scenario is dubious; for much of its course this is more of a large stream especially in the summer. Also the clear water scenario has no old languages named; all very shaky.- Adam37 Talk 22:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name origin contradiction
Talk:Ttfn (novel)

message: The newest edit to this page, dated the 28th of this month, provides content verbatim from the publisher's description of the book, located on the dust jacket. I consider this blatant plagiarism and I am considering a revert, however I have never made one before and I unsure as to whether it is appropriate. Is this an AGF thing, or should I go ahead and give it the ax?
Bflorsheim 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Mount Cereme

message: Based on GoogleEarth I don't think that there actually is a caldera at the summit, it seems way too small. The visible vent though is about 0.6 x 0.9 km wide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.197.148.126 (talk) 05:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "At the summit of Mt Ciremai there is a 4.5 × 5 km wide caldera."
Talk:South Dakota Highway 49

message: you removed a notability tag with the edit summary "Removing unnecessary notability tags." but I am unable to actually locate any significant coverage of the topic. Since you have can you provide it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasoning. Enough said. The other tags are fine and make sense. No argument on those. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 16:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats a user essay and it seems to say that "There are edge cases" so it doesn't explain removing the tag from this... an edge case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:South Dakota Highway 53

message: you removed a notability tag with the edit summary "Removing unnecessary notability tags." but to me it looks necessary. What is your reasoning? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support adding notability tag again. Whisky and more (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Submarine 1922

message: I've just discovered that the page of the Centre of Volcanology & Geological Hazard Mitigation appears to be offline removing the original source for much of the article as it stands. New (Possibly offline) sources need to be located such as contemporary newspaper accounts of the eruption/eartquake series and any journal articles. One thing that needs to be clarified is if there have been any attempts to survey the region and locate the volcano.Graham1973 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional References Needed
Talk:Bottle conditioning

message: "Filtered beer tends to have a relatively short shelf life, rarely more than a year, as many compounds in the sterile beverage break down into unpleasant tasting ones. Live yeast inside the bottle acts against these processes, giving the beverage a much longer shelf life. A good bottle conditioned beer can maintain its drinkability for many years, and some can be aged for decades."
is this really so?  if this is the case, why do the large breweries bother with filtration at all?  plus i thought the ability to age or "cellar" a beer is more dependent on its ABV rather than whether or not it is bottle conditioned.24.91.127.58 (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shelf life 

message: I've never heard of "Kräusening" before, is this a commonly used term? It sounds like it's basically the same thing as priming: you just add some sugar or wort before bottling. I'm not sure if this deserves its own paragraph, after priming has already been mentioned. Deepfryer99 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kräusening 

message: The article currently states "Bottle conditioning is normally done to add carbonation, and does not usually add much alcohol to the beverage". Is this true? Is it possible that it can add more alcoholic strength to the beer?--E tac (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect on strength of beer
Talk:Posthegemony

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-03-31 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: I’ve expanded the article considerably, and hopefully removed the conflict of interest noted above. TODO: Someone knowledgable in International Relations should add a section discussing the use of the term "post-hegemony" in that field. GKantaris (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Hey there! Speaking to the ones who are to be working on this article for the POL 150 course, I just wanted to mention what I thought would benefit the article. Of course, it is very possible that you already thought of the things I mention, so my apologies if this doesn't add much to what you are planning to do. 
First of all, the lead in the article and the sections in the article do not have much correlation. As it is now, the lead talks about how the concept has different meanings in three different fields, but the article only elaborates on one of them. So I would recommend that there should be additional articles added that talk about the meaning of posthegemony in the other fields.
Second, I am not totally sure, but I don't think that the block quote in the "In Cultural Studies" section is something that Wikipedia would have a problem with. Just going off of the training courses, I think it would be best that the information given in that quote is broken down and put into ones own words rather than keeping it verbatim. 
Finally, I think that there ought to be more view points on this concept of posthegemony expressed in the article. In the "Criticism" section, there is only one persons argument given. I think that there should be more criticism and more views that support the concept. StevenMadden (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique: What Areas of Improvement I can Identify  

message: The section "In cultural studies" contains a large quote. It might be better to try to paraphrase here, in the interest of brevity.
The first sentence following the quote is rather complicated and hard to follow. It might be better to break it up or reword it so it is more easily understood.
More information on supra- and infra-national forces might be useful for context.
Wiki dude3542 (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Improvement 

message: There is nothing in this section that makes sense- "post-hegemony reads social processes...". I removed a blog post reference, but I think the whole section should go unless a definition can be found. Volunteer1234 (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In political theory" section makes no sense
Talk:Women in prison film

message: The entire article talks about the subgenera in a bad light rather than just informing people about it. 66.91.182.104 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV
Talk:Tennessee State Route 1

message: As TN 1 is State Street in Bristol, doesn't the westbound side of the road travel on the Virginia side of the border?  And the median goes right on the border?
76.111.67.200 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennessee 1 at Bristol 

message: Noticed these on Jennings that parallels West Stone Dr (11 W). Wondering if these were part of the original Bristol to Memphis Road and what HW RW means. Snbelote (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the HW RW post means "Highway Right-of-Way".  If I had to guess, I'd say Netherland Inn Road and Bloomingdale Road were the original highway.  However, I could be very wrong. –Fredddie™ 11:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concrete marker post with HW RW 

message: I recently tried to start an intersection list for this road, but sorting out the route in Memphis is a gigantic nightmare. We have this map saying one thing, and Google Maps saying another. Anyone who knows better than I do and wants to take this off my hands is welcome to it. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  14:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: I think I'm almost done with the list. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  11:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE #2: Sadly, that still isn't the case. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  13:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intersection list
Talk:U.S. Route 51 in Tennessee

message: I've taken a look at the article.  I've decided to bump it up to B-class.  Reading through the article is a bit choppy at points, but that's something that can be cleaned up for a GA review.  While the history section is extremely short, having the referenced mileposts is what pushed it over from start to B for me.  --Son (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment
Talk:Tennessee State Route 22

message: This article needs a lot of work to comply with WP:USRD/STDS.
#A proper route description is needed in place of the "Counties traversed" table. There should be several paragraphs of prose to describe the highway's route through the state.
#Then there should be a history section detailing the changes made to the highway since it was designated.
#Then there should be a table that complies with MOS:RJL, which is easy to do using , to give a full junction list for the whole highway, not just a freeway section.
#Then you get to the related routes, the See also and the References.
While I'm mentioning it, the current reference needs to be replaced since it is from a self-published source, and those aren't normally allowed. Imzadi 1979 →  07:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work needed
Talk:Tennessee State Route 211

message: Great article for 17 miles. I have upgraded it to B-Class. There's just a couple things I think could use improvement:
*Usually, junction lists on non-freeways are a lot simpler than those found on freeways. Take a look at any NY route or Oklahoma State Highway 51 for an example.
**I've been sticking to the practice of placing all US Highway and Interstate routes in the infobox with a 10-junction maximum for all Tennessee Routes, in some cases this is probably inappropriate but I feel that some standard needs to be set up regarding this as I have had other contributors asking about this very thing.  (i.e. using start/end terminus only in the infobox for secondary routes and listing US/Interstate highways with 10-junction max for all primary state routes.)  The B-Class rating is very much appreciated!!! Pepper6181 (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment notes
Talk:Wyoming Highway 220

message: are there other sources? You removed the notability tag but the sources currently in the article don't satisfy any of our notability criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how the largest newspaper in a U.S. state—and part of a national chain with a dozen other major regional papers—does not satisfy GNG. There are several more sources that focus specifically on this highway that I am working to add, but the burden to prove that these sources don't satisfy the criteria is on you. SounderBruce 21:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The requirement is for "sources" not "source" the only time we really accept one source for notability is when its a full length book from a good author and an academic publisher (and even then its not guaranteed). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There are multiple sources present here. Per the lengthy RfC on maps, ones prepared by professional cartographers (in this case, the state government's) are acceptable as sources even if they can't demonstrate notability on their own. But since we also have a reputable newspaper (technically two, even if they later merged), then GNG is satisfied even with the few additions I made in a few minutes of research. SounderBruce 21:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The map doesn't count because it isn't an independent source (its the state government's map of the state government's highway after all). Remember the source also has to be independent to count for GNG. Also note that the generally accepted number for GNG is three, or at least it has been the entire time I've edited wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And what's so wrong about a source from the people who actually designate and run the highway system? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. There's no "independent sources" that state the mileage, mile markers, etc., which editors don't consider "self-published". There was never anything wrong with using DOT sources before. Why is it suddenly a problem now? And I fail to see how a highway thousands of people travel on every day isn't notable. Is it because it's not a huge highway like Interstate 80 or Route 66? By that logic, Rochester, New York isn't notable because New York City is bigger and more well-known. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 00:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use them as sources, they just don't count towards notability. See WP:GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Adams Park

message: I have removed a lot if irrelevant information about the club rather than the stadium - this can go in the WWFC page. The page needs some input from an editor with more knowledge of the subject to see how the rest can be restructured and edited to improve it - particularly the information on possible expansion.  The whole page also needs a lot more referencing.130.88.173.23 (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work on structure