lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Twin Dragons

message: Director Clara Law also makes an appearance (Cameo) as a lady in front of the gravestone  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.117.157 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

message: If IMDb is wrong then can someone please help correct it?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105399/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm ShiranuiAensland (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDb credits Boomer's name as Die Hard.
Talk:Samuel Putnam

message: Many critics regard the prose style of the Putnam translation as atrocious, and suggest that the translation's "acclaim" was generated by Putnam's fellow Marxists in the 1930s without regard to its real merits or lack thereof.  I will dig up some citations to this effect and return to this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.105.167 (talk • contribs) 07:42, September 7, 2006  (UTC)
:All that 1930s acclaim would have been quite prophetic considering Putnam didn't do the translation until 1949!  --Blainster 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Acclaimed translation"
Talk:Wheels on Meals

message: User:Olivier added the script writers based on the information in IMDb, as Antonio Llorens and Edward Tang. As he pointed out, this differs from other sources.
I'd suggest that Antonio Llorens, a Spanish writer who, aside from this film, has only worked on Spanish-language films (see IMDb would actually have little to do with the script of the film, and IMDb is in this case, not the most accurate source of info.
HKCinemagic, list the writers as Johnny Lee (Lee Gwing Gaai) and Edward Tang (Tang Ging Gan). 
Kung Fu Cinema agree (although the spelling of Tang's HK name is Tang Ging-sang).
Perhaps most importantly, the official Jackie Chan website lists the writers as Edward Tang King-sang, Johnny Lee and Samo Hung.
So, I am going to update the writers with this latter information, unless someone can provide a reason to include Llorens as well / instead... Gram 10:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writers

message: Change "brothers" to brothers without italics BananaPlant9999 (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed brothers, as they're not actually brothers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021
Talk:Combat Rubber Raiding Craft

message: I am a little skeptical of these edits made in July 2019: . Among other things, the terms "Zodiac" and "inflatable boat" are removed. The lede is incomprehensible now. Mathew5000 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits removing reference to "Zodiac" 

message: Page is brand specific.  "Zodiac" IS NOT the exclusive manufacturer of CRRCs.  At this time, more than 90% of US military CRRCs (under the E-CRRC program, via Combatant Craft Division) are produced by Wing Inflatables, Arcata, California. 74.84.96.50 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information or context
Talk:Greenbush Line

message: According to this boston.com article and a companion news report on NECN.COM, the Greenbush line opened on the 30th of October, not the 31st. The article should be updated to reflect this change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digraph (talk • contribs) 13:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Since fixed. -- Beland (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to update the opening date. 

message: I added a map. tho a better one would be good. --agr 16:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Loodog for the improved version. I'm removing the tag.==agr 00:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map
Talk:Snake in the Eagle's Shadow

message: It says “dubtitles” in that section, and the following statement after the preceding semicolon is so grammatically incorrect that I can't understand what's said at ALL. Redjedia (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Imitators Section 

message: The character of Pai Cheng-tien is played by Then Siu-tien, not Yuen Woo-ping. Because the page is semi-protected and I haven't used my account in a long time, I can't edit it myself. I'd appreciate if someone would make the change. Gordon schumway (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  error in 1st paragraph but semi-protected
Talk:Old Colony Lines

message: The Greenbush line article should not be merged with this page- while the lines overlap, so do the Needham Branch and the Providence/Stoughton Line and they have separate articles. The MBTA treats them as separate lines, with one page for the Old Colony Lines and another for Greenbush, in addition to having separate schedules. --71.124.173.134 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The two lines serve two different areas as well-the Greenbush line serves the South Shore. --Engelalber (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all the activity going on and planned for these lines, wouldn't it be advisable to SPLIT them back up into the individual lines, or is that asking too much of a giant "We need to be your only source" website that, when they combined the articles, also deleted a lot of relevant information on each one? LReyome254 (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles were two-line stubs when they were merged. What "relevant information" was deleted in the merge? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenbush Line 

message: Someone who has time, please add pages for the stations beyond Holbrook/Randolph. Use the template as a starting point; the articles can be expanded later.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engelalber (talk • contribs) 03:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Editor's note: the pages were created in December 2007.)Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages for stations beyond Holbrook/Randolph
Talk:Newburyport/Rockport Line

message: Why does the infobox say River Works is for GE employees only, but the article body mention a transfer to bus 111?  Wouldn't transfering to bus 111 be useful to those who aren't GE employees?  JNW2 (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell from the MBTA web site, bus 111 doesn't go anywhere near River Works. AJD (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: River Works and Bus #111

message: It is hard to imagine that this line never had stations in Revere or that Lynn always has been the first station on the line.  Anyone have information? Dogru144 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of old stations on the line. The Great Revere Train Wreck of 1871 was at Revere station. I'll look into adding information. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrecognized defunct stations

message: I recall seeing maps with tracks continuing from Newburyport to Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  Isn't this the case?  And hadn't there been in the further distant past service through to Maine, via a bridge northeast out of Portsmouth?Dogru144 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Eastern Railroad ran to Portland. From Portsmouth, the line crossed where the US-1 Bypass bridge is now, and ran north to South Berwick where it joined with B&M tracks to Portland. (Much of the ROW between Kittery and Berwick is now Route 236.) Portsmouth passenger service ended on January 4, 1965, though freight service continued after. The bridge over the Merrimack went out of service sometime after Newburyport service ended in 1978. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Portsmouth, New Hampshire terminus?
Talk:Bruce Lee and I

message: The film Bruce Lee and I is not the movie described in the text. This one is an adventure starring an acquaintance of Lee named Unicorn Chan, who cajoled Bruce into choreographing some fight scenes. Reportedly, Lee was very upset with Chan about the title. The one in the text is something titled Bruce Lee: His Last Days and Nights among other things, released in 1976. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE—O.K., somebody has changed a few things so the Unicorn Chan film is no longer referenced, except via the title. The given title should not be the title of the article, since the IMDb seems to indicate (their line is somewhat confusing) that it is the literal English translation of a Hong Kong reissue's Mandarin title, not used on any English language release. I await discussion as to whether the article should bear the English transcription of the Mandarin original (Lei Siu Lung yi ngo) or its primary English title (Bruce Lee: His Last Days, His Last Nights). --Ted Watson (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FUBAR
Talk:Ternary form

message: this would probably be very useful!!
thinking ternary
* purcell (dido and aeneas particulalrly!)
* handel
* strauss!!
thanks, ksood 19:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples of composers using ternary form a lot! 

message: Don't we mean Mozart!? I believe Brahms only wrote two piano concertos and his works don't have K numbers.
Wandering piranga (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brahms? 

message: Why is ternary always A-B-A and never A-B-C (3 distinct sections; all clearly different)?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the term is used only for A–B–A; I would describe A–B–C as a piece in three movements. Are you thinking of particular examples? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of form is that?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (Corrected my spelling mistake: "thre" to "three".) I don't understand the question; there are thousands of works in three movements and there is no prescribed form for them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I think "Georgia guy" was asking, not about pieces with three movements, but about A-B-C structure (three distinct sections) within a movement. The answer is simple. With no repetition, there is no structure; movements may be divided into "sections" by double-bar lines on the page, but you do not hear them. A-B-C would not, structurally, be any different from A, a single long section with no repetition. (Similarly, binary form is not A-B but A-A-B-B; again, the repetition is what allows us to talk about "A" and "B" as distinct sections.) 2.25.131.30 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining ternary form 

message: Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag replaced. Sorry, Hyacinth. For "why?": It's been a while since I've read the Benward & Saker book, but I'm almost certain that a lot of what's in this article is not in there. Plus, there are some statements here that are highly unlikely, if not outright untruthful, like "The first section of a piece in ternary form does not usually change key", and "The middle section will generally be in a different key, often the subdominant of the first section". Almost every Minuet or Scherzo movement contains a modulatory contrast within the A section, and the B section is usually in the dominant, not subdominant. For "where?", I have tagged specific places where I thought a citation was needed. Just trying to point out where and how I think the article can be improved. I'll work on it later myself; see if I can find some additional sources. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 00:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations
Talk:Iron Monkey (1993 film)

message: I heard that the Iron Monkey is a fictional character larger than just this movie (more along the lines of Robin Hood.  i.e. the movie "Robin Hood" didn't invent Robin Hood; the movie was about a famous pre-existing fictional folk-hero kind of character).  I have no way of verifying this, but does anybody else have any information about this? Kjl 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron Monkey character 

message: This article is good but seriously lacks explanation like behind the scenes and the story can be reworked to make it more enjoyable to read to put it that way. Not necessarily simple word but putting in something that grabs my attention than that would work. Why I put this comment in because I know like Project A it has potential. I will need help but I have a good feeling that this article can be at the top of its game. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Iron Monkey. 

message: 少年 黄飞鸿 = Young Wong Fei Hong
之铁马骝 = ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.233.129.182 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a proper translation of 少年黄飞鸿之铁马骝? 

message: I saw this, but it was dubbed.  There were no subtitles. Furthermore, the movie's credits don't say who did the voices.
Like another martial arts film I saw, I suspected this movie was merely a parody using the footage from the Chinese language original. Nothing in this article suggest that is the case. In fact, this article claims the English version with subtitles took out a lot of the comedy. I guarantee you they didn't take any comedy out of what I saw! If anything, they put more silliness in the movie than it had to begin with.
I have yet to any research on imdb or anywhere else to verify any of this. Actually, even if I find "proof" on imdb it's not considered a reliable source. So any help I cn get on this would be appreciated, because something is obviously missing from this article.Vchimpanzee ·  talk · contributions · 17:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No subtitles 
Talk:Gonin

message: There are 2 major distributions of this movie, in the US anyway. The earlier distribution had higher quality sound, video compression and better translations in the sub titles. It is a lot harder to find than the later distribution but well worth the effort to find it (think it is "Ocean Shores Video Limited" out of Hong Kong[EDIT: nope, "Ocean Shores Video Limited" is the WRONG ONE!!]). The DVD jacket shown in this article is of a later distribution, I think out of Mainland China, with Chinese and English subtitles together on the film and can not be turned off. The translation into Chinese was not very good (wife is Chinese) and the translation into English was even worse (I am fruent in Japanese [sic]). The audio is bad and the video looked like it was transferred from VHS. The later had a lot wider distribution and so is about the only version you can find anymore, but almost useless because unless you know the real story, the translation can lead you to think the story is slightly different, and the audio/visual problem is very distracting. I lost my first copy (of the earlier DVD) in a burglary but found the newer version to replace it, and was heartbroken, thinking I would never have a good copy again, but, stumbled across the newer DVD on eBay or another similar site and was happy that it was the older version. 
I am not sure if there is any reason to put the distribution notes on this page but my belief is that most people will only know the newer inferior distribution of the film and maybe should know there is a better copy out there somewhere. The box that I have has this cover: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3504709376/tt0113194 or http://www.fareastdvd.com/ebaypics/GONIN%20DVD.jpg or http://www.cine-east.com/catalog/images/dv107.jpg -- Billy Nair (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Tokyo Shock" version (Gonin1&2) is the best distribution  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyNair (talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Major Distributions in the US
Talk:Readers–writers problem

message: Hallo, gibt es diese Page auch in Deutsch?
sklia@bluewin.ch
Noch nicht.
-- 146.169.52.145 (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deutsch

message: Babobibo (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct solutions

message: The code added 17 May 2012‎, by Diaa abdelmoneim, for the first readers writers problem (readers preference), is clearly incorrect and is not thread-safe.  Moreover, the logic of the code is suspect, such that an easy fix is not available.  The code probably should be deleted.
The code was modified slightly to improve formatting on 22 May 2012, by‎ Fragglet, and again on 3 June 2012‎ by 213.151.48.142, but no significant changes were made.  In its current format (as of 22 June 2012), the code reads as follows:
semaphore wrt=1,mutex=1;
readcount=0;
writer()
{
    wait(wrt);
    //writing is done
    signal(wrt);
}
reader()
{
    wait(mutex);
    readcount++;
    if(readcount==1)
        wait(wrt);
    signal(mutex);
    ///Do the Reading
    ///(Critical Section Area)
    wait(mutex);
    readcount--;
    if(readcount==0)
       signal(wrt);
    signal(mutex);
}
This code clearly fails at synchronized concurrency in many respects.
And what is the nature of the "Critical Section Area" mentioned in the code?  Is the implication that an additional but unshown critical section is needed? Or that there is no need for further synchronization for the reason that the semaphores already provide for access on a mutually-exclusive basis (which they do not).
Moreover, the logic is tortured.  What is the point, for example, of waiting on the write semaphore if readcout==1, if the writing thread does not ever change the value of readcount?
The suggested fix is simply to delete the code, or to demand a source that confirms its workability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.173.11 (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code for First Readers Writers Problem (Readers Preference) 

message: The posted code for the second problem is lacking one reader mutex (mutex 3 in the original paper).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.220.243 (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code for the second problem not reproducing the cited paper 

message: The explanation given for the "entry section" in the First Readers-Writers Problem" is confusing. The terms "entry section" and "exit section" are never defined. The line comments seem to suggest that the Entry section is the critical section prior to the line that says "Do the reading", and the Exit section is the critical section after the reading operation. But then what the does the sentence "Before entering the critical section, every new reader must go through the entry section" mean?? Also the necessity for the rmutex doesn't seem to be about race conditions as it is about ensuring no reader gets blocked from reading by another reader, which is suboptimal, as mentioned in the introduction to the section. If everyone agrees, I would like to change the text to make this clear
198.206.219.131 (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First readers–writers problem
Talk:The Bicentennial Man

message: Is that chicken joke actually in the book? I know it's in the movie, but I don't remember seeing it in at least the Estonian translation of the book. PeepP 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could fill a small book listing commercially unsuccessful movies (and TV series) that have won awards... 23skidoo 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joke

message: I'm not especially familiar with this story, or the various incarnations it has been released as, so I'll only say that the currently worded article introduces title "The Positronic Man" halfway down, without any context. I thought it was referring to a different story when I first read it. There should be a phrase such as ", originally titled The Positronic Man when published in such and such anthology," in the introductory paragraph. Anybody else think so, or I don't know what I'm talking about? Xaxafrad 01:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bicentennial vs Positronic 

message: "The Bicentennial Man" is a short story (or more precisely a novella) that, among other occasions of publication, was the title story of an anthology; why does the infobox say its media type is "book"? SamBC(talk) 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see, it's meant to be the medium of first publishing; that ought to be clarified in the template. SamBC(talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Type == Book? 

message: I'm not sure, but I think that nowhere in the novella it is mentioned that the serial number of Andrew is NDR-114, I think he only remembers the NDR. I checked it and I can't find it.
Could be that this mentioned in the novel by Silverberg, or in the movie, but both wouldn't belong here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.106.198.117 (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: NDR-114 is shown quite clearly in the film, just after the opening credits. Youtube at 3:45 and 5:18 -- œ™ 08:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certain details 

message: I'd like to fix some details in the italian article, but - as not native english speaker - I need to be sure. This is my question: I suppose that official italian translation is wrong about the lawsuit described in chapter 19.
The original text says They in­sti­tuted a law­suit deny­ing the obli­ga­tion to pay debts to an in­di­vid­ual with a pros­thetic heart... Does this sentence mean: #1 No one is obligated to pay debts to any robot/android OR #2 A robot/android is not obligated to pay debts? #2 is the italian version, but #1 looks more logical to me because at the end of chapter #17 Andrew says: "I have been un­der obli­ga­tion to in­di­vid­ual mem­bers of the firm in times past. I am not, now. It is rather the other way around now and I am call­ing in my debts." Thanks! --Schickaneder (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct meaning?
Talk:Turbofan

message: Here's my feedback on the opening paragraph (my feedback is in the square brackets):
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminGSlade (talk • contribs) 17:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:LEAD gives some advice: , and the MOS:INTRO section for the text itself. My usage is to summarize each body section, here: 1	Principles 2	History 3	Common types 4	Turbofan configurations 5	Overall performance 6	Improvements 7	Manufacturers 8	Extreme bypass jet engines 9	Terminology. Cheers--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback on the opening paragraph

message: The product of thrust (force) and velocity is power. The ratio is Mechanical impedance. Reducing the velocity improves efficiency in the usual way that impedance matching does. My old favorite explanation of mechanical impedance matching compares a ping-pong paddle and baseball bat hitting a ping-pong ball. The bat is good for hitting baseballs, but the impedance mismatch makes it not good for ping-pong balls. Gah4 (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mechanical impedance]]
Talk:T. F. Green Airport station

message: "...since it will be the closest rail line to a major airport terminal in the country..."
I question the accuracy of this statement, the septa R1 commuter train goes right into Philadelphia international airport with a stop at each baggage claim. I also seem to remember BART getting awfully close to San Francisco International.
:It may be the closest station to an airport on an Amtrak line, but for now Amtrak isn't planning to stop there, so I deleted the claim.--agr 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reagan or National Airport in Washington has a very close Amtrak station as well. Newark has an Amtrak station specifically built to serve Liberty International Airport.Dogru144 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: When that document was written, it was intended to be an Amtrak stop as well, which might have been true for intercity (versus commuter) rail. However, Burbank–Bob Hope Airport is also incredibly close and serves Amtrak services. I'm removing it for now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim