lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of Knots Landing episodes

message: I have noticed that my additions to the "episode list" have been vigorously edited. Having read the Manual for Style for television episodes, I feel I should clarify my reasoning for the edits. Given the large number of episodes in the series, I reasoned that adding season by season credits plus guest cast information may form the basis for the Dynasty, Knots Landing and Falcon Crest episode guides to be converted into season by season guides along the same lines as Dallas, which has not only an episode list, but also a more extensive season by season guide. I have noticed that The Simpsons seasons guides does include guest cast information inside the episode tables so I do not feel that these additions are in breach of editing guidelines. I hope my contributions might form the template for Dynasty ( including The Colbys), Knots Landing and Falcon Crest to receive the Dallas treatment on Wikipedia, which will provide the Wikipedia reader with a more substantial overview of these shows, and in turn offer a more informative reading experience. Thanks for reading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.178.56 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for opening this discussion, I appreciate that. List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Dallas (1978 TV series) episodes and List of Dallas (2012 TV series) episodes do not include cast and producer information. If you are referring to season articles like Dallas (1978 TV series) (season 3), that is a completely different kind of article. I would caution against creating such season articles for the prime time soaps, however, unless you are intending to add more information than these credits, and with sources. An episode list with cast for each season and nothing else substantial would be considered redundant of the main article and the episode list, and would be redirected/deleted as such. Guest cast in episode tables is controversial and exists in some articles, but will be a problem when we seek to promote these lists to Good or Featured status. Lastly, it really doesn't help that you add so many red links and disambiguation links. For example, Gordon Thomson is a bad link because it leads to a disambiguation page, you should be adding , which gives you Gordon Thomson.— TAnthonyTalk 14:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

text: For the sake of this discussion and archival purposes, this is the latest reverted version of the added cast and producer info. Though not appropriate for this list at this time, this information may be useful in future articles.— TAnthonyTalk 15:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits
Talk:Stadio Olimpico

message: "sottoelevazione" - ummm, does this mean below grade elevation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.224.4 (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've just done some copy edits, mainly rephrasing.
While I wouldn't suggest it is perfect now (I'm not sure that's even possible), it looks good enough to me warrant removal of the "copy edits needed" tag. So I did. It still needs lots of additional references.
Wayne 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy  edits and tag removed 

message: Hello, I'm a Wikipedian from Italy who lives near to the Stadium.
I collected a huge amount of source and wrote the article in Italian.
I used the same source to write also the article in English.
I removed some sections, for example the capacity by sector, because it's rather obsolete: what counts is the certified capacity, which is granted by the department of public events of our Home Office, and the latest certification dates to 2017-18 season.
As for the two clubs' attendance, the link where those data are taken from is broken.
That apart, I am not a native speaker of English, thus my writing may have some flaws.
Can any native speaker have a review of the article please? -- Blackcat  21:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rewritten
Talk:Char D1

message: While the D1's lineage comes from the FT, why so much info about the FT variants? 
Shouldn't that all be in with the FT and just referenced by this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.226.163 (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, these are in fact direct precursors of the Char D1. Their importance mainly resides in forming the developmental path, in the postwar period, leading to it. So, a more detailed description of these vehicles is more appropriate here than in the FT article — from which it would have to be split off under the "Summary Style" policy, had it been part of it. This is also the way this information tends to be presented in the secondary literature. And, strictly speaking, only the "FT Kegrèsse", treated in a short paragraph, is a real FT variant. The Char D1 simply had a rather complicated design history. It can't be helped so it is best to embrace it :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The FT sections don't need to take up so much space. 

message: In the "Final Fights" subsection, last sentence of the first paragraph, it says
These seems odd, because:
#) What the heck.
#) "Mad" means "rabid" in this context, does it not? Unless they are referring to "Mad Horse Disease", which apparently is very rare and was not diagnosed at this time (I think). I doubt that "angry" or "insane" is meant.
#) In which case, why would you keep them in a stable? Rabid animals are put down right away I think. Mad Horse Disease is unpleasant and incurable I believe. 
#) And not only that, but have enough of these rabid (or whatever) animals that you need a stable big enough to hide twenty light tanks behind.
So, I just marked this as dubious and here is thread for this to be explained. Herostratus (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would the French Army keep a large stable for mad horses? 

message: It says the limitations of the FT were that it required transports for any sort of long distance travel, but isn't that true of any tank to the era? Anything besides immediate combat use was generally done with trains, most often, or special trailers. They were too slow and unreliable to drive long distances, needed a lot of maintenance even if they didn't break down, and only could do a limited number of miles before needing the entire engine and drivetrain replaced or overhauled. Who was patrolling the countryside in tanks in the 1930s? Isn't that what armored cars are for?  Idumea47b (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as stated in the article the French did in 1926, after the Kégresse track was fitted :o). Not ideal, but offering more tactical options compared to armoured cars, which were more vulnerable and couldn't leave the road. Indeed, all First World War tanks had severe limitations in this respect, the reason why most research centred on suspension improvements.--MWAK (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tank transporters
Talk:Ved Prakash Goyal

message: Someone needs to find some appropriate sources for this article.  Right now, the only one listed is the subject's personal web page.  (See WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources for guidance.)  --Satori Son 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Talk:Shuckin' and jivin'

message: Any additional information about the usage and history of this term is greatly appreciated.  Zagalejo 03:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical use of term

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-9 Automated pywikipediabot message
Talk:John D. Hertz

message: The first taxi cab in America was built by Bristol Engineering in Bristol, Connecticut in 1908 according to designs by Fred Moskovics.  It was Nettie Rockwell, the wife of the owner of Bristol, who suggested that the cab be painted yellow.  The car was taken to the Auto Show in New York in December of that year where orders were placed for over 200 models.  The cab was run by an efficient gasoline engine which was more efficient than the battery powered competition and featured a design that was easy to repairChichester Percival Weldon, The New Departure Classics, Phoenix Publishing.  
Fred then established the Yellow Taxicab Company in New York City.Maurice D. Hendry, The Fred Moskovics Era, in Automobile Quarterly, vol 8-3, p.240
Pgbakos (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The places of birth in the text and in the table on the right are not the same. They are in the same district, though. Does anyone have access to the book by June Skinner Sawyers which is being referenced? Please look up the place of birth and correct the article. --Salanola Ortoluron (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: I added two sources and corrected a citation?
1. bare citation fixed - not sure why this was removed? 
*
2.  two references noting his Jewish background without which we do not have a citation supporting the listed categories 
*
*
Patapsco913 (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nate Bloom is not a very good source, and there are strong hints of WP:COI associated with him on Wiki.  Anmccaff (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding sources on background
Talk:List of Rurouni Kenshin (1996 TV series) episodes

message: I'm changin the episode list to a more US-centric version.  Here's the old one if we want to add the Japanese dates or names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs) 19:22, October 24, 2006
:Thanks for ruining the list. Two years later, we now have to undo such a horrible change. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old episode list

message: whats wit da episodes wit notin dat tells ya about dim? dat bogus. Uzumaki Dude 00:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmmm . . . 
Talk:List of Sapphire & Steel television stories

message: No way can those titles be used - they are completely unofficial and possibly just made-up by the Time Screen writer. I've changed it to Adventure 1 and so on, but put the names in the panel underneath. They were transmitted without titles and nothing else can be substituted.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted.  The text makes it clear they are unofficial, but that they were used for a release of the episodes in the US (which your changes lost). Stephenb (Talk) 12:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not for made up titles, nor is there any evidence they were ever used for any release. The DVD release specifically notes they had no titles. Further, with only six episodes, this wrongly titled list is completely unnecessary. It has been redirected to the main article where the entire series plot is already covered. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles
Talk:Albert Seibel

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 00:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I thought it might be a useful bit of tidying up to merge in Seibel grapes, which is not much more than a list at present. You can then have  links to full articles on the few varieties that are commercially significant, and this page might have a simple note on parentage for the remainder. I'm not 100% about this, I remain open to persuasion either way, but I thought it was worth discussion. At present I support a merger. FlagSteward 12:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about this one too but in a slightly different direction. I was thinking of merging the stub Seibel grape articles (like Aurore, Plantet, De Chaunac, etc) into the Seibel grape article and then doing a spin off List of Seibel grapes-since most Seibel grapes will never merit an article. I think this article should remained focus on the biography on Albert Seibel but I can picture a nice Seibel grape article with paragraphs on the most notable grapes and a link to a sub article with a general listing. AgneCheese/Wine 18:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there clearly is no consensus to merge, I will remove the merge tags. --Bduke 08:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Seibel grapes]] 
Talk:Category A services

message: Should WTSN really be listed in this article anymore since it isn't on air anymore? I know the argument will be that the license hasn't been surrendered but there are other category 1 licensed services out there that have never been launched so should they be listed here too? I don't think so, so why is this one still here? ~The artist formally known as Cdn_boi~ 03:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones that have never launched actually should be listed here. They shouldn't necessarily have their own separate articles, but they should be at least mentioned in this one since they were duly licensed. I've moved WTSN to a new "defunct channels" subsection — please do add the unlaunched ones there. Bearcat 23:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:List of The Colbys episodes

message: I have noticed that my additions to the "episode list" have been vigorously edited. Having read the Manual for Style for television episodes, I feel I should clarify my reasoning for the edits. Given the large number of episodes in the series, I reasoned that adding season by season credits plus guest cast information may form the basis for the Dynasty, Knots Landing and Falcon Crest episode guides to be converted into season by season guides along the same lines as Dallas, which has not only an episode list, but also a more extensive season by season guide. I have noticed that The Simpsons seasons guides does include guest cast information inside the episode tables so I do not feel that these additions are in breach of editing guidelines. I hope my contributions might form the template for Dynasty ( including The Colbys), Knots Landing and Falcon Crest to receive the Dallas treatment on Wikipedia, which will provide the Wikipedia reader with a more substantial overview of these shows, and in turn offer a more informative reading experience. Thanks for reading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.178.56 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for opening this discussion, I appreciate that. List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Dallas (1978 TV series) episodes and List of Dallas (2012 TV series) episodes do not include cast and producer information. If you are referring to season articles like Dallas (1978 TV series) (season 3), that is a completely different kind of article. I would caution against creating such season articles for the prime time soaps, however, unless you are intending to add more information than these credits, and with sources. An episode list with cast for each season and nothing else substantial would be considered redundant of the main article and the episode list, and would be redirected/deleted as such. Guest cast in episode tables is controversial and exists in some articles, but will be a problem when we seek to promote these lists to Good or Featured status. Lastly, it really doesn't help that you add so many red links and disambiguation links. For example, Gordon Thomson is a bad link because it leads to a disambiguation page, you should be adding , which gives you Gordon Thomson.— TAnthonyTalk 14:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

text: For the sake of this discussion and archival purposes, this is the latest reverted version of the added cast and producer info. Though not appropriate for this list at this time, this information may be useful in future articles.— TAnthonyTalk 15:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits
Talk:List of The L Word episodes

message: I'm wondering if those summaries added by TLW are fair use - they seem to originate from the DVD booklet? (1x05...) - thanx for an answer. (Wikidicted 19:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Use of source vs. In universe? Much can't be done to rephrase what's said in the guides... Simply delete then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.50.153 (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I searched for some of the sums >= 1x05 and I can find them all over the internet. They all seem to be contained on the Showtime website but the website is blocked for access from outside the US. (i.e. http://www.sho.com/site/lword/previous_episodes.do?episodeid=119240). If that side doesn't state that they are public domain I think we should remove them. (Wikidicted 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per request, all of the synopses are being removed. -- TLW 04:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summaries 

message: Have they been deleted? Why? I am pretty sure I supplied the right copyright and source... (Wikidicted 00:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I uploaded some screenshots for season 4 and they are gone as well... they were deleted without explanation. I guess someone didn't agree with the licensing provided. --TLW 16:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 1x01-1x04 gone? - where?
Talk:List of The Professionals episodes

message: The programme being English, I would have thought that the word "series" should be used over "season". Avalon 21:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Season/series

message: it would be usefull if each episode had a small plot outline, it wouldn't need to be very detailed as long as it gave you an idea of what to expect. - this has been done on wikipedia for tv shows like numb3rs so why not this? 22 August 2009 (UTC)
what to expect is sensational drama in every episode...how's that for unencyclopaedic but true as the day is long  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.214.28 (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of episode information 

message: "Private Madness, Public Danger" can not be the first episode.
3.7 and 4.5 drive their Ford Escort and Capri. --109.91.80.94 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the first episode to be transmitted on ITV. It was not the first episode to be made, though. That was actually "Old Dog, New Tricks" (which explains why that episode contains a small amount of 'back story' where Cowley explains about CI5's origins to recruits on a training course).--feline1 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodes 

message: Using the extensive 'production notes' books included with Network's BluRay releases of the series, I have added a column to the tables to show which production blocks the episodes were made in. --feline1 (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production Blocks 
Talk:List of The Secret World of Alex Mack episodes

message: I started to type a few episode summaries on this page. Feel free to add on to it. Maetch 19:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summaries. 

message: In the season 3 ep "Working", how did Alex get out?  I remember seeing at least part of that ep, but I can't remember the end.  CG janitor 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Triggering it when some VIP kid walked through, I think; Then escaping in liquid form in the chaos, IIRC. Silly show, but I liked it way back then. Robbak (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be exact: she hid as liquid in the waste which was brought out by the shop owner. That triggered the alarm and made the owner upset ;) Lifeofguenter (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode question
Talk:Evolution/Archive 18

message: Is there a reason for an entire section for this topic in an evolution article?  I understand that a common misconception is that evolution is only a theory, but the way this article goes into the topic is overkill.  
*The Creation-evolution controversy already has a much better explanation of the subject matter and is a far more appropriate topic for such discussion.  
*The whole section (excluding the last paragraph) is not even about the theory of evolution or the facts about evolution, but rather a nice summery that would fit much better in topics such as Theory and Science
*The entire paragraph is misplaced. It should be in the Misconceptions section (where it originally was) as it is a misconception used by layman against evolution.
Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that we should just delete the entire section (the last paragraph can be put somewhere close to the intro).  The subject is prevalent enough to be addressed in this topic.  But I defiantly want this section reduced to two or three sentences with links to the relevant topics and moved to the misconception section.  I'm planning to do this myself but I'll just throw it out here and see if there's too much resistance for me to even start worrying about it.  But I definitely want some counterarguments as to why keep it as it is and where it is before I back down.  --Roland Deschain 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your logic is impeccable. The problems is the politics of the situation. "It is only a theory" is the first and most common abuse thrown at Evolution by creationists, and it is easily accepted by the layman. To give an example, I was listening to a girl attending an Islamic school being interviewed on the radio. When asked how she handled studies of things like evolution, her answer was "My textbook says evolution is only a theory, while Islam is a fact. So I believe in Islam". So I think this question does need to be addressed up front. --Michael Johnson 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinctions between theory and fact section
Talk:List of The Wonder Years episodes

message: It seems that some of the episode summaries have spoilers in them and I was planning to edit them if anyone had any comments/ideas on this.Nev (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, thanks for noticing it. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 20:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode summaries 

message: The third reference in the reflist does not exist anywhere in the article, yet there is a ^ sign denoting its inline existence. Should this be replaced by the * sign? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References
Talk:List of Wonderfalls episodes

message: The unaired episodes did air in the UK so they are then not unaired. Simply south 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If anybody wonders why the screenshots were removed from the episode list, it's because the template no longer allows the images to be displayed there. If you want to know more about it, go to the talk page for the template. Rvb_strongbad 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: Per WP:EPISODE, they have been redirected. They do not meet it's requirement of real world info backed by secondary sources, and seem to have little chance of doing so in the future. If it is possible, please work on them here before brining them back. TTN 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episodes

message: Fox only showed 4 episodes. We shouldn't be listing airdates for the remainder because they aired on different broadcasters. If people insist that we do, please indicate which network aired the episodes. 23skidoo (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing airdates
Talk:HMY Iolaire

message: The IPA for the Lewis Gaelic pronunciation of "Iolaire" was given as ˈjoɫəz̟ə.  This uses an unusual character which is not found in the Wikipedia:IPA for Scottish Gaelic page (the "z̟") so I'm not sure how anyone would be able to work out the actual pronunciation from it.  I've substituted the "ð", which is certainly the way I was brought up to pronounce this word as a native speaker of Lewis Gaelic.  If there's some nuance to the "z̟" which I'm not aware of, could someone please change it back, but also add this letter to the IPA page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.110.91 (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA for Lewis Gaelic pronunciation of "Iolaire" 

message: In the reference to the book ”Call na h-Iolaire”, it says “(in Irish)”. Surely since the book was published in Stornoway it must have been Scottish Gaelic? — Arwel Parry (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book reference