lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:A Thief of Time

message: There is no Esperanto in this film. I believe the imdb is mistaken about that. I am removing the category, unless someone prove me wrong!! -- Yekrats 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There were many reviews of this book when it was published. I found Kirkus Reviews in whole, and the one sentence quotes that Amazon uses to sell the book, which are not much use. With so many awards and nominations, the other editorial reviews must be interesting and contrasting. My resources now are what I can find on-line, and would appreciate if others who have books with reviews collected or access to more original review sources would copy them in to the article. Then we could see why others picked this novel for the awards. The Kirkus reviewer liked but would not have given it an award, so what are the thoughts of those who did?  --Prairieplant (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  lots of reviews, can we find them? 
Talk:Jean de Laborde

message: Here are some sources that could be used to improve the references.  These are taken from the French, German, and Italian articles, and reformatted into  templates with added params as needed:
* (e.g., pardon by Auriol, howerver bibliographic info lists this book as fiction; perhaps because it is a memoir?) 
* Kreuzer –Auf allen Meeren by Frank Kurowski:  pp. 111–112; pub. Pavillon Verlag Munich, 1999 (in German) (e.g., evacuation of the French fleet to Africa after the Fall of France)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Mathglot (talk)  18:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sources to consider
Talk:Opposition to the English poor laws

message: What about Oliver Twist! Surely that should be mentioned? Colin4C 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oliver Twist 

message: The PLAA of 1834 - passed to implement the recommendations of the 1832 Commission - set up a new structure/organisation for Poor Law administration, and left it to the 3 Poor Law Commissioners to specify for each Poor Law Union the regime to be implemented. The delared aim was to implement uniformly nation-wide the 1832 Commission recommendations (no outdoor relief (and therefore no subsidy of wages), all paupers to be confined in workhouses, classified and segregated), in full rigour. 
There were therefore two separate grounds for opposition and two separate battles. I think the article needs to reflect this better, but I am just passing through. (I came here whilst working on the Richard Oastler  article,  having started out a year ago working towards a coherent account of the Factory Acts up to c 1850, only to get bogged down in trying to understand the Tory radicals and their involvement in factory reform.  Further digression is not really an option.)
When the time came to introduce the new organisation to the North of England the Assistant Commissioners were quite prepared to give assurances that key recommendations of the 1832 Commission (eg abolition of outdoor relief) would not be applied in (eg) Huddersfield.  Aided by those assurances they eventually succeeded in defeating the opposition and setting up the New Poor Law structures.  That seems to be what the article reflects . However the tale on implementation of the NPL policies is somewhat different.  When a prominent West Riding opponent of the New Poor Law died in 1858, the Huddersfield Chronicle wrote "..the controversy closed and English common sense has settled down on the poor-law question somewhat nearer to the views of Oastler and Pitkethly than those of their opponents."  In Leeds in 1860 recipients of outdoor relief outnumbered workhouse inmates 3:1 (and from stuff I looked at when barking up the wrong family tree a couple of years ago I seem to recall that if you go on the workhouses website you can find there Home Office guidance from the 1860s saying that outdoor relief should be the preferred/default form of relief; workhouse admission should be reserved for (1) cases where the pauper was in need of more care than could be given outside (2) cases where the application seemed dubious)  Rjccumbria (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to New Poor Law  - tale on policies not the same as for structures
Talk:Everybody Sing (film)

message: I kept track of the pageview analysis of both articles Everybody Sing (now "Everybody Sing (1938 film)"), and Everybody, Sing!, and it showed that most readers read Everybody, Sing! 550% more than the 1938 film by Edwin L. Marin (on average). Since the game show "Everybody, Sing!" can also be spelt as "Everybody Sing" or "Everybody Sing!," the film article was now moved to "Everybody Sing (1938 film)," and made the previous "Everybody Sing" page now redirect to the "Everybody, Sing!" article.
If there should be any questions regarding the change, contact me via my talk page, or continue this discussion.
VertaxApolinariax (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Everybody Sing" now redirects to "Everybody, Sing!"
Talk:Thoroughbreds Don't Cry

message: This movie seems to have a fair bit of homo-erotic suggestiveness. The bedroom scene shows Rooney pulling down Sinclair's pants and rubbing lubricant around his buttocks. Rooney then climbs over him several times.  Another scene shows Sinclair riding high in the saddle and Rooney assuming the same bouncing position directly behind. No wonder Garland became gay icon.27.33.245.29 (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homo-erotic Imagery 

message: The filmography page for Francis X. Bushman lists this film and has a redirect here.  If that's correct, he ought to be listed in the cast.  (I don't know whether it is or not.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajericn (talk • contribs) 08:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francis X. Bushman?
Talk:Arnaud de Cervole

message: The article as it currently stands has a number of passages which bear a strong resemblance to the entry for Arnaud de Cervole in the Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War by John Wagner .  Wagner is not cited as a source and the paraphrase may contravene wikipedia policy.  It should, however, be possible to rewrite the text based on material in e.g. Trial by Fire by Jonathan Sumption and Medieval Mercenaries by Kenneth Fowler. Monstrelet (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After removal of copyvio material, I've re-edited with some new content and refs to give a basic article.Monstrelet (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential close paraphrase issue
Talk:Comets on Fire

message: Hi.  I don't believe that this article indicates the band's notability.  If Comets on Fire is a notable band, please state why this is so (and provide references to other documents to lend authenticity).  I'm positive that in a few weeks time we'll be able to identify whether this band is truly notable or not. —  X  S  G  08:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They had two releases on Sub Pop and one on Alternative Tentacles. Ben Chasny of Six Organs of Admittance is in the band. Kingturtle (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.  Ben Chasny and Six Organs of Admittance are equally non-notable and all should be considered for removal. —  X  S  G  07:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I take it back.  It's clear that Ben Chasny would pass AfD, and therefore his bands would pass AfD.—  X  S  G  07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from questioning notability on subjects you know nothing about.  These guys qualified as notable 4 years ago after having released an album on Alternative Tentacles and one on Sub Pop.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.35.69 (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Delete A7 
Talk:Pierre Langlais

message: Or was that another guy?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.123.130 (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At Dien Bien Phu? That was Langlais. Mztourist (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gars Pierre 
Talk:Gold (1974 film)

message: On 20 May 2007, a DVD copy of this film was given away by the British newspaper the Mail on Sunday. 81.152.223.35 18:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mail on Sunday 

message: The existing phrasing: "The film was only released as part of a double bill in the United States." implies this movie was not released anywhere else in the world.
This is clearly incorrect, as not only was it released in other countries, it was released in Britain at least as a stand-alone movie.
I've changed it to: "In the United States, the film was only released as part of a double bill."
90.244.141.226 (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous Phrasing
Talk:William IV, Duke of Aquitaine

message: In what sense was this guy a Frank? Srnec 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He may be a descendant of Louis the Pious, and Franks appointed in general Franks to positions of meaning. Think of Boso of Provence and Bodegisel of Aquitaine. Of course he was related to Hugh Capet, the last Frankish king. johanthon 09:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt that there were Franks in his ancestry, but at what point do we cease to call all those who can trace their lineage to a Frank Franks? Is it arbitrary or is there a scholarly convention that is nearly universal? More importantly, I think, did William IV indentify himself as a Frank? Did anyone? I know that the Aquitainians did not usually identify themselves as Aquitainian, but that the Franks did. The latter did not consider them Franks unless they were Franks put into positions of power in Aquitaine. What makes Hugh the last Frankish king? William IV had a hereditary claim to his principality and was by no means merely a appointee of the Carolingian monarch. Srnec 17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a scholarly convention that makes Hugh Capet the last Frankish king AND the first French king. Somewhere at this point Western Francia became France. I'm just following this convention. Do you have any 'special' ideas on this subject? johanthon 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never picked up on such a convention as this. It is certainly true that most (but not all) authors avoid speaking of France until the advent of the Capetians, but the entity which Robert I and Robert II ruled, whether it's called Western Francia or France, was the same one. I think that William IV may have had Frankish blood in him, but he is not a Frank. I think the Aquitainian dukes had lost that identity by his time, not least because the word "Frank" would have meant "French" by that time, I believe. But I also happen to know that the Gascons called the Aqutiainians Franks (and, again, the Aquitainians never called themselves Aquitainians, that designator was the Franks'). What did a tenth-century native to Aquitaine call himself? Probably a Poitevin or Limousin or some such thing. Srnec 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I know there is a weird tolerance on WP regarding medieval titles and countries, but Hugues Capet could not be king of France as the first king of France was Louis VI le Gros, a title invented circa 1127. Capet was actually elected king of the Franks (or kings of the Western Franks).
I don’t think a work aiming at popularising knowledge should be that approximate and indulge in that kind of gross anachronisms. Maeldan (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of France is anachronistic
Talk:Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self

message: I've turned this redirect page into a brief discussion of the book, hopefully with "hooks" to let others expand it. It shows how the book fits into the series, briefly discusses its contents, and contains links to detailed online abstracts of every chapter, and to the book's entries in the catalogs of Princeton University Press and Routledge. In my experience, it isn't easy to find this material on one's own. I'm planning to do this with other books in the series, and would appreciate comments about that project. With luck, I might be able to do one book per day. Lou Sander (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer a redirect 
Talk:Huckleberry Finn (1974 film)

message: Actually it was downriver not up river, while the free state of Illinois is east of Missouri there were slavecatchers. Cairo, Illinois which is downriver from Hannibal, Missouri had the underground railroad and an abolitionist community.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.171.75 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction of journey in Huckleberry Finn
Talk:Edmund Gosse

message: Gosse was a cousin to  Sir James Hay Gosse, an Australian businessman. He is also distantly related to Alexander Downer. Is this important enough to put in this article?Ozdaren 11:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian connection 

message: What makes Gosse LGBT? I don't see any evidence in the text. Andrew Dalby 15:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No one explained, so I've taken out the LGBT category. If anyone wants to put it back, please make sure there's some explanation in the text of the article. Andrew Dalby 12:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frimoussou (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT? 

message: Gosse was also closely tied to figures such as Algernon Charles Swinburne, John Addington Symonds, and André Gide.
:Odd wording. Tied in what way? Business or social connections? Valetude (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a friend of, and corresponded with Swinburne, and wrote a biography of him.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 05:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Closely tied'? 

message: I think Philip Henry Gosse's affiliation with the Plymouth Brethren is a bit overstated here. According to the ODNB, Gosse joined the Brethren in 1843, but after he had moved to St Marychurch in 1857 he established a completely independent chapel without any connection to the Brethren. This is confirmed by Edmund Gosse himself, who writes in his father's biography, The Naturalist of the Sea-shore, p. 330:
:"In middle life he had connected himself with the Plymouth Brethren, principally, no doubt, because of their lack of systematic organization, their repudiation of all traditional authority, their belief that the Bible is the infallible and sufficient guide. But he soon lost confidence in the Plymouth Brethren also, and for the last thirty years of his life he was really unconnected with any Christian body whatever."
Since Edmund Gosse was born in 1849, the "Plymouth Brethren" part of his upbringing ended when he was eight or nine years old. – Schneid9 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. His father's change in attitude apparently began at the time Gosse's mother died. Father and Son (beginning around p. 70 in the 1949 Penguin edition) gives more detail and nuance, and would be worth looking at for a reference and maybe a quote. Andrew Dalby 08:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to be careful with Father and Son as this is reputedly very inaccurate.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 05:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plymouth Brethren
Talk:Erispoe

message: Should be renamed Erispoe, King of Brittany: all the books on the history of Brittany call him a king and not a duke.Benoni 19:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose--however, while the term regnum was used to describe Brittany after Nominoë's victory over Charles the Bald, and it was largely independent of Frankish control for centuries, the term itself could be rather vague in application.  There are plenty of cases where ducatus (duchy) and regnum are used to describe the same entity (Bavaria in the early tenth century comes to mind).  I don't know of any evidence that the Breton leaders considered themselves "kings" in the sense that modern historians might use the term, and most ninth-century chroniclers continued to refer to Brittany as either a ducatus or a comitatus (duchy, county).   While this certainly is ethnocentric, it is not inaccurate; moreover, these are the terms commonly used by modern medieval historians as well. SGilsdorf 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have changed the reference to "Normans" here, rendering it instead by the more customary (albeit somewhat vague) term "Vikings".  While derived from the Frankish term Nordmanni ("North-men"), the word "Normans" commonly refers to the inhabitants of the later, Christianized duchy in northern Francia, established by treaty with Charles the Straightforward in the early tenth century, as well as those who left the duchy to seek their fortune in southern Italy. SGilsdorf 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a relict of translation from the French Wiki that "Normans" is sometimes used when "Danes" or "Vikings" is meant. Of course, it ought to be corrected. Srnec 17:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Normans"

message: Erispoe was not a rex in contemporary documents that I know of. Nor was Nominoe. That title is only accurate for Saloman. Erispoe is pretty unique and causes no disambig problems, so, as with Nominoe, I suggest moving this article there. Then we can concentrate on the merge. (I think the diaresis is French usage and is less common in English, by the way. Nominoe's article does not use it and neither do my English sources on hand.) Srnec 02:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support If this is to have a longer form, it should in any case be Erispoe of Brittany; see WP:NCNT. But Erispoe should be enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it myself. I found a way. Srnec 03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:Pascweten

message: To be renamed, for example Pasquitan, count of Vannes: he was never Duke of Brittany, but tried to become King of Brittany.Benoni 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He and Wrwhant disputed Brittany. His article could be title Duke of Brittany or Count of Vannes, in my opinion. Srnec 04:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article titled Duchy of Brittany which is designed the handle the topic Dukes of Brittany. 96.224.73.113 (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reputable source that can help document whether Pascweten ever claimed the title of Duke or was better described as a Pretender, never to rise to the title of Duke?96.224.73.113 (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Regino's chronicle, anno 874, "Pasquitano et Vurfando, ducibus ... post cuius [Salomonis] mortem hii duo regnum eius inter se dividere". The dukes divided the kingdom between them. Srnec (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Alan II, Duke of Brittany

message: All of the sources I have seen indicate that Roscille d'Anjou, wife of Alan II was a daughter of Fulk I of Anjou, and a sister of Fulk II.  This article states that Alan's widow married Fulk II; however, he seems to have been her brother.  Is is possible that the author of this article has confused Roscille d'Anjou with her mother, Roscille de Loches, who was wife of Fulk I?
Toddj 21:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about relationship to Anjevin house 

message: Is he really called Alan II in the sources. The French called the next Alain, Alain II de Bretagne or Alain III de Nantes.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reginal number
Talk:Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran

message: I renamed the article thinking that I was in the TURKISH Wikipedia. Sorry for that! Please undo this move. Thank you!--Sae1962 (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry for WRONG renaming
Talk:Geoffrey I, Duke of Brittany

message: I was wondering if anyone knew the source of the information in this article stating that Hawise of Normandy was the daughter of Richard I and "an unknown mistress".  I am a direct descendant of Geoffroy (duke of Brittany) and Hawise, according to our family tree Hawise was the child of Richard and Gonnorade Crepon (daughter of Herbastus of Denmark and an unknown woman), and since Gonnorade had the title of Duchess of Normandy I've always assumed they were married.  There are websites not affiliated with my family that confirm this.  I guess if no one responds I can cite those websites and change the article?  Camelbinky (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Alan III, Duke of Brittany

message: "Alan III was poisoned, possibly by Duke William of Normandy, who also probably poisoned his son, Conan II." Really? Yes, I know William may well have poisoned Conan, but Alan? William was about twelve years old when Alan died, and the resultant power void put his own life in danger. It doesn't ring true to me. Who suggested it? Where are the citations?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.45.16 (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: William of Normandy
Talk:Wilhelm Lexis

message: Over the past few days, I've expanded this article, including the addition of new sections and external links.  The prior version of the article was largely unreferenced and was written in an unencyclopedic tone.  It also placed undue weight on the minor occupations that Lexis worked at during the years before he began his notable work.  Regarding the work itself, the prior version placed undue weight on the naming of the Lexis diagram, and did so in a point-of-viewish fashion.
Two specific points of note: I removed both of the (undocumented) references to Lexis being the "founder" of the study of insurance.  Given that the insurance business had existed for more than a century before Lexis came around, this seemed an outlandish claim.  I also noted that the date of death given in the MacTutor biography does not agree with the dates given in the German sources.  I replaced the MacTutor date with the German-sourced date (and I did this in the Wikidata listing, as well).
NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of article (August 2015)
Talk:Angry Penguins

message: I would have thought that Angry Penguins is better known as a magazine - the "art movement" seems better known as the Heide School or Circle. If there is an Angry Penguin movement surely this would be a section within an article about the magazine. Eroteme (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reclassification 

message: The title 'angry penguins' has been given to six artists who associated to a greater or lesser degree wirht 'heide', ome of the late John and Sunday Reed, and with the literary journal Angry Penguins (1940-46) edited by John Reed and Max Harris. They were not a group in the normal sense of the word, and excepting perhaps Tucker, they were not angry. essentialy, they were individualists who beleived that an artist must be free to paint in his or her own way without interference. --WhitneyHI5 (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  commentary 