lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:John Vasconcellos

message: This seem less than a critical exposit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.175.36.174 (talk • contribs) 16:59, February 5, 2006‎‎ (UTC)
:I agree.  Anyone object to making this a little more encyclopedic and less like a campaign commercial for Vasconcellos?  --Westwind273 (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 
Talk:Someday My Prince Will Come (Miles Davis album)

message: I flagged this album as mid-importance on the album project importance scale and high-importance on the jazz importance scale. Does anyone disagree with my assessment? I tried to err on the conservative side. Ultrauber (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: I have never seen a Lyricist not getting credit on the grounds that a work is purely instrumental before. It is usually assumed that an instrumentalists interpretation is influenced by the tone the lyrics give the melody. The title song is about longing, about waiting for the fulfillment of a wish because: "Someday My Prince Will Come".
Stephen
75.73.244.49 (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyricists?
Talk:Jonathan Glazer

message: I vote yes. I keep re reading it. 8barzmusic (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There seems to be consensus on not referring to this week's worldwide criticism of the subject of the article so I'm going to leave it now. I see reference above to WP:Coatracking, which I think is in error. The article is about Glazer and reference to worldwide comment on his own comments, which were clearly designed to elicit worldwide comment, is manifestly not coatracking. That may be relevant if any editors look again in future. In the meantime, interesting chat and all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the consensus differently and I did insert one sentence from a secondary source about the controversy itself. I put my comment above, under the RfC, sorry if I should have put it elsewhere. ProfGray (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus for adding anything at all regarding worldwide reactions. TarnishedPathtalk 02:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Present version
Talk:John J. Parker

message: Howcome his service during the Nuremberg trial is not mentioned in the article? --tomf688{talk} 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added nearly everything you see to the article nearly six months ago.  I was reading about the trials and came across Parker and decided to Google information about.  I couldn't find much (or anything) about him regarding Nuremberg, so I didn't include anything. KArsenault 12:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuremberg trial 

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/John Johnston Parker was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: The text says Parker died in Washington, but the sidebar says he died in New Orleans. --Tbanderson (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of death is contradictory in article 
Talk:1957 Chevrolet

message: This page doesn't seem to need to be wikified, so I removed the tag.--Mathwizard1232 22:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: An anon recently added:
* (Actually, Ford outsold Chevrolet in both 1957 and 1959.... Chevrolet topped Ford in sales for most of the 30's through the 80's.... check your facts)
which is inappropriate in the article, but perhaps an editor more knowledgable than I can incorporate more properly.  I'm reverting the edit.
John (Jwy) 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Competition

message: The article refers to El Morocco as a trim level; in fact these were converted from Chevrolets by a completely separate company, without Chevrolet's backing, and were titled as El Moroccos, not Chevrolets. To all intents and purposes, they were different cars. El Morocco conversions were available on both '56 and '57 Chevrolets.62.49.16.43 20:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  El Morocco 

message: It seems strange to me that this figure is not included in the box as it normally is for most manufactured vehicles I have seen in Wikipedia (particularly airplanes).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.103.43.117 (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number built?
Talk:Trams in Berlin

message: Unfortunately, my English knowledge is not without gaps. Thus, if you happen to find some grammar or spelling mistakes, please do not hesitate to correct them without notice on this discussion page. If you find mistakes in the content of this article, please put a short note below this paragraph before you change it. Greetings, Thomas Goldammer 22:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ß does not exist in English, so I am moving the article. Olborne 09:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Berlin Straßenbahn is in Germany, and you moved this without any consensus. I'm moving it back.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 18:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool, isn't it? ;o) It's meant that all cars run 170 mio. km/y. I corrected it. --Thogo (Talk) 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Most of the links in this article link to German names.  Would it be more appropriate to place the links on the English translations because of this article's residence in the English Wikipedia?  Locopingvin (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links
Talk:County Route 583 (New Jersey)

message: This article is a bit confusing, and I have yet to see the documentation change, but suggests the road may have mostly been downgraded below CR status, as per the request, most CR 583 signage was, in fact, removed.
https://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/about/R_2015_d_127_(47_NJR_1979(a)).pdf
Famartin (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The SLD still has CR 583 listed (although it was last inventoried in 2012), but other than that and spotty signage remaining, the route may have in fact been decommissioned. Dough4872 04:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route mostly dead?
Talk:Sanqu (poetry)

message: Can someone please add tones to everything here, and move it to a page with the proper Pinyin, with tones?  --LakeHMM 22:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tones

message: This　page needs deletion.　It is taken care of in the Chinese Sanqu poetry page.--125.196.5.44 08:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, better, the content and other material should be merged and this be made a redirect. Dcattell (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oddball Page
Talk:2001 Typhoon Chebi

message: ...A helluva lot. This article needs to be greatly expanded if it's going to stay. If descent info can be found, good, use it. If not, then merge it. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better or more info. Storm05 14:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: Still very, very incomplete and stubby. I propose a merge. – Chacor 12:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with the merge. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge Good kitty 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?
Talk:House of M (story)

message: The issues summaries should be condensed into one summary. This is all 'far' too detailed. --DrBat 22:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

message: I've redirected this article, it's an overlong detailed plot description.  Guidance on writing about fiction precludes such detailed plot synopsis.
Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles states:
*Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective.
**This article failed to discuss the out-of-universe perspective, presenting all information from within.
Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles also states
*(ensure) fictional passages are short, grounded with real-world language, and do not form more than a small portion of the article.
** Again, this article failed to consider this issue, being over 30k in size and detailing only a four issue limited series.
Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles states:
*Articles about fictional topics should not be simple book reports; instead, the topic should be explained through its significance on the work. The reader should be able to feel like they understand why a character, place, or event was included in the fictional work after reading an article about one. A reader should be able to understand why this person/place/thing/event is relevant to the story.
**To my mind, this article was a book report, thus breaching the above guidance.
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) states 
*It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. Wikibooks, Wikipedia's sibling project, contains instructional and educational texts. These include annotated works of fiction (on the [[wikibooks:Wikibooks:annotated texts bookshelf) for classroom or private study use. Wikisource, similarly, holds original public domain and GFDL source texts. See wikisource:Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks.
**Plot should be part of the main article, not a separate article, again a point on which this article failed. Hiding Talk 21:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirected
Talk:El Nido, Merced County, California

message: why mention it's 15 mile distance from le grand which has 1500 people when it is 12 miles due south of Merced, population 200,000
107.3.134.101 (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  why mention it's 15 mile distance from le grand which has 1500 people when it is 12 miles due south of Merced, population 200,000 

message: Courts 2600:1702:44F0:2F80:618B:F990:7A02:2C15 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merced police department vs Hoffman Greg
Talk:Philip K. Chapman

message: This link: http://127.0.0.1:4664/redir?url=D%3A%5CPKC+stuff%5CHydEcUpload%2Epdf&src=8&schema=8&start=0&s=KUzZW_iHjIWihhq5V2gxEMWtVXs
for the article "Power from Space and the Hydrogen Economy," 55th International Astronautical Congress, Vancouver CANADA, October 4-8, 2004. appears to be a failed upload. I have searched without success for an internet link to said document. I am sure someone else will find it, so I have removed it in the interim. --Shannonr 22:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:C. E. Webber

message: His draft script for the first ever episode, An Unearthly Child, formed the basis of the broadcast version eventually re-written by Anthony Coburn.
Everything I've read suggests differently: Webber actually wrote various guides for the series and a first story called "The Giants" which at most got as far as scripts for the first couple of epiosdes. When "The Giants" was scrapped, Anthony Coburn adapted elements into his story which was now due to be broadcast first, rather than rewriting Webber's scripts. Anyone know a better way to handle this?
Also if anyone's got Doctor Who From A to Z to hand the first chapter looks at Webber's role and may have more biographical details. Timrollpickering 22:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the single first episode Webber wrote which is being referred to — I phrased it that way because of Webber's co-writing credit for the transmitted episode on BBC documentation, which suggets that Coburn used Webber's script as a starting point at least. Obviously it's not meant to suggest that the rest of The Giants had any relation to the rest of Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with Some Cavemen.Angmering 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll rephrase it a little - using the actual episode title implies that he actually wrote the first draft of what was transmitted rather than Coburn basing his episode on it. Timrollpickering 11:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, I hadn't thought of it that way. Angmering 18:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What exactly did he write?
Talk:MPEG-7

message: The links for Descriptor and Description scheme are not correct: A Description Scheme is - although based on XML - written in DDL. A Descriptor in MPEG-7 has no connection to the article linked to the word Descriptor.
143.205.122.226 08:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descriptors and Description Schemes 

message: After reading this article, I'm still in the dark about what kind of metadata this is aimed for. I can't tell whether bibliographic data such as a movie title, year of production or cast of characters would be appropriate for this metadata, or, if so, how they would be represented. Knowing that this standard is kind of a langauge for talking about the language for describing videos - still, an example would go a long way towards making this article concrete. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing an example 
Talk:Eastman and Laird's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

message: I believe Shadow Jones is important enough to deserve her own article. The S 04:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to it, dude: Shadow Jones. Wild Goose 05:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shadow

message: :The concept was apparently borne from a comical drawing sketched out by Kevin Eastman during a casual evening of brainstorming with his friend Peter Laird in 1983. 
I'm not sure 1983 is correct.  Is there a source for that date?  See my comment in Talk:Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles#Origin_of_the_Name.  --Jczorkmid 13:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation Date?
Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments

message: Dear all, 
Is this not hypocritical reaction from the Muslim world, I do think so.
Here just an example from the "other" world http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/t/the_pope.asp
If we can accept this and also Muslims have said nothing about this, then what is the point rising their voice now. There are even less nice cartoon made, also over God, the "man" who has many many 
names in different kinds of religions. Those all can be easily found on the internet. 
Everyone, as well others than Muslims as Muslims, give a break and see how the reality is, have fun. 
There's still one thing I'd like to say. If you want to delete this part, do so, but it happens to be as it is, all over the world...there is only one "religion" that threats the rest with all kind of actions. Are we not allowed to defend ourselves? Muslims do do it too. See what happens now. 
And only because of some cartoon pictures... 
I ask from *everyone* space and peace for the whole human kind. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.48.189 (talk • contribs) 
:Welcome to Wikipedia! Here, we are writing the world's best encyclopedia; this isn't a place to discuss or debate issues that don't involve editorial content. (In other words, the "discussion" link refers to the fact that we're discussing how to improve the article, not the topic itself.) These discussions simply aren't appropriate here; there's other websites dedicated to this. We are not one - we're here to write an encyclopedia. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Jenny Haniver

message: is there any evidence that Feejee mermaids were ever considered Jenny Hanivers? Material therefore removed.  Also what evidence is there that the sailors of Antwerp have "for centuries" made such things? [unsigned]
: Please sign you posts with 4 tildes (~). The 'FeeJee' mermaids were certainly Jenny Hanivers in origin, even if the name doesn't technically fit them. As for the 'centuries' comment, drawings in old books have been shown to be JHs, as have specimens in old museums and other collections. There's a chapter in one of Willey Ley's books about them, with pictures. CFLeon 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Some interesting work by a Japanese artist who specializes in making "Jenny Hanivers":
:http://sow.ggnet.co.jp/room.htm?no=8
:http://sow.ggnet.co.jp/room.htm?no=9
:http://sow.ggnet.co.jp/room.htm?no=10
:http://sow.ggnet.co.jp/ex/information.htm
--Gar2chan 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jenny Haniver Art

message: Is there anyone who seriously believes that these are real? This is nothing more than a gaff, and should not receive the "cryptid" tag. Kortoso (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is DID people believe they were real. Many cryptids are not believed in by many people.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptid? 

message: I added some citations to verify the information. Please edit if you find any errors. 
Thanks. King Cobra 13:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations. 

message: If there are no objections, I plan to add a small section titled "Construction". The short paragraph will detail how a Jenny Hanniver is created. The process is not explained anywhere in this article – Down time (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of their construction needed
Talk:Mascara, Algeria

message: I edited to try to fix English mistakes in this article but could not add or change anything of substance to the article as I know nothing about Muaskar.  Personally I think the original version looked more professional, perhaps what is in this version- if confirmed- could be added to it? --70.179.119.138 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muaskar 
Talk:P.E.A.C.E. Plan

message: There seems to be no discussion of this. The Rick Warren article is already too long, despite containing virtually no biographical details. This article could also be sxpanded IMO, so I propose to remove the notice if no reasons for the merge are forthcoming. Andrewa 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: ===Links to information about the P.E.A.C.E. Plan===
| Facing the World’s Five Giants
| Biblical Foundation
| Distinctives
| Personal P.E.A.C.E.
| AIDS and P.E.A.C.E.
| How to Get Ready (Part 1)
| How to Get Ready (Part 2)
Wikipedia is not a list of links. Perhaps some of these chould go back, properly formatted and flagged with their size and format in the case of the .doc files. But IMO a link to the website is all we need here. Andrewa 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: Should it pe P.E.A.C.E. or just PEACE? Andrewa 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an acronym and is listed as P.E.A.C.E on the official website. Why has no one bothered to include what it stands for before now? --RJCraig 12:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was formatted with periods but as of the last few months church leadership has done away with the periods and is now using spaces. CarverM (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title
Talk:Jam sandwich (police car)

message: I think an entry on jam sandwiches themselves is more appropriate in a dictionary, and there is already an entry at wiktionary:jam sandwich. They are not particularly notable and most people understand them thoroughly. The information the section provided was either clear from the title or advice, which is inappropriate because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual; the content was also original research. On the other hand, the slang term referring to police cars is a notable part of British culture (appearing frequently on several shows) and merits detailed explanation, which an encyclopedia entry can better provide. Superm401 - Talk 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move Part Deux 19:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Sandwiches

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Oppose, I find it highly unlikely that those interested in the actual sandwich would search for Jam sandwich, and a dab page would be useless if there is no article on jam sandwiches specifically. A disambiguation notice at the top of the current article would suffice if it's really needed. Voretustalk 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: An ex-police Rover SD1 being sold at auction for a record price for that model (although actual price not specified in the article) is interesting, but does it really have any connection to this article (which is about a near-archaic British colloquialism, not the Rover SD1)? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:4951:AF03:3C77:5C80 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record-breaking auction price 

message: Gonna come right out and say it: nobody uses this term anymore. The police 'jam sandwich' is a thing of the past, which is only remembered by your dad or your uncle. The average Briton under the age of 25-30 has probably never heard this term being used in the context of this article.
Does this article deserve its place on Wikipedia? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:4951:AF03:3C77:5C80 (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is an old IP query that nobody has bothered to reply to, but while I don't think the article deserves deletion simply because "it doesn't exist anymore", I think an interesting discussion might be whether this actually falls under the 'slang' header. The link to slang is a bit more tenuous and maybe reserved to Wikitionary, and this article might be better off like Battenburg markings in describing livery rather than the term. Hullian111 (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saying the unsayable
Talk:Wladislaw Taczanowski

message: Wladislaw or Władysław?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The spelling is from a 1880 German reference book, so it may differ from the Polish form. DGG 02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Asano Naganori

message: I changed the one of three famous vendettas line because it does not expand on what the other two vendettas are and thus it seemed a bit extraneous to include it. Surely a brief note of the other two would make sense? Hellfire83 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three famous vendettas

message: Needs references. LordAmeth 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment
Talk:Book of Thomas the Contender

message: I removed links to the "Thomasine Church"; the article for that group currently redirects elsewhere, apparently reflecting editors' beliefs that the group is not particularly notable. If the group is notable, we should have a real "Thomasine Church" page. Meanwhile, I'd like to avoid confusion with the fairly substantial group of St. Thomas Christians. Brennen 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Thomasine Church" stuff

message: for someone looking for an encyclopaedic overview, giving information about this book - this article in itself is too esoteric. origins, history, contents?  no headings, no breakdown 86.149.182.248 (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  no headings 
Talk:Zhoug

message: Zhug is more of a paste than a powder or dry mix. Why is it called a "spice mixture" here? Should this be changed? Flourdustedhazzn 23:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they are infact different, ( see my comments on the [skhug] article ) , I think the actual difference is between the 2 recipies you have listed... the second one is the one I have see for making [Schug]  ( although I personally add cumin ) --yisraeldov 15:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic definition