lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of tornado-related deaths at schools

message: Missing information: in May of 1957 a tornado passed through the Ruskin Heights area south of Kansas City, Missouri. It was in the evening, after school hours, but there were some school personnel killed at Ruskin High School by the storm. Perhaps this incident can be added to the list.
: Source? It cannot be added without reliable sources. CrazyC83 02:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Non school hour events raise an interesting problem in whether all such events resulting in fatalities are recorded (that is before such information was officially recorded).  Without proper sourcing, however, possible events cannot be added.  Evolauxia (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible school fatalities: 1957 Ruskin Heights 

message: Are there any known cases of such? They should go on a separate list if any can be found... CrazyC83 02:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard of cases, but there isn't anything close to an organized record of non-U.S. events.  It would have to be a case-by-case basis as records of school fatalities in other locations are found.  It should be a separate listing (section) and there should be a notice that the U.S. listing is exhaustive whereas anywhere else is not.  The locations of all fatalities in the U.S. are recorded.  Information recorded includes public/private and type of structure.  This is used in studies of casualty patterns, so problems can be identified and addressed.  That this information is officially recorded is also evidentiary to supporting this article's listing of school fatalities, at least in my opinion.  Evolauxia (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be a separate list, since they have probably (in fact almost certainly) happened elsewhere before, but there are no organized lists. It would also be slanted towards recent events since that is all media reports would be able to reach back to. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tornado deaths at schools outside the US 
Talk:Information Architecture

message: content from Information architect: 
information architecture noun. 1. The business of organizing information. 2. Involves the organization, design and presentation of an information product to provide intuitive access and ease of use that meets the needs of the customer and of the end user. Information architecture typically comprises needs analysis, content identification and organization, navigational mapping, and physical layout. The typical product of information architecture is a blueprint which may take a variety of forms, such as a site map, outline, wireframes and so on. 3. (Informal) The familiar practice of architecture provides a metaphor that helps to explain information architecture. When you look at a building, you might not be aware of its architecture, especially if it’s a building you need to "use" immediately - for example, an airport terminal in an unfamiliar city. You need to find the ticket counter, or the rest rooms, or your gate, and you hope they are not too far apart, and you don’t want to retrace your steps. When the terminal was being designed, an architect considered all those needs and tried to arrange the space to meet them. His "deliverable" was a design and a blueprint that builders could follow. An information delivery system needs to be designed as well, or the people who need the information won’t be able to find it or use it.
Brassratgirl 06:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Elaphrosaurus

message: If it was in the Berlin Natural History Museum upon its discovery, was it lost when the museum was bombed or did it survive?184.186.4.209 (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the Giraffatitan and others, it was likely transferred elsewhere at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: World War 2 fate?

message: The lead section currently says
:it has very short hindlimbs in comparison with its body.
Is this an error? Is "forelimbs" intended?
- 189.122.97.18 (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "very short hindlimbs" ?
Talk:Elopteryx

message: Is not the taxon described as "Cretaceous owl" Bradycneme draculae a probable synonym of E. nopcsai? If so, this should be remarked in the text and redirects from Bradycneme draculae should point to Elopteryx and from Bradycnemidae to Troodontidae (to be changed as needed in the latter case). Also, the taxa should be added to the senior synonym's taxoboxes.
See also here , here  for references for description & placement in non-avian theropods, but also  here for non-placement of Bradycneme in Troodontidae. Dysmorodrepanis 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any sources referring Elopteryx to troodontidae, and the sources you point out argue against it. I'll leave it in Maniraptora as incertae sedis for now, but redirect the genera as you recomend. Dinoguy2 21:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

message: This article is really shaping up, and the many recent additions have filled out this article. I don't understand, though, why Elopteryginae appears in the taxobox as a synonym. This article is primarily about the genus Elopteryx, and Elopteryginae and Elopteryx aren't synonymous. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, it can't be synonymous since it's a different rank. "Elopteryginae" doesn't appear to have actually been published, per the hidden comment, only implied. Removed it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elopterygidae was apparently published by Lambrecht in the Handbuch. I ought to make a list of Stuff To Scan from that miraculous volume (you should definitely check it out if you can). But it is also wrong in synonymy here. It might one day appear in the synonymy list of the Troodontidae. But never here. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh BS, I meant -idae. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Elopteryginae
Template talk:WikiProject Japan

message: The documentation lists the parameters for the task forces all in alphabetical order (which makes sense).
Almost all of them are also displayed by the template in alphabetical order (if the leading descriptor of "Japanese" is ignored for some of them, at least): Japanese baseball, Bibliography, Biography, Business and economy, Japanese cars, Japanese cinema, CJKV, Culture, Districts and municipalities, Education, Flora and fauna, Food and drink, Gaijin tarento, Geography and environment, History, Infrastructure, Law and government, Japanese military history, Music, Mythology, Owarai, Photo, Politics, Prefectures, Religion, Royalty and nobility, Science and technology, Shinto, Sport, Tokyo, Trains in Japan, and Transwiki Update.
...But the last two task forces – the Ainu and Ryukyu task forces – are listed at the very end, for some reason. Please move them into alphabetical order with the other task forces (the Ainu task force should be listed first, before the Japanese baseball task force; the Ryukyu task force should be listed between the Royalty and nobility task force and the Science and technology task force). V2Blast (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: These two task forces were the last to be added, see  relating to this request, and  relating to this request. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix alphabetical ordering for Ainu and Ryukyu task forces 

message: Description of suggested change:
Diff:
 TKsdik8900 (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: why? This doesn't seem like a clear improvement. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   The file which I suggested to change, ITŌ Hirobumi.jpg, is the original version of the current file Itô Hirobumi.jpg. Please see its Wikimedia Commons file page and National Diet Library. --TKsdik8900 (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 2 October 2022 

message: "within the scope of the WikiProject Japan" should probably just be "within the scope of WikiProject Japan", without a definite article before the name.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 05:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit requested (grammar) 

message: The parameter "TF_6_NESTED = Cinema" is duplicated.  One should be deleted so that this template and all pages that use it do not appear on lists of pages or articles with CS1 errors.  Thanks. Ira Leviton (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 5 July 2023
Talk:Eolambia

message: The bottom two cladograms at the end of Subsequent research, derived from Gates et al. (2018) - doi:10.7717/peerj.5300 - feature positions labelled Hadrosauriformes, Iguanodontidae, Hadrosauroidea and Hadrosauromorpha. However, these clade names are not provided on the original cladograms (Fig. 22). At least some of these clades have also not been defined phylogenetically in the text, so we can't be placing them where they are currently, unless we cite another source. To demonstrate the incongruence, the text underneath Fig. 22 reads "...other early diverging hadrosauroids (Altirhinus, Barilium, Proa, (Bolong + Jinzhousaurus)...when Choyrodon is coded as possessing an antorbital fenestra". However, in our corresponding cladogram, all of these genera are clearly positioned outside Hadrosauroidea. Iguanodontidae is also labelled on the right hand cladogram, yet it appears not to have been mentioned in the text of the paper at all. Iguanodon and Mantellisaurus are called iguanodontians immediately prior to the aforementioned quote (which would relate to the left hand cladogram, anyway), but Iguanodontia does not equal Iguanodontidae. So it's quite clear to me that these clade positions are unsupported by the reference. These are also the most obvious examples that stuck out to me, so it's quite possible that the exact positions of other clades are also not inferable from this paper. Are others also unable to corraborate these positions using that paper, or is there something obvious that's totally flying over my head? Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't write this, but sometimes such info can be found in the supplemental material, if there is any for these papers. FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. I've checked them, but I don't think there's anything there. A bunch of phylogenetic matrices and a picture. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Revision history suggests that  added the text. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In hindsight the inclusion of Hadrosauroidea in the first cladogram was very dumb, yes. I just put the clade names where their definitions place them, it did not occur to me that they would need additional references. Hadrosauromorpha needs to stay as it's necessary for collapsing that part of the cladogram. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 14:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are these clades from?
Talk:Eotyrannus

message: Dilong from China pre-dates Eotyrannus, et al - so - isn't this 2013 paper outdated? 2603:6080:21F0:6000:6125:E89E:5017:DD82 (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  puts in question to the purported Asian origin for these animals...
Talk:Epanterias

message: Merge the Epanterias page with the Allosaurus page, because Chure (2000) found Epanterias to be merely an adult Allosaurus. When Chure's thesis is published, Epanterias will be put in synonymy with Allosaurus. Loewen (2004) also recognizes Epanterias as a grown-up Allosaurus.
Chure D. J., 2000. A new species of Allosaurus from the Morrison Formation of Dinosaur National Monument (Utah-Colorado) and a revision of the theropod family Allosauridae. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1-964.
Loewen, M. A., 2004. VARIATION AND STRATIGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF ALLOSAURUS WITHIN THE LATE JURASSIC MORRISON FORMATION. 2004 Denver Annual Meeting: 226-4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "When Chure's thesis is published," There you have it ;) Dinoguy2 17:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, the taxonomy of these big theropods is so utterly convoluted that one thesis won't be definitive.  But, whether it goes in Allosaurus or not, it is definitely not just an adult Allosaurus fragilis/ferox/whatever, because it is way too rare and appears MUCH later than the main bulk of smaller Allo's.  Whether it is an Allosaurus or not porbably will eventually just be a question of definitions, but it's certainly a species of its own.  (Dino species and genera are, I think, too lumped anyway - how big are the bone differences between a genus Catharus Wood Thrush and a genus Turdus Song Thrush? Vultur 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  [rant-warning] Realized that someone might want examples for my broad claim that big-theropod taxonomy is a tangled mess.  In that case, Megalosaurus is a prime example - 180+ years after its discovery, we still don't know what specimens go in that genus!!!  Also, it was a taxonomic dump for anything some lazy scientist couldn't bother to classify for so long that there are probably tons of new species that just haven't been described becuase they're labeled "Megalosaurus".  It's not just big theropods either; look at the mess over Coelophysis/Podokesaurus/Syntarsus/Megapnosaurus/whatever name somebody decides on tomorrow. [end-rant] Vultur 02:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epanterias, a synonym of Allosaurus
Talk:Epidendrosaurus

message: Well, It looks like a bird, closest relative of Archeopteryx, & more advanced. I'm starting to think it's a bird. -Walkingwith08 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What definition of "bird" are you using, to begin with? Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bird? 

message: Could Epidendrosaurus fly? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible, but without good adult specimens it's impossible to tell. The scientists who described Epi thought it was unlikely, since flying birds have short hands while Epi's are long. The scientists who described close relative/synonym Scansoriopteryx left the possibility open. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think the sternum was preserved, so unknown if it had a keel. Gliding is the same situation as flying--we don't know enough to be able to tell. Unfortunately, scansors have barely been studied at all so far. For pretty much any question you can think to ask about them, the answer will be "we don't know" ;)  Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight
Talk:Eucoelophysis

message: Transfer Silesaurus and Eucoelophysis to Ornithischia incertae sedis, because the two genera share a number of ornithischian characters. They are probably close to Pisanosaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:Cite? Everything I've read on these animals lately makes their status as dinosaurs seem extremely unlikely.Dinoguy2 02:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylogeny of Eucoelophysis and Silesaurus
Talk:Euhelopus

message: I'm working on Klamelisaurus right now. The Bayesian analysis of Moore et al.  places Euhelopus along with Klamelisaurus and the Mamenchisaurus and Omeisaurus complexes in a clade (Euhelopodidae) outside of Neosauropoda. I'm not sure what other workers think of this, but I think it shows that a macronarian position for Euhelopus is far from a done deal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: All of Moore et al.'s analyses find Euhelopus to form a clade with mamenchisaurids, not just the Bayesian analysis, and the paper overall seems to justify that position fairly well. I definitely think it would be prudent to edit this article to be more agnostic on the phylogenetic position of Euhelopus for the time being; presenting it unambiguously as a titanosauriform seems inappropriate now. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis placing ''Euhelopus'' outside Neosauropoda
Talk:Euskelosaurus

message: A book I have here says Euskelosaurus is a melanorosaurid, whilst the article says plateosaurid. What gives? Abyssal leviathin 21:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was a typo in the hardcover edition of the first "Dinosauria"J. Spencer 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two families are also very closely related. Some people have merged the families in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if different species were switched back and forth between these families at various times by various people.Dinoguy2 22:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family?

message: Euskelosaurus is actually undiagnostic, and therefore a nomen dubium, making Plateosauravus a distinct genus based on good material (Yates, 2003, 2006; Yates and Kitching, 2003). Only two species of Euskelosaurus are recognized: Euskelosaurus browni and E. africanus. Originally referred to this genus but now considered to be valid or nomina dubia are Eucnemesaurus van Hoepen, 1924, Orosaurus Huxley, 1866 (Orinosaurus Lydekker, 1889 is a synonym), Gigantoscelus van Hoepen, 1916, and Plateosaurus stormbergensis Broom, 1915.
Yates, A.M. 2003. A new species of the primitive dinosaur Thecodontosaurus (Saurischia: Sauropodomorpha) and its implications for the systematics of early dinosaurs. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 1(1):1-42
Yates, A.M. 2006. Solving a dinosaurian puzzle: the identity of Aliwalia rex Galton. Historical Biology, iFirst article, 1-30.
Yates, A.M., and Kitching, J.W. 2003. The earliest known sauropod dinosaur and the first steps towards sauropod locomotion. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270(1525):1753-1758. 72.194.116.63 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-assessment of Euskelosaurus
Talk:Eustreptospondylus

message: Streptospondylus cuvieri is from the early Bathonian Chipping Norton Formation (Owen 1842), whereas Eustreptospondylus comes from the late Callovian Middle Oxford Clay (Martill 1988), so it's unlikely S. cuvieri is the same as Eustreptospondylus.
Owen R (1842). "Report on British fossil reptiles". Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 11: 60–204.
D. M. Martill. 1988. A review of the terrestrial vertebrate of fossils of the Oxford Clay (Callovian-Oxfordian) of England. Mercian Geologist 11(3):171-190.68.4.61.168 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streptospondylus cuvieri  

message: I have a personal record of another species, E. divensis. Can anyone else verify this?Ninjatacoshell 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E. divesensis is the same as Piveteausaurus divesensis. ArthurWeasley 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another species? 

message: There's no such translation as "true Streptospondylus". Its name means "well curved vertebrae". It's meant to be in reference to the additions on the animal's spine. --12.17.177.164 (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Name Translation
Talk:Echo of Moscow

message: Эхо Москвы----------Where do the accents fall on the two words???
Phonetics please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestlyriccollection (talk • contribs) 06:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be 'Эхо Моск'вы. Эхо is pronounced like "echo", but with a somewhat different consonant in the middle, and Москвы is pronounced like  but with a different vowel at the end. I'm not good at IPA stuff, so I let the other editors to add it.  Grue  09:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So, the standardized practice on spelling Russian names of entries should include accented vowels marked by the grave or accute. IPA is optional. Russian pronunciation is fairly easy as soon as accents are marked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestlyriccollection (talk • contribs) 06:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Wayne Chrebet

message: Anthony:
Sources and footnotes added to ensure Wikipedia regulation compliance. The trivia section is indeed long but Chrebet is a very popular part of New York Jets history and thus there is an exponential amount of published trivia. I did correct grammatical errors and reduce the verbose nature of the trivia to facilitate your input. Despite the changes I do not appreciate your sarcasm. You stated "This entire article looks like it was written by the child of Chrebet's PR agent". That type of communication is not acceptable in any capacity. I am considering taking action with Wikipedia regarding your unprofessional input. Your concern that sources should be noted was a valid criticism and thus the above corrective action, but your highly subjective insult as noted above is completely out of line and in violation of Wikipedia regulation. 
very respectfully,
James User talk:thebatsignal 12:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup, NPOV and Trivia 

message: The "Post-NFL" and "After the NFL" sections duplicate a lot of content and should be merged into one section.  68.45.109.14 (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needs Some Work 
Talk:Gas pump

message: Does anybody know of any sources for data on flow rates, i.e. how many gallons per minute a typical gas pump supplies?  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know citable sources, but the most common standard I know of is 40L (10.5G) per minute in most places. That's for normal fuel (petrol/gas); for diesel, 80L (21) per minute is common as this is often used to fill trucks. Of course in the US it is probably a round number like 10G per minute - I don't know whether pump manufacturers actually change it outside the US or just call it a different number. It's approximate anyway.Aaron Lawrence 09:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow rates? 

message: I hear in some states that the driver isnt allowed to pump the gas themself, it has to be a station attendent, by law. anyone care to add this to the article or something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.4.252 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more about the gas stations than the pumps themselves, so I don't think it needs to be mentioned here. It is already mentioned at that article: Filling_station#Full_service_vs._self_service --Icarus (Hi!) 04:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws 
Talk:All Night (film)

message: Very nice write up.  I am trying to find a picture from the film to go along with article, but so all I have found is an unprepossessing video cover.
:Thanks! I know, this article needs a photo. :) I have the film on tape and I'd screencap it if I knew how, I don't alas. Thanks for trying to hunt down a picture! Namaste, Mademoiselle Sabina 04:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found an ad in a 1922 publication & added it. Deanlaw (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Image