lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Angus Lewis Macdonald

message: I have assessed this as a Stub, as it only contains the basic information on the topic, and of low importance, as I do not feel that many people outside of Canada would be familiar with the subject of the article. Cheers, CP 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upgraded to B without hesitation, which is the highest class one can give without a formal review. I suggest taking it to WP:GA, as a quick glance indicates that it's fairly solid and you might get some good tips for improvement there. Cheers, CP 17:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Dates are linked in the lead, but not elsewhere; need to be consistent.  Either unlink them all or link them all
:Thanks for your suggestions. I've unlinked dates in the lead.
I found errors of logical punctuation, see WP:PUNC.
I also found WP:LAYOUT and WP:ITALICS errors, so I suggest asking User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check.
:I've asked User:Epbr123 for the MoS check.
Also, if the blue box is a direct quote, it should be cited.
:I've provided the citation for the direct quote in the blue box. Thanks again. Bwark (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: In the section "Building the navy" several paragraphs and a photo have been added that were taken from the entry John Moreau Grant. I question whether all of this information and the photo is needed in this entry since it already appears in another entry. Furthermore, it is out of chronological order and its citations do not follow the formatting of the rest of this feature article. (No page numbers for example.) I'm proposing to shorten this passage considerably, move it to a more appropriate place in this section and eliminate the unnecessary photo. Bwark (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of questionable paragraphs
Talk:Island of Terror

message: It seems that neither Wiki nor IMDB pays much attention to the aspect ratio in which a movie was shot and/or issued.  This is a shame, as many movies have been altered from their original aspect ratio for home release.  Is there any way to find out the original aspect ratio of this motion picture? StavinChain (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A google shows several sites listing the original aspect ratio as 1.85 to 1. Not sure how reliable they are though.—RJH (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspect ratio? 

message: The first sentence of this article currently (April 14, 2024) reads, "Island of Terror, also known as Night of the Silicates, is a 1966 British horror film released by Planet Film Productions." I think this movie is clearly mostly science fiction with some horror elements, so I think the first sentence should read, "Island of Terror, also known as Night of the Silicates, is a 1966 British science fiction horror film released by Planet Film Productions."
But I'm no Wikipedia expert so I leave it for someone else to edit the article if people agree with me. 2601:600:9480:500:E9F3:6C22:2F2:2F00 (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Should Be Called a Science Fiction Horror Film
Talk:Nicholas Serota

message: Someone has taken out all the links.
----------------
Link and other info (relating to trustees) were removed by user 217.158.228.164 who has no other contributions to Wikipedia. I have reverted to last version before him/her. It may be that these deletions were for a valid reason, but it needs to be established on the talk page. There are currently no references listed for this article. There need to be more links also.
Tyrenius 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links and info removed

message: I believe this article may have a number of minor inaccuracies throughout. Tyrenius 20:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: the article is full of attacks from a group called the Stuckists. And need to be removed as per WP:Alive Nonartinfo (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. WP:NPOV says to include both positive and negative information about the subject. The question that's open is whether the Stuckists are significant enough for their criticisms to be mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Nonartinfo (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're so concerned about BLP, why did you not remove the Personal life section? —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  you've obviously not read the changes. I removed the WP article link around his ex-wife, because it was dead. Nonartinfo (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no reference in the section, period! —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article full of attacks
Talk:The Idler (1758–1760)

message: I'm writing a brief summary of each essay. If anyone feels like writing a few themselves, that would be most helpful. The full text of The Idler is online at Project Gutenberg (see Links section of article). Perodicticus 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help with essay summaries 

message: I'm not sure why this is a candidate for Wikisource. It's not 'merely a copy of the source material'; I wrote the essay summaries and background information myself. It does have quotations from the original essays, but by no means the whole text. Perodicticus 15:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. This is not something Wikisource would host.  Since you are interested in the subject, perhaps you would like to add the actual essays to Wikisource.  It would be nice to have them linked to this article and you can use wikilinks within the essay to give readers a jump-start on reasearch.  If you are interested, you might want to read s:Help:Adding texts.  Feel free to ask me anything.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisource?
Talk:Evelyn Beatrice Longman

message: someone is vandalizing this page and I'm going to try and figure out how to revert.  wish me luck Carptrash 16:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: vandals

message: I think the fact that the subject has been inducted into the Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame is a quite appropriate addition to the article. I see it was added, then removed without an explanation. Ok, let's discuss. Who thinks is doesn't belong and why?
 
    
*Evelyn Longman Batchelder Inductee Profile at the Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame--SPhilbrickT 19:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame 
Talk:Borsec

message: I've done some wikifying, cleaning and NPOVing, but I'm leaving the cleanup tag for someone more knowledgable to proofread. --LeoNomis 16:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Paul Deussen

message: The image in the article is not of Paul Deussen. It is of Carl von Gersdorff. A true image of Paul  Deussen can be seen at http://www.philos-website.de/index_g.htm?autoren/deussen_paul_g.htm~main2
Lestrade 16:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to the deleterious influence of Wikipedia and its juvenile editors, the face of Carl von Gersdorff has been disseminated throughout the Internet as being the face of Paul Deussen. This even includes the German website mentioned above. Correct images can be seen at http://www.virtusens.de/friedrich_nietzsche/personen/grafik/deussen_kl.jpg and at http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Deussen,+Paul.Lestrade (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image
Talk:Parallel motion linkage

message: The reason why attaching the piston somewhere near the middle of the beam is not a good solution is obvious and needs no further explanation IMHO.
Also the reason given is not well put. The beam is largely symmetrical in design and is the biggest part of the construction. Erecting it at the very top always was a huge enterprise anyway, making it much longer on one side would not have helped. Just citing the house gives only one tiny part of the problems.
Axel Berger 16:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled section

message: the article name "parallel motion" is seems ambiguous. suggest "parallel motion (linkage)" or without brackets. Charlieb000 (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename 

message: It is clear from the article that Watt drew the Watt Linkage and called it Parallel motion, even though they are now believed to be seperate. Likewise, I have a steam engine textbook which has a section on Parallel motion--it describes Watt's linkage! It is worth investigating this confusion, perhaps the distinction was added much later.
10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Watt name change?
Talk:Elections in Palestine

message: Does anyone know how long the terms are for each office?  And when they actually take office?
The answer is actually not straightforward:
The Palestinian Basic Law and the Elections Law do not provide a clear answer to this, and they are
somewhat contradictory. Presidential term is limited to four years, but the date of the next elections is tied to the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) election. Taking into account that President Abbas was elected in January 2005, this means that his presidency will need to be terminated in January 2009 in order to be compliant with the law. However, The Elections Laws confirm the four year limit, but they also state that the next Presidential elections will be held at the same time as the PLC elections. As the term for the
PLC elections is also four years and the PLC was elected in January 2006, this would mean that the next Presidential and PLC elections will be held in January 2010.
You can more here:
http://www.palestinianbasiclaw.org/downloads/when_are_the_next_palestinian_elections_qa_ifes_jun_08.pdf
Potjernik (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Office

message: Propose to merge Next Palestinian general election, as a long obsolete page, into this article Elections in Palestine. Just to remind you - there have been no elections in Palestinian Authority since 2006 and everything else is speculations until the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation process is finalized.GreyShark (dibra) 17:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Cryogenic particle detector

message: It turns out that this entry should not necessarily stand alone as an article. There is room for another two to three sections, and then I believe we should merge it, together with detector, for example. If this idea crystallizes into consensus, some adjustment may be required.  There are several reasons why this "apparently obscure" detection technology should be included in a encyclopedia.
* it is exceedingly sensitive
* from one or two potential original "customers" who wanted it and helped finance the research effort, a broader community shows now interest, partly because the cooling technologies made their own progress.
* from today's point of view, there is little chance that this technology develops into a large consumer market. 
To present these aspects together with the "everyday detectors" and explain why this is so might interest non-technically oriented readers as well.   Filou 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Lottery jackpot records

message: The table in the United States section is labeled:
:List of U.S. lottery drawings of $300 million or more (annuity value) with at least one jackpot-winning ticket (dollar amounts in millions):
and references lists of Mega Millions and Powerball winners. As the current Powerball jackpot does not yet have "at least one jackpot-winning ticket", it is inappropriate to list as "TBA" in this table. --198.44.200.254 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the title of the section is inconsistent with there being a TBA listed. So, I have changed the title to just "List of U.S. lottery drawings of $300 million or more" sans "with at least one jackpot-winning ticket". I think this is the appropriate way to do it, as the TBA still falls within the purview of the article. It is a lottery jackpot record, even if it is subject to future change. Internetronic (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  'TBA' jackpot should not be in the table 

message: The jackpots in the united states section are written like $2,040 and above is specified (dollar amounts in millions), while the jackpots in the europe section are written like €371.1m.
Suggest to also write the jackpots in the united states section like $2,040m and remove the "(dollar amounts in millions)". 91.180.161.252 (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable for consistency. The reason that they're expressed as they are, as far as I can tell, is because writing values over one billion in a "$2,040m" style is rare. I'd think going for "$2.040B" would be even better. Also, use capital M for "Million", as is the proper metric prefix (Mega) and is more easily distinguished from m for meters. oknazevad (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change now to $2.04b. I agree that metric prefixes are the most clear, but I didn't see this anywhere else on wikipedia when talking about money so I went with the small b. Across the rest of wikipedia is super inconsistent btw. I wonder if there is a style guide for this... 91.180.161.252 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  units
Talk:Christian Brothers Academy (DeWitt, New York)

message: Removing the split tag. I'm not sure that the subentries would pass WP:SCHOOL so disambiguating them might not be a good idea. Kaisershatner 17:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how having them together would help in that matter. However, IMO, they are as notable as any other high school. I'm still for splitting them.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting
Talk:Sea of Faith

message: Can I lend my support to the request to merge Sea Of Faith Network into Sea of Faith. Surely the two topics are pretty much synonymous? 
Mattmm 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, see my comment at Talk:Sea Of Faith Network. I'd rather you did it as I'm not sure all the info has been transferred from SoFN to SoF. (But I'm happy to do it if you'd like me to!!) Best, Mattmm 20:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with SoFN 

message: While membership of SOF includes many people who would describe themselves as atheist there are many members who would strongly object to that epithet. While it may be a judgement of observers and critics of the movement (even an accurate judgement) that members are "really atheist" that does not seem to me good grounds for categorising it as such. In an encyclopedia promoting a NPOV the organisation's self-classification should be the deciding factor. If this is a substantive critique of the movement then the body of the article should contain cross-references to works that discuss this opinion with possible repostes by defenders. It seems to me therefore that the link with atheist wiki should be deleted. Do other contributors agree and, if so, how do we do it? (redherring 09:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point of view. They think that God is completely made up. Thats what atheism is, it doesnt matter what reason they believe it for. If you dont believe in God, your an Atheist, if your unsure, your agnostic, ect. ect. ect. 24.187.19.109 (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorising SOF as an aetheist organsation 

message: There is now a separate article about the television programme of this title, so can some one please create a disambiguation link? Thank you, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation needed
Talk:Labyrinth of Evil

message: Disagree. We don't merge Battle of Endor into Return of the Jedi. --maru  (talk) contribs 17:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: *When I read this novel, it seemed that the events depicted contradicted the events from the Clone Wars microseries, in regard to General Greivous' capture of Chancellor Palpatine. Which one is a part of the "official" Star Wars canon? Cubs Fan 00:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: There should be pasted spoiler bar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.21.14.49 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler
Talk:Double or Die

message: What's the title for Bond 3?--Daniel O 19:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unknown right now. We'll probably find out around July/August. K1Bond007 19:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Read the article and the interviews with Higson. K1Bond007 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Young Bond 3 title

message: Just wanted to let all my fellow Bond nuts know that I have a website devoted to the Young Bond series (and other Bond literary news) -- The Young Bond Dossier. 
The site has been up and running for a few months now and it's going strong with almost daily NEWS updates (who would have thought there was so much to say about the Young Bond series).
I’ve also extended the site beyond Young Bond to other current Bond literary happenings like the Centenary Novel, The Moneypenny Diaries, Titan books, and the occasional Casino Royale news (just the good stuff). I've also added an FAQ page .
So (here comes the commercial) when you need news on what's happening in the world of the literary Bond (and beyond), head on over to The Young Bond Dossier. 
Cheers. --Zencato 18:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Bond Website 

message: Someone really needs to write a plot, (not just a summary).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.118.247 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot
Talk:Emitter-coupled logic

message: The voltages for logic 1 and 0 of normal ECL (particularly ECL 10,000 series) are missing. The section "Power supplies and logic levels" has nice descriptions of other things, but completely fails to give any figures for logic levels. The subsection on PECL (which I've never heard of before) has a nice table, so I don't understand why there's nothing for common ECL. eekee (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not have a section devoted to just the ECL 10,000 series, or any of the variants that could be directly connected to that series. It is more generic than that. For example, it also applies to the ECL circuits used in IBM mainframes which were incompatible with the circuits sold commercially (and the mainframe families were incompatible with each other). So there is no place to put the logic levels, because each major ECL variant is different. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's logical, but why then does it have a section and a level table for PECL? I'm not sure whether to suggest these technical details should be added to or removed, especially considering the next discussion point too. eekee (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

text: I believe Vcm is the common-mode voltage compliance. The inputs are differential, so they can have a common-mode voltage swing in addition to their logic levels. Glrx (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing logic levels
Talk:Summer (video game)

message: The name of the game is _summer or "アンダーバーサマー", which is "Underbar Summer". Not "Underscore Summer".
Omgwtflolz 06:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was decided that Summer would be capitalized due to MOS:TM#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter: Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized. Due to constraints, "Underbar" was placed in the title of the article, but as you can see, this is not the case anywhere else in the article, where it is rendered "_Summer" due to this capitalization guideline.--十八 02:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the title of the article
Talk:Ursuline Convent riots

message: What we have looks nicely formatted, but the section on the riot itself is just a heading.  I added hist-stub. RJFJR 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: Other than everyone saying how awful it was? It seems to have been rather well known, and there was a big deal about the fact that Ploughed Hill (the old name for where the convent was located) being across from Bunker Hill, with the appropriate references to what liberty really meant. -- MatthewDBA 12:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. The article would benefit from any image if one is available. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass
Talk:Old Ford

message: Grief, better do something about this before someone VfDs it. Nice canal walk down there, and I'd like to know where that railway station was too. Tarquin Binary 18:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The sources on the ford are confusing ...
*some appear to say that the Roman Rd moved to Stratforde (Bow).
*others imply that old ford was in use until Matilda fell in the water
I wrote and then changed it once today, but don't want to vacillate anymore. It makes sense that Stratforde made reference to a roman road approaching the bridge, but I have an alternative theory - there was no ford there, but the paved road referred to the causeway across the marsh. Anyone want to chip in? Anyone got a definitive reference that clears up my confusion? cheers Kbthompson 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That ford ... 

message: I've just merged Old Ford (Middle-earth) into Minor places in Middle-earth, so now the main "Old Ford" article space is virtually free. if there's no other Old Fords in the world, I suppose it would be better to move the present article to the main namespace (with a hatnote linking to Middle-earth redirect). Súrendil 22:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been done, there was also a request on the disambig page - only took a year! Kbthompson (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move
Talk:Paedocypris progenetica

message: Against merging. The two articles should remain separate due to the special nature of Paedocypris progenetica. It's currently the smallest known fish in the world, and deserves its own article.--85.49.234.93 18:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether P.progenetica is the smallest fish is debatable - see here for description of Photocorynus spiniceps (6.2 mm) Lejean2000 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

message: What is the literal meaning of Paedocypris progenetica? Latin anyone? --anirudh 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :-) could you mention the source? you talked of a paper. Do you have the link? --anirudh 05:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! :-D I had checked that link before, but I saw the login page and I left it there. --anirudh 04:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paedocypris progenetica? 

message: The length of the frog excludes it's legs, so even if it is (just barely) shorter, I don't think it's right to call it smaller. The fish should win. If I get a chance I will try to find an outside opinn... surely there are record books that have chosen between the two. —Soap— 03:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: a better strategy, I think, would be to just try to get body weight measurements. Of all fish in this category. Maybe schindleria is the real winner, maybe it's this fish, or maybe it's the frog. But length is not size. —Soap— 03:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frog vs fish