lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Template talk:Non-free vodcast screenshot

message: It strikes me that virtually all vodcast images are going to be of people for whom free replacement images are either available or possible to create. This template text explains that it is for non-free media only (so I think its name should strictly be change to "Non-free vodcast screenshot" for consistency with other similar entries in :Category:Non-free image copyright tags) but it seems likely that most images it's used on will be non-permitted. I'm a bit wary of suggesting the template for deletion (since I guess it's conceivable that some non-free media of this type might be permitted on Wikipedia, so should have an appropriate tag - on the other hand, its mere existence may well encourage inappropriate uploads), not quite sure how or where to propose a renaming for consistency (I am sure there was a debate somewhere about appending "Non-free" in front of non-free media templates but not sure where or when) and I do think that most instances listed in "Whatlinkshere" will tend to replaceable so it'd be a good idea for people to keep an eye on its use.  Purgatorio 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the discussion has been happening here: Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates, and I agree we should at the very east tack a "non-free" prefix onto the template name, but we should also consider just merging it with a more generic vido screenshot tag, these things may not be procuced by "big media", but they are still screenshots of non-free recordings so there is no big fundamental difference in status or how they can be used on Wikipedia. --Sherool (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also possible that a vodcast screenshot could be released under a free license by the copyright holder. This muddies the water somewhat as well (I guess this is one of the problems with classifying copyright by medium) - perhaps the purpose tag should be reduced to describing the type of image (vodcast) but not the copyright status (which could be added with an extra video screenshot tag if it's non-free, or the appropriate free license if so released) but it does seem somewhat redundant. Purgatorio (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bit wary of this tag? (Images generally going to be replaceable)
Talk:Oja's rule

message: This article seems mostly copied from  and offers little insight into the workings of the rule. I am rewriting it. SamuelRiv 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: In the article it's not clear to me if A(expression) means function A applied on expression or function A multiplied by expression. This prevents me from understanding the formulas in the articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.114.10 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous () 

message: I am pretty technically proficient person, albeit in a completely different field, but so far this article is difficult to follow, in terms of high level "What does this Rule actually state?"  If someone could write a better intro paragraph that gives the lay man an understanding of what this rule means that would be great.  I have no knowledge of this field, and like probably a half million other wikipedians, I clicked on it from today's main page.  But this article doesn't really tell me what Oja's Rule means.  SamuelRiv, above, may already be working on this, but I just wanted to request that.  Thank you. Dachande (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Little Technical

message: I have been reviewing the wikipedia on some hard math areas and I can see that despite knowing the material, even knowing the material so well to the technical profficiency level, sometimes I can barely follow the expositions and have to read several times and navigate! Is this now a lost comment not even I will remember and nobody will read? I see no problem, besides financing, for the keepers of this site to consider rewriting the math areas so that they become didactic, though other reorientations for this material are also possible. Particularly, some middle concepts should be explained in the same page without links or at least notation described thoroughly or exemplified despite redundancies. For example in this page, several formulae arrive at terms such as y(n) where actual samples for y() are never exposed, though I know from other references that sigmoid functions ARE an important in these neural network contexts, though not the only possibilities available. Danilo. 67.100.226.74 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic documentation and didactic
Talk:Mary Grant Price

message: Only 31 Google hits. IMDB does not show anything meeting WP:BIO. Was going to AfD, but it would be better to merge to Vincent Price. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  00:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the proposed merger. Unschool (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Keep separate. Would you merge Martha and George Washington? They were two different people. If you merge two bio articles, do you put the article in both the Category Deceased Men and in the Category Deceased Women? Bad idea. - Eric (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I removed the merger tag from both articles, as it had existed without sufficient support (or boldness) for years. While this article has also remained a stub for that same amount of time, my feedback to the merger (which I am pasting from Talk:Vincent Price) explains some of her notability:
 - BalthCat (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger tag removed / Notability
Talk:Alexandru Toma

message: Please see WP:LEAD for how the top section is supposed to summarize content. The claim that "he is considered by many commentators to have actually been a mediocre writer with a problematic legacy" is not backed in the text is myopic: Blunt assessments of his value are quoted from precisely the many commentators, and the article cites the fact that Toma was even abandoned by official literature just shortly after his death. It also notes (in detail!) that Toma was a joke for even an "opportunist" like George Călinescu, and that even Toma's son came to tacitly acknowledge that his father did not occupy his position legitimately. I also find it very poor practice to prioritize any one assessment from the many which state the same, just for the sake of preserving a useless decorum: it is, simply put, bad editing, and, under any definition, superfluous. The answer to "Why not put a reference?" is that there are plenty of references already. Dahn (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Re:Mycomp
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Proposed decision

message: Is the clause in the planned "discretionary sanctions" remedy about "fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" (which links to principle 3.1.1, "Purpose of Wikipedia") also meant to include principle 3.1.2, about "purpose of user pages"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for clarification 

message: Before you finish closing this (one more vote?) are you planning to decide which area of conflict the remedy will apply to? Jd2718 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody will surely correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the committee's practice is they go by number of "first choice" and "second choice" votes. So I guess the wider scope version (all Balkan-related articles) clearly wins. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area of Conflict
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Dabo DAF

message: This page was unfinished, and I couldn't figure out how to delete it myself. So please, do delete it.
Actually: The improved version of the article is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabo_%28desktop_application_framework%29. I just added external links. 
Regards, Strompf 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Coenzyme-B sulfoethylthiotransferase

message: Should there really be separate pages for Coenzyme-B sulfoethylthiotransferase and Methyl-coenzyme M reductase?  
Methyl-coenzyme M reductase seems to be commonly used in literature, Coenzyme-B sulfoethylthiotransferase is the accepted name
http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iubmb/enzyme/EC2/8/4/1.html
For now, I'm adding a link to Methyl-coenzyme M reductase.  
Wingedkat (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Coenzyme-B sulfoethylthiotransferase and Methyl-coenzyme M reductase
Talk:2008 Atlanta Braves season

message: Is there a way to have the game logs collapsed by default, only opening when the user clicks on them? Abernethyj (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game logs 

message: I'll go back at the end of the offseason and provide brief descriptions of each transaction (see 2007 Atlanta Braves season for examples). Abernethyj (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this what you call additional detils?? - BillCJ (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transactions 

message: Oops! I forgot to add a  tag. That mistake doesn't change the fact that my revisions were correct per WP:MOS. - BillCJ (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of changes

message: Appropriate to add this section, or not?  Wondering if anyone had any valid guesses. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting Rotation
Talk:SLUG Queen

message: Considering the subject, this will always be the case. I debated removing the issue box because the entire point of the SLUG Queen is originality and indefinability. Ended up keeping it w/r/t Wikipedia guidelines. Others' thoughts are welcome. fraise (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Article was created by an old queen! Valfontis (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Another press mention
Talk:Jack B. Newton

message: This article needs references, there is a list of references here. If anyone has access to these sources please confirm and correct the facts stated in this article with citations. If you have any of these print articles, but don't know how to cite information then just ask me and I will help. 1 != 2 01:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of references 

message: I've added some references to reputable sources, so have some others since that box was added. I think we should remove that, plus remove "This section of a biography of a living person does not include any references or sources"
And should remove this; 
"This section of a biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification"
That section now has 7 citations. 
But will give a reasonable time here for commentary before removing it. Feel free to chime in and / or add more citations. I'll wait one month then remove the boxes. Thank you. ElizaBarrington (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does need more citations, but only the top banner should remain, as edited today. Zefr (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "needs additional citations for verification"
Talk:Red 76

message: See WP:NOTE on how to better establish notablity. Good sources would be Willamette Week, The Oregonian, The Portland Tribune, magazines, etc. The NYT is good, but the coverage provided in the article sourced is trivial coverage. Two sentences is not substantial coverage. Aboutmovies 01:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is a notable collective. See above for source ideas. Jfire (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Toolsincommon and e-flux definitely do not pass WP:RS for establishing notability. Do you see that "Editor: Sam Gould & Co."? Since Sam Gould is affiliated with Red 76, that source is definitely not independent.  I don't know enough about the Art 21 source and I'm currently seeking input at Reliable Sources noticeboard. The Willamette Week piece. It's a local weeklie talking about local thing. It could be a contributing source; but per WP:AUD, at LEAST one needs to be at minimum regional and preferably national. The WW piece says he moved from NYC. Now, if it was covered in NYT that he moved from NYC to Portland and it talked bout the company in great depth, that would be a strong indication of notability.  Graywalls (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

text: , was the notability as it relates to WP:NCORP anything as stringent as it is now when you wrote that in 2007? Graywalls (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say there are simply newer editors that overzealosly apply NCORP and other standards without really understanding the purpose. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable?

message: Providing the article is kept at AfD, I propose moving this article to remove the space. "Red76" is how the collective's name is stylized in almost all the sources I've seen. Jfire (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Red76
Talk:Jenny Wade

message: There is another person in history named Virgina "Genny" Wade. When her name is clicked on in this link, it incorrectly directs to THIS Jenny Wade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Cemetery_(Gettysburg,_Pennsylvania) I have no idea how to change this but someone should.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.153.11 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, invoking WP:WTAF. tedder (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect link
Talk:List of active Spanish Navy ships

message: If there's a list of past Spanish Navy ships I haven't found, can somebody fill the red links here? Thanks.  TREKphiler hit me ♠  10:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The past is prologue

message: In the list, the last and bigest spanish aircraft carrier is missing, I'm referring to "Juan Carlos I" which was launched in 10 march 2008(here the evidence). This vessel is called strategic proyection vessel because it can be use in many ways but it's still an aircraft carrier as we can see in these pictures.--Juanrcm (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on sea trials, so wouldn't have been considered 'active', however, it appears it is now commissioned in the Armada, so I have added it. In line with other lists of active ships in other navies, I have added it to amphibious forces, as it's more of an amphibious assault ship (helicopter carriers etc) than a full blown aircraft carrier. Equendil Talk 20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's the last spanish aircraft carrier?

message: Good afternoon, 
I would like that someone could update the list in case of missing or wrong data, for example in this 2023 the Spanish Navy have acquired a few ships.
I don't know how to do these updates to the tables or add photos but if someone would do it, it would be a great help,
Thank you very much in advance and greetings from Spain! 85.251.88.3 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update of the list (Please, I don't know how to do it)
Talk:Ministry of National Defence (Romania)

message: Is everybody sure that this is the flag of the Minister of Defense? Because, as in the case of the flags of the President, the Prime-Minister, or other Members of the Cabinet, I have NEVER seen them in use! 
And please, try to find a different answer than "They are found in Album des Pavillions (2000)".
Thank you! ES Vic (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The flag 
Talk:Wes Mendell

message: Why is Wes in this category?  I know a lot of Sorkin's S60 characters are considered very thinly-veiled versions of real people (Matt as Sorkin, Harriet as Kristin Chenowith, Ricky as Rick Cleveland and so on), but most of that's based on fan speculation as opposed hard evidence.  Is there any evidence to suggest Wes is based on a real person? Shoemoney2night 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional versions of real people
Talk:Goring-by-Sea

message: As will be seen from 'what links here' and elsewhere the small case '-by-sea' suffix is unknown. The recent move to the current name should be reversed Saga City 20:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has been moved to Goring-by-Sea as the result of a move request listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 07:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:Ganges (1809 whaler)

message: For anyone interested: 
*Partial log kept on board ship GANGES of Nantucket, Mass. Thomas Coffin, master; 1849 Sep 12-Dec 23 http://www.mysticseaport.org/Library/Manuscripts/coll/coll058/coll058.html
Gwinva (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Not only did Folger ignore the right whales of the northwest coast, but he wasn't even the first to note right whales there. For example: "The French captain who gave so unstintingly of this information was Narcisse Chaudiere, and his ship—unfortunately for a later generation of historians—was named the Gange. Chaudiere had just extended French whaling experience to 49° in the eastern North Pacific; his report to Stetson may have been the first announcement of success there. Stavers had missed the whales, and Barzillai Folger, finally at sea in the Ganges, had only just got to Cape Horn." Quoted from Robert L. Webb, On the Northwest: Commercial Whaling in the Pacific Northwest, 1790-1967 (1988).
Seeing as how Gwinva's source (Mawar 1999) not only didn't give his source, but also failed to consult the primary work on whaling in this region (Webb 1988), I will be reverting this section. It should STAY reverted. Jonas Poole (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense.  Thanks for clarifying.  Gwinva (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gange/Ganges "debate"
Talk:HMS Hercules (1868)

message: The reason why I gave it a Stub class rank because it was fairly short and messy. Please contact me on my talk page if you disagree. Thanks, Fattyjwoods (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/hms-hercules-18691870-24663
©Geni 00:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted ! I've loaded this and some of the other paintings by him to Commons. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: added the pic, like it.Sandpiper (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible pic
Talk:Bessarabia Germans

message: Bhs677 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

message: I don't know Editing Talks very well --- Correction:  The Odessa region was settled first (circa 1804).  Some of them, including my relatives, moved to Bessarabia later.
The Germans moved to the Volga River region in the late 1700's.  Catherine the Great invited all of Europe.  It was mostly Germans who moved to the Volga River region.  
Catherine the Great's grandson made the same offer with some stipulations => needed to have an occupation, and needed to have a family.  Those Germans moved to the Odessa region in the early 1800's.  
As one example, a relative's kids were born in Odessa region from 1833 thru 1839.  The rest of the kids were born in Bessarabia from 1841 thru 1853.
To obtain details, see => https://eisenbeisz.foxping.com/.  Search the genealogy page for Bessarabia => results in more than 700 hits.
Clyde Eisenbeis
Bhs677 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Bessarabia Germans

message: The Krasna mentioned in the article is now Krasne, Odessa Oblast, Ukraine. It was the second German colony in Bessarabia. It's coordinates are 46° 7'5.12"N, 29°14'46.06"E --Jbergquist (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krasna 
Talk:Rayuan Pulau Kelapa

message: I have now supplied an introduction to the lyrics, and it seems to me that this warrants the article to be kept. I am not sure about the lyrics themselves: although they are to be found all over the Internet, it is quite doubtful whether they may be used freely, and hopefully colleagues will judge whether they should be deleted or not. Bessel Dekker 02:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important question is when they were written.  Given the rage of dates in the article introduction, I expect it is unlikely that that the song is in the public domain, but it is possible since pre-1971 publishing usually required renewal of the copyright term.The problem, however, is that in case of doubt we have little choice but to remove the text.  I'm going to remove them, but feel free to add them back if new information comes to light showing they can be used.  — Coren (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with this, especially since the content has been briefly hinted at now. I am just wondering whether there would be any point in adding a brief quote for discussion purposes (which, as far as I am aware would be legal), but then, would it be any use quoting in Indonesian? I propose leaving the text as it is. The original writer has also been informed (discussion on my talk page). Thanks for your cooperation. Bessel Dekker 18:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article started as a song text. After discussion as to the legality of this, it was altered and became a discussion of the song and its significance. As I speak Indonesian and know something about Indonesian culture, I added my two cents. However, soebody has now clapped so many tags on the article that they take up as much space as the text itself. Probably this editor knows more about the subject than I do, and therefore is aware of improvements which could be made. As I myself see no room for improvement on this sort of subject at all (a brief discussion, to my mind, is all that is required, and a brief discussion this is) I think it would be more elegant and indeed more generous to remove the article altogether than to let it exist, no doubt for years and years, encumbered with these labels. They do not contribute to the article's quality.
I would like to apologize very sincerely to the original poster of the article, whose intentions, I am convinced, were honest and constructive. It is a pity events have taken this turn. Bessel Dekker (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regrettable labels

message: Hi. This article's validity is complete. I have provided references for all the major points, plus a fair quality performance of the song at YouTube. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 11:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referenced and YouTubed
Talk:Joy Mangano

message: What to know how much the computer bag is worth if at all in really good condition 2600:1702:12F0:84D0:ACEE:5456:C758:AF04 (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer bag 

message: CAN YOU STILL GET THEM??? 64.82.187.144 (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readers 

message: Second husbands last name was mangano 96.224.208.82 (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Married and divorced 2x
Talk:Marci Geller

message: Reviewing the links above, there is more of a case for a "Lucky 13" article, than for Geller, but even that seems very weak.- Sinneed 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources have a lot to do with Lucky 13, yes, (so an article there could certainly also be made) but not all of them do, and they still have information pertaining to Marci Geller. How are the sources weak? SilverserenC 04:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "strongest" as I see it is the interview in the 2005 book.  The rest are mostly appearance listings... those only go to show the group and the performer are real.  Any garage band should have appearance listings, even if they have never made a dollar and no one will ever know their names.- Sinneed 04:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Benefit concerts are not the same thing as appearance listings. And the Times Beacon Record article talks a lot more about Geller and Lucky 13. Furthermore, the Connecticut Songsmith article also has a lot of information about her. Are those not notable? SilverserenC 04:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucky 13 
Talk:Natalya Baranskaya

message: I have in front of me the book:
Natalia baranskaia 'une semaine comme une autre et quelques écrits'
1976, Editions des femmes
Different dates in present Wikipedia text81.246.207.146 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Date: 1908 or 1909? -Publication date of 'une semaine comme une autre 1976, Editions des femmes