lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:William Shockley

message: this article mentions his report regarding estimated japanese deaths from an invasion compared to the nuclear bombs, but doesnt really explain why he would even be asked to write about that in the first place. The PBS article mentions that he apparently invented a nuclear reactor outside of the Manhattan Project in 1939, which if true would certainly seem notable enough to be included here. Can't seem to find a talk page section discussing this, so I'm wondering why its not included. --jonas (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW2 

message: are to going to give his views on food and cartoons aswell what has that got anything to do with lmao it’s entirely irrelevant nobody in his time would have cared stop forcing modern ideas on history 109.180.163.92 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why views on race 

message: Foundation seems mostly like a pet project for Shockley and may benefit when set in context. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Support merge. While sources do mention the foundation, it doesn't seem notable independently of Shockley. Generalrelative (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Foundation for Research and Education on Eugenics and Dysgenics]] into [[William Shockley]]
Template talk:Polishpd

message: See also the Polish version of this template at :pl:Szablon:PD-PRL. Halibutt 12:24, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
----
Some explanation:
According to the  copyright law of Polish People's Republic of July 10, 1952: a photograph is a subject of  copyright, if there is a clear copyright notice on the work (Art. 2 §1). There was a similar rule in the previous copyright law of 1926. This rule existed for the works published until 23 May 1994.
According to some court verdicts, general © in a book is enough copyright notice.
The copyright law of 1952 concerned photographs taken by the Polish author, or first published in Poland.
There is a situation possible, when original prints of the photograph had copyright notice, but they were published in some later book without any copyright notice. As a result, somebody who sees them without copyright notice, might not know, that they are copyrighted.
According to the Polish Highest Court verdict (published in OSNC 2003/7-8/110): if there was no copyright notice on later prints, the photograph is still copyrighted, BUT it is the copyright holder to prove, that the person, who used it, had known, that it had been copyrighted. Remember, however, that Court verdicts are not precedent law in Poland, and can only be treated as opinions for future - and note, that this is not a legal law opinion on my side. Pibwl 19:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: It has been proposed in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion that the category in this template be renamed from :Category:Pre-1994 Polish images to :Category:Pre-1994 Poland images. If you have objections to this, please raise them soon! --ssd 07:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename category
Talk:Winger (sports)

message: Merge with wingback? --Joy [shallot] 12:44, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: Done.  --Pkchan 11:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Midfielder#Winger]] 

message: I'm concerned that while the band Winger is clearly very notable, there's a strong case that Winger (sports) may be the pre-eminent world usage of the word "Winger". 
The hat-notes at "Winger" are good, but the guideline Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic makes me believe that the status quo is incorrect.
To avoid a painful and contentious contest between sports and music fans (Not to mention the residents of Winger, which I'm sure is a lovely place to live) can I suggest that we move the band's article to Winger (band) and make Winger a disambiguation page.
I've posted this to the band, sports and location talk pages, but all comments at Talk:Winger please, to keep the conversation centralised. --Dweller 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig
Talk:John Hughlings Jackson

message: Web pages I've seen disagree on whether his last name is "Jackson", "Hughlings Jackson", or "Hughlings-Jackson".  This article should probably be renamed "John Hughlings Jackson" or "John Hughlings-Jackson", whichever is appropriate. —Triskaideka 13:17, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Add note regarding Jacksonian march regarding motor seizure patterns. Antelan talk 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  note (somewhat to self) 
Talk:Belomorkanal

message: To normal people the history and design of the cigarettes is of interest (not it's gain for pot smokers...). Anyway - here is the list of designs of BELOMORKANAL over the decades. http://www.rucig.ru/pap_belomorkanal.htm How about adding it to the article? The newest designs are as disgusting as hereover - with neurotic non-smokers-stickers on it. Brave new world.
--  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.177.58 (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Design
Talk:Tarawa (disambiguation)

message: If there's only ever going to be the Nigerian village, then we don't need this page, just put the reference directly, in itals, at the top of Tarawa. (I don't know of a third Tarawa myself.) Stan 14:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also the Tarawa village in the United States... Belgian man (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

message: Why is there no 'at' in the article name?  "University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign" rather than "University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"? The latter is stated as the official name of the institution, and seems to be the widely used version. Should it be changed? I am not directly familiar. Onanoff (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See Our Name. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: https://illinois.edu/about/index.html branding has changed to not include at. Here's a good blog post: https://aaronson.org/blog/whats-the-name-of-this-university Dipthong01 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: This is probably one of the most outrageous RM outcomes I have seen. This goes directly against our MoS, which ignores how institutions brand themselves and what sources use. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I missed this RM somehow, and I never noticed the change. It seems many people were unaware, given how few participants there were for a discussion involving a major university. I'd certainly support somebody reopening it. I find this blog post (linked above) unconvincing. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The RM should have been overturned per WP:RMNOMIN: . But it's been so long (two years), MR is no longer a noption, so a new RM would have to be opened. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow
Talk:Inner peace

message: I think everyone should have inner peace and basic need be fulfilled, then we could start talking peace as in world peace. So the article could give some solutions for people to achieve inner peace. Just a sugestion.
Roscoe x 05:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Achieving

message: I find it odd that this article says nothing of insurance, since the purchase thereof is often said to bring said 'peace of mind'. 67.171.222.203 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insurance
Talk:Simon Donaldson

message: I'm coming back to say more about Donaldson's work, unless anyone does so before me. One interesting aspect is the use of ideas that arose in physics to prove results in geometry.
Billlion 15:22, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Move to Imperial in 1999 see
 my understanding was that he was on sabatical at Stanford for a year, as was his wife Nora Donaldson, a statistician, perhaps slightly contrary to what it says in this 2000 Encyclopædia Britannica  article. Interestingly Bristol University announced prematurely that he was comming there. Billlion 16:39, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source saying he was at Stanford Billlion (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: Thanks to   Jitse Niesen for the corrections, but I dont like the change of blackboard bold R to bold R. The correct mathematical symbol, which is certainly universally accepted with in the geometry and analysis communities is
:\mathbb{R}^n
The problem is that in some browsers TeX formulas come out too big, so I displayed it, which is probably wrong. I think we have a choice of making things look right in some current browsers, but when mathml is working properly in wiki, we will have to go back and render them correctly. Suggestions please? Billlion 21:02, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My reason for not using blackboard bold is that it does not look nice, whether it is used in the running text or not. The practice of using blackboard bold for the set of reals is common but not universal. I just checked five books on my shelf: three use \mathbb{R} (blackboard bold), one uses R (normal bold) and one uses R (some slanted font). -- Jitse Niesen 23:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rn

message: Would the people who created/edited this article please add source citations for the biographical info mentioned in the article, as per WP:CITE and WP:BLP? Thanks, Nsk92 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing sources 

message: The second bullet item under Donaldson's work is this:
"A smooth h-cobordism between 4-manifolds need not be trivial (Donaldson 1987b). This contrasts with the situation in higher dimensions."
But a smooth h-cobordism in between n-manifolds for n ≥ 5 need not be trivial, either: this is the subject of the s-cobordism theorem.
I hope someone familiar with Donaldson's work will fix this. (I suspect the word "simply-connected" was omitted.)Daqu (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently incorrect assertion about higher-dimensional h-cobordisms
Talk:Cornerstone (Styx album)

message: I don't think it is.  Elaborate packaging aside, it just sounds like a collection of unrelated songs.  In this interview, DDY is talking about the concept albums of Styx, and goes straight from Pieces of Eight to Paradise Theater:
http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/concept+albums
" . . . Pieces of Eight was an album about that, about how money changes things. Next concept album was actually Paradise Theater. . . ."
--63.25.240.59 (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this a concept album? 

message: It would be great to have a source regarding these two singles and the threat by Tommy Shaw to leave the band.  "Why Me" charted in February 1980 and "Borrowed Time" in April, the reverse of what's presented here.  (Catalog numbers would also help.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calliaume (talk • contribs) 16:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Borrowed Time"/"Why Me"
Talk:Paradise Theatre (album)

message: The name of this article was changed. Amazon.com has it listed differently ... --evrik (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (For the record) The official Styx website shows the album as Paradise Theatre (not Theater). CuriousEric 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this comment is nearly 4 years old, but I'm look at the site right now, and it definitely says "Theater" and so does my compact disc copy on the spine. Hg3300 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's both. Front cover says "Theatre", back cover says "Theater":  --Mika1h (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What does the spine say? I think that's the definitive answer because that's the side you'll see when it's stored properly.Hg3300 (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: "Vinyl releases and initial CD pressings of the album had the musical segue between "Half-Penny, Two-Penny" and "A.D. 1958" indexed as the intro to "A.D. 1958". Subsequent pressings of the CD had the segue indexed as the fade to "Half-Penny, Two-Penny" instead."
Okay...what does that mean in plain English??? And just for reference, my copy of Paradise Theater has correctly timed "Half-Penny, Two Penny" to 5:58 and "A.D. 1958" to 1:07. Listening to the music it just makes more sense this way. (On an LP it just plain doesn't matter in the slightest because the tracks aren't separated like they are on a CD) Hg3300 (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they're not really "separated" on the CD either, it's just that there's an index marker indicating where one ends and the other begins. The earlier pressings had this marker at the point where "A.D. 1958" begins, which is before "Half-Penny, Two-Penny" has fully faded out. The later pressings placed the marker at the very end of "Halfpenny", which is after "1958" has already begun to fade in. So one of those two tracks gains a few seconds, which the other loses.Vonbontee (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That sort of clears it up for me. Judging by the musical style of each track, the change was definitely the correct decision. I'm not sure what you mean by "1958" has already begun to fade in, because I don't hear it until the end of "Halfpenny." And the difference is more than a "few seconds" (the original index was placed immediately after the last lyric in "Halfpenny")Hg3300 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical Segue 

message: It would be better to cite a U.S. American source for the release date of an album by a band from the U.S.A--and not cite the U.K. based BPI. Or at least qualify the published date as the the British release date. And--in any case--to cite the release date from the main body of the article and not from the inofobox, because the infoboxes do not show up consistently/reliably on mobile devices.alainsane (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date
Talk:Tim Burgess (musician)

message: I wouldn't say this was a speedy delete.  And I think the "notable" tag is debatable (and so removed until debated!).  I can also find no reference to his wife's name (His wife is called Nicola Hird.) - can this be verified? -- sannse (talk) 16:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: More info.  It appears his wife's name is Michelle ,  -- sannse (talk) 16:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: TB's got one. Especially on Us and Us Only which refers to BD on almost every track.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.105.118 (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bob Dylan]] fixation

message: Five years ago, Burgess — who had relocated to Hollywood — was on a deadly downward spiral. “I was drinking four or five bottles of red wine a day and doing tons of coke,” he says. “And I started to really get bloated, until I couldn’t physically go outside. So that’s when I had to stop, cold turkey, and get off the pills, the cocaine and the booze. It was a pretty hard time.”Burgess stunned the bartender at his old L.A. haunt The Cat and Fiddle the night before by strolling in for the first time in months and ordering a teetotaller’s lime soda. He says, “She was like, ‘What’s wrong with you?’ But, going to the pub just isn’t high on my list anymore. I drink health shakes instead, and I’ve even gotten into transcendental meditation. So I do that twice a day now. And it’s weird — I don’t get fazed by hardly anything anymore.”-- — Keithbob • Talk •  15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Life Source
Talk:Telecom Tower Berlin-Schäferberg

message: this almost looks like a babelfish translation
--Deelkar 16:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: now it doesn't look like a babelfish translation anymore but someone should check the proper radio nomenclature. --Deelkar 17:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  from the page referenced as external link:
 Built:         1961 - 1963
 Status:        in use
 Location:      Schäferberg, Berlin, Germany
	
 Structural Type: 	
   Vertical cantilever structure
 Function / usage: 	
   Directional radio transmitter
   Television transmission tower
   VHF/UHF transmitter
--Deelkar 17:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Sulphur Springs, Texas

message: I live within driving distance of this city. The city's trademark is its county courthouse, a structure which was erected over one hundred years ago. I will try to take a picture of this building and put it next to the History section.
Shred 17:00, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have just improved [I hope] the reference to Cyclone Davis. Shouldn't more be added?
Why not include more about the U.S. Army stockade in Sulphur Springs during Reconstruction?
Why no reference to the fire that destroyed the previous courthouse?
Oh, and can't we do better than "The First National Bank of Sulphur Springs was nationalized in 1855." Surely it wasn't "nationalized." I can't change it because I don't know the full story. Was it founded in 1855? Was it chartered [or whatever] as a national bank in 1855? Someone help.
The Lt. Governor of Michigan is not the Jon Cherry of Sulphur Springs.
Forrest Gregg is from Sulphur Springs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.5.216 (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting history is missing
Talk:Autonomous University of Baja California

message: I have changed the title of this page because Wikipedia does not permit article titles beginning with the '/' character. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions). Livajo 17:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Groundcover

message: What is the best way to identify vines?
Hello! My name is Amanda. I'm a student at the University of Southern California who has been assigned to improve a Wikipedia page. I have decided to work on the ground cover page. I aim to extrapolate on ground cover as part of a larger ecosystem. Please let me know if you have any pointers! Thank you. Abgilmor (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Federation of Western India Cine Employees

message: From VfD:
Non-notable - only 2 Google results (from the same site) --Chessphoon 18:08, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This excessively long list of redlinks was moved from the article (blue links left) RJFJR (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: See also
Talk:Paymaster General

message: The Lord Cherwell = Professor F. A. Lindemann 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lindemann,_1st_Viscount_Cherwell
actually, looking at the WP pages for Lindemann and Greenwood, the post was apparently vacant in 1945-46 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Greenwood
Hchalkley (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same person (1945) 
Talk:Chicle

message: "the early Europeans prized it" ????
:"prized" as in "valued" or "appreciated". I think the word "settlers" should go after "European", too. Does that help? -- Hadal 20:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: "Chicle" does not rhyme with "tickle" in any Spanish or Latin usage, those letters are always pronounced "cheeclay." So why is it claimed that "chicle" rhymes with "tickle?" 72.244.206.31 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, it refers to English usage and pronunciation.--Astepintooblivion (talk) 	 11:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation
Talk:Baseball/Archive 1

message: The play of the game section is repetative and wordy.  It spends too much time focused on details of rules.  Much of the info here should be relegated to other articles, as pitching was done.  For example, too many ways are explained in too much detail about how to get batters and runners out.  out (baseball) is a better place for that, and the general idea should be given here.
Also, alot of info about pitchers, catchers, batters, and baserunners is repeated throughout this section.  I reorganized a few of the subheadings into a more logical order so we can start cutting unneeded repetitions.
In general, I think specific rules should not be covered in-depth in this article, because it detracts from the flow of the article, and will confuse people who come here to learn about baseball.  Such rules should be delegated to other articles.  (Those who are interested in rules and such will follow links as they are given).
One possibility for the future is to move many of the details to articles specific to batting, baserunning, fielding, etc, and give a good general feel for each part, similar to what was done for pitching.
That said, I intend no offense toward anyone who has contributed to this section.  All the information is useful and valid, and will be kept at Wikipedia for certain, but this article has grown past its scope, and needs to be worked on.
 —siroχo 13:23, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm not sure that the summary created for pitching is the best choice of what material to leave behind, but I agree that we can try splitting off some more sections into their own articles. --Michael Snow 21:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The play of the game section
Talk:Frederick Reiken

message: I do not know Frederick Reiken, but his bio came to my attention because a family member knows him. I therefore declare a potential conflict of interest. I appreciate the help of other editors in reviewing my edits and checking to ensure WP:NPOV and encyclopedic tone. I recognize that COI may involve sub-conscious or unintentional advocacy; thus, I welcome review of this article by other editors and related conversations on this talk page.  — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential COI
Category talk:Series of books

message: What is the test used to decide whether a set of books should be identified as a subcategory?  I can't detect any consistency. — B.Bryant 20:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why have all the subcategories been piped to '*'?  I don't see anywhere that says not to do this, but "Making sure all the subcategories appear on the first page" isn't one of the reasons given for using this feature. Percy Snoodle 12:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is irrational, and I've just undone it.  The problem is that, because this page is alphabetically split in two, all of the N-Z subcategories are now relegated to the N-Z page.    Since there are only 28 subcats, it would be better for them all to be displayed on both half-pages.  But as far as I can tell, the alphabetic split is automatic.  So the only solution I can see is for someone to undertake the hard work of tackling the bloated list of articles in this category, and reclassifying enough of them into appropriate subcategories that the page will no longer be split.  Wareh 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piped categorisation 

message: By using the "*" sortkey, all the sub-cats appear on the first page of the category; from what I gather, this makes it easier to find a sub-cat under which to file an article, as it appears the first time you access the category page. (You can also use a space, as in  Foo series.) There was some discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Subcategories. If this annoys anyone, please revert it with impunity, and I plead obsessive compulsiveness. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the line "I would only recommend this if there are a small number of subcategories (a dozen or so)" is probably the important one here.  Piping everything to star breaks the contents links; if you go to F, you won't see the F subcats.  I'm certainly in favour of depiping them.  Percy Snoodle 08:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, go ahead. I'm not invested in the piping thing by any means, so I'm not going to revert you or anything. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Percy Snoodle 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented above before reading this thread.  I'm not trying to be a stickler for rational order, but this use of * seems to violate the organizational purpose, though I do appreciate its practical motivation.  The fact is that almost every page in the category needs reclassification into a subcategory (and we obviously need well-chosen new subcategories too), and that will solve the problem.  Wareh 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortkey issue