lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Mawddwy Railway

message: The article reads "The GWR introduced buses to the Dyfi valley, many operated by its subsidiary the Corris Railway. These competed with the passenger services of the railway, leading to the end of passenger services from 1 January 1931." The Corris Railway was only taken over by the GWR in 1930, so any competing bus services that it ran before that were under its own auspices, not the GWR. RGCorris (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus competition
Talk:Citroën Bijou

message: Is this really correct, given the frankly woeful performance figures listed in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.246.108.20 (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class: Sports Car 

message: The Bijou was amongst the slowest cars on the market at the time it was made, some say slower than a 2CV. How can this be a 'sports car'? Unless your sport is snail racing... 85.119.112.194 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bijou - A sports car?? 

message: "At this time the British market was acutely price sensitive, and buyers could choose a Ford Popular with four doors, four seats and a much larger engine for £494."
The Popular never had four doors, from what I can make out. If this is the 100E being discussed, it was the Prefect with four doors, but I am not sure how much it cost. jason404 (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree and have made the appropriate adjustment.  Thank you for spotting this and sharing your reaction. Be well.  Charles01 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ford Popular only had two doors.
Talk:Citroën Type C 5HP

message: Hello ,
I see the following template message at the begginning of each chapter of the article  : 
" This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (September 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"
So I understand that the   problem is "unclear sources" because "lack of inline ctations" 
At the bottom of the page is the list of 10 references regarding :
- one book ( "Citroën 5HP par Bernard Laurent") 
- one website (  www.citroen-5hp.ch. )
- one web page ("First Car Around Australia". www.classicrally.com.au )
- one youtube video ("First Car Round Australia". pioneertracks.)
Références[modifier le wikicode]
1.	^  :a b "Citroën 5HP par Bernard Laurent". citroen-5hp.com (in French).
2.	^ "First Car Around Australia". www.classicrally.com.au. Retrieved 2018-12-04.
3.	^ Pioneertracks. "First Car Round Australia". pioneertracks. Retrieved 2020-05-05.
4.	^ "Chassis of Citroën 7.5hp". www.citroen-5hp.ch. Retrieved 2018-12-04.
5.	^ Laurent, Bernard. Citroen 5HP. p. Chassis Models 29 to 47.
6.	^ "Citroën 5HP, Model T2 (Torpedo)". www.citroen-5hp.ch. Retrieved 2018-12-04.
7.	^ "Citroën 7.5hp, Model T3-1". www.citroen-5hp.ch. Retrieved 2018-12-04.
8.	^ "Citroen 7.5hp, Model T3-2". www.citroen-5hp.ch. Retrieved 2018-12-04.
9.	^ "Citroën 7.5hp, Model TL". www.citroen-5hp.ch. Retrieved 2018-12-04.
10.	^ "Citroen 7.5hp, Model VL". www.citroen-5hp.ch. Retrieved 2018-12-04.
In fact , at the beginning of each paragraph or subparagraph , I have put a mention "Source :" with the code of the reference of the inline citation;
for example   
" Technical ":  
Source (1) (4) 
I thought that this is what is needed ; isn't it ?
Many thanks
Migo47
Migo47 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has issues
Talk:North Wilmington station

message: There was a substantial station building, in the usual "B&M" style, on the site from 1912 until it burned in the 1980s. Its last use was as the office of the Town Crier newspaper, and that paper has information about the station in its archives. Photographs of the station are also likely available. I'd put together an article about the station right now, but the margins of my available time are too small. Snezzy (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station history
Talk:U.S. Military connector specifications

message: I've added references to the various insert arrangements for the electrical connectors where appropriate.  I'll do the fiber-optic and alternative PRF connectors later if I get around to it.  I also moved 5015 to the first in the list based on the specification numbering.  Bosef1 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insert arrangements
Talk:The Last Voyage of Columbus

message: ==Untitled==
A significant portion of this article seems to be about Columbus's first voyage, not his fourth, and though relevant, is not at all central to the "plot". Mang (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: =The "Plot"

message: A significant portion of this article seems to be about Columbus's first voyage, not his fourth, and though relevant, is not at all central to the "plot". Mang (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Cherry bomb

message: That needs citations ... I saw Roger Daltry interviewed recently, he scoffed at the ban thing, saying it was a legend that grew out of them being refused a reservation once at a well known hotel, on account of their former conduct. Of course, he may be wrong or mistaken.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.74.69 (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keith moon hotel bans 

message: So they originally contained about 1 g of flash powder? Maikel (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Amount of flash powder
Talk:Maritime patrol aircraft

message: The Sensors section has recently been expanded, but IMHO it's much too detailed (anyone who wants more details about sonobuoys etc can just click on a link), contains statements that really need to be cited (e.g. "visible from above to a considerable depth"), contains statements that aren't on the main articles (e.g. about the Russian coastline) and assumes that ASW is the only MPA role.  Also what MPAs (airplanes) have used reeled MAD ? I propose cutting out much/all of the new stuff.
In the Examples section, I think the country listed against each aircraft type should be the manufacturing country, not the operating country(ies) - otherwise the P-3, for example, would have a long list of countries. I propose deleting other countries and adding a note/comment to this effect. DexDor (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: So the article starts off by contrasting patrol aircraft with ships, helicopters and unmanned aircraft. That's promising. Helicopters and unmanned drones are maritime patrol aircraft. That term encompasses every form of aircraft used for maritime patrol.  Idumea47b (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft
Talk:William Fairhurst

message: Tim Harding's chesscafe The Kibitzer column says Fairhurst was awarded the International Master title in 1953, but this is probably wrong.  Jeremy Gaige, Chess Personalia says 1951, which agrees with the list of IM titles awarded by year given by Sunnucks on page 238.  Finally, Whyld's Chess, The Records also has 1951. Quale (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of IM title 

message: A few things seem off-key here. First, we don't wear our doctorates in our first line ahead of the name. And you haven't justified the doctorate in any event. Then, the 'world renowned' is a bit too much. 'Well-known in Britain' would be more like it. We aim at neutrality: contributors should not exaggerate one way or the other. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments
Talk:Manbag

message: I added the section on "Masculinity and Manbag". The basic idea for that section is to trace the recent coagulation of the term "man bag" and trace it as a fear of contamination of American masculinity by femininity. Right now, the current section adds a few references from popular discourse that demonstrates how this is true. However, there could be better references made but I have not had time to find those yet. Nevertheless, one can already determine that the reason for American men often using the term "man bag" instead of "hand bag", or just "bag", does have to do with the desire to distinguish their hand bags from the hand bags that women carry. This obviously speaks to deeply embedded ideas about masculinity that points to the desire to draw strong boundaries between masculinity and femininity rather than playing with the boundary itself. When I get the time, I will find more and better references. Someone who has a better way to trace this history of the usage "man bag" is encouraged to make bigger changes. --71.146.16.29 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masculinity and Manbag 

message: There is no way for any article to ever represent a "Worldwide view" which is why when one is aware of it, one should locate one's cultural views. In this case, much of the perspective for this article is U.S.-based and it needs to be stated as such. Saying this article does not represent "worldwide view" without acknowledgement what view it comes from is tantamount to failure to acknowledge one's cultural bias. --71.146.16.29 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view 

message: Please add an External links section with this link:
*The Curse of the Murse by Paolo Lorenzana,  Philippine Star Supreme
Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That link is a blog.  Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID blogs should be avoided in external link sections. --Ave Caesar (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've removed the editprotected request.  I just moved it over here because someone put it at the Murse page, which is a disambig.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add external link 

message: This article may need to be merged with Messenger Bag, as most of its content relates specifically to that.
The European section appears to be a blatant advert.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.121.178 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems.
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 27

message: Simply put, the pseudoscience cat is appropriate in many cases, but it is abused.  If it is to be kept, it must be applied as written: both to subjects and institutions who fight pseudoscience, and those which are or promote it.  It must not be applied to subjects with a following, unless properly sourced per the ArbComs which relate to it.  It must be applied only to truly obvious pseudosciences without such sourcing.  Further, if the cat is to be kept, then the problem stated by jossi must be addressed:
WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable, forces us not to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize an article as such when that is disputed. As per WP:CATEGORY: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.
This is a matter of ArbComs and basic adherence to stated policy and NPOV, and so not merely a matter for voting or even consensus, as the NPOV policy and WP:ATT are not negotiable. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience cat
Talk:North Community High School

message: Nice looking article. A good example to other schools. Victuallers (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: 
: I have added citations and expanded the lead with citations. Sorry about not having any recent photographs. Unfortunately I won't be able to get any modern photographs until around summertime. Is there anything else that needs to be done? Eóin (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing holding me back from passing it would be that the first paragraph of the lead still seems largely unreferenced and overall it feels like it lacks cohesiveness. SorryGuy  Talk  03:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added another citation to the lead. Do you feel the lead lacks cohesiveness or the entire article? Eóin (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring specifically to the lead, especially the second paragraph where statements seem to sort of thrown together. I also left citation need notices on the two statements which I feel need them. Anything referring to a reputation is an opinion and POV unless it is referenced, the comment about attempting to reduce a certain population could be considered controversial. SorryGuy  Talk  02:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Rewrote the second paragraph to hopefully make it flow better. Eóin (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review
Talk:Bomber destroyer

message: Are mentioned as being pioneered by the German's during WW2 but I'm fairly sure they were first used by the USSR in Manchuria in 1939 against the Japanese. The articles description may be clouded by the prism of bomber destruction since its most likely the Soviets were using them against fighter aircraft.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unguided air to air rockets
Talk:William H. Andrews

message: There is a disambig page for William Andrews - would it not be better to move these two entries there and blank this page for deletion? --ukexpat (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they are already on that disambig page, so should this page not be blanked or redirect to William Andrews?--ukexpat (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - this is redundant.  I'll change it to a redirect.  --SierraSciSPA (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk:2008 Minnesota Democratic presidential caucuses

message: Since the party's official name is the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and caucuses are run by state parties (even though such is seldom used in the national media), should this be Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor caucuses, 2008? Or should it remain as is due to the media use of simply "Democratic"? (Same would apply for North Dakota and Democratic-NPL) CrazyC83 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Democratic or DFL?

message: I corrected the section on who can participate to more closely match the official declaration.  That included removing the phrase "not voting in Republican caucuses" (which is nowhere in the DFL declaration).  But that phrase included a link to the Minnesota Republican party, which would be deleted.  So I retained that link, by putting it into a new statement down in the Caucus night section. T-bonham (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: who can participate
Talk:Airtel Tanzania

message: Please you can help to improve the article in anyway GoLLoMboje (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Am just too busy to get this issue fixed. However, any one who wish to change the article accordingly is welcomed. But plz ensure consistancy of the issue. GoLLoXp (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celtel Tanzania is Now Zain Tanzania 
Talk:Saro Windhover

message: I've re-applied the category of "Sesquiplanes", since it's an inverted sesquiplane, where a smaller wing is located above a larger, lower, wing. (See Flying Magazine - Jan 1932 - pg 20)  
In the Wikipedia page on Biplanes - in the section dealing with Sesquiplanes - the Saro Windhover is given as an example of this "much rarer configuration".  Aerohydro (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Sesquiplane Category
Talk:92nd Military Police Brigade

message: I can't find a reliable source that lists the specific units that compose the 92nd MEB. 1-296 has moved around a lot and so has 1-65. Both were part of the 92nd when it was a BCT but I'm not sure if 1-296 is still part of the 92nd or if it was allocated to the 101st Troop Command. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed organizational structure
Talk:The Office (American TV series) season 3

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Office (U.S. TV series) season 1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 16:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Office (U.S. season 3))/redirects. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Regards, SONIC678 00:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Office (U.S. season 3))/redirects" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved   Calidum 17:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Office (American season 3) → : The British version only had two series/seasons and two Christmas specials. No body would ever get confused between the two when searching for this season. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Just a quick note, I suggest holding off on doing this for every season as it's redundant. See what the consensus is for this, then it will also apply to each other season. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 December 2021
Talk:Denning Mobile Robot Company

message: Please see Talk:Robot#Dr. Michel's edit for a discussion. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Michel's edit 
Category talk:Anti-communism in the United States

message: There are several anarchist-related articles in this category -- e.g., Sacco and Vanzetti. What's the thinking here? Obviously, anti-communism frequently fails to differentiate amongst various radical movements & ideologies, but it seems a little strange at face value to have articles that are so clearly "anarchist" and so clearly not capital-C "Communist" in this category. A category description might help. Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: big C, little c, C/communist

message: Many or most of these insertions have nothing at all to do with political repression (i.e. by the state or its figures).  As such, the history of American anti-communism should not be subcategorized as part of the political repression in the United States.98.157.96.133 (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Political repression
Talk:Siege of Worcester

message: I made this revert because the information after that date introduced errors in numbers of defenders, changed the format of the date at the start of the article to use a dash/hyphen (-) instead of an ndash (–) and an alteration to the appendixes in violation of WP:CITEVAR. -- PBS (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert May 2019
Talk:List of free imperial cities

message: The Dutch (border) City of Nijmegen is also called Rijksstad (Reichsstadt) though not Free-, the date would be 1230, based on Aachen's chapter, though it already held city rights since Roman times.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.74.100 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

message: I don't like to number lists that are not inherently sequences; the cities listed here don't follow one another except in alphabetical order.  Is there a good reason for numbering them? —Tamfang (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbering
Talk:Prostitution in Poland

message: You guys have done it again. Please stop that. Intending PPR as a Soviet puppet is your personal opinion, not a fact. Stop already. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please comply with WP:BRD and not just change back to how you think the article should read. --John B123 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Most users will have no idea of what era the Third Polish Republic refers to, but will understand "The collapse of the Soviet regime and the fall of the iron curtain" --John B123 (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we need to write articles according to "common sense" or facts? People's Republic of Poland collapsed much before USSR did and both nations had pretty different type of constitutions when they ended. There is no logicaş connection whatsoever to imply that People's Republic of Poland is collapsed because USSR did, as its totally anachronic due to USSR collapsing 2 years after it and totally different events occured in both states. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would you suggest it is worded so those who have less knowledge of Polish history will understand the era the section refers too? --John B123 (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not knowing something is better than knowing it wrong. We add interlink to pages in Wikipedia so people can go deeper about info that they don't know. At the current situation, its wrong information. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look at History of Poland (1945–1989) and History of Poland (1989–present) both talk of the soviet influence, communism and "the advent of perestroika in the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, the opportunity arose to change the system of government". These seem to back up the wording here and also the text you objected to in regard to the post-war period. --John B123 (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think those pages are heavily biased and need change. As I have said, Poland-related pages happen to be more like that compared to other countries' history and politics sections. I am saying that to improve Wikipedia's neutrality. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIAS