lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Nissan X-Trail

message: On the subject of the X-Trail, the SR20VET comes on the X-Trail GT model. This model IS available outside Japan right? We have examples on the streets here in Sri Lanka. Only question is if these are re-conditioned models, and
Nissan doesn't export the brand new ones.
So in Summary, need to change the piece on the SR20VET to maybe a Para about the GT, and confirm if it is or is not sold outside Japan. --Preveen 11:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SR20VET

message: Are there any pictures of the X-Trail with triangular headlights? I believe some European and Asian models were styled like that, but whether that is still true or not I am uncertain. It may just be an old look. 142.58.83.73 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Styling

message: I know the X-Trail was/is not sold in the US, but being available in both Canada & Mexico, surely there are at least a few that have made their way into the US?  i.e. people who have moved from either of those countries, or even travellers etc.  Has anyone ever spotted one or seen one for sale?  (unlikely, as the warranty would not be valid in the USA).  I suppose if any did exist, they'd probably be more common in the nothern states (i.e. those that border Canada)  Davez621 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: X-Trails in the USA?

message: In 2015, Nissan announced that a 48 MPG X-Trail Hybrid was going to be coming to Japan. Please clarify where the JDM hybrid comes from.--Now wiki (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third generation - coming to Japan (from where???) 

message: Is it Cross-trail, or Ex-trail? 62.228.198.24 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on Japanese pronounciation (エクストレイル/Ekusutoreiru), it is read as "Ex-Trail". 114.5.208.226 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Is the MX-6 still being built in China? German wiki page says it was discontinued in 2019. It needs an update in my opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.234.230.194 (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the heads up, page has been updated with reference. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dongfeng MX-6
Talk:Paronychodon

message: Zapsalis redirects here, but the article states it might be a synonym of Richardoestesia? FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Larson & Currie 2013 acknowledge Zapsalis as a valid separate taxon (see page 9: "Zapsalis abradens, in the current study, is regarded as valid because the distinct morphology is absent in the type specimen of Dromaeosaurus albertensis"). It therefore needs an article of its own.--MWAK (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, haven't read the paper, though I took the photo from there. Yup, seems it needs an article. I see there's already one in Dutch, wonder who made it! FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We Dutch are blessed with the gift of Foresight :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   Zapsalis
Talk:FutureWeapons

message: I suggested a merger because while the other article has all the content of this and more, the naming concern is what separates this from the other. However, there is no point to separate articles because of a name, so they should really just be merged. - User:Turboduded
*I Agree, a merger is a good idea--Porsche997SBS 02:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Another article was created after this one about the same TV show. The creator of that article created it unknowingly of this article. But that article has indeed supassed this in content, giving this article a reason for its own deletion. One may argue that this article has the correct name (without a space in between the Future and the Weapons); this, however, is a misconception. The Discovery Channel has identified the show with a space and without one. The "Name Card", in this case, may not be used then, as neither article has the advantage. So, in conclusion that article should remain in existance while this should not, as that article contains more content. --Porsche997SBS 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Concerns
Talk:Alfred M. Gray Jr.

message: General Gray pushed the every Marine was a warrior and focused on Leadership and
small unit training.  One of the best in motivational speakers about being a 
warrior.
--C A Levingston 05:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What I Remember about serving under Alfred M. Gray
Talk:Publish and Subscribe (Mac OS)

message: This article incorrectly attributes the idea of "Publish and Subscribe" to Apple. Publish and Subscribe is a fundamental pattern in computing and was commonly in use long before Apple implemented it. Bob Wyman
:Edit it, then. ProhibitOnions 09:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *fully agree with Bob Wyman. The term publish and subscribe was invented by TIBCO, which is one of the main pioneers in the field.  
I would like the title to be changed to "Publish and Subscribe (Apple)". I will put a disputed box on this article for now. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pectinodon

message: is it peck-TEEN-oh-don or Peck-TIN-oh-don?--50.195.51.9 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Both pronunciations are acceptable. The former is more "educated" :o).--MWAK (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation guide needed
Talk:Tom Breiding

message: Largely autobiographical Kleuske (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag (August 2021) 

message: I did not create Tom Breiding Wikipedia page but as the living subject I have updated the information as warranted by my career. Everything on the site is easily verifiable but it needs cleaned up because of “subjective language” Can anyone “clean this page up” for Wikipedia? Thank you. Tom Breiding Tom Breiding (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup
Talk:Colonist (The X-Files)

message: Did someone from Den of Geek write this article? their name is mentioned 5 times. Surely there must be more sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.132.29 (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Den of whatever 

message: I believe (feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) the black oil (purity) is a lifeform of it's own and does not automatically end up as the gray alien. I believe that purity successfully invaded the planet of the gray aliens and infected almost all of them. There were a few that were not infected and those few could very well be the rebels. Because of their shapeshifting and mind-reading abilities, I think that purity preferred this species over every other one. That's why they manipulated the human body to produce gray aliens. Because it has inhabited the gray aliens for so long, I think that purity has been "evolved" into the blood of most gray aliens.--Exer 505 03:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Genderbender's aliens are not related to the overall plot, and may not even be aliens at all. It's best to assume that all three are the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThirteenOfTwo (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe... 

message: where they went after leaving earth?--Jonybond 12:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aliens home planet ? 

message: I don't remember these aliens being referred to as "colonists" in the show, ever. Why not just name the article "Aliens (The X-Files)", rather than making up new terms? Equazcion (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They've been called Colonists on various occations by the Syndicate among others. --TIAYN (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: However, wouldn't "Aliens" be more easily recognizable? ThirteenOfTwo (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides which, this article covers all the aliens, not just colonists. The Rebels especially stand out, as they were working against the colonization effort. Equazcion (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Well if you move it, you should make the difference between the aliens clearer. As this article is in bad shape! --TIAYN (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Much of this article is written as if Season 9 is the last one. 103.119.209.227 (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Updating
Talk:Piveteausaurus

message: The image here was taken out, apparently because it was too allosaur-like. What should be changed to make it acceptable? As far as I can see, it doesn't seem too different from related megalosaurs, apart from the large horns (which seem to have a screwed up perspective anyway). We do have restorations that are even more hypothetical (since the placements of those taxa are even less well known), so I don't see why that should be a problem here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's mainly the horns that make it look like Allosaurus specifically. Lose those and it should be fine. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut the horns. How about this one, may be too excessive as well? FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration 
Talk:Beachhead

message: I think we should merge the beachhead, bridgehead, and airhead articles into lodgement, since all are basically the same thing, just different subtypes differed by how they're conquered. Night Gyr 02:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. They are not the same thing and the tactics and methods of fighting them are different. For example see the difference between the use of airheads by the Chindits and the French at Dien Bien Phu. This is very different from the use of an airhead in Operation Market Garden, which was of course a bridehead. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Two famous examples in which the attackers failed to expand their beachheads before the defending side could bring up reinforcements ...
Probably the attackers should be singular here, to match the singular defenders (or is the attack always plural, for reasons of morale?). 
To my eye the plurality here resides exclusively in more than one example being given, unless the engagement itself has a plurality of attackers or a plurality of defenders (but isn't that nuance too complicated to express in rolled up form?)  — MaxEnt 15:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward number
Talk:Podokesaurus

message: It is very unlikely that Podokesaurus is a species of Coelophysis, given the fact that it lived later than Coelophysis and its range is far from the normal range of Coelophysis. There is a hypothesis that Podokesaurus was a surviving descendant of Coelophysis that reached the eastern coast of North America, in what is now Massachusetts. Because the holotype of Podokesaurus was lost, there will be a scientific paper to designate a yet-to-be-discovered coelophysoid specimen that porbably made the footprints named Grallator as the neotype of P. holyokensis. (unsigned)
: Agreed, according to Colbert and Baird (1958), Podokesaurus can be distinguished from Coelophysis, and other dinosaurs based on the fact that neural spines on its dorsal vertebrae are anteroposteriorly shorter than those in Coelophysis bauri.Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There will probably not be a neotype, no. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Podokesaurus
Talk:Cost competitiveness of fuel sources

message: After 13 years, this article is still essentially a glossary or dictionary definition which doesn't stand on its own. Let's merge this article, cost competitiveness of fuel sources, into Cost of electricity by source. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Just delete it. 13 years ago a new author added what they thought was a meaningful topic, which is fine. It turns out they were mistaken about having identified a meaningful phrase, which is also fine. Let's delete the page and move on. Sampenrose (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Oppose The other article is exclusively about electricity costs. This article is about thermal fuels. They're not the same thing at all. GliderMaven (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Support Although not quite the same yet they are becoming much more similar with increased electrification. However if this merge proposal fails I would support deleting it as suggested above.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Electrification does not make them the same in any way. A kWh of electricity is worth up to 3 kWh or even more of fuel; depending on how it is used. GliderMaven (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Oliveleaf4 or @Chidgk1, would one of you please close this proposed merge? It's the first thing that 1,000 daily readers of the target page have seen for the last two months, which is not a good use of their attention. Sampenrose (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merge
Talk:Prenoceratops

message: How certain is the derivation as written in this article? My understanding of the prefix pren- would be 'prone', 'head-first', 'bent forward', 'downhill', 'steep'. So is he a 'head-first horn-face' or 'steep horn-face' or 'prone horn-face' or what? What we currently have is difficult to visualise and 'prone' looks as if it applies to the horn (which it may do but I didn't think so). Does anyone have access to original naming docs? :-) - Ballista 15:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  derivation
Talk:Probactrosaurus

message: I have a personal record of other species, P. mongoliensis. Can anyone else verify this? Ninjatacoshell 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that Mandschurosaurus mongoliensis Gilmore, 1933 ? ArthurWeasley 16:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More species? 

message: Now, I'm concerned about the accuracy of the taxobox image. I know that it is a mount at the Arizona Museum of Natural History, but it doesn't look right in any way. It looks small for a Probactrosaurus. And there are complete skeletal mounts of the actual fossils on display at the Paleozoological Museum of China, and those look quite far from the mount we see here. I think the current taxobox mount might be a juvenile, or a small individual. 
Probactrosaurus mount at IVPP.jpg|An actual Probactrosaurus mount of a complete skeleton, at the IVPP. 
:In that case, it would be best to use an image where the skull isn't cropped. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's Something Fishy About the Taxobox Image(and the other image)
Talk:Proceratosaurus

message: Uh, guys? The article cites Proceratosaurus as a tyrannosauroid. However, Dougal Dixon's World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures lists it as a carnosaur! Who is correct? And yes, Dixon is as precise with the term "carnosaur" as we are. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Proceratosaurus has been moved around a lot, but Carnosauria is almost certainly incorrect. According to several 2010 papers (and the Paleobiology Database) Proceratosaurus is the type taxon of the Proceratosauridae, a family of the Tyrannosauroidea. The Dinosauria states that P. bradleyi is "known only from a single incomplete skull", so I'm not sure the new family name will ever become widely used, but the Wikipedia article appears to be correct (although the citation could be updated). Firsfron of Ronchester 12:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type
Talk:Procheneosaurus

message: I propose merging Procheneosaurus with Corythosaurus and Lambeosaurus. Procheneosaurus is actually anomen nudum, since no species epithet was created, making Tetragonosaurus the correct name for the dinosaur called Procheneosaurus by Matthew (1923) and Lull & Wright (1942). 72.194.116.63 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with Corthyosaurus/Lambeosaurus 

message: The article should be updated to reflect the renaming of Procheneosaurus convincens (Bell and Brink 2013). 
Bell, P. R.; Brink, K. S. (2013). "Kazaklambia convincens comb. nov., a primitive juvenile lambeosaurine from the Santonian of Kazakhstan". Cretaceous Research. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2013.05.003. edit 68.4.28.33 (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procheneosaurus convincens renamed
Talk:Protorosaurus

message: Why isn't it Proterosaurus? If it's supposed to mean "first lizard", that's how it should be spelled (i.e. as protero-saurus), and the guy who wanted Protorosaurus for the ancestor of Torosaurus (i.e. as pro-Torosaurus) should've been able to use it. Who is responsible for the entrenched misspelling? Inquiring minds want to know! -- Goueznou, 65.119.203.193 (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be Christian Erich Hermann von Meyer, though I'm not so sure it's a misspelling as much as a variant spelling not seen much in the modern era. Incorrectly formed names still count, anyway, unless the spelling varies within the original paper iteself, giving the author the opportunity to clarify which one was intended. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pycnonemosaurus

message: Does it make sense to show two restorations of the animal's head alone, if the skull is not known ((Grillo & Delcourt 2017) and the only material we have from the head are some teeth? 
Based on other abelisaurs we can infer how the head might have looked, but then what we're seeing is a general brachyrostran abelisaurid head, with no depiction of the material that was actually found from Pycnonemosaurus.
Cephal-odd (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I might have been the one who added the images haha. These restorations have the distinctions of being either from published papers or from museums, so they're at least a bit more trustworthy than random, user made restorations. I think full body restorations would make most sense, and we have this one: FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are head restorations helpful?
Talk:Pyroraptor

message: What is going on with the pyroraptor 142.180.168.18 (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyroraptor
Talk:Rahonavis

message: The same artist that did the current version of the Rahonavis picture also did a more recent, more anatomically accurate portrait of the animal, which appearently has been rejected. Is it because the author himself wasn't the one that replaced the current picture for the new one? Because the current image on Unenlagia wasn't also placed there by the author, but by another person. As you can see, its also a new picture that is more anatomically correct, so why doesn't can't the same occur to this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.91.154 (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly less anatomically correct than the original and was rejected at the Image Review page previously . For one thing the wings are far too small on the new version. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: AW has nominated the old one for deletion, so I was thinking of correcting the new one. Is it mainly the wings that should be longer? FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, the arms (and probably wing feathers) are far too short relative to the body. The forearm, at least, should be about the same length as the torso, which would but the elbow (and hence *base* of the secondaries) near the tail base when folded (see skeletal ). In this image the secondaries don't even extend to the point they should be starting ;) In fact the way it's drawn it looks like there are no secondaries at all, all visible remiges are anchored to the manus like Caudipteryx. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Just out of curiosity

message: How big was this thing? There aren't any size measurements on the entire page. Wingspan, length, maybe a size diagram... any or all of these would be greatly appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.153.0 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: SIZE?!

message: Being a Palaeontologia Electronica paper with the copyright held by SVP, we are free to use the images:  Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, the CC license is also stated specifically in the PDF version. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Figure 41 (the skeletal) is a bit distracting with the background... wonder if it should be removed? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New open access description
Talk:Rapator

message: Just in case anyone is concerned, I checked, and this article is not due to a mispelling of "Raptor".  Apparently the name is based on the same Latin root, though. Mangojuicetalk 03:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's not a mispelling. I prodded all of the misspelled articles, and you deprodded all three.--Firsfron of Ronchester 09:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This genus is apparently based on a single bone. I'm not sure it's a good idea for WP to depict an entire animal based on a single fossil bone. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it. It's also a copyvio and marked for deletion, and there is no kind of consensus regarding what kind of theropod this is anyway, so any image is likely to be wrong. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Probably in the original paper, but not one we can use. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image
Talk:Rayososaurus

message: , could you upload a modified version of your Rayososaurus skeletal to remove the referred specimens (which are no longer assigned to Rayososaurus)? Ornithopsis (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ; I'll see if I can produce a new version next weekend; this is an older diagram so the silhouette will need to be updated to match the proportions of my newer Limaysaurus. Apologies for the delay, I've been rather busy lately... --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , I have updated the skeletal; how does this look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 13:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks great, thanks! Ornithopsis (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skeletal diagram