lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Farnhill

message: I suggest that Farnhill is correctly recognised as a district of the town of Keighley. I work in property and know for a fact that Farnhill is part of Keighley although there always seems to be debate about this from residents. However if you refer property details in this area with the Land Registry you will see that it is a 100% fact that this is a district of Keighley. The following links are from the Land Registry and Royal Mail 
https://www.landregistry.gov.uk/www/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gfN1MTQwt381BD_2A3A08LT2cL49AwIwN_Y6B8JG55dyNKdBsYEqPbAAdwNCCgOxzkV_xuxycPch1IHo_9wal5-n4e-bmp-gW5oaERBpkB6Y6KigCC11pb/dl2/d1/L0lDU0NTSUpKZ2tLQ2xFS0NsRUEhL29Kb1FBQUlRSkFBTVl4aWxNUVp3WEJNNUpVbE1rQSEhL1lCSkp3NDU0NTAtNUY0a3N0eWowc3J5bndBISEvN19MRjU0MThHN1VIQjZGMEk0RjdTQjRHMzBDMi9JX19fXzEvc3BmX0FjdGlvbk5hbWUvc3BmX0FjdGlvbkxpc3RlbmVyL3NwZl9zdHJ1dHNBY3Rpb24vITJmc2VhcmNoLmRv#7_LF5418G7UHB6F0I4F7SB4G30C2
http://postcode.royalmail.com/portal/rm/postcodefinder;jsessionid=GK2QOR4FNVBJOFB2IGIUOSQ?catId=400145&pageId=pcaf_pc_one_result_rm&_requestid=123547&gear=postcode  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakey82 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be references to Farnhill and Keighley but you will find that Farnhill is a civil parish in North Yorkshire and governed as part of the Craven district. It is this governance that determines which details are given in the article. Post codes are just used by the Royal Mail for their convenience and ignore geographic boundaries and we do not use them to show where a settlement is. 23:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

text: And the Land Registry is always correct, is it?  Apart from that, the link you have provided above is merely an address search and all that it generates is the full POSTAL address which, as a number of people have pointed out is nothing to do with where a town is and is only concerned with where the Post Office sorts the mail.  The convention throughout the UK geographical project is to focus on a town's governance.  Farnhill is in North Yorkshire.  It is administered by NYCC and Craven Council.  That is what is relevant.  ----Jack | talk page 09:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Nora C. Quebral

message: I moved the following external links from the EL section because they are inappropriate for that section but may serve as good sources for article content. 
*CFSC Pioneer: Honouring Nora Quebral
*UPLB College of Development Communication
*UPLB College of Development Communication Profile
*CFSC Pioneer: A Conversation With Nora Quebral by Cel Cadiz
*Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication (AIJC) Media Timeline
Jojalozzo 03:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate external links
Talk:Beach muscles

message: "In contrast, the beach muscles (or anterior chain) are emphasized by those who train for aesthetic purposes, as these muscles have the greatest visual effect."
The word "aesthetic" is linked to an article on bodybuilding.  Bodybuilders do not emphasize the beach muscles over the other muscles of their body because they are evaluated on muscular balance and symmetry.  Over-emphasizing these muscles would count against them.  As well, whether or not these muscles have the greatest visual effect is a matter of perspective and opinion.
"For overall benefit, however, these muscles are not as crucial to pure physical performance as the posterior chain. It is therefore necessary to train both the anterior and the posterior chains equally in order to maintain structural balance."
This is true!  (Barring the fact that these muscles do not actually comprise an anterior chain.)
-- Chicanerous 01:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veracity (Part 2) 

message: I suggest "anterior chain" should be merged into this article because:
1) "anterior chain" is a buzzword with a lack of reputable use in the fitness industry
2) the muscles of the "anterior chain" do not actually comprise a "chain"
3) "beach muscles" better describes the function of these muscles in concert with each other
-- Chicanerous 11:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: As well, the following statements are not true:
"These include the biceps, the pectoralis (chest) muscles, the abdominals, the obliques, the serratus anterior, and the quadriceps. Technically these muscles comprise the anterior chain, which operate as antagonists of the posterior chain."
The chest, biceps, and serratus anterior are not antagonists to any muscles in the posterior chain.
"Beach muscles are often ignored by power lifters, who tend to focus on the posterior chain as their sole goal is to increase their strength. Power lifters concentrate on squats, deadlifts, and bench presses."
Powerlifters do not ignore these muscles.  Squatting, deadlifting, and bench pressing does not ignore the chest and quads.  The biceps and abdomen must be isolated in order to prevent injury and improve performance as well.
-- Chicanerous 11:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veracity
Talk:Arab Democratic Party (Lebanon)

message: How is the inclusion in the 'Arab nationalism' category motivated? Was/is there any ideological linkage to say Baathism or Nasserism? --Soman 11:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Restitutus

message: I notice Restitutus is described as "Roman Catholic" in the info box. Is that actually correct, before the East-West schism? - John O'London (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really ... but ... that field is just a magnet for people determined to push one or another view. I've tried using "Christian" but it eventually ends up "Roman Catholic" in most articles. Honestly? I try to just not put it in... it seems that if it's not there, people are less likely to think it needs "filling" or "correcting". Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see most of the Anglo-Saxon bishops that you created pages for, Ealdgyth, are down as "Catholic" with no link. I'll try the same for Restitutus, and see if anyone changes it! - John O'London (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic? - or just Catholic?
Talk:Elk Lake (British Columbia)

message: though the same body of water, BC Basemap distinguishes between Beaver Lake, a southern arm of the lake, and Elk Lake as the main body of the lake.  Also there are multiple Beaver Lakes in BC, some also in need of articles.  They are, with their NTS map refs (I'll add latlongs/regions later):
Beaver Lake, Community, 92B/11 - inteerestingly in same area but on/near Prospect Lake, not Elk/Beaver Lake
*Beaver Lake, 93P/14
*Beaver Lake, 92K/4
*Beaver Lake, 82K/3
*Beaver Lake, 93F/13
*Beaver Lake, 92L/11
*Beaver Lake, 92G/6 - this is the one in Stanley Park, and probably should be an article
*Beaver Lake, 104I/5
*Beaver Lake, 93A/5
*Beaver Lake, 93B/2
*Beaver Lake, 92F/16
*Beaver Lake, 92B/11
*Beaver Lake, 92C/16
*Beaver Lake, 92P/15 - this is this one, although rounded off the latlong is just west of the actual lake
I'll be back with other details, maybe will make some stubs.Skookum1 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Beaver Lake vs Elk Lake

message: Merge them and have beaver lake be a subarticle of Elk Lake
There may very well be multiple Beaver Lakes, but it would make sense to me to have this one as a subarticle on Elk Lake's page seeing as they are connected in the physical world as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tprior (talk • contribs) 10:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  My piece
Talk:List of populated places in Serbia

message: This list is semi-automatically (export/lots of text macros/lots of manual disambiguation) generated from a MS Access 2003 database, made by myself from census data 2002. If anyone is interested in playing with it, it can be downloaded from my personal web site; it should reasonably match the contents of this list (as of 2 August 2007) (since I had to add disambiguators manually in both the text and the database, there might be certain deviations). The database contains only settlement, municipality, population, postal number data. Duja► 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Database

message: I understand that the list is on the longish side, but splitting the article in two made it less navigable: if one needs an item in (N-Z) part, he would have to 1) parse the lead to find the link 2) click on it and wait for the page to load. On average, that makes access slower than having to wait just one list to load, and overall more inconvenient. I think that 140 kB of text is quite manageable both for readers and editors, and it's much easier to find the information this way. No such user (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged back 

message: This is a list of populated places in Serbia, not including Kosovo. Why, then, must editors reinsert a map which includes Kosovo as part of Serbia? bobrayner (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello...? Anyone? Why keep on reverting to a map that includes Kosovo, when this list excludes Kosovo? bobrayner (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is not the done thing to hint at Kosovo's independent status. The map is fair as it marks Kosovo green. Zetatrans (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's "not the done thing to hint at Kosovo's independent status" why do you keep on adding a map that includes Kosovo to a list which isn't about Kosovo? This is quite straightforward. Please stop pov-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop reverting. I realise that, in the past, what we say about Serbia and Kosovo has been determined by which side presses the revert button fastest; but sooner or later we will get neutral articles. bobrayner (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

text: A bit confident aren't you given nobody else supports your version? The map we use is not an all-out inclusion of Kosovo which is why it is marked a different colour. The one you prefer to use is a whitewash to favour your pro-independence editing purpose. Zetatrans (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the map
Talk:B28 nuclear bomb

message: Does anyone know if the physics package from this bomb was the basis of the British WE177 gravity bomb?--ManInStone 11:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

message: Isn't that "Mk 28 FI" actually a Mk 28 RI?  (short fins at 45 to the shackles, short body, no laydown fuzing?) It also has the round nose of the RI, but I believe some of the first FI did too  (it was redesigned shorter to make the overall lengths similar) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo captions
Talk:Wally Gould

message: I’m hearing that Wally Gould has died. Need to wait for a reliable source for this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Two reliable sources provided. Can possibly expand the article a little with these. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wally Gould
Talk:British United Island Airways

message: I have removed excess boldface per WP:MOS -- there is no need to boldface every compnay name, and it just adds clutter. I have also tidied links per WP:OVERLINK. Ground Zero | t 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: This really means "and", doesn't it?
WP:ATE says:
:Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean using fewer words is always better; rather, when considering equivalent formulations, choose the more concise one. Consider the view of William Strunk, Jr. from the 1918 work, The Elements of Style:
::Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. 
:Reduce sentences to the essentials. Wordiness does not add credibility to Wikipedia articles. Avoid temporary expressions like "due to the fact that" in place of "because", or "at the present time" for "currently". The ideal method of specifying on-going events is "as of 2009". Wikipedia "grammar bots" will replace these types of expressions with correct wording.
:Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article. The use of subjective qualifiers should be avoided.
Ground Zero | t 17:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: As well as
Talk:British United Air Ferries

message: *I have removed repeated links and links to plain English words per WP:OVERLINK.
*There is no need to spell out the full name of the company every time it is used. The BUAF acronym is identified in the first line. Standard English writing style allows the use of defined acronyms in order to improve readability. Ground Zero | t 19:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: This really means "and", doesn't it?
WP:ATE says:
:Articles should use only necessary words. This does not mean using fewer words is always better; rather, when considering equivalent formulations, choose the more concise one. Consider the view of William Strunk, Jr. from the 1918 work, The Elements of Style:
::Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. 
:Reduce sentences to the essentials. Wordiness does not add credibility to Wikipedia articles. Avoid temporary expressions like "due to the fact that" in place of "because", or "at the present time" for "currently". The ideal method of specifying on-going events is "as of 2009". Wikipedia "grammar bots" will replace these types of expressions with correct wording.
:Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article. The use of subjective qualifiers should be avoided.
Ground Zero | t 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: As well as
Talk:Combined Operations Headquarters

message: Suggest linking to the Royal Engineers page where it says "These were carried out by Combined Operations Pilotage Parties made up of members of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Royal     Engineers and Special Boat Service" as the others already have links in place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.161.74 (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Add Link

message: The Admiralty's purchased yacht Sister Anne was headquarters ship for Mountbatten at Combined Ops.  Sourced additions on the vessel's service to the draft article would be appreciated as that section is rather thin. I wonder whether its use continued into the Laycock era.  Davidships (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS ''Sister Anne''
Talk:Pescara Circuit

message: This bot has detected that this page contains an image, :Image:Circuit_Pescara.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at :File:Circuit_Pescara.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. DH85868993 (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Circuit_Pescara.png]] 

message: Recent edits have changed the statement that this was the longest circuit to ever to stage a Formula One Grand Prix to only being second longest (after Nürburgring).
Although the combined Nürburgring circuit of Nordschleife + Südschleife was longer, I'm pretty sure that they never ran any Formula One races on that track configuration. I think all Formula One races at Nürburgring between 1950 and 1976 used only the Nordschleife (22.8 km), which would mean that Pescara (25.8 km) actually was the longest. Revert? KaptenKrater (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. --Falcadore (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest Formula One track 
Talk:Atta sexdens

message: This article needs references.
Vaihead (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 86.111.223.180 (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further explaination may help elaborate the fact stated 

message: Looks to me like the Picture labeled as Atta sexdens soldiers doesn't show A. sexdens. I'm not sure what they are, maybe A. colombica (because the body is quite hairy) or A. cephalotes. The head of A. sexdens isn't really round like that and it has a horn at each end. Also it's not shiny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.246.185.17 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures wrong?
Talk:Comparison of Free EDA software

message: License='L'?
213.10.120.175 12:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

message: The article should include an explanation of the term EDA. --rossb (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a "See Also" section, with a link to EDA.Jeremybennett (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation needed 

message: This article and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_EDA_Software
should merge--Efa2 (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:University of the Philippines Los Baños College of Development Communication

message: The file :File:UPD Oblation.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at :File:UPD Oblation.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use candidate from Commons: [[:File:UPD Oblation.jpg]]
Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Ikot Ekpene

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://ikotekpenediocese.org/cms.php?id=37. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  John of Reading (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Catholic Church in Nigeria

message: Who is the person behind the killings 105.112.153.0 (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why killings in nigeria 

message: There doesn't appear to be anything on this page related to the history of Catholicism in Nigeria. When it arrived, how it developed, etc. I think that's rare for a page of this type. natemup (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No history section
Talk:Gong (IPTV channel)

message: An article created by User:Ouessant at Article Name GONG was nominated for Speedy Deletion because it "did not assert the importance or significance of its subject" (WP:CSD#A7}.
A new article was started in user space at User:Ouessant (diff). User:AmosWolfe copied the content to User:AmosWolfe/Sandbox (diff) and edited the content to format as per Manual of Style, remove POV statements, and add references.
:-=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 12:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of new article
Talk:Plasmatics

message: Any objections to the discography being merged into this article? It's not all that musch longer than we already have here, and is unlikely to be significantly extended.--Michig (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me - but I don't know what the reasoning for separating discographies is to begin with.Sean Echevarria (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Seems reasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Michig (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discography back in? 

message: I'm not convinced that all of the images used in this article would pass scrutiny. Some appear to be copyrighted images with no valid fair use claim, and the album sleeve should only be used in the album article. As no free image appears to exist, a press promo picture would probably be ok, if one can be found.--Michig (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I  agree there are probems with the pictures, screenshot and copyrighted, I thought if we did not have a free pic we could use a fair use image in that case, as in no avalable free image, image adds dramatically to the article or whatever the expression is, regarding anything that is copyrighted or you are pretty sure could be copyrighted, as they say, wikipedia is hot on that, you have to be cruel to be kind. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images: Fair use? 

message: The Plasmatics article states that Wendy was a former porn actress. But the fairly detailed article on Wendy doesn't mention this. Does anyone know the truth? Theeurocrat (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: She appeared in one movie "Candy goes to Hollywood" as a contestant of a Gong show like game show demonstrating a talent for shooting pingpong balls in the the air from her groin. No documentation so far as I know other than bootleg Plasmatics videos on ebay.Sean Echevarria (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Porn Actress? 

message: This article is lacking an ending. No mention is made of what happened to the band. A reader unfamiliar with the subject might infer that they are still together today. A new section detailing the gradual rise of Wendy O. Williams as a solo artist seems in order. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakup/Dissolution 
Talk:SPC Group

message: The English in this section is horribly broken and incoherent. Perhaps it should be removed entirely?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TitusLucretius (talk • contribs) 04:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I tried tidying it up. I still made sure the information is there. It relies on a single source, so I added some references too. Feel free to add or remove any revision that seems off. Chinogrids (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The article is unclear on what "Paris Baguette" is (a series of cafes? a subsidiary?). It may also be notable in its own right, like Tous Les Jours. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paris Baguette]] 
Talk:New York Life Building

message: This page needs to be merged with New York Life Insurance Building.  Somehow, a fork has occurred.  See Talk:New York Life Insurance Building.  Slithymatt (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been fixed; the other name at this moment is a disambiguation page and should be changed to redirect to disambiguation at New York Life Building (disambiguation) shortly. doncram (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal
Talk:Mother McCree's Uptown Jug Champions (album)

message: Any information about why the recording seems to be out of print and unavailable now? Spark240 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of print, availability