lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Maxia

message: If noone objects to this in the next few days, I'll go ahead and merge Picard maneuver here, because I think it's too small a piece of trivia to stand on its own. Comments, flames, etc welcome. --Sam Pointon United FC 23:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: In the article intro it says the battle of maxia was the first contact between the human and ferengi races. However, there is an Enterprise episode where NX-01 is taken by ferengi, making that the first contact. 
Was it explicitly said in ST-TNG that the battle of maxia was the first contact or is the info on the article mistaken?
:I'm no expert but in my experience, the writers of Enterprise rode roughshod over established cannon points quite often. Prime examples are The Borg appearing on Earth frozen in ice long before Picard met them in "TNG Q-Who?" (previously, and logically, advertised as first contact), and a Klingon being shot on Earth about 100 years prior to the date given in TOS for First Contact with them. I wouldn't be surprised if they drove a coach and horses through this piece of continuity as well. Personally, where there's a conflict between Enterprise canon and other canon, I go in favour of the other canon - but that's mainly because I'm not a fan of Enterprise than for any more scientifically rigourous reason. Divinedegenerate 18:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only one Trek canon, and in that canon Ferengis met Humans (the Federation) on board the NX-01 before the battle of Maxia, therefore the article should be changed to reflect that Alastairward 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but what if a point made in one canon episode contradicts a point in another canon source - with which interpretation do people eg: the writers of later Treks, go? I am thinking most readily of the events of Star Trek V, and how much established canon needed to be revised in light of the revelations in that movie - or Threshold in Voyager. I'm not being difficult, or asking the question sarcastically, I genuinely want to know if there are established procedures for deciding or whether one accepts both. Google comes up with varying arguments but no firm information. Divinedegenerate 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First Contact
Talk:Rockcliffe Park Public School

message: The grammar in this article is atrocious. I think the entire article needs to be cleaned up. --64.69.32.250 05:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many writers and editors on Wikipedia try to slant articles to reflect their collectivist, socialistic, utopian ideal.  It's an occupational hazard for Wikipedians. rasblue 01:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk:The Savage Curtain

message: Fancruft - why are these here? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should be moved to its own Wiki

message: Is this bit really necessary?  Is there value in noting that this episode is the third from last beyond exhibiting the existence of the word "antepenultimate"?  Alan Taylor (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antepenultimate 

message: When it is pointed out that both parties used the similar tactics, Kirk asks what was promised to Green and friends.  Wealth, power respond the Excalibian.  And, Kirk says, we were offered the lives of our crew.  the Excalibian says he underands the difference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:989:4000:532:A88C:DF4:E0A:9C9D (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Motivations

message: Like many of the Star Trek TOS articles, the plot section of this article is too long and detailed. I know there's a tag for that and I wasted a few minutes of my remaining life looking for it, but I did not find it. Really: The Enterprise has been studying a uninhabitable lava-covered planet and is about to leave. Abraham Lincoln appears in space, in the viewscreen, and invites Kirk and Spock to visit the planet. They do so, in accord with the Enterprise's mission of seeking out new life, although they realize that the purported Lincoln must be fake. It develops that a creature made of lava is arranging a fight between good and evil, with Kirk, Spock, Lincoln, and Sarek representing good, and 1. 2. 3. 4. (brief description of characters) representing evil. The being says it does not understand the difference between good and evil. After some blah-blah-blah the conflict is over and Kirk and Spock are the winners. They were fighting for the lives of the crew of the Enterprise, while the evil team was fighting for power and wealth. Kirk explains this to the creature, which acknowledges the difference, and lets them go.
I don't know what dedicated fan wrote all these long plot sections. I appreciate the effort it required (unless they are copied from a blog somewhere), but a great deal of it is not needed, especially for such a turkey episode as this one. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric Wastrel Way (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section
Talk:Kent Roach

message: i am not sure why an author of countless books and articles is not 'notable' enough for the person who tagged this article for deletion minutes upon its creation. Chensiyuan 05:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Four year's later (almost to the day!) and I've removed the notability tag. Roach clearly meets the notability bar for academics and has received siginificant coverage in independent media outlets. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: I hope to get feedback from you Mr.Kent 174.90.223.49 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am currently the victim of an assault committed by a K-9 officer. The officer is going up on aggravated assault charges. This occured in Saskatoon.
Talk:The Alternative Factor

message: Shipboard security is absurdly lax in this episode. On several occasions, Lazarus is left alone to wander about the ship, giving him the opportunity to commit acts of sabotage, overpower the engineering staff and steal dilithium crystals. At one point, Dr. McCoy demands that Captain Kirk "get that muscleman out of my sickbay," and Kirk promptly dismisses the guard. McCoy promises that "this time, he's not going anywhere," then leaves Lazarus unattended and unrestrained (Dr. van Gelder didn't have it so easy). Why on earth is a bizarre, irrational alien whose presence cannot be accounted for permitted to roam the ship unattended? For that matter, why isn't he in the brig? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.132.233.128 (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Security 

message: Just like in the mirror universe, the ship should have an almost identical counterpart.--2003:CE:BBC6:6C7C:9D39:EC3D:A58C:7AFA (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no anti-matter Enterprise?
Talk:The Devil in the Dark

message: FWIW, the photo of Kirk facing the Horta is not of Shatner.  It is that of a stand-in -- the hair, posture, shape of the head are not Shatner's.  The stand-in was used, as noted in the article, for the few days Shatner took off to attend his father's funeral.  Sir Rhosis 02:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "The Devil in the Dark" was not only the inspiration for the filk song "Demon in the Dark" by Julia Ecklar, but the filk song was itself parodied by Bob Kanefsky with his parody "Mineral Rights" (vocalist Leslie Fish).  Personally I prefer the parody to the original filk song.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmauler (talk • contribs) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This Episode's Influences on Culture
Talk:Arik Soong

message: Greetings,
As a suggestion, instead of deleting the following articles, B-4 (Star Trek), Arik Soong, Lore (Star Trek), perhaps these articles should have brief summeries under Data (Star Trek). Good day
:Huaf822k 10:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging Different ''Data'' Related Articles
Talk:Journey to Babel

message: I cut out a lot of unnecessary plot details, and then removed the "too long" tag.  If it's still too long, feel free to put the tag back, or to do more editing, of course.  Joule36e5 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: While the explanation in the article for why Ensign Chekhov takes over and not Lt. Uhura is probably correct from the writers' point of view. This episode was written by a woman, D.C. Fontana, and I think one line from Amanda about Sarek's commands as a Vulcan husband to his wife indicate some criticism of Vulcan male hierarchicalism. But the decision may not have been hers. Nevertheless, there is an explanation from within later Star Trek canon for why Chekhov could have been next in line. In TNG, an episode deals with Crusher and then Troi getting command training. Apparently they couldn't normally assume command without that as long as some officer with command training is present, even if it's a lower-ranked officer. So Uhura may simply not have had command training of any sort, while Chekhov may have had some. I don't consider it original research to point out that that later episode details that some officers who have not had command training do not typically assume command, although it might count as original research to make too much of a point of seeing it as an explanation for this within the Star Trek canon, so I wasn't sure whether to include it in the article and how to word it. Any suggestions? Parableman (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the incident itself is noteworthy even if the speculation was unencyclopedic, so I restored the factual part of it.  I'll let other editors decide whether to discuss the reasoning within the article body.  Joule36e5 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No original research please. If you can't find any sort of a cite to back up what you're suggesting above, then including the information is simple plot reiteration. I have removed it as per the linked guideline. Alastairward (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're confusing me with one of the prior editors, but as far as I can see, everything in my version was factual, so I don't know what you mean by "what you're suggesting above".  I would have preferred that the note stay around long enough to see whether anyone else could add to/recategorize/improve it, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to risk a revert war.  Joule36e5 (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I had aimed the OR warning at Parableman. With regards what you had added again, I would just reiterate the edit summary I left; "Removing again, information is now just part speculation/part reiteration of the plot". Alastairward (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue of male authority 

message: Again, the monitor screen on the bridge seems to have turned into a window. When the alien vessel explodes, everyone is holding his hands before his or her face.80.141.10.211 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange monitor
Talk:The Pirates of Orion

message: In the final scene of Journey to Babel, Spock speculates on the origin of Thelev, as well as that of the mysterious fast-moving ship that attacked the Enterprise.  For encyclopedia purposes, I think it's fair to say they might have been Orions (given Spock's credibility and the ease with which his speculation was accepted by the other characters), but there wasn't any hard evidence in that or any subsequent episode to prove it. BryanEkers 23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "I think you'll find he's Orion"
Talk:Pseudorapidity

message: This article is about an application of angle of parallelism, a key metric concept in hyperbolic geometry. The equations find the angle of parallelism based on a leg of an ideal triangle in the hyperbolic plane. Today the reference to Chiochia was added, but we need a reference that tells how the particle scientists came to exploit hyperbolic geometry this way. — Rgdboer (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperbolic geometry
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The CIA and September 11 (book)

message: What is the purpose of the link to bias by Eivindt@ other than to insult those that Eivindt@ does not agree with?  If you think the article should be kept, state your reasons rather than pointing fingers and calling names. And please don't call me "boy." Ande B 05:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Turnaround (filmmaking)

message: came here after reading michael cieply's article in biz section of 24 august 2008 nytimes.
was somewhat surprised to see it entitled "turnaround (filmmaking)" rather than "turnaround (film industry term)."   
looking through article history i see the move to reclassify and a link to an overwhelmingly lengthy archive on whole host of film-industry stuff.  not inclined to struggle through all that to try to determine logic of categorization of what i consider to be a "film-industry term."  "filmmaking" is just too general and suggests a actual style of production/direction to me.  i'd almost expect to see "turnaround" indicated as "film-industry jargon" since that is really what it is.
--68.173.2.68 (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand article name. Categorisation is basically seperate from the naming of an article. The term in brackets is only intended to help disambiguate a page if there are multiple articles with the base name. This article is about turnaround as it related to filmmaking therefore the article is an appropriate name Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  turnaround (filmaking) vs. turnaround (film industry term)
Talk:List of government animal eradication programs

message: An intersting idea for an article, but perhaps not the best name. Political implies something it probably isn't. State sanctioned perhaps, or government sanctioned. Any ideas? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I see where you are going, but perhaps simply tack this onto an article like Persecution of Animals under which there could be historically significant examples of large-scale poaching (maybe such as historical poaching of rhinos), intentional eradication (such as the note about wolves or tigers), and maybe about unintentional eradication (such as overhunting of you pick your species).  The only problem I can see is that it could become a spectacularly long-winded article.  Also, this could spark opinionated entries such as the Canadian Seal Hunt which is going on right now.  It might be opening a can of worms, so-to-speak.  Em3rald 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I had trouble with the term "political persecution", and have replaced that with "politically endorsed exermination". I am not really happy with this title either. If someone has a better name for this, please be bold and keep this article moving. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've moved it to "list of government animal eradication programs".  I believe this better reflects what these efforts are usually called (there are several different "eradication programs"s in the US, for instance).--Pharos 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: I noticed that the article doesn't mention modern-day exterminations of non-native species (e.g., Australia's rabbit problem.)  Was this intentional? --Lode Runner 20:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I believe these should be mentioned as well, or at least that we should have another page for such eradication programs.--Pharos 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pest Species 
Talk:Pokémon Channel

message: In The Power of Us, Pokémon Channel is referenced via a news station of the same name. Where would I put that note on this page? There seem to be no fitting categories, and it doesn't quite need a section of its own. FerDeLancer (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where would I put this? 

message: Hi there - I jumped the gun a little and nominated an FAR, but was advised it may be better to seek feedback and action on improving the page here. Sorry about that! There's a few points that stand out that could significantly improve this article: 
* Firstly, in terms of research, the article features overuse of quote citations from the game to evidence plot and gameplay mechanics. Secondary coverage should be preferred, other than WP:PLOT which tends to be viewed as self-evidently sourced from the work itself. This approach is arguably WP:EXCESSIVE - over half the article's citations are for quotes as trivial as 'The End' just to evidence that the game ends! Without these, the article is not particularly broadly cited - not that this is any barrier to FA status. 
* Secondly, in terms of comprehensiveness, the article has no actual development information that may shine a light on who made the game, how they made it and what they thought of it. The section relies on pre-release promotional articles that are purely early impressions of the game. This leads to unclear statements - that the game is a "spiritual successor" to Hey You Pikachu! and that it was developed for the purpose of promoting the e-reader - are likely the case but this is assumed from how an IGN preview describes it rather than the developer. Investigation into WP:NONENG sources and the potential for Japanese development interviews could significantly improve this section.
* Thirdly, this may be a matter of personal opinion about comprehensiveness, but for a game titled Pokemon Channel with gameplay oriented around the channels, the gameplay section is well-written but does not go into much detail about what each channel is and what it features. I understand the channels are a bit superficial, but a list or more detailed description rather than a sentence that says Other channels include X, Y, and Z may be more helpful for readers to know exactly what content is offered in the game's channels. 
Welcome your thoughts. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback on article
Talk:Coastal Strawberry

message: I think it is definitely wise to merge this entry with Beach strawberry...both refer to the same species.
Elakazal 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The text here was copyvio so has not been incorporated verbatim into Beach Strawberry. - MPF 00:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Ashburnham house

message: OK, a distinction needs to be made here between the school building "Ashburnham House", in Little Dean's Yard, and Ashburnham, a house in the same way as Busby's or Rigaud's. This is not at all clear in the article, but since it seems to say that the "house" actually used to be based in the House, which I didn't know, I'll leave it up to someone else... -- ConDemTalk 05:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Boogeyman (My Name Is Earl)

message: The episode articles seem to all have the section header "The List" linked, which WP:MOSHEAD#Linking requests we avoid.  Can we agree on a standard opening sentence for The List section of the episode articles to avoid compounding the error?  I would be happy to do the labor to retrofit the existing articles.  How about: "The List is a central theme in the My Name Is Earl series.  The following list items were referred to in this episode."  Comments? —RandallJones 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could just set up a "main article" template above the list, like this    JQF 16:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (slaps forehead) Oh.  Uh...  right.  Brain fade.I'll get on it this evening. —RandallJones 00:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in headers 
Talk:Star Trek: The Q Continuum

message: (*)???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.253.30 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 April 2006
:That is the name used to represent one of the alien beings in the novel. Supposedly, its name is unpronouncible to us, so its a guess what it actually sounds like. The author just chose to name it thusly for the sake of reading. As it is supposed to be the same entity as in the TOS episode Day of the Dove, another name for it would be "The Beta XII-A entity", as stated on the Star Trek website:
:http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/68792.html
:And please use 4 tildes to sign the end of any comments, to make it easier to see who is talking. :) DemonWeb 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2006

message: Should this article not be about the miniseries, instead of the omnibus edition? Wanderer0 (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series instead?
Talk:Handheld TV game

message: Nintendo produced a number of standalone "Color TV game" systems, such as Racing 112 featured in WarioWare, inc.: Mega Microgame$ and WarioWare, inc.: Mega Party Games.  
There are also games included on some modern TVs by LG.
*LG's website dosen't have any models of TVs with integrated games. --Nintendude  userpage | message  15:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

message: We really need a list of these.
Just think...
The Rumble Station, Radica Space invaders, Fantastic Four TV game, TV Boy, VG Pocket Max, Atari Flashback, Game Stick, C64 Direct-to-TV etc. etc. We need a list!--213.83.125.225 (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: I'm proposing a reorganization of several articles that will include or may impact this one that I've outlined at Talk:Video game console#Massive reorganization of several articles proposed and would like input there. --Masem (t) 19:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major reorganization of video game consoles articles
Talk:M-113 Creature

message: What is the source of the name "Fotiallians"?  No name was given on screen. UncreativeNameMaker 09:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, why I removed it and some other original research nonsense Alastairward 15:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Prophet (Star Trek)

message: Besides the fact that it is a critical premise for the series, would it be possible for a being that exists in linear time to communicate with beings that are timeless and without any kind of understanding of linear time? (They learned about linearity form Sisko, but being timeless, would they not always know it?)
Example: If a character that lived in only two dimensions(+time) met a human, how would he be able to perceive a being that has more dimensions than itself? The prophets can move freely in at least 4 dimensions (our 3+time), moving in time is to them like walking sideways for us.--Edgjerp (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the creators care for such nuances. It's a show, not science; it should be entertaining rather than accurate. So there's no point to discuss this. — Vano 13:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Sheesh, didn't pay attention to the date of the original message. — Vano 13:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communication with timeless entities
Talk:Bajor

message: As far as I remember Kira mentioned, sitting in a shuttle (Ganges or Rio Grande), that fortunately Earth has so many rivers that the shuttles could be named after. It appears that Bajor doesn't have so many rivers. I cannot remember the episode. If anyone can confirm this, this detail could be added to the article. --Stephan Schneider 11:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivers on Bajor 

message: Do we know which city specifically is pictured? Jolanda City perhaps? --Fsotrain09 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Specifics