lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Tamur River

message: http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/news/2016-07-11/rockfall-dams-tamor-river.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.51.88.37 (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  source 

message: I have changed the name to Tamor River as per the sources found here and here. The OTRS request regarding this is been received by Volunteer response team as ticket:2018081710001491 --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 06:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move it back. Three out of four of the article's own references, namely published books about hydrology and related topics, use "Tamur". The sources using "Tamor" are of much lower quality and seem to largely be tourism websites that probably don't meet WP:RS. The Kathmandu Post given above is a better source, but it's ambiguous and uses both names. Google Web and Google Books searches for "Tamur" vs. "Tamor" (both with "Sun Koshi" added to make sure there aren't too many false positives) show "Tamur" outnumbering the alternative about 2:1. Huon (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

text: The American National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency gives the name as "Tamor Nadi" with "Tamur River" as an alternative. Compare  and . I have consistently used the more common "Tamur" in the article and have given "Tamor Nadi" as an alternative in the first sentence. Huon (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of name
Talk:Big Flats, New York

message: Hey all, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article. If feedback is what you want and need, come to my talk page and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 01:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Khumjung

message: A friend on Zhihu told me that the currently climate datas shown in this article may be fake: . Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate issues?
Talk:Peoria International Airport

message: I am contemplating moving the page to reflect with the new name of the airport.  Any thoughts? Wysprgr2005 (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Going once, going twice...Wysprgr2005 (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done...Wysprgr2005 (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move page to confrom with the renaming 
Talk:Baneshwor, Kathmandu

message: I believe the primary transliteration for this place is Baneshwor (Jun 19, 2011, Google results 303,000+) and not Banesore (Jun 19, 2011, Google results 30,000+, many arising from this article. Guavaguava  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guavaguava (talk • contribs) 16:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Baneshwor and Banesore
Talk:Bharatpur, Nepal

message: ----narayangarh is the business hub of bharatpur sub metropolitan city of chitwan district so it is better to merge page about narayangarh in chitwan's page.
*Agree with Merge proposal.Klbrain (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion with Narayangadh

message: Jhhvgvb 49.126.32.174 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kamal thakuri 

message: Voice 49.244.242.246 (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local curriculum 

message: voices 49.244.242.246 (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  local curriculum 
Talk:The Winslow Boy (1948 film)

message: I wonder if "Set against the strict codes and manners of the age .."  (the opening phrase) should be cut.  No period has been mentioned, nor - except by implication - is the period the film of the film's action identified in the article.  It would be hard to find a period in which forgery and theft would not be seen as deserving expulsion, so the point of the phrase is rather obscure.
Rogersansom (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible editing
Talk:Covalent radius of fluorine

message: This article seems to confuse two distinct physical quantities:
:*the bond length in the difluorine molecule; and
:*the covalent radius of a fluorine atom when it is bound to atoms other than fluorine.
I would invite the author to reread it and try to correct this problem, as the sources are excellent and I am sure that he or she has a valid point to be made. Physchim62 (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grade

message: This article has perhaps the most fantastically unhelpful opening sentence I have yet read in Wikipedia:
"covalent radius of fluorine is a measure of the covalent radius of fluorine"
O rly? -69.47.186.226 08:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly not an uncommon thing. JIMp talk·cont 22:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence
Talk:Pestivirus

message: Please note: I attempted to significantly improve this article, with the sole intent of removing (which I did) the  and  templates, but I am in no way a Biologist or Virologist, so I may very well have made factual errors. Please feel free to edit or revert anything that I contributed. Thank you! --Iamunknown 23:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My contributions

message: — Assignment last updated by Zingylynx (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Virology 2022
Talk:1904 in film

message: While I don't want to unilaterally make the edit and would rather seek consensus, does anyone else feel it unnecessary to have both the film series for Westinghouse Works and a specific film from the series, namely Girls Taking Time Checks both listed? Shouldn't the film series link be sufficient? GBrady (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy in film list
Talk:Tai Chi Master (film)

message: An IP keeps reintroducing edits and to the genre that go against consensus: .  Apart from overspecifying genres, the editor also keep introducing WP:EGG violations too i.e. "Action film" shouldn't link to [[Hong Kong action cinema because a reader wouldn't expect such a link to be about Hong Kong films.  The editor has been repeatedly asked not to do this on his talk page, but refuses to discuss his edits despite the concerns of several editors: User_talk:90.200.85.232. Can editors please keep an eye on this article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre edits
Talk:Razorback2

message: The Razorback2 server is up and running.
Razorback Webpage. It doesn't seem like it's down anymore. The webpage is back up and running. The eDonkey server I do not believe is running yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthaeus123 (talk • contribs) 20:04, October 3, 2006  (UTC)
:Well, the webpage has been transfered on another host. But Razorback servers are still held by the Belgian police. NicDumZ ~ 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Razorback2 is back and running.
Talk:1911 in film

message: The article spokes about a Gabriele (Cabiria) D'Anunzio. Nothing is told on him on DOAJ nor academic.oup.com. May it be a typo for Gabriele D'Annunzio??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.234.98 (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gabriele (Cabiria) D'Anunzio
Talk:1914 in film

message: Few people know how to use the internet to their full advantage. In the 'external links' on the page 1914 in film - Wikipedia 2014-04-04.00.06 is shown how one can do an in-depth study should a student need to study old films and know where they can actually find them. When going to the page for 1914 full movies, one can insert any number like 1915, 1916, etc. (sometimes you need to go to the bottom of the page, hit page 2 and then insert the year on page 2). It is suggested that if you want the movies with actual sound and not the silent movies that you go to at least 1930 or older. If you want to see if you can learn to read lips and actions--even learning acting lessons based on the old movies--search the ones before 1930.198.53.198.51 (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few Novices Know How to Search the Internet for In-depth Information on Movies
Talk:Rathbornes Candles

message: I think the statement that the candles are 75% paraffin oil was a mistake, and have changed it to paraffin wax. These are not at all the same substance. (Yes, this change is original research. Please check that I have not made a mistake, if you can.--Srleffler 00:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:1923 in film

message: :The Blue Lagoon was a silent film produced in 1923 directed by W. Bowden and Dick Cruickshanks, starring Molly Adair and Dick Cruickshanks.
This is a stub I am planning to create at the aforementioned address. Based upon a listing in The Blue Lagoon (novel)#Films. The entry links to this article, however this film isn't listed on it. I feel I should confirm whether or not this film exists prior to making an article for it, and prior to adding a link to that article on this page. Would anyone know if this was indeed the first Blue Lagoon film, or if someone made it up? None of the names for people involved in the film have articles so I am naturally skeptical as to its existance. If it did exist then these peoples should have articles, or they should redirect somewhere that mentions them and their significance even if it was only in regards to this film. Tyciol (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Add '[[The Blue Lagoon (1923 film)|The Blue Lagoon]]'?

message: Category:1922 films contains (and has contained since 2005) the statement that "These films are considered public domain in the United States and possibly elsewhere." Now that 31st December 2018 has passed, I propsoe to add this statement to Category:1923 films. Alekksandr (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone beat me to it :-) Alekksandr (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Public domain
Talk:1928 in film

message: Favionian keep reverting and she should be banned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B003:A839:C108:7E93:8C2:3BC9 (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Well they keep on reverting and they should be stopped.
Why don't you discuss your edits rather than ordering others around. I also strongly suggest you stop reverting and edit warring with others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP REVERTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

message: I've fixed the page by adding a lead section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B12F:B3DC:712E:9B47:D121:D549 (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not "fixed" anything and what you have added does not qualitfy as a lead, even under the most lame-brained definitions we lower ourselvs to. Thanks also for edit warring to the most ridiculous degree imaginable: how many people have you reverted to try and force your own words onto the page. You are guilty of edit warring, of breaching WP:3RR, of not bothering to discuss things in an adult way and of being an utter WP:DICK. Well done. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've added the lead section.
Talk:1929 in film

message: Ever since last summer, someone keeps putting that as a notable event on this page. Is this for real, or someone plugging their Youtube video? There is a Youtube video with this title, as well as the info that was put on Wikipedia last summer. The first time it got removed, it was deleted as a "prank entry." I'm thinking it's the latter.Crboyer (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woman Making Dinner 

message: Well Well as I tried to add the lead ,they took it away!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B12A:F84B:B842:9FC0:4E66:CEBC (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section
Talk:1930 in film

message: We need to discuss this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:b10d:ac48:39cb:a3dd:89f4:ae8 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  c'mon guys! there is no need to revert. 

message: * Trifles (1930)
--evrik (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing films
Talk:1936 in film

message: The Shorts from all the film series in the short films page (Except Silly Symphonies).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandharrison (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Some of the shorts are missing

message: This page says "How to Become a Detective" was #1, at US$3 million, & says "Modern Times" only made US168,000 and change. (Box Office Mojo has stopped offering movies before 1980, so it's no help at all.) Who's right?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Turner Classic Movies says Modern Times grosed $1.5 million in rental, while the contemporary Variety and the International Motion Picture Almanac puts the figure slightly higher at $1.8 million. There is no way a Chaplin film in the 1930s would have earned as little as $168,000 so I would say The Numbers is incorrect in this case.  As for How to become a Detective I have never heard of it; Variety does not have it listed and neither does the Almanac, and I am pretty sure that if a film grossed $3 million in the 1930s it would have been included since it would have been one of the biggest films of the decade. The IMDb suggests it is a short so perhaps it was attached to films that grossed $3 million?Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're #2?
Talk:1937 in film

message: How, exactly, are the listings of "top films" being determined? I'm seeing no box office earnings for any of them here, & none for most on their respective pages (& "Snow White" appears to be counting lifetime earnings, which seems a pretty unfair comparison).  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know for sure, but the most complete source of information is the old Variety rental lists. They were quite good for their time, but most of the grosses were estimated rather than reported by distributors so there are a lot inaccuracies (Gone with the Wind for instance grossed a $14 million gross rental from its 1939 roadshow but Variety have it down for $11 million). The annual lists should not include lifetime grosses though; obviously for the 1937 list you should only chart Snow White's 1937 release against other 1937 runs, otherwise the comparison becomes meaningless. Betty Logan (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topped?
Talk:1938 in film

message: note all the "events" are just about the "Wizard of Oz"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.8.183 (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an "expand section" tag today since this problem remains in 2023. Not sure if removing some of the seven entries pertaining to the Wizard of Oz would be appropriate, but the section could at least use more than 4 other film-related events for the entirety of 1938. Kahnwiley (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  events
Talk:1941 in film

message: This was the actual top grossing film of 1941 because this was the year it went into general release and by one estimate sold 60 million tickets. It gets listed as a 1939 because that's when it premiered, but for entirety of 1940 it was presented in roadshow version only so only a few thousand each week saw it. 
But the year that the nation would have been seeing and talking about GWTW was 1941 and this article gives no impression of that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.214.103 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Gone With The Wind
Talk:1947 in film

message: Missed this one:
Gunfighters:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039441/usercomments  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.174.132 (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: *Marilyn Monroe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.128.182 (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Debuts
Talk:1953 in film

message: Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century, should be listed on there (is on unwikified).  While it is a cartoon, it's known as a short that ran for 7minutes as listed in the IMBD.  If not listed here, then perhaps find list it under cartoons from that area if a such a list exists. --Hourick 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:1959 in film

message: This should be titled '1959 in American film'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.65.224 (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Shaggy Dog should be on here, it grossed $29,000,000, when it was originally released. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1959/0SHGY.php  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.1.65 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaggy Dog
Talk:Thomas Sullivan (author)

message: "a John Barth or a John Irving, with a touch of William Gaddis and maybe a dash of Kurt Vonnegut" was removed because there was no source. Digital20 00:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:1960s in film

message: Can any of the editors of this article state the criteria of film inclusion? Were they awarded, top grossing? How do we come to this selection out of tens of thousands of films? Do we see here films from all the English-speaking countries? Are all the winners of major awards included? Hoverfish Talk 07:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, state criteria
Talk:1961 in film

message: The Absent Minded Professor should be on here, it reportively grossed $25,381,407 in it's original run. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1961/0AMPR.php  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.1.65 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:NZR EO class (1923)

message: Will try to photo an EO at Ferrymead sometime, not sure when though. If you have one then go for it! --Lee Begg 11:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why does the box have No in class = 5, Nos 2 to 6. The article says 6, presumably starting with No 1. Hugo999 (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to dig out a source somewhere, but if I remember correctly, the six locomotives ordered consisted of one E class battery-electric locomotive, E 1, and five EO locos, which were classified E 2-6 until the late 1930s when EO was introduced (the ECs were E until that point too; it was the introduction of the ED that prompted the change). - Axver (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How Many?
Talk:1968 in film

message: According to source, the highest position should belong to Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? with $25.5 millions, higher than Funny Girl (film) (which made $24.9 millions). Băng Tỏa (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear to be an error, because GHCTD was definitely a 1967 release (see ), albeit a late one.  Occasionally a late-year release would be released too late in the year to make it on to Variety's annual list so they just stuck it on the next year's list instead. For example, despite being 1973 releases, both The Sting and The Exorcist were included on Variety's 1974 list, although the error is not replicated in the Finler book. Betty Logan (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest grossing
Talk:1970 in film

message: You have an October entry in December.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.135.250.37 (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1970's film releases section 

message: after M. Night Shyamalan's name and professional background was: (Indian). i thought it was referring to his having been an actor in india, then a director etc in US. turns out someone just wanted to make sure we all knew his ethnic heritage. next time someone thinks thats important, remember to put "european-american" , "african american", "hispanic american", "asian american", or "chinese", "japanese", "european", etc next to these names. and by the way, he is not indian, but indian american, and is also caucasian. sorry for the rant. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  come on
Talk:New Zealand EW class locomotive

message: Why does the See also para list two Japanese locos that are not even Bo-Bo-Bo locos? Hugo999 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also? 

message: The withdrawal information doesn't seem to match with a couple of books (Classic Railcars, Electric & Diesel Locomotives by Heath/Stott, and Railways of New Zealand by Churchill/Hurst) which suggest their running of suburban carriage trains ended with the arrival of the Ganz Mavag units, and that all Ew's had ceased service by early 1983. What is the source of the final 1988 trip? Was this just a one off 'farewell' rather than the end of a decline as the article suggests? Bevanjlewis (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawal
Talk:1972 in film

message: The box office takings are wrong. 
===Top grossing films statistics are bogus===
These numbers aren't from the Variety list (the bible of the industry). These aren't figures from the IMDB. These figures (such as for the porno films) are made up. BEHIND THE GREEN DOOR certainly did not make $50 million in 1972. This is a lie. And DEEP THROAT did not make $45 million. GREEN DOOR was far behind THROAT (and 1973's DEVIL IN MISS JONES) in box office takings, according to Variety.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: These numbers aren't from the Variety list (the bible of the industry). These aren't figures from the IMDB. These figures (such as for the porno films) are made up. BEHIND THE GREEN DOOR certainly did not make $50 million in 1972. This is a lie. And DEEP THROAT did not make $45 million. GREEN DOOR was far behind THROAT (and 1973's DEVIL IN MISS JONES) in box office takings, according to Variety.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Top grossing films statistics are bogus
Talk:1976 in film

message: hey whats up party people u will never no who i am  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.210.8 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, guess what? Nobody cares (not even in Tulsa). HairyWombat 00:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Please someone expand film release history to include info for VHS, Betamax, Video CD, DVD, & Laserdisc release lists, instead of just the year each film was released on reel. VHS release category should start in 1976, I believe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.155.175 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobody cares 

message: The list of highest-grossing films in the US has To Fly!, an Imax showcase, at number two. The figure is sourced, and I don't doubt it, but did it really gross $86m in 1976? The impression I have is that it has slowly grossed that amount over the forty years it has been shown at the Air and Space Museum. Do these lists include cumulative historic grosses? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Fly! 

message: In Search of Noah's Ark, listed as one of the top-grossing films, was released on February 11, 1977, according to the In Search of Noah's Ark article and IMDB. What is it doing on this list?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.180.245 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Search of Noah's Ark 
Talk:1977 in film

message: I don't believe this is accurate:  May 25 - Star Wars opens in theaters and became one of the highest grossing films to date. The film revolutionizes the use of special effects in film and television production, and also popularizes the notion, even though Lucas was told by the Screen Actor's Guild that he must, of omitting any sort of opening credits sequence, and so distributed the film independently.
20th Century Fox distributed the films.  Lucas got funding from elsewhere.  It wasn't until the prequels that he made them "independent" films.
(I think).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.77.242 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars distributed independently
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Characters

message: I thought we already had character guidelines. Colonel Marksman 00:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're getting at: we have guidelines for which characters are notable, but not for how to write an article about a character. What are you referring to? Cheers --Pak21 10:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)