lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:John Courtenay, 15th Earl of Devon

message: The peerage which uses Alison Weir as their source does not state that he married Laura Bourchier and there are no citations in the article. The sole source for this page is The Peerage site. If you are using the Peerage site please see the entry for Henry Bourchier, 1st Earl of Essex which does not list a Laura Bourchier who married John Courtenay. -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information
Talk:Hartly, Delaware

message: I already have a reliable source for my edit-refer to www.city-data.com/city/Hartly-Delaware.html but I cannot insert that reference and so I need help with that. I found that the tornado activity for Hartly is above Delaware state average and 29% above the overall US average. I also know that the deadliest tornado in Delaware history was on July 21, 1983 in Hartly. and according to www.tornadohistoryproject.com the April 28, 1961 tornado was the only recorded F3 tornado in the state of Delaware. I need some help with this.--Kevjgav (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with my source for "Tornado activity" section 

message: I just reverted my own work due to the fact that the F3 tornado on April 28, 1961 was actually in New Castle and I got that information from the same source that says it was the only recorded F3 tornado in Delaware history. I also know, however, that the F2 tornado that struck Hartly, causing 2 deaths and 9 injuries was the Deadliest Delaware tornado. So I no longer need help.--Kevjgav (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted the "Tornado activity" section 
Talk:Owens Station, Delaware

message: I propose that Owens, Delaware be merged into Owens Station, Delaware. This is in line with the Wikipedia policy at wp:merge which states:
There are several good reasons to merge a page: 
1. Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope. 
2. Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability. 
There doesn't seem to be any additional information in the newer Owens article than the older Owens Station article. Superman7515 (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Plese do merge. If they are indeed the same thing this hardly needs to be discussed. Reywas92Talk 22:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Proposal
Talk:Italian and Swiss expedition of 1799

message: «Avoiding Massena, the Russian commander withdrew on 6 October through the Panixer Pass, and then upwards into the 9,000 foot mountains of the Bündner Oberland, by then deep in snow.»The Panixer pass with 7,897 foot is the culmination point of that section from Elm to Panix/Pigniu. So what an intention to mention mountains 9,000 foot high? -- Хрюша 12:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swiss campaign 

message: The recently created Suvorov's Swiss campaign duplicates material in this article. From a quick check it appears this may be a problem on more than just en.wiki. Mccapra (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem like some things overlap. However, I noticed that the Swiss campaign one is a topic within the Italian and Swiss expedition article, which is briefly mentioned in the latter. I believe it makes sense to leave the Swiss campaign article as a separate and more detailed article since merging them could make the pre-existing article quite long (and not well balanced, as the section for the Italian campaign is briefly mentioned). I suppose some information could be removed from the "Swiss expedition" article to make it less redundant. What do you think of this? I also propose that the Italian interlanguage link be changed or removed, since the italian link from "Italian and Swiss expedition" leads to the "Italian campaign" article - which could also be translated into English and made into a separate, more detailed article linking to the main one. This way there would be two main articles for each of the campaigns leading to the more general article containing both. Isaguge (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mccapra Do you agree with the proposal from @Isaguge? If yes, we can maybe remove the merger tag for now, and we'll put the Italian campaign in the backlog for our translators. 7804j (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We should wait until other editors have had a chance to think. About it and express a view. There’s no hurry.Mccapra (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Alexander Hotovitzky

message: Hey, can someone clarify for me why the "neutrality of this article has been disputed"? There is no indication on this discussion page. I note a few non-encyclopedic descriptions (i.e. "the dreaded northern Turuhan region") and some remaining honorific language but nothing that really smells of bias. Thanks! Jschroe 04:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed?
Template talk:Closing

message: Modified wording slightly: - most deletion debates are quick to review, but complex and acrimonious ones can take a while to balance the policy points, and we don't want others jumping the gun and assuming it's abandoned.
It could probably be worded smoother, but the key points to ensure are that readers learn what's involved in an AFD (educates editors and others), and that instead of "minutes" we use "shortly"... etc. I moved the removal info (1 hr) to keep it together with the "if its complex allow longer" note. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I wonder if the line If this page has not been edited for more than an hour, it is usually safe to remove this template is required? Surely this template - which I have only just seen - would have to be removed by the editor, unless (t)he(y) put it up, got distracted, and has gone off doing somewhere else? doktorb wordsdeeds 16:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed edit

message: This template displays the last page editor, which can very easily not be the closer who is doing the closing.
I think it is desirable that this template should display the signature of the editor who places it, and how many hours ago it was placed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  . It'll be a little tricky to get it to do that, though, given that this template will sometimes be transcluded. Any ideas on how to handle that technical challenge? We could have AnomieBot substitute accidental transclusions by adding  to the documentation, but we wouldn't want to have the bot sign. And backwards compatibility shouldn't matter if this was used properly, but it might still be in some places and this would break that.Scratch that, only 6 transclusions  talk 02:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just added the functionality for when it's substituted; will update the doc momentarily. I also checked in my sandbox, and the template subster actually handles the revision user challenge appropriately. But I'm still a little hesitant to make it subst automatically, since sometimes people might like to have it remain as a template just to keep the code simple.  talk 03:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Sdkb, thank you. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please display closing time and user, not last editor 

message: Could you please explain this edit? I don't see any indication that this has been TfDed.  talk 21:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion
Talk:Slovene exonyms

message: This is the definition of exonym:
:An exonym is a name for a place that is not used within that place by the local inhabitants, or a name for a people or language that is not used by the people or language to which it refers.
I believe that names for places with actively slovene speaking minorities in Austria, Hungary and Italy therefore don't belong on this list. For instance, while the Budapest-Budimpešta pair are endonym and exonym, I'm not so certain about Felsőszölnök and Gornji Senik -> they are both endonyms, IMO.
(Implikacija besede "exonym" je, da v določenem kraju ni slovensko govoreče populacije, ki bi kraj tako imenovala...) TomorrowTime 17:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you can just add a note to all the placenames that aren't technically Slovene exonyms due to what you stated above. Rokpok (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I would like to exclude names that are transparent adaptations of the native name to Slovene phonology, like Sevilja, and emphasize those that have an independent etymology. Otherwise, why list them at all? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Tamfang (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for inclusion
Talk:List of Pokémon (41–60)

message: Phew finnaly done...! Now we only have to get up the names an clean it up and it's done! -I PWN U ALL 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done! 

message: I finally added everything in! Even that little Psyduck headache bit. -I PWN U ALL 18:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  :) 

message: I'm all fine with merging, but a lot of these articles have poor, rushed info, or are flat out not very good at all. I tried fixing meowth's article up a bit, but I'm sure plenty of other Pokemon could use a good lot of work, especially with grammar (which got me started on editing meowth)
Pokemon are "its" unless they are always 100% one gender (Blisey, Nidoking, etc) and I see that isn't followed much at all in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.207.184.239 (talk • contribs). -WarthogDemon 08:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs some work

message: A discussion on the recent removal of fair-use images from this series of articles has been posted at the WikiProject Pokémon talk page. Morgan695 23:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of fair-use images from List of Pokémon series 

message: I moved the individual pokemon pages which redirects to this page to the Encyclopedia Gamia, a gaming wiki.  Since they are filled with information that is mostly game related I thought it would be still relevant to be saved and updated. --Cs california 06:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old wikipedia pages

message: Could a knowledgeable editor add to the Meowth entry why he (the Team Rocket Meowth, of course) does not ever evolve?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Meowth not evolving
Talk:Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961

message: very biased
Agreed.  It appears that this page is being used primarily as a rant against Senator Specter, and should have an appropriate notifier prominently displayed indicating the article's lack of objectivity.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.88.22.7 (talk) 21:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 
Something missing in the "Views" is why the NFL wants its Network on basic cable.  The NFL Network gets paid by a per-available household basis.  This means that if the package gets put on basic cable, it costs the cable company many times more fees than it does on a special sports package.  They can sell advertising based on ratings (actual number of viewers) but they have to pay based on the number of available households.  Thus, the ad dollars are the same, but it costs them less if the NFL Network is not available to all subscribers.
When Comcast moved the NFL Network to the sports package, the NFL sued, and the court ruled in Comcast's favor, saying it was entirely reasonable to do so.  In the midwest, Charter refused to buy the NFL Network, because the NFL REQUIRED them to put it on basic cable, and they did not want to have to raise everyone's cable rates in order to pay for the extra households.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.170.238 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Euroradar CAPTOR

message: The RAF is apparently to get a special version. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34940/eurofighters-new-radar-is-nearly-ready-but-royal-air-force-wants-an-even-better-one --Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: CAPTOR-S
Talk:SS Athinai

message: Regarding this move:  It's not the only Athinai.  was in commission as SS Athinai 1961–1966. I don't think we need to move it back, but maybe a hatnote? I'll put one in but I'm not good at this so feel free to re-word it or suggest something else. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the only ''Athinai''
Talk:Split of Christianity and Judaism

message: I'm cleaning-up this article now; wil take another couple of days. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just wanted to say that when I have time I am planning on reviewing all the changes, though the ones that I have looked at so far looked good. Cheers!  {T|C}  02:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  {T|C}  03:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning-up 

message: Does anyone mind if I setup auto archiving for this talk page? It is getting rather long and most of the conversations are quite old.  {T|C}  02:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did yesterday. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, missed that.  {T|C}  17:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hidden in the coulisses, silently doing it's work. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add auto archive? 

message: I've merged this article to :Jewish Christian per Talk:History of Christianity#Too many pages on the history of Early Christianity, due to the overlap of the topics. Combined they make for a better article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Jewish Christian 

message: I've restored this as a separate article. I brought this up at the Talk page for Jewish Christian and received little attention, but it was positive. I wasn't aware that there had previously been a merge. I feel very strongly that this should be a separate article; it's so thoroughly-studied, with lots of historical and historiographic controversies and debates that have shaped the topic and would too heavily weigh the Jewish Christian article if covered with as much due weight as this topic merits. Zanahary (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, looks like that discussion was contested in its closing and this particular merge was implemented with basically no discussion. Hope this article's restoration is not controversial! Zanahary (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-split article
Talk:Armada, Michigan

message: I believe the railroad ran parallel to Depot Street, not Church Street. WPxOG (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

message: Quick reminder to editor Cvezzo and the IPs 67.142.173.21, 192.172.14.69, 97.92.41.183 and everyone else who keeps edit warring about "ar-MAY-da" or "ar-MAH-da". WP uses the IPA system for phonetics (see WP:IPAI), not MAY/MAH. Thanks.  Yintan  00:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  And it sounds like.... 
Talk:Augusta, Michigan

message: The article states:
"Augusta was situated where the Fort Custer Military Base sits today. Roads, schools, and houses were there, but were razed after the town relocated to where it is today."
To the best of my knowledge, this entire paragraph is incorrect.  Based on the limited sources I have (I live elsewhere in Michigan), the first settler at what eventually became the village of Augusta was Dr. Salmon King, who located there in 1832, staked his claim to much of the current village land parcels, built a log cabin for himself and his family, later built an inn, established a medical practice, and remained at his homestead until he sold at least part of his interests to the "Augusta Company" in, I believe, 1836.  The Augusta Company platted the village and re-channeled Augusta Creek into a millrace, which provided the basis for constructing a sawmill followed by other mills.  The village grew from there and was first incorporated in 1869.
I think whoever wrote the original paragraph cited above may have misconstrued archival data from the U. S. Postal Service.  A post office located in Charleston Township to the south of Augusta, possibly where Camp (later Fort) Custer would much later be constructed (I don't have access to data to confirm this), in 1869 was transferred to the village of Augusta and re-named as the Augusta PO.  (See Walter Romig, LHD: Michigan Place Names, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1986)</P>
The construction of Camp Custer did not begin till after World War I (1917), and it wouldn't surprise me if some civilian structures were moved from the Camp Custer area (which was quite large) across the Kalamazoo River and into the village of Augusta.  But the Village of Augusta itself has always stood where it is today and has never been "relocated."
Aethelreid (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error of fact re: relocation of village 
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Angie Y.

message: I have notified everyone who may have been involved in the dispute. In the interests of fairness, if there's anyone I've missed, let 'em know.
Note: I am not canvassing (as some are eager to not assume good faith), I am purely letting everyone know.
Seraphim Whipp 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification
Talk:Criticism of Torchwood

message: Is this an official blog as indicated by BBC or is this a fan run blog? . If its the latter it needs to be removed as it fails WP:V and if its something sanctioned and created by the BBC some evidence of that needs to be given.--Crossmr (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog source 

message: Criticism here is only listed from the (really rather poor) 1st series. The show has improved through its second series so it may be worth updating.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaffro (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are people in the world who preferred series 2? Wonders never cease... U-Mos (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd series 

message: Why is this worthwhile as a separate article? Is criticism of this show really such a pressing matter that we need an entire article devoted to it? Alastairward (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, this is bollocks isn't it? Every tv programme recieves criticism, this page seems to be mainly a Guardian jounrnalist who doesn't 'get' the show. Besides, Wikipedia criticism articles are used when something promotes violence or is in poor taste or something, not when a tv show uses low budget props. This article needs deleting unless there is some real criticism to be added.--EchetusXe (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worthwhile as a separate article 

message: e.g. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criticism
the act of criticizing usually unfavorably
i.e. stop moving the title. Reception of Torchwood is less biased. 
--Leladax (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok, the inability of some to even see this point is making it obvious we're talking about biased haters of the show trolling the page. Please someone with privileges start the bans. --Leladax (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Your move was contested (by me). Therefor, you need consensus to move the article, and should not move the article again without consensus. Since the article does focus on some of the negative criticisms, "Criticism of Torchwood" is appropriate. General reviews are handle on Torchwood itself.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absurd. You're legitimizing the burying of a series. --Leladax (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open a dictionary and see what "Criticism" means as 1st meaning 

message: Really, 'criticism' is understood in a negative context by the average reader and thus the word in use for the article is inappropriate and doesn't fit Wiki's guidelines of being free of bias.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Title Should Really Use a More Neutral Word Than Criticism
Talk:Torchwood Declassified

message: We need the episode titles. They're not shown at the beginning of Declassified, but surely they must be on the Torchwood website, which is only accessable for UK residents. Can someone have a look please?  — Edokter • Talk •  23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone?  — Edokter • Talk •  00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC Programmes website has no titles for the Second Series of Torchwood Declassified: they're all listed as "Series 2, Episode 1", "Series 2, Episode 2" etc. The Expeditioners  -talk- 19:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 2 episode titles
Talk:History of the Connecticut Constitution

message: The article has no citations, and seems to present an odd point of view denying that the Fundamental Orders or the Connecticut Charter was a constitution, even referencing an Wikipedia article on Constitution that contradicts this. There needs indeed to be some article tying together Rev. Thomas Hooker's 1638 sermon, the Fundamental Orders of 1639, the 1662 Connecticut Charter, the 1787 U.S. Constitution (written by Connecticut council member William Samuel Johnson, chairman of the committe of style), and the 1818 Connecticut Constitution. Many of its statements (on the weakness of the short terms governers, for example) were just wrong.  I've fixed some of these in one section, but the whole article needs correction, the removal of the POV, and citations.  There are many fine resources avbaible that can be cited.  There is indeed a helpful and interesting debate on whether the Connecticut experience influenced the constitution, or rather, to what degree it influenced it, and that should be mentioned.  As of now, however, the POV of the article seems to downplay any relationship of the long and interesting history of the only self-governed American British Colony other than Rhode Island to the U.S. Constitutuion, without citing sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrycroswell (talk • contribs) 11:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article problems 