lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Mako (Final Fantasy VII)

message: The long and short of what I'm saying here is that Wikipedia looks like a Final Fantasy fansite. Cloud's page looks like a biography, Advent Children's looks like the reports that came out of Venice when the film was first screened there, just yesterday I had to merge Ultima Weapon with Weapons, and then we've got a plethora of unnecessary random pages.
Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy X are the worst about the whole thing. Head over to the Final Fantasy X Talk Page to see what I'm talking about in regards to it.
Final Fantasy VII's problem is that some pages are down right unnecessary. Until recently, there was even a page for the damn Sister Ray. Here's what needs to be addressed:
*Midgar (there's nothing that warrants it not being in the List of Final Fantasy VII Locations page; there's hardly so much to say about it that a general interest venue can't keep it sounding interesting without writing about everything from its newspapers to its schools).
*Materia (crystalized form of Mako; same attributes apply to both).
*Mako (condensed form of Lifestream which can crystalize into Materia; same attributes apply to both).
This is what I propose:
*Midgar is merged with List of Final Fantasy VII Locations.
*Materia is merged into Mako (as Lifestream was).
There's no reason for all this stuff to be scattered across Wikipedia when it can conveniently and reasonably fit on shared pages. Thoughts? (Please direct all comments on this matter to the Final Fantasy VII Talk Page) Ryu Kaze 09:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FFVII Wiki Cleanup
Talk:Am730

message: Dear group mate:
I understand anyone can change anything in Wikipedia, however please don’t delete all other people’s work and just type your own work. (But the work is just similar with the original version). Because this project is everyone’s “baby”, it is a joint effort’s product. If anyone wants to correct other’s ideas and add something, that’s ok. Please remember that, this is a group project, not an individual homework. Please forgive me if you don’t agree my viewpoint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 0101WONGol (talk • contribs) 13 October 10:00 UTC.
Am730 group members
----
*Add links throughout the entry
*Section on content can be expanded
*Improve your subheading titles
*See more comments on WebCT discussion section 0101TA 16:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Nicktoons

message: Hi, per the result of an AfD in 2013 consensus was for this article to be converted to a redirect to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. That isn't to say that consensus cannot be changed, but we should probably discuss this.  Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicktoons for background. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this a disambiguation page, not a redirect 

message: As people have pointed out before me, the show "Ollie's Pack" doesn't belong here because Viacom isn't in the copyright line. It keeps being added a few times without any reasoning, so please do not keep doing this. TheFallenPower (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ollie's Pack"

message: I s 2603:8080:7102:B793:7ED5:66FF:FE9B:842 (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bchtunxqgylu I'll hoarse vVata 

message: Someone reverted my edit to include Duckula as a precursor to Nicktoons, citing Nickelodeon's "criteria". I highly doubt Nick has a criteria of what regards a precursor. Plus given Nick's heavy involvement in its production with the express goal of it airing on Nickelodeon, it's exclusion as a frankly bizarre. Nick doesn't consider it a Nicktoon, but neither does it consider the other precursors and Nicktoons. It belongs.
James (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Precursors */ Count Duckula was co-produced and conceived of by nick so it definitely counts 

message: A template of their creators must return and was ruined all the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.204.89 (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: Paramount no longer owns Rainbow SPA, it has been spun off last year. I want a new image of the Nickelodeon Animation Studio logo, because Winx Club is a licensed Nicktoon, just like three DreamWorks shows, Tak, Monster High, and Transformers. 2601:195:C081:250:DDAB:89D:63AA:F70D (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It was produced by Nick Animation Studio at that time, since that picture is from 2013. And Nick still owns the copyright to the Winx Club seasons they produced. The image is still a good image to illustrate the varied newer shows they've made under the Nicktoons banner. 71.184.192.66 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the logo
Talk:Thief knot

message: I think this is the incorrect name for the knot; isn't it the "Thief's Knot"?
*I've only ever heard it being refered to as a "Thief Knot" Jediwannabe 07:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm not entirely sure how exactly this is different from the square knot. Could someone explain that a bit more clearly?
72.194.193.198 03:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't pay attention to which is the short end and which is the long end, they are the same. Its all in whether the short ends are on the same side of the knot or on opposite sides. It can make a difference. Its the same thing with the granny knot and the grief knot. Get a piece of rope and tie both of these knots and pull on the long ends. Then you'll understand the difference. PAR 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: I just tried tying this knot, and it slipped very easily when I applied a slight tension to the two lines. It seems to be nearly as bad as the "grief knot". Am I doing something wrong, or is this expected? Perhaps the article should emphasize that this knot is not a functional alternative to the reef/square knot, and is only tied for its deceptive appearance.
Mtford 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this knot have a practical use (except as a trick)?

message: someone told me that it is because in victorian times when wagons were being taken to be sold they would tie them all together with reef knots. Then thieves would untie the reef knot on the back wagon and replace it with a thief knot, which unties under load, hence the name. The thieves would then steal the back wagon as the rest left without it. Is this bs? Have i been lied to? JacobTheRox (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative backstory
Talk:Francis de Groot

message: No mention of his plans to kidnap Jack Lang?
The article on the bridge includes in his quotation, as he slashes the ribbon, "His Majesty the King". Which is just what one would expect, given his motives. I have no idea what is correct though. 84.135.242.18 13:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Brian Wright (op. cit.), he didn't mention the King, because this would be disrespectful, and it was the New Guard (not de Groot personally) who talked about arresting Lang, but did nothing to bring this to fruition. De Groot then decided to act on his own, with the New Guard's blessing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the Sydney Harbour Bridge article it says 
He was a member of a right-wing paramilitary group called the New Guard, opposed to Lang's leftist policies and resentful of the fact that King George V hadn't been asked to open the bridge. 
However, in this article it says He said this was in protest that the Governor-General, Sir Isaac Isaacs, was not invited to perform the ceremony.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash man999 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  King or his rep? 

message: Was de Groot a Captain or Colonel? Most of this page seems to have been lifted from Francis de Groot: Irish Fascist Australian Legend   This is a copyright violation. Ozdaren (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain or Colonel? 

message: This was most definitely NOT taken from Willan Publishing.  It was created in 2004!  I can only assume Willam have copied material from this article.  --  JackofOz (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, I thought I'd picked the right person to clarify this. Ozdaren (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Contesting speedy delete

message: I suspect that anyone upstaging a dignatory and declaring a bridge opened is not acting illegally.  There may be some minor legal breaches, but that would be peripheral to the main issue.
However I would question the accuracy and point of the comment that "A large part of the plan to humiliate Lang was for all of de Groot's acts to be legal."  What is the basis for that statement?  This was a protest against the premier upstaging the governor (and people).  How many protestors are overly concerned with the legality of their protests?JohnC (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality
Talk:Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

message: The British really know how to turn a phrase. Listen to the following from Rowan Atkinson, which cuts like a knife:
:"There was a very good free speech clause in there, which came from the Lords - but now, sadly, it has been neutered with a conditional clause in the middle of it, which starts with the word 'unless'.
:"So you are not guilty of the offence, you can criticise, ridicule and abuse or insult religion or religious belief or religious practice, unless you intend thereby to stir up religious hatred or were reckless as to whether religious hatred would be stirred up." (source: BBC).
Hilarious! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atkinson 

message: I note the use of the (albeit unhyphenated) phrase, 'stirring up' in the preamble to the act: the 'inciting' would be a more appropriate substitute for the said-phrase.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.217.30 (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language
Talk:USS Lansdowne (DD-486)

message: #REDIRECT Talk:USS Lansdowne
The information on this page is not copyrighted material.  It is all within the public domain.  This is because the text and logs that that site hosts are provided initally by the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships or DANFS for short, this page should be fine provided it has the  tag at the bottom.  You can find the original info for this page here.  Regardless of whatever copyrights the site may claim to have, the information that was in the article is indeed public domain. -- Malo 10:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the time to create a much better formatted page, for this article at USS Lansdowne (DD-486) since this is the correct title for the project, I ask that this page, USS Lansdowne be made into a redirect.  I have made this articles Temp page (USS Lansdowne/Temp) into a redirect.  -- Malo 11:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Transperth Second Generation A-series train

message: I have proposeda a merge as each article is short enough that they don't need to be separate. Additionally all of the A-Serries are being refurbished with new interiors and some new equipment which will make them all identical. Dellarb 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This article covers the second generation A-Series trains, and NOT the B-series trains. As a Perth resident, I ride these trains, and I have never known a difference between the first and second generation old trains. Comparing the A-Series to the B-Series however, you will find each are quite different. The information included in this article appears to be pasted from the article that I wrote on the B-Series train, so I know this. I shall correct the mistake.--M Johnson 08:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the image is of set 30, which is a first generation 'A' series ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 01:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe anyone wanna to take the photo for set 44 to 48, which is the second generation of 'A' series trains? --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 06:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just taken a few photos for the Second Generation A-series trains. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a definite difference - I know when I'm on one or the other, although they have very similar chassis. They are not nearly as different as the B-Series though. Orderinchaos78 12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Information
Talk:Rendille people

message: Dr. Mohamednor Moallim Ibrahim Socdaal14 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Mohamednor Moallim Ibrahim
Talk:Azam Khan (singer)

message: I believe the article now has enough references to assert notability of the subject. So, I'm removing the notability request tag. Thanks. --Ragib 06:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:Institutes of the Christian Religion

message: The article summarizes the book correctly, but doesn't provide insights into the more controversial and innovative elements of the work. As I recall, the most debated aspect of Calvin's essay was the eucharistic doctrine, as Calvin did not believe in real presence or transsubstantiation, which is very important in Roman Catholicism because it allows clerics to claim that the liturgy of the Church is a also a living sacrifice or manna, not unalike to the Passion of Christ himself. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Eucharistic doctrine
Talk:Valley Village, Los Angeles

message: Burbank blvd Elementary is in Valley Village, not North Hollywood. The current boundary is Burbank Blvd. I also didn't see the need to have a paragraph about the Valley village website for that is advertisement.  I also added North Hollywood for the official name of the post office is the "Valley village / North Hollywood Post office." I also added a link explaining more of the history of break-off from North 
Hollywood and how it was part of a precedent that began in the 1980's beginning with West Hills.     — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3gd (talk • contribs) 02:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes I Made

message: Do _not_ merge with North Hollwood. Would make refering from outside to WP more difficult. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not Merge 

message: Actually, Valley Village is west of North Hollywood. I should know, I live here in Valley Village, and if I take any east-west street (like Burbank, Chandler, Magnolia) eastward, then I arrive at North Hollywood (which used to be called Lankershim, and is arguably centered around Lankershim Blvd.). Therefore, I reverted your edit. --Rachack 06:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Actually

message: But really your Thomas guide is probably outdated and inaccurate. The official site of the NCVV says: "Valley Village is located north of Los Angeles in the beautiful San Fernanado Valley. We are a small community (22,000 residents) EAST of the Tujunga Wash, NORTH of the Ventura (101) Freeway, WEST of the Hollywood (170) Freeway and SOUTH of Burbank Boulevard." --Rachack 04:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  But really,
Talk:Octave (disambiguation)

message: "In religion, an octave is an eight-day festival." Religion? as in Zen Buddhism? This is not even an adequate definition of "octave" within the Roman Catholic Church (and others?) Maybe someone can improve this.--Wetman 11:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it as best I can.  There are limits to what a disambig page can cover.  If someone wants to create an article, the Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain and excerpts could be included, as long as there's a credit at the bottom of the page is a useful source.  Chick Bowen 13:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I just realized that's misleading.  The print edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain, but the online edition I cited above is not.  Chick Bowen 13:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've removed that incorrect link. I considered creating a stub for the CMU OCTAVE, but I'm not sure it warrants it. For now I've linked to another page that mentions it. Manderso (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is no reference of "eighty-one octaves" in the EM radiation link.  I've never heard of it either. 
Chris2crawford (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  E&M radiation
Talk:Vernanimalcula

message: There is quite a debate about the real identity of the type fossil of Vernanimalcula, so here are my possibilities.
*It could be an animal, but maybe an embryo
*It could be an adult bileratan
*It could be algae
*It could be petrified wood dug up, and then put somewhere else and put in a different layer of strata
*It could be a rock or crystal formation
 Take these possibilities in serious consideration.
                             -In seriousness,
Sneaky Oviraptor18talk edits tribute 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For goodness' sake, this is not a discussion forum. It is not up to wikipedians to take alternative explanations into consideration, only to report on what scientists say and what the scientific consensus is. Go write a scientific article and try to have it published if you think you know better than the scientists. Fedor (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of fossil 

message: Maybe it's a bad picture or something, but I'm having a hard time finding a front or back to this thing. It does not look bilateral at all. Could someone honestly show me where the single line of symmetry should be? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable premise
Talk:Democrat

message: Merge into Democratic Party, with a link at the top of the page to democracy. -Silence 11:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Since "Democrat" redirects here, I was wondering if it would be relevant to reference "Democrat" being used as a political epithet in the US, leading to this article: Democrat Party (phrase).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.222.195 (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrat 

message: This article should include that Jews are more Democratic because of their emphasis on community. EugeneKantarovich (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an article, it's a disambiguation page, intended only to enable a reader to navigate to the article they want. A discourse on the political bias of Jewish people has no place here.  I suspect you want Democratic Party (United States), though be warned – you're going to need to be able to back up your claim with reliable sources.  --Ibn (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Community
Talk:Electron density

message: Hi all. I propose to merge those two articles as their subject is strictly the same. Faithfully yours Grimlock (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right, but there are at least some links to these pages, e.g. on Saha ionization equation and Ionized air glow, that use "electron density" in a different (classical statistics) sense. Such links should be looked for and removed. Art Carlson (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you. For the links pointed by Art Carlson, I underlined that this classical view is used in plasma physics, and perhaps this should be distinguished in another page. Dealing with this in electron density (as it is understood in quantum physics and chemistry) is misleading, in my mind. Grimlock (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[electron density]] with [[electronic density]] 

message: I understand this has been proposed before (see above) but not resolved. Could we resolve at least the articles in a way? If we do want to have a separate article we should state "Electron density (classical statistics)" or something. Pinging  and  for comment.--Officer781 (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the two articles are better off merged. Having for example a distinct article for Charge carrier density is good since there are some conceptual differences between charge carriers and electrons, but I can't think of a good reason to have two articles in this case. The usual approach in physics of separating a simple classical model from a more complete quantum mechanics treatment doesn't seem to work here: the most basic explanations of electron behavior like lewis structures are based in quantum mechanics. So I think it's best to give a single, unified treatment. \langle Forbes72 | Talk \rangle 18:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've gone ahead and merged. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 03:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I have observed electrons and recorded them so I contest this section. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLnhUwn7/ 47.154.156.167 (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental errors
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators

message: I would not object to the reopening of this discussion. But Silverback’s reopening of the summary, with the edit summary "rv, User:172 says discussions can be reopened, read the text" misrepresents my interpretation of policy. The time for an editor to act boldly and reopen the discussion is when deciding consensus is very borderline, especially when the article is kept up on grounds of there being no consensus despite the fact that votes are trending in the other direction, or vice versa. In contrast, given the lack of support for Silverback’s side here, this case is hardly borderline. 172 | Talk 11:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was clear Silverback wasn't trying to really reopen an AFD though, since he wanted it kept. VFU is the proper place for a dispute of a deletion and that's where tthis has been taken. Besides, a second nomination needsto be on a separate page anyway. Dmcdevit·t 21:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Talk:List of rugby players

message: There is no sport called 'rugby', there are two different sports called 'rugby union' and 'rugby league'.
All this article does is link to List of footballers (Rugby Union)
and List of footballers (Rugby League) GordyB 10:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but still I can imagine a user assuming there would be a list of rugby players and being surprised not to find one. This page would be useful as a kind of dismabig page, so I vote keep and reformat as disambig page. --Angr/ 10:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it is pretty universal that this page should be made into a disambiguation page. No need for any further votes I think. I'll do it when I get a chance.GordyB 13:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of rugby players]]