lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Trapeze (sailing)

message: Hey, I don't know how to redirect. I would like to make a disamiguity page for trapeze. Thanks, Minnesota1  06:10 March 31 (UTC).
:Trapeze (disambiguation) now exists Fiddle Faddle 10:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Parallel development of things like this often happens.  However this is an encyclopaedia and it needs to be made clearer.  I'm hoping someone connected with Thames Sailing Club can cite the Vagabond item and someone from the Int 14 association can cite that occurrence and we can get a better article out of it.
My suspicion is that the bell rope was hand held and that the Int 14 trapeze was latched in some manner to the crew, but that is conjecture, nothing more, based on the Thames being very narrow at Surbiton, and safety issues from the RYA in nanny mode.  Fiddle Faddle 17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I got confused by this apparent contradiction. It doesn't help that the Thames claim isn't dated, while the phrase "a revolution in dinghy sailing" makes the Falmouth claim sound like an advertisement rather than an encyclopaedia article. I think they both need citations. User:Quaestor23 17:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree.  I think the Bell Rope predates the Int 14 item (0.9 probability) because the latter appears to have had a latch and the former appears not to.  There is potential evolution there.  But citations would assist.  The challenge is the finding of them.  Do feel free to de-sensationalise the Falmouth claim.  Fiddle Faddle 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a reference from the I14 online history:  http://www.international14.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=29 - it covers the origin in the bell rope as well as a harness developed by Canadians that was hooked to the jib sheet.  Beautiful irony that Peter Scott had to draft the class rule banning his invention (which I vaguely remember reading/hearing about when I were a lad).  I'll leave it to past contributors to decide what to use for the article.  -Brian Carcich, Ithaca, NY, USA bcarcich@twcny.rr.com 24.58.152.88 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My recollection from when I was into these things (and sailing Raters) is that Peter Scott and the others who developed the trapeze all sailed with Beecher Moore on Vagabond at some stage and then made the idea work better, as 14s sail on the the sea not the nice calm river 89.240.158.132 (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I think this section needs citations, since it wouldn't be considered "common knowledge". User:jmalicki  —Preceding comment was added at 03:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The twin histories of the trapeze 

message: Without context, it's misleading to call a single crew member "crew". This article is clearly written by people proud of their knowledge of the technical terms, and without interest to explain something to lay persons. 91.10.34.101 (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "crew"
Talk:Organian

message: Seems this article's been tagged for a while for substantiation of WP:GNG, WP:RS. Any objection to a redirect to the List of... summary pending some significant improvements? --EEMIV (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect?
Talk:Nausicaan

message: The Nausicaans seem to have a resemblance to Predators, even if Nausicaans seem much more mellow compared to them :) --M.A. 11:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator 

message: Can anyone offer a compelling reason to keep this uncited blurb of original research and plot summary? Any reason this shouldn't redirect to List of Star Trek races? --EEMIV (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no response, I've restored the redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect
Talk:What Are Little Girls Made Of?

message: I (somewhat clunkily) added in the information about the redshirts. I felt it contributed more to the understanding of the plot, felt it made the article flow better -and- 'redshirt deaths' are a big cultural thing. Everybody knows that when Kirk takes some flunkies on an away mission, they probably ain't coming back. Lots42 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redshirts 

message: Why does Zack Handlen's opinion matter any more than my neighbor Joe's? The link is just spam.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.55.120 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reliable third party source providing independent commentary on the article subject. You may discuss its use at the reliable sources noticeboard if you wish. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zack Handlen? 

message: The article says "Korby fires Andrea's weapon between the embracing pair, destroying them both".
My own memory is that the female android did it.  Could someone check? GwydionM (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final suicide
Talk:The Rising Tied

message: This album was made using Garage band, where as mike schinoda gets credit.  The strings were not written by him.  The strings in 'Believe Me' are called 'Orchestra 8' in Garageband.  Someone please mention this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.137.108 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was only one sample used in Believe Me, but the entire album. Everything else was made by him, minus the strings on Remember The Name, which he still wrote, and had recorded by multiple cellists. Besides, other artists use Garageband, among loads of other programs all the time [although, most are the same as here, and are only a small part of the track, whereas 99% of all other samples are normally made from scratch by the artist(s) in question, or other producers for the artist(s) in question], and even though they use that sample, they are still considered technically made by the artist, [you see anybody attacking Kelly Clarkson for using this exact same sample in one of her recent singles from her My December album?]. And as for my last comment, I wasn't insinuating that you were "attacking" Mike [Fort Minor] or anything, I'm just exlaining my view on the subject. Not to even mention that this is already mentioned on the Fort Minor page (click here to see it). Jay 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

message: I split the track listings so that it clearly states each album, but the song in its own section are 1-3, not at 17 like I hoped, someine fix this. Ilikepie2221 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Track listing

message: Somebody keeps on changing the songs to Hip Hop, when in fact they should be Alternative Hip Hop.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCStreetSoldier1234 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The songs aren't Hip Hop 
Talk:The Q and the Grey

message: I deleted the original research on the motives of each side in relating to the Civil War motif. 'Sides, only Janeway and the Voyager crew saw the battle as the Civil War, the Q percieved it as something else entirely, something the humans probably were not capable of comprhending. Humans re-interpeting the continium so their brains don't vapor-lock is canon in Star Trek. Lots42 (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sides 

message: Why the British spelling of "grey" in the title of this episode? Any body any idea? 93.96.35.222 (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Spelling  

message: The entry is a terrible summary.  Someone forgot the supernovas thread.  I'll watch the episode again and add to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.216.129.98 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor summary of the episode
Talk:0 (Star Trek)

message: If 0 were portrayed on film, my best estimation of 0's appearance is that William Morgan Sheppard (the actor who played Ira Graves in "Schizoid Man") would come close to portraying him, but still not quite right... maybe only 65% right. GBC 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What does 0 look like?

message: Nil, zero, null, oh. There are certainly enough ways to pronounce 0 in English, and gods know how many other languages. Which one is appropriate here? Could someone squeeze it into the first line? Thanks, samwaltz 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was purposely left unclear in the books. The same is true for (*). Chronolegion 12:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation?

message: Agree. I don't know much about Star Trek, or the novels, but for a minor character in a spin-off of a spin-off, this article has the tone of a tribute, rather than an encyclopedia entry. If he's such an important character, perhaps the article should be fleshed out more. Otherwise, it should be merged. Gathering that this has been posted as a merge candidate for a month, I think it's a nonissue. Aep (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I merged this article with Q Continuum as per the discussion, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0 (Star Trek). If you have any comments, feel free to leave a note on my talk page Z1720 (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged
Talk:Bolian

message: I have added a quality assessment rating and importance rating to this article. Feel free to change them as the article improves! Also, feel free to add more issues to the list below, and strike them out (strike) when they're completed. — OranL (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment
Talk:Jonathan Morris (author)

message: Hold on a second guys; information that I thought would be readily to hand is proving elusive.  If you have specific suggestions on what would make this article strong enough to avoid speedy deletion, I'd appreciate the comments here.  This is the first article I've written about a person, and could use advice rather than a quick slap back to oblivion.CzechOut 11:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy deletion contest

message: One of the things holding back this article is the dearth of readily-obtainable information pertinent to the author's basic biographic details.  His often glib manner of communication in interviews and author's notes makes it difficult to find even simple things like his date of birth.  His date of birth was derived from calculation rather than a direct statement.  If anyone knows anything about the details of this author's life--and especially his work outside Doctor Who--please add it.  The article really needs to be about more than just a recitation of his bibliography.CzechOut 11:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Appeal for help

message: Until 30 March 2006, Jonathan Morris had been incorrectly linked throughout much of the Doctor Who wikiproject as simply "Jonathan Morris".  This caused confusion because of  the fact that a more prominent "jonathan Morris" was already fairly well established on Wikipedia.  Some form of disambiguation was therefore necessary.  Now that this article has seemed to move out from under the shadow of deletion, we probably need to build a disambiguation page, because entering "Jonathan Morris" results in being directed to the page for the priest Jonathan Morris.  Unfortunately, my wiki skills are not up to the task.CzechOut 12:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no big deal. I just added a disambiguation line to Jonathan Morris. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why '''Jonathan Morris (author)'''?

message: CultureDrone 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in 1973, but a 1975 births category ?
Talk:Preserver

message: Preserver the novel: Shatner and the Reeves-Stevens team explicitly state that the "Preservers" are super intelligent plants that use animals/non-plants to perform their bidding. Read the last chapter of the book carefully.
ALSO see Larry Niven's "Protector" Read: Protector, Ringworld and the sequels. Protector was written in the 1950's and could have been an inspiration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Douwd

message: Is this being's power comparable to that of the Q race?
Weighing ubiquity can be difficult.  Undoubtedly, the Douwd are massively powerful; so are the Q.  I guess its a matter of perspective and/or semantics.  
--AaronOfAbsalom 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power 

message: I'm pretty sure it was the Enterprise that fired on and destroyed the house, not the Husnock warship apparition. Can anyone confirm?
:Nope, I just watched the episode - the Enterprise let the Husnock warship (created by Kevin) fire on and destroy the house.  Kevin then assumed that the Enterprise left orbit (apparently despite his great power he doesn't have the same scanning abilities as a starship) when in fact it stayed behind to witness the re-creation of the house and subsequent final confrontation with Kevin.--12.195.96.194 03:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destruction of the house
Talk:Caitian

message: Does someone know of an image of a Caitian?  Presumably, this would come from the animated series.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Will Pittenger (talk • contribs) .
: See M'Ress.  =)  Powers T 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs an image 

message: I've ressurected the page and added some extensive listings of where the Caitians are referred to, particularly in the Star Trek novels.  I've also added a screen cap from Star Trek IV of a Caitian.
KILNA (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While well-intentioned, the subject still does not warrant a separate article. The material did not establish the subject's notability and did not offer a real-world treatment. I've merged the information back into the List of.... --EEMIV (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi there
Talk:Death Wish (Star Trek: Voyager)

message: Should it be noted specifically that Q erased the memory of Riker after the visit? I can imagine newbies to Star Trek wondering why Riker didn't tell everyone most of the missing Voyager crew was, in fact, alive. 
Lots42 23:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riker Across Space 

message: It's a shame Wikipedia prohibits "original research", because this episode badly needs a complimentary review. It successfully handles A Profound And Serious Subject almost perfectly, without getting pretentious or boring, something Gene Roddenberry was never able to do. It's unfortunate Star Trek's average quality (any of the series) did not more closely approach that of this episode. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll bite. First up, it if we allow fanwank over this episode, we'll allow it in a bunch of other episodes. Second up, this subject matter was dealt with just as successfully in the TNG episode  Ethics. Finally, Star Treky Voyager, while featuring superior acting and special effects, and on occasion, better scripting, also suffered from a total inability to comprehend even the most basic physics ("Yeah, we can totally shoot through the event horizon of a black hole with our phasers"). 143.92.1.33 (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: critical reviews
Talk:The High Ground (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

message: There was a redirect from High ground to this page. I removed that and replaced it with a redirect to the main high ground article, and gave it a "for other uses" tag to a disambiguation page that leads here. In case you weren't watching that redirect, I just thought you might want to know. -NorsemanII 19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed the redirect from High Ground 

message: I see that an anon. user has added in some detail about the episode, which is a good start. However it's very incomplete and there are many inaccuracies in it. Can someone who knows the episode well do a detailed and accurate description of the episode, and furthermore; can we get a more detailed explanation over it's controversy? For one thing can we get the quote from the episode about Irish Terrorism? I would try to do this myself, however I've only ever seen this episode once (because it was banned) so I don't remember a great deal of details. --Hibernian 17:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a detailed discription of the episode, and it's significance? 

message: I'm in the process of rewriting the plot section of this article, and should have it up shortly. Out of respect for the original writers, I really wanted to enhance what was already there instead of just dumping it and starting over (even though the latter would be much easier). I can imagine how I would feel if someone just blasted one of my articles and replaced it. However, there just wasn't much there to work with, so I hope the original authors can forgive me. I did make an effort at least to keep some of the the spirit of some of the original section. Wikidenizen 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of plot section 

message: Unless someone can provide a link to solid evidence that the UK and/or Irish governments were actively involved in activity to prevent this episode being aired, can we lose the highly emotive and extremely misleading title "censorship", please? The episode undoubtedly wasn't aired because of the highly insensitive and controversial nature of part of the script, I've no doubt - but the overwhelming probability is that the decision was taken by the (politically independent) broadcasters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.33.128 (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it wasn't shown because British and Irish mainstream audiences would have been annoyed (to put it mildly) by the boneheaded, tin-eared script. Melinda M. Snodgrass wrote several patronising and utterly clueless Trek scripts based on Anglo-Irish issues and culture. --Ef80 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Censorship" ?!?
Talk:New South Wales Police Force

message: This section is underdeveloped.  Content could perhaps be better incorporated into the "History" section, which already has information on historical controversies including the Wood Royal Commission. PatriotMusketeer7476 (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible removal of "Controversies" page
Talk:Railway station (moved)

message: Please keep the main article in 'Railway Station' and the re-direct in 'Train Station', as the latter is incorrect English and an American invention. The thing that goes through the station is a RAILWAY line, not a train line! Also, if you look at the names of the 19th-Century railway companies in Britain, you will notice that they are called, for example, 'London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, not 'London, Brighton and South Coast Train. I REST MY CASE!.--RichardHarrold 14:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you're not a lawyer... I've left a comment on your talk page about this (short version: your argument is both wrong and daft). -- ChrisO 23:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Train Station vs Railway Station
Talk:Treble Cone

message: According to the official Treble Cone website, some of the stats are different to what is presented in the article, such as vertical drop differing by 5m and patrolled area size.  I would like to know where the current article information comes from or if it should be changed.  samh004 04:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed vertical drop and patrolled area size to match the TC website as no objections or discussions have come about for over a month to my comment above.  samh004 04:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mountain Stats

message: I would like some help adding information on the proposed gondola as it comes about.  I don't want to do it all by myself and I think input from other users would be useful.  Contact me to arrange collaboration on this article.  samh004 04:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Gondola

message: The Rookie Academy organise ski instructor courses and snowboard instructor training programs set you up for an instructing career. 
See www.rookieacademy.com for details —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.82.143 (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rookie Academy at Treble Cone
Talk:Star Trek Welcommittee

message: Someone should note at what point the STW ceased operations. They were still working in the late 1980s as ST:TNG entered the scene, and Shirley was attending cons up until the very end. 67.10.133.121 06:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a Lichtenberg quote that it ceased a few years before Shirley Maiewski died in 2004. Dgabbard (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Ex astris, scientia

message: I'm moving this page from "Ex Astris Scientia" to "Ex astris, scientia" since if I recall correctly, that's the way the phrase actually appears (and it would be logical from a grammatical standpoint, too). — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember how it appears but it's a Latin quote and there were no commas in Latin... the page name was grammatically correct until the move - JVG 02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just checked on StarTrek.com and the pic shows the comma though so the page could happily stay here... - JVG 02:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: The word astra is also ablative (it should be spelled astrā, as first declension singular ablative takes on the long a ending, but the lenght is often omitted), the only difference is that it's singular, id est "Knowledge comes from the star". This should be noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.22.51.135 (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2007
:Sorry, but that isn't the case: the word is second declension neuter, not first declension. So the nominative singular (base form) is astrum, and the ablative singular is astro. Aquae (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex astra, scientia, II.