lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Operation Matador

message: It has been suggested that this article be split into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page:
:You could split it into British and US Operation Matadors? Although the British one would be bigger it would make sense to keep the British ones together as they are related to each other. Tristan benedict 18:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is necessary unless one section was to grow considerably in size. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We definately should split the article up.  This is not just a question of breaking out sections into new articles when they become too large; rather it is about preventing the arbitrary association of information in a single article. Greenshed 13:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: disambiguation page
Talk:Cold Case

message: The Cold Case#Cold Squad controversy section has some old news(?) from 2003, with possible accusations of copyright infringement. Maybe 12 years later someone knows what came out of this? Was there any case, negotiations, anything? Or was it something that showed up on the news once and vanished? - Nabla (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003 Copyright issue 

message: At no point in the series, is it stated that the characters are "an unit specialized in cold cases." The very same first scene in the series shows the main character investigating a murder committed the night before, and the character references recent cases they've investigated all the time. It's just that the show focuses on the cold cases while the others tend to happen offscreen. And yet, there are some episodes that show recent and even ongoing cases, e.g. "Officer Down" where the date of the crime is given as "15 minutes ago". In Season 7 there was an attempt to maybe retool the series as a FBI cold case unit with new actors but as we know, that didn't pan out as the show was not renewed.--Menah the Great (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong header 

message: section has far too many links, including some already given in the body of the article.  yoyo (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive links in "See also"
Talk:Milieu (disambiguation)

message: Page Genesis - belated discussion of hi-jacked content <B>Fra</B>nkB 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

message: :(Not posted@Pegship (moved B4 saved) on user Talk:Pegship as putting messiness here.)  <B>Fra</B>nkB
I just had a 'disruptive' experience. Apparently a Math grad student took it upon himself to gut Milieu so it's now a redirect to Environment which is apparently a non-standard disambig page now. 
*IIRC, Milieu was a literary  and sociology (and certainly psychology) technical term with a literal translation that is probably 'environment', but this totally disconnects with traditional use of the term for literature and the stage, et. al. in any work (fine arts)
Definition example:milieu
::1. Surroundings; environment.
::2. In psychiatry, the social setting of the mental patient, e.g., the family setting or a hospital unit.
::Origin: Fr. Mi, fr. L. Medius, middle, + lieu, fr. L. Locus, place (05 Mar 2000)
-In sum, I think this is totally 'over-the-top' as a move which totally ignores the historical usages of the term.  OTOH, some of what I saw in 'Environment' certainly pertains to milieu, and that article by committee is certainly in need of mature perspectives, half appears to be computer science, which would be quite a shock to the EPA. 
 
-That content would then remove the apparent discontent of this youngster on it being mainly a dictionary mapping or synonym by keeping the relevance of the literary field and other humanities studies main usages. 
 
-I'm afraid to see what else 'environment' leads to, as there is a link forward above the intro as well. (Someone (invented a distintion?) by using the term  Natural Environment— Ooops! Apparently the 'plain vanilla' term 'environment' has drifted and I'm out of touch as google indicates 'Natural Environment' as a term all over the place. Hey! But what's a mere 21,300,832 'hits' among friends!?! 
-So that shifts things some and idicates the 'fine arts and humanities usages' ought to be put back into milieu, and environment keeping what's left to disambigulate that. 
-This assumes we can get an agreement that this is a mis-guided 'retro-Anglicization' by turning this term into a redirect. How say you, members of the Jury?
 
: Please reply at User_talk:Fabartus#Am_I_off_base.3F, I'm a bit busy now to pursue this without checks on my reasoning and backup! <G> So watch my six, you all!
Thanks! <B>Fra</B>nkB 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Milieu Hi-jacked?

message: I feel your pain, F, but honestly, I think this is a minor hitch. I have tweaked the wording and layout a bit to de-emphasize the initial math/science impression, and I hope that helps. Her Pegship 20:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Save your strength
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 11, 2006

message: Can we shorten this somewhat?  It's really distorting the balance on the mainpage.--Pharos 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Snowolf How can I help? 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

message: Please replace the image with "Jacques-Louis David 017.jpg". Thanks. Siebrand (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PeterSymonds (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacques-Louis David 017.jpg
Talk:Intramural sport

message: Can we get a citation for the "top" sports.  Or perhaps it should read "some intramural sports", or even "Common intramural sports". --Bdoserror 18:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Intramural Sports? 

message: I have redirected to the equivalent article at Intramural sports - I copied all content over to that article, and cleaned up some redundancy.  I also copied over the list of common sports, although I agree with Bdoserror - we need a citation for the list of sports, why are these sports considered more common?  Nimur 01:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge/Redirect
Talk:Edward Balliol

message: David II returned from France in 1341, not 1336.
Rcpaterson 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the king. 

message: I think it wrong to describe Edward Balliol as 'king' of Scotland, intermittent or otherwise, for the simple reason that a country cannot have two monarchs at the same time.  Balliol received very little support in Scotland, and his cause had to be kept alive by fresh transfusions of English blood. Even in his brief periods of power he never even issued a seperate coinage, and I think absolutely nobody would now make reference to a 'King Edward' of Scotland. Perhaps he is best described as an 'anti-king', a little like the various pretender popes.  Nevertheless, however he is described he was an important figure in Scottish history, and I think it only proper that his life is given fuller treatment than it receives here.  I intend to complete the task in the next day or two.
Rcpaterson 05:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward the King? 

message: Stating it would benefit the article if there were something of the sort added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.104.79 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of territory temporarily controlled by him?

message: This article needs to have the very many statements in it cited to specific sources, rather than just a general list at the bottom of the page. David Lauder 09:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: This article unfortunately needs to be rewritten as it includes duplicated text and text closely paraphrased from For the Lion. I do not have access to the book to see where it is at its most extensive, but see:
*; ; ; ; ; . (There is very likely more; I stopped the search midway through, having confirmed an issue with this article.)
While material was evidently added in good faith, it appears it is unusable. See the cleanup project for more. 
I am blanking in the article in the hopes that a regular contributor can suitably rewrite this. It will be revisited after a week to see what further steps may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been restored to its last verifiably clean version, with deleted revisions stored at Edward Balliol/deleted revisions. I'm very sorry for the setback to users of and contributors to the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems
Talk:Catz

message: Someone please split all the alternative meanings into a disambiguation page! 71.174.111.245 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. There are only four entries but Catz may be an offshoot of Cats so a disambig off this may be a good idea. 209.244.31.53 (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Split
Talk:French military victories

message: Would it be a bad idea to turn the article into a List of French military victories that summarizes Military history of France, leaving the coverage of the joke as a top-disambiguation? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really ? Then tell me why the France has been et is always an independent country for so long ? The truth is : the french people are the less patriotic people in the world. Most of them don't even know about their victories, about Guillaume le Conquerant, about Bouvines, about the hundred years war, because we don't care. And I don't care. I'm much more interested about our history in litterature, sciences, laws and arts, than in our military victories.
Cheers. acathla 21:32, 22 august 2007 (UTC)
The French Miliatary Victory thing on google is gone is Gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
no, I looked at it today, it was there.TotallyTempo 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i looked at it a few hours ago and it was there and i looked at it again a few minutes ago and it was gone... wierd 58.185.104.72 08:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well its back again. --64.229.72.35 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious article?

message: * The french can only win when lead by a non-frenchman192.197.54.27 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules of French Military Warfare 

message: Changed this dab page into a redirect to the one link that made sense here: Military History of France, the albinoblacksheep prank is old and tired and now barely mentioned in the Google Bomb article. Should never have been an entry in Wikipedia under that name in the first place. Equendil Talk 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. FFMG (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_25#Category:Wars_France_lost :-) Samboy (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The obligatory
Talk:Shephelah

message: I've [removed several paragraphs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shephelah&diff=52704429&oldid=32507936]. The Wikimedia Foundation information team was notified that they are a copyright violation. (Ref: OTRS 2006051110001271). If anyone wants to replace this information in their own words they are welcome to do so, but copying text directly from other sources is generally unacceptable. FreplySpang (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed copyright violation 

message: Is a listing of every single mention in the Bible really appropriate to the introduction?  It may well make sense to have a section on references in the Bible somewhere in the article, hopefully giving a little more information than merely a list of the books, chapters and verses, but the introduction is not the place for it.  Skinsmoke (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved.Alephb (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The term does come from the Bible, or is there any equivalent Arabic term too? Therefore, and because the boundaries are not clear at all: please put those quotations back in, in a paragraph of its own ("In the Hebrew Bible" or alike), so we can see at least from the context what is meant. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible 

message: Whoever did the effort with the first map took a great stride forward: we now have the contours. The points of reference are still missing, orientation almost impossible, but still.
The map at the "Geography" section however is completely wrong: instead of an irregular elongated N-S shape halfway between hill country and Med, it shows a red square ??!! going all the way into the sea by quite a bit. Underwater Shephelah - "Dan, why did he stay with his submarines?" (Judges 5:17, NWV - New Wiki Version). The Hebrew writing doesn't help much either, and beyond being illegible to the user it even misleads into thinking those towns were part of the discussed region; they're not. Arminden (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And so you get to Talk:Sitria#In the Shfela, really?. Arminden (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The second map has a small-scale section (at left) and a large-scale one (at right). The red-bordered rectangle on the small-scale part just shows where the borders of the large-scale map are located, as is usually the convention with similar maps at different scales. The large-scale map shows, as its legend says, cities surrounding the Shfela, not necessarily in it. Nothing wrong AFAICT, and I personally don't feel misled. I would have preferred city names in Latin script though, for an English Wikipedia where the majority script is Latin, but this preference of mine doesn't make the map "wrong" per se, all the less so since square-script names are transliterated in the legend. — Tonymec (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map at "Geography": wrong, misleading
Talk:Heorot

message: A small thing; Heorot means Hart, see http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/hart , not "hall of hart"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.66.226 (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heorot 

message: Snorri Sturluson states the the Scyldings lived in Geatland, but now is Denmark (year 1200). Are we assuming that Zeeland was a portion of the land of Geats? And it became a portion of Denmark after Beowulfs Time?
What is for sure is that 3 counties in southern Sweden most likely was a portion of Geatland, and that is Scania, Halland, and Blekinge, and were under Danish control by 1200. 
The Beowulf Poem states that Heorot lies on the "Hronnreade" the Hronn Road. Snorri states that Hronn is a Sea, River and a wave. Hronn sounds like a body of water that is having many different aspects to it. The Hronn has to be a fairly large body of water, and it has to have salt water in it at least in some portion of it  to be a sea. There has to be a constant current in one direction and fresh water in portion of it for it to be a river. There has to be a constant current so strong that waves are formed on day's when surrounding water is still.
For it to be a road it has to be a connection between 2 other bodies of water.
Lejre and the Roskilde Fjord doesn't match this description. 
Another item is that according to the Poem Grendel lived near water falls. This will rule out Zeeland due to the fact that it's completely flat.
--68.4.84.193 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Hronn 

message: What is Heorot? 111.125.104.63 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English
Talk:Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany

message: As I have indicated elsewhere there is no contemporary evidence on the exact causes of David's death.
Rcpaterson 19:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David duke of Rothesay. 

message: It's bizarre to say that without telling us what the events were! Robert Stewart was a very important man and merits a much larger article. It badly needs fixing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.160.36 (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a PhD on the two dukes of Albany a few years ago. The natural expectation is that it will at some stage be turned into a monograph. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Several important events took place"
Talk:Union Township School

message: A number of edits have happened to this page, but it is completely unwikified, and there is a lot more detail here than appears in other similar articles.  I can see two possibilities: remove the article, or cut it down to a meaningful article.  Also, if someone lives nearby and can take and provide a picture (tagging the proper attribution and copyright licensing), that would make this article better.  If there is discussion, great.  Otherwise, I'm inclined to cut down to a much shorter article. Dpv 19:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedicness
Talk:Mount Boucherie

message: This is great -- a lot better than the average mountain article! hike395 05:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Lord of the Rings (1955 radio series)

message: A quick note explaining and discussing my imminent reversion of several edits from IP number 66.75.48.200. The two edits in question are here and here.
Taking these two edits together, I am assuming that the editor is confusing this radio series with the 1981 radio series that Brian Sibley co-wrote. He was not involved with this 1956 one (he was seven at the time!), and there is a source for the "no known copies" have survived for the 1956 series (I will dig that out later). Hence I am reverting this and adding hatnotes at the top of both articles to try and prevent future misunderstandings like this. Carcharoth 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please note the date: 1956, not 1981!
Talk:Homies (toy)

message: User:12.205.78.125 put  on the top and put  on the bottom of the Homies article. I tried the explain on the edit the page rv but failed so i am tell on here what he did. Thank You.--Stco23 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Corey and Jay Show

message: IMO, this page should be re-titled The Corey and Jay Show, and biographical info about Corey and Jay be included in the article as separate headings, unless there's enough biographical data for them to warrant them having their own articles separate from the show page.   13:24, May 11, 2006 (UTC).
If someone can provide some more detailed biographical info on Corey and Jay, it would be appreciated. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
File talk:Cold War border changes.png

message: this map has lot of mistakes. For example Czechoslovakia´s split of wasn´t due to Cold War. The red color in the fist map also may confuse someone, because it looks like if USSR´s border ends in Central Europe.
:: the red color can be confusing but I don't see any real mistakes. The Czech split has to be acknowledged--it was made possible by end of Cold War. Rjensen 20:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk:The Bachelor (American TV series)

message: Hi everyone, I want to begin by saying this page is well written in terms of summarizing the Bachelor franchise as a whole. But, I do want to point out by  stating that although fans and/or readers are stumbling or searching for this particular page, it does not necessarily mean they are expecting or looking for spoilers. An example in this article would be: "Since producers could not decide between Byron Velvick and Jay Overbye as the next Bachelor, the 25 women at the time participating had to decide which bachelor would make the best husband. In the end of first episode, Velvick was chosen." This spoiler could have been prevented by leaving it off at "the 25 women then decide which of the two bachelors would make the best husband." As oppose to, "In the end, Velvick was chosen." It is suggested that the page will be kept more neutral and provide less spoilers for those who may be interested in watching the show. --Turqoise1395 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Alert 

message: This is a notice that there is a draft for Matt James (television personality) at Draft:Matt James (television personality) until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. — YoungForever(talk)  19:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft article for Matt James (television personality) 

message: Hi everyone,
I am a new user of the platform. I have two suggestions about the organization of this article.  
I recommend that the last two sentences of "The elimination process" should be moved to the "Criticism" section of the article, as the discussion does not relate to the elimination process of the show. 
I also suggest moving the sections "Seasons" and "Ratings" closer to the bottom of the page, near the "Spin-offs" section. I suggest these edits because the enormous tables in these sections breakup the written information about the show, and because these topics relate to more objective information about the status of the series rather than its content and criticism. (See the article for 90 Day Fiancé)
Nikitamazepin (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Organization Suggestions 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :The Bachelor Summer Games. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#The Bachelor Summer Games until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ApprenticeWiki work 22:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Bachelor Summer Games" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Chi distribution

message: Might I suggest whoever made the nice plot of the pdfs to add a curve for a value of k less than one to the plot, so we can see it diverge at 0? Otherwise people may think the value at the mode is always finite. Btyner 19:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestion for plot

message: like1-k/2\, does that mean 1-\frac{k}{2} or \frac{1-k}{2} or neither? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikai (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Order of operations states that 1-k/2 is equivalent to 1-\frac{k}{2}. Svyatoslav (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think their is something wrong with the expression of the equation 

message: Does not chi-distribution have only 1 parameter? So the whole use of <math>\chi(x)<\math> is confusing Кирилл С1 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Related distributions
Talk:North Jersey Coast Line

message: I'm not certain that I've tagged the right substation at Long Branch .  The layout is different than Matawan  and Red Bank .
Mcg410 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrification 
Talk:IG

message: On a personal Google page, what does the /IG stand for? Ym2mandym2g 19:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

message: From the Instagram article, it seems to have no official abbreviation. It has no stock symbol because Instragram is not a company too (Facebook is also a company). Even it is also called IG (ไอจี) by some Thai medias and some persons/users, nothing in article suggests it is known as IG. --Love Krittaya (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instagram
Talk:Bulbul (singer)

message: This article is a copy of http://azworld.org/mp3s/bulbul/bulbul.htm VartanM 02:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore. Parishan 07:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. VartanM 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems
Talk:Jules Hodgson

message: *Do not merge.  Jules Hodgson worked with other bands before joining KMFDM, and may continue to do so.  In fact, his output with PIG is actually greater than that of KMFDM (so far).  Plus his contributions to both bands are more than just his guitar skills.  I vote that this article should be expanded, not merged.  --buck 19:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two negative comments over four months appearing to be consensus, I will remove the merge tag. Note: there seems to be consensus that members of notable bands deserve their own pages. Jlittlet 23:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[KMFDM]]?