lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

message: Kate Quinn used her imagination describing the fictional naval officer named Prince Philip of Greece in her 2021 novel, The Rose Code, about Bletchley Park. 2600:8807:9107:D100:E2B6:A67F:23ED:3B2B (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023 

message: why do you say . I see you evoked MOS:REPEATLINK earlier. Can you point me to the specifics? Jay 💬 20:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Per MOS:REPEATLINK, . I don't see any reason why Lord Mountbatten needs to be linked again when that article is hitherto linked twice in this article already, one to Lord Louis Mountbatten and one to Lord Mountbatten, both redirects to the same article. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out the Lord Louis Mountbatten link, which I had not found earlier, as I was looking only for Lord Mountbatten. The two links are different although they lead to the same target. In MOS:REPEATLINK, "Generally" is the keyword. It does allow for first occurences in sections, and in the case under discussion, the sections the links are in are far apart any way. Jay 💬 20:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it's excessive since Lord Mountbatten is a figure most people familiar with Prince Philip would be familiar with. Regardless, I've changed the link/text to Lord Mountbatten of Burma, which is how he is named by the citation provided. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: MOS:REPEATLINK

message: Can somebody create a section on final years living at Sandringham with Penny? 88.97.108.45 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Penny who? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Penny Knatchbull. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thanks. Well her own article makes no mention of Sandringham, so that might be a better place to start? Some actual sources would probably help a lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final years living with Pemny at Sandringham.
Talk:Eye (disambiguation)

message: I really think that this page should redirect to Eye (anatomy). If you disagree, feel free to change it back.
=== Of Moles and Purpose ===
I'd avoid saying that eyes (or any other organ) have evolved for the purpose of anything, as this implies that evolution is goal-driven. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by may evolve (in the case of moles). First, moles do have eyes, although they are reduced. Second, a lot of burrowing or cave-dwelling animals have reduced eyes or lack them altogether, so why single out moles? Tjunier 15:44, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'd avoid saying that eyes (or any other organ) have evolved for the purpose of anything, as this implies that evolution is goal-driven. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by may evolve (in the case of moles). First, moles do have eyes, although they are reduced. Second, a lot of burrowing or cave-dwelling animals have reduced eyes or lack them altogether, so why single out moles? Tjunier 15:44, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Moles and Purpose 

message: The foreign language links on this page need some work. I believe (it's been a while since I've done German) but Auge is the German for eye, however the Italian and French pages 'Auge' refer to places with Auge in the title. Both of those pages do not link back to eye (disambiguation) but to Auge (disambiguation) so we've got mismatched links. I'll try and work on it although I don't know enough about all the languages involved. Mglovesfun 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign language links

message: Botany has eyes too. No mention of even the potato? I am sad now. --66.188.85.10 (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Botanical Eyes
Talk:Eye

message: Healthy Eyes For Life
... Read More Befitbealive (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done, that's a blog and not an appropriate source. --Mvqr (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2022 

message: the Sunlight that falls on objects around us reflect and that is how we see 117.241.247.70 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do we see 

message: the eye you see with
@Michell Cheem 67.243.13.148 (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed Coltcatus (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  eye 

message: In the 'Overview' section it says that Trilobites have lenses made from calcite. This is outdated, as it has been discovered that the calcite found in Trilobite fossils originates from fossilization processes and not the animal itself. See the 'Evolution of the eye'-article. Original source: Lindgren, J., Nilsson, DE., Sjövall, P. et al. 2019. Fossil insect eyes shed light on trilobite optics and the arthropod pigment screen. Nature 573, 122–125 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1473-z 2001:4CA0:0:F295:CD1A:99B3:D98E:552D (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trilobite calcite eyes
Talk:Colorimeter

message: How have colorimeters changed over the years?
Does anyone know what the box is called where you put the liquid that you want testing into? Thanks - it's called a cuvette
colorimeters do not select wavelength, merely a coloured slide that coveres a range of wavelengths, wave length selection is done on a spectrophotometer
how do u select a particular wave lenth in a colorimetr
:By using filters. Biscuittin (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A colorimeter may be calibrated in transmittance units (0-100%) or in absorbance units (zero to infinity). It is usual to work in the absorbance range 0-1. It is possible to work in the range 1-2 but the response becomes increasingly non-linear in this range. Biscuittin (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article mostly talks about the device that measures the absorbance of a solution, but those devices that measure the emittance of a display device (CRT, LCD, etc) or the reflectance of ink on paper are also called colorimeters. It does not give an equal treatment of these devices and is not clear about them at all. I think the introductory paragraph needs rewriting to make mention of all the kinds of colorimeters. ralmin (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about splitting into absorption colorimeter and tristimulus colorimeter and disambiguating colorimeter? --Adoniscik (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Absorption colorimeter" is a good new term that I fully support. But it's not accepted. I think that the following pages will be nice to have in Wikipedia: Colorimeter (the one used in chemistry), Tristimulus_colorimeter and Colorimeter_(disambiguation). Alexander Ogorodnikov (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest "Colorimeter" as a disambig page pointing to "Colorimeter (chemistry)" and "Tristimulus colorimeter". Biscuittin (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I have updated the "Laboratory equipment" template and I think this will correct most of the links. Biscuittin (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different types of devices all called colorimeter
Talk:Nonprofit organization

message: The redirect Non-profit foundation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  GnocchiFan (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Non-profit foundation]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:List of Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses

message: At User_talk:Otto4711, I asked the user who renamed this and related articles to revert his renames. You may wish to add your comment there. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 July rename of article discussed at User page of renamer 

message: It seems such a long time since I've even had time to look at Wikipedia, and am still limited in what time I do have, but just glancing this over it seems like expanding this to include cases taken beyond the supreme courts of particular countries should be included.  Please post any thoughts. Willietell (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The current title is already long enough. The scope of the article is already suitable for mentioning cases that went from Supreme Courts of individual countries to the European Court of Human Rights, as is already done in the section about Russia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand title to include  European Court of Human Rights 
Talk:Kingdom of Great Britain

message: Should Ireland be listed in "Today part of" in the Infobox? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? This Kingdom never held areas in the Kingdom of Ireland. Ireland was a client state. Dimadick (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was fully integrated like Wales and Scotland. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ireland was "integrated" (annexed) in 1801, resulting in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922). And the Irish Home Rule movement had emerged by the 1870s, influencing several of the political struggles of the late Victorian era. Dimadick (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: The legislation on the Treaty of Union 1800 entered into force 1 January 1801, as stated in the official legislation. Not 31 December 1800. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 00:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Era - Union with Ireland
Talk:Alnwick Castle

message: What does this mean? "The castle was first known of in 1096 when Yves de Vescy was Baron of Alnwick." It would be good if this could be clarified - I assume that what is being got at is that its first recorded presence is then, or something - but it reads badly, becase it sounds as if 1096 was when people anywhere first heard of it, and I am sure this is not what was meant. Any offers please? --Nevilley 07:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First known of"? 

message: The garden and castle are distinct sites which are merely neighbours, there are connections to the duke and duchess and their estate but the garden is owned by the the Alnwick Garden Trust, a charity. Perhaps the Garden deserves its own article? (86.137.236.72 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. It had such an article, but said article was merged into this one. I've not felt like recreating the Garden's article; after you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate Article for the Alnwick Gardens? 

message: The introductory paragraph of this article claims over 800k visitors per year, off the back of an Economist articke which itself seems unsubstantiated. 800,000 visits seems erroneously high giving the typical visitor numbers to UK properties.
The article later on states the 195,504 number as stated by the Historic Houses Association (2006).  This sounds like a much more likely number.
Can anybody find a more up-to-date visitor count? I'd like to remove the 800k figure from the article opener as this seems poorly sourced and feels wholly inaccurate. --Johncrowther (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm dubious of the 800,000 The Economist gives. Closer to 200,000 sounds more like it; that's about what Corfe Castle gets. A four-fold increase would be remarkable. Of the visitor attractions the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions gives for 2013 the ones around or about 800,000 are pretty major sites and many are located in cities. I don't know if Alnwick quite makes it into that top tier, even with the gardens and the Harry Potter link. Nev1 (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little dubious too, although there are various press articles citing a 200% increase in visitor numbers to the castle after 2011, spurred by Harry Potter films etc. Unfortunately they don't give a before or after figure... The 800,000 figure is also mentioned here  in a 2014 book on the culture industry Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visitor numbers 

message: As requested:
* Does the Duke own the castle personally, as you're claiming?
* Does the citation you're giving support your claim for "best known as"?
* We already give the county; we don't need a regional description as well in an infobox.
* Capital letters etc. are also useful. Abbey is spelt with "e". Hchc2009 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.43.123.202 ..
Talk:Air Florida

message: I'd like to see Howard Stern's comments stay in.  I think they're a notable part of the accident, albeit a bit morbid. Thoughts? —Cliffb 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard Stern's comments 

message: I can not find any further informations about the relaunch. The website didn't came up, and the twitter account of Air Florida was also deleted. Anybody got news about it? So sad...
--NewtypedivisionTalk 10:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Relaunch
Talk:Sather Tower

message: I'm going to put in a few references to online sources now, and add more references from a few history books I have soon
Thepharmakon (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "References"

message: *When did it stop being called just "The Campanile"? -- Zoe
**It didn't--``The Campanile" is just a colloquial name for what is formally known as Sather Tower. We still call it the Campanile on campus. Itsthomson 11:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Campanile"?

message: I have removed the clause "...which makes it 22 feet (7 m) taller than rival Stanford's Hoover Tower." because it seems (even to this Cal alumnus) out of place in an encyclopedia. Petershank 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need it be compared to Hoover Tower?

message: A bit esoteric perhaps? Anybody care to decipher this? 76.166.245.241 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "it marks a secondary axis in his original Beaux-Arts campus plan" 

message: Can it really be considered as Berkeley's most recognizable symbol? Justicestudent9 (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Search Google images for Berkeley and see. EEng 17:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most Recognizable Symbol" 

message: I propose that Berkeley Carillon be merged into Sather Tower. I think these articles are about the same tower, the source containing facts the target doesn't, but lacking inline citations. TheGGoose (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I added some info on the clock and its bell (the William Ashburner Memorial clock).  I note the source I used states 1899 for when it was installed in Bacon but other places state 1890 or 1889.  It seems to have been made by the Seth Thomas Clock Company.  William Ashburner was regent from 1880-1887 when he died (he was also a founding trustee of Stanford and a mining engineer).  Flickr has a photo of a notice which if someone can confirm its existence at the tower we could use as a reference https://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/6829667882 --Erp (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clock info 
Talk:Perry Township Schools

message: This article was nominated for deletion; consensus was to keep.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Metropolitan School District of Perry Township.  Postdlf 21:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for deletion 

message: This means absolutely nothing, but this was the last article in the history of Wikipedia that hadn't been edited since 2002. It was edited on the 15th December 2002, and the next wasn't made until the 14th March 2005. Since Special:Ancientpages wasn't updated for months, though, it was at the top of the page for quite a while...so next time you look at the edits of this page from March-April 2005, just remember they're only doing it because they think they're editing the oldest article on Wikipedia. But User:Dysprosia beat them all! Hah! BillyH 19:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really useless information 
Talk:Laws of classical logic

message: This article seems to be confused about the distinction between the propositional constants T and F, and the truth values 'veritas' and 'falsum'.  The former are articles of syntax; the latter are artefacts of the interpretation.  Likewise bivalence is not a relationship between formulae in the way that De Morgan's laws are, but is instead a property of interpretations of the theory.
I don't like this article: it presents an equational theory of classical propositional logic, which is a particular formulation of a particular logic that is well treated in many other Wikipedia articles, seems mostly already included in  Boolean logic, and doesn't provide a references for its treatment.  Does it benefit Wikipedia to have this article at all?  To my mind, the classical logic article starts with a list of principles that would better deserve the title laws of classical logic.  I propose deleting the article, and pointing its referrers, none of which seem particularly relevant to the content here, to Boolean logic.  Any objections to me starting the AfD? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is certainly redundant, but a 0-merge might be better since the content is actually present elsewhere and AfD is unpredictable with such things. Judging from the incoming links, Boolean logic or Boolean algebra (introduction) might be good merge targets. Better the latter, since the former is in a disastrous state that is being vigorously defended by its owner. (Which is why we have so many Boolean algebra articles – each time Vaughan Pratt tried to clean up this mess of set theory and search engine cruft, StuRat came back after a while and resurrected his nonsense.)  --Hans Adler (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  There are a few redirects outside the article space  which are now broken, and I haven't checked all of the redirects to here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete?
Talk:Afrika Korps

message: I think this article needs renaming to its common English name. Philip Baird Shearer
I think this article needs renaming to its correct German name. --BjKa (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rename 

message: Currently, most of the lede talks about the dubious origin of this article's name. Most of the body of the article talks about the history of this group and the battles it fought in. The lede should summarise the body of the article and cover the important stuff, rather than trivia which isn't mentioned in the body. Shall we fix this? bobrayner (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: We have the pronunciation in German, but not how to say it in English. I presume the 's' in Korps is silent, but the intro should be unambiguous about it. Malick78 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In English it's approximately; doitsch afri-ka-core.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.137 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: This article does not state the size of the Afrika Korps, or the joint size with Italians. A pretty sloppy article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.14.72 (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Afrika Korps 

message: I realize the "Afrika Korps" is just one stage of German/Axis military organization in the campaign and of the campaign's history, but this article is pretty short and thin on content about its inception, organization, composition, operational history, commanders other than Rommel, and its ongoing history as a component of later, larger Axis formations in theatre. That's a lot of missing content when over a third of the space is devoted solely to anti-Semitic war crimes/crimes against humanity. Frankly even the latter could do with being a small portion of a larger article on this subject and then link to a larger piece on that specific subject instead of being thin gruel dominating the space of a thin larger article. Random noter (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject balance
Talk:Easter Everywhere

message: Regarding the 'hard to find until the 1993 cd version comment. One look at Discogs will tell you that reissues were available through the 70s and 80s. It wasn't that hard to find.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.144.68 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The odd thing is that this fact-ette is the very first thing about the album in the Release section. The article goes straight from the info to some trivia about a 1993 CD issue. Did it chart anywhere? Were there singles? - Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  hard to find?
Talk:Manning, Iowa

message: Is it this Manning that moved the church (see http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=tfXm2eJxXII) or there is another location with that name?  Merewyn (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church 
Talk:Small Brown Bike

message: This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 22:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for Deletion

message: Um...I think this needs an edit. We are told the band broke up in 2004, but their first album was released in 2008...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.85.75 (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed
Talk:Special Air Service

message: So, this sentence: "" - with or without "" linked to United Kingdom in the Soviet-Afghan War... you guys wanna talk it out? - wolf 20:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a valid link - don't see what the fuss is about, SAS are mentioned in lede as well as article many times over. Perhaps I should add an extra part where it is more valid?   Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Should probably wait to see what CT has to say (if they do). You shouldn't edit disputed content that's gone to the talk page, and you're at 3RR as it is now anyway. (JMHO) - wolf 22:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a perfect example of an WP:EASTEREGG link, it fully meets the style that the MOS states to avoid. If you want a link then the sentence needs to be reworded heavily to incorporate the link better. Additionally the target article isn't even about the SAS, it's not that heavily mentioned which just makes it worse the way it is, linking the term "heavily involved" to an article where the SAS are of secondary mention is really not appropriate.  Please read the Easter Egg MOS linked and it will give you the guidance. So I don't object to linking to that article, but it needs to follow the MOS and currently it's a pretty textbook example of an Easter Egg link. And you're a long time editor, you should know how WP:BRD and edit warring work, if you make an edit and it's reverted for a valid reason, you should discuss and not edit war to keep your edit. The onus is on the editor adding the material to get consensus, not the person removing it to establish it. Canterbury Tail talk 08:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, I've done just that and removed the word heavily too. Hope that helps. Thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghan War