lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ouranosaurus

message: The tone of this article does not even begin to approach that of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. While this could be a worthy article, it will need a lot of cleaning up. If this is not done, the article will probably be a candidate for deletion.--Alabamaboy 8 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
This article is about 99% one-sided, except for the few sources supporting the YE view. Even the language ("100% failed miserably", etc.) is belittling. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Vizcarra 01:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

message: I just removed both a VFD and a 'speedy delete' marker from this article. It seems that these were both related to previous versions of the article, in which it was largely about Young Earth Creationism and not about this dinosaur at all. Since the article seems to me to be relatively sensible now, I've removed both markers. I hope that's OK. DJ Clayworth 19:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can someone please add a note about the meaning of the name? SpectrumDT 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the name mean? 

message: I don't follow ornithopods very closely, but all the phylogenies I've seen put Ouranosaurus outside of Hadrosauria, contrary to this article. (Closer to hadrosaurs than to Iguanodon, fair enough, but not inside Hadrosauria itself.) Albertonykus (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, Hadrosauroidea appears to be more inclusive than Hadrosauria. Albertonykus (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hadrosaur?
Talk:BMT Fourth Avenue Line

message: This is part of  (1908). --NE2 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newspaper articles

message: I'd like to discuss Jemorie's objection to the inclusion of service patterns in the station layouts of BMT Fourth Avenue Line station articles (example: 53rd Street station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line)#Station layout). He says . Kew Gardens 613 disagrees per MOS:LEAD, and I agree with Kew Gardens 613. The previous discussion was on Kew Gardens 613's talk page. epicgenius (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning the service patterns in the station layout and the lead
Talk:Cadderly Bonaduce

message: This artice is seriously incomplete and error ridden.  Anybody want to polish it up and finish it?
   Yeah, why not start from you yerself? 
   Incomplete : yes. 
   Error : please tell. 
--Cynehelm 13:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete article

message: Whoever tagged this, would you please explain why and how.
I this article has been through that back in November 2007. 
No consensus, did you see that ??
What's the point of tagging this once again ??
--Cynehelm (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it is because the article has issues that have not been addressed in the mean time. --Jack Merridew 12:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: The  tag is correct here; the article describes a major character in five of NY Times Best Selling author R.A. Salvatore's books. The  tag is used when the subject is "most likely non-notable. Use  instead when the subject probably is notable enough, but the article fails to establish notability." -Drilnoth (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't about the book--it's about one character in the book. The NYT best seller list might not even show notability for a book, as the list has some integrity problems,, and the book doesn't seem to meet WP:NB. This character's notability would be established using the section of WP:FICT discussing fictional elements--including characters. The article has been tagged for notability against this evolving standard for some time, yet nobody has come forward to demonstrate that "significant coverage of this character exists in reliable, secondary sources". As such, I think the  tag is more appropriate than the  tag, and have again reverted your edit placing the . -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Could it make more sense, instead of the possibility of deleting the article, to merge it into The Cleric Quintet? That would save the content without having an extra page. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent notability concerns
Talk:Pennzoil 400 (Las Vegas)

message: Joeyyy Radicalpacifist (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joey Lugano my boy
Talk:Emotional Design

message: Mr Daniel,
I am not sure why you removed information about Designing Emotions in Online Travel, a scientifical report, that is strongly related to the book of Don Norman? The article didn't contain any links to a commercial website. Why is it that the book of Don Norman is promoted at this page and important additional information based on a comprehensive study is rejected?. I also like to know what your expertise is in the field of emotional design and how you can judge which information is relevant for the users of Wikipedia. Rene
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses Nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--St.daniel 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is an odd duck. It should be about the concept of emotional design, with supporting sources. Instead, it's an article about a source, proposing the concept. Can anyone justify this or point to another wikipedia article in this vein? - JeffJonez (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about the Book or the Concept?
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition

message: A couple of updates:
* I'm still mostly on-sabbatical. This edit is an anomaly :).
* The Green Cheese article now uses .
* A distressing amount of "obviously gibberish" pseudoscience is present in WikiPedia, and in some cases survives VfD. The Green Cheese article does indeed take this to a silly extreme, but it's not much more extreme than some of the real articles I've seen. Consider it exaggeration for illustrative purposes.
* Regarding usage of the word "lithosphere", I understand it to mean "the outer solid layers of a planet or planetoid". Your mileage may vary :). Certainly the layer of the moon that the GCM disputes is called the lithosphere by mainstream science, so I feel the use is appropriate in the sample. By all means propose alternate phrasing on this page, though.
* Regarding opponents, if the junk science in question hasn't stirred up enough chatter to have some scientist, somewhere, on record as saying "this is bunk", it's probably Non-Notable enough to be VfDd. I feel that having an "opponents" subsection is important for a balanced presentation of any pseudoscience article (otherwise its fans very quickly edit the "proponents" section to give the impression that it has widespread support).
Now, I'm going to re-lurk. I'll get to the article skeleton template eventually. --Christopher Thomas 08:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox and response to first-pass comments

message: I've rewritten the "claims" section. My main goals were twofold:
* Have "core claims" and "how science disagrees with this" in separate subsections, instead of trying to split up the claims.
* Explicitly providing article links where the usual very-verbose explanation and defense that appears should go, to discourage it from going in the primary article. Otherwise you get the problem of the current version of autodynamics - there's so much cruft to wade through that a casual reader won't be able to quickly get an answer to the question of what autodynamics _is_.
While this feels better than the previous version, I'd still like suggestions before I make the blank-article template. The goal is to produce something that can give a brief, neutral description of a pseudoscience that isn't likely to be reverted or mutated beyond recognition by the pseudoscience's supporters. --Christopher Thomas 23:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision of "claims" section and request for feedback

message: I am firm believer in the model, but you insult me you 9 year old samsung washing machine do you not know the moon is made from Tihs Cheese from the Cow Good Moo.
You are a science tist idiot Bobbitybob69 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shock in lack of information on the type of cheese believed to be in the moon
Talk:Chinese International School

message: A good sized article. References and pictures required. It is still not as neutral as it might be. Welcome Victuallers 22:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, although the logo needs some resizing to deal with the infobox. -D. Wu 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is it a consensus that "her" is used to refer to a school? --Breathstealer 11:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouns 

message: As a current student at the school, who witnessed these events, how much first hand information can I include that was not independently reported elsewhere? --Breathstealer 15:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matt Pearce Controversy 

message: ==The Common Room Band (CRB)==
 The Common Room Band consists of a core group of 4 members, all of whom are from the CIS Class of '06. It originated in the Year 13 
 Common Room, where the 4 students  jammed with miniature musical instruments, such as a toy keyboard 
 and miniature  bongo drums. The original songs consisted of  ad lib, and the same lyrics were never used twice. 
 The CRB made its debut in December of 2005, during the annual Christmas Ball. The band performed the song "Splash Splash". During the 
 Graduation Ball of 2006, the band made its final school-affiliated appearance.
Cool as they may be, they're not notable enough for Wikipedia. Sorry. --Breathstealer 11:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: Somehow I doubt Justin Alexander "has been true to the Maoist ideology". Pretty much everyone at school has seen this page now. Could we please be a bit more neutral in this section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglesmeow (talk • contribs) 09:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More vandalism?
Talk:Angel Links

message: Can anyone confirm this anime as being an OVA? The reason I ask is because all information I have found on it shows that it was a TV series and not an OVA. I'm not very familiar with the series though so I'll only make the change if no one has any objections. --Kamasutra July 8, 2005 21:43 (UTC)
:It's not an OVA. It's a spin-off of Outlaw Star. It had 13 episodes, so it's a TV series. Honestly, where do you people dig this stuff up? Bokan (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OVA? 

message: I noticed this article is being marked for not having sources cited. Well, considering the unpopularity of the anime, only those who actually watched it can cite information from the episodes. Plus I have some advanced info from the Japanese artbook, which I can't post obviously. So I don't think it's fair to challenge this article for removal. Bokan (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Can it be confirmed that these are supposed to be the same species? With so many differences --origin, appearance, name-- they seem to have little in common besides being reptiles.  --Noclevername (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dragonite/Saurian

message: Animefringe: 
--Lucia Black (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Review(s)
Talk:Monster (Steppenwolf album)

message: I have looked up the AllMusic reference and cannot find the attributed quote anywhere in their review. I'll wait a few days for comments or verification before removing it.Frankzappatwin (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception
Talk:El Camino Real (California)

message: Considering that the camino real was a thoroughfare created during the Spanish and Mexican period in a context in which the Californias were a single entity, shouldn't the portion of the camino real de California which falls in the current states of Baja California and Baja California Sur in Mexico be included in this article? While the portion in the U.S. state of California is itself a designated California Historical Landmark, that designated portion is still only one half of the subject of this article. Including the Mexican California portion in this article would also help to contextualize this historic road in a wider mission system that spanned a much wider territory. 
It could be considered that the portion of the camino real in Baja was much better engineered (and as such better preserved) in the territories where the Jesuit missions were established (before their expulsion) than the Dominican and Franciscan areas; however, the now less preserved parts of the camino real were still part of the same network and had the same basic purpose of connecting the missions; and besides, adding the rest of the camino real de California to this article would allow this page to address the history and current conditions of what remains of the California camino real in Mexico.
A quick, though not academic, source of info which could help to start adding information about this southern portion of the camino can be found in the article El Camino Real in Baja California in BajaBound. The San Diego History Center also provides an article which is another good introduction to this portion of the camino. The Santa Clara University's Anthropology Department also provides information on the camino and provides an argument for what it calls a Binational View of the camino real as well as the mission system of the Californias. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Baja California 

message: We need a better source for the modern routing than merely citing sources that just list the definition by the California State Legislature. California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 3, Section 635 just gives a generic routing:
:"State highway routes embracing portions of Routes 280, 82, 238, 101, 5, 72, 12, 37, 121, 87, 162, 185, 92, and 123 and connecting city streets and county roads thereto..."
This definition does NOT list the specific segments of those highways, nor does the law list the specific "connecting city streets and county roads". Furthermore, I assume the legislature's specific addition of California State Route 162 in the law was a mistake, as that highway is nowhere near the original historic route. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern highway and street routes
Talk:Carlota Joaquina of Spain

message: Per naming convention, this should be at Carlota Joaquina of Spain (where this actually someday was) or Charlotte of Spain or Carlota of Spain. 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)
English-language histories of Brazil (and presumably of Portugal as well, though I am not sure) refer to the lady in question as "Carlota Joaquina", so Carlota Joaquina of Spain would be appropriate per Wikipedia naming convention. — Diamantina 08:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to state that it is now a featured article candidate. You can support or oppose here. Thanks. Gameiro 01:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: After the elevation of Brazil to a Kingdom, and after the ascension of her husband (Dom João VI) to the throne until the independence of Brazil in 1822, she was: Her Most Faithful Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves.
When Brazil became independent from Portugal, her eldest son (the now Emperor of Brazil), gave to his father the title Emperor of Brazil which she shared, so she became: Her Imperial and Most Faithful Majesty the Titular Empress of Brazil and Queen of Portugal and the Algarves. (Sometimes the style appeared as Her Imperial and Royal Majesty). 85.244.230.101 (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles
Talk:Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands

message: Hrm. Is this really an encyclopedic person?? 217.140.193.123 8 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)
::Yes, because she is married to the 4th in line to throne to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.161.24.19.112 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Sigma SD10

message: *I just removed this from the "3rd Party Support" section, as it's completely PoV and just rude.  Getting a *real* link for this instead of a little rant would be nice.  If anyone thinks there's a good reason for this to be here, feel free to speak up.
** Forum support provided by one of the most elitist, unreasonable groups of users of any form of technology!
--Overand 8 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
*(S)he's back again.  Removed this again, made a suggestion on the (ANON) user's talk page to try to form this into a constructive complaint, maybe make a 'pros and cons' section  on the article.
** Annoying, arrogant usergroup that will not help with or admit to common camera problems.
--Overand 22:55, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Digital Photography Review's coverage of the noise issue can be found here. From what I remember, the SD10's biggest problem was context; it was more expensive than a number of competing cameras, most of which were more flexible, some of which had higher resolution. Its sensor was undeniably clever but, by the time the SD10 came out, competing Bayer-type sensors had surpassed it with sheer pixel count, a state of affairs that Sigma has not subsequently been able to rectify. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removals  

message: * Concerning the Sigma forum: it is true that users (even people who own the camera )with opposing views on the technology, are called nasty names (in violation of forum rules), and are eventually removed from the forum -- because a small but vocal group of users, ("elitist" would be putting it kindly) -- organize purges against opposing views.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.124.130 (talk • contribs) 
:Forums can be nasty places; and that's more than we need to know.  Let's keep it encyclopedic. Dicklyon 06:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: personal experience with the Forum

message: Raw, high jpeg and Low jpeg  possible. See German Site  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:49D5:596E:BF12:F1B0 (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong raw only
Talk:Culture of human beings

message: Culture is the subject here, is it not? I don't understand what  "of human beings" distinguishing in this case? Not from culture of bacteria nor from Primate socialization. Is this Introduction to Sociology? It seems to me simply a rival of the article Culture. Should they be merged, or should they be distinguished? Should a concise version of one be at the other, with a See main article... heading? --Wetman 8 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
:My guess is someone created this article without first checking to see if there are similar articles.  Note too that little is verifiable or sourced.  I am very wary of phrases like "may be" and the use of the passive voice.  I know a fair bit about culture and I can easily argue (and provide sources) that for every "May be ..." in this article there is a more compelling "May not be ..." or at least "No longer is ..."  Honestly, I do not think there is any really valuable content here, is sounds more like everything one person knew after taking a couple of courses or reading a book.  I am not saying that the Culture article is perfect, but it is a much older and more worked-on article, and I think adding stuff from here will only lower its quality. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement, though I wasn't courageous enough to say so. --Wetman 22:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

message: ...moving this discussion to a more Appropriate place. -- CQ 09:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please consider... 

message: With the above comments taken into account, I am moving the content of this article to the talk page of Culture and converting this to a redirect.  We will see if anything can be incorporated into the "Culture" article. Sunray 18:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging
Category talk:Mechanical hand tools

message: Zosodada 8 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)
:I agree. We need a better definition of what a "mechanical hand tool" is, because I don't think a hammer or axe qualifies. --Wizard191 (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Axes and hammers are *MECHANICAL*?

message: It would have things such as the Leatherman, the Gerber multitool and the stuff made by True Utility ? Parasite 07:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should there be a [[Multi Purpose Tool]] subcategory

message: What is a "mechanical" hand tool, and what's the difference between "hand tools" and "mechanical hand tools"? Aren't all hand tools "mechanical"? Perhaps this should be merged into :Category:Hand tools? Lambtron (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category definition problem
Talk:Linda Ronstadt

message: *
 Peaceray (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2022 Parade interview 

message: first paragraph, first appearance, change "Latin" to "Spanish". It maybe called " Latin music," but she sings (wonderfully) in Spanish 47.148.80.87 (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: The sources cited describe the genre as Latin. Are there sources describing the genre as Spanish? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2022 

message: James Taylor's name can be added to the long list of collaborators on Linda Ronstadt's entry.
They shared vocals on the song, One Morning In May, on his 1972 album, One Man Dog.
That's mentioned twice on your Wikipedia.org entry for his album. Once in the list of "Personnel" And, once by someone who complimented their work together on that song. 2601:2C7:4500:E540:E16C:E1FD:DE9A:25A2 (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of collaborations with Linda Rostadt
Talk:Douglas A-20 Havoc

message: The first paragraph describes an aircraft designed by the Douglas bureau in the 1930s, which was cancelled.
Specifications for powerplant are given, but no type designation.
In para two, we have the tantalising line "developed the Model 7B, with a similar layout to the 7A".
Would the first design (abandoned after the SCW data filtered through) be the "7A"? 2A00:23C7:3131:FE01:3D5F:A5BF:8D40:D647 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design & development