lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Template talk:R for convenience

message: What about acronyms and abbreviations, like DS9, ANH or Wikipedia:NOT? Aren't they also redirects for convenience? --DocumentN (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better late than never?  In a sense, nearly all redirects are for some form of convenience or another.  That's why this rcat is better reserved for those redirects that don't easily fall into other categories, such as , ,  and so on. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...another name, a pseudonym, a nickname, or a synonym..." 

message: was boldly created way back on 1 December 2004 by , an editor who hasn't been active for a long time (their newest 50 edits date back to February 2007). They posted news of their creation the same day on a now inactive section of the village pump:
The village pump notice was posted a minute after Sgeo used their new template on , where it was the only Rcat template until I replaced it with . I wouldn't be surprised if this was the only instance where the template's creator used their own template.
From there after a slow start this thing took off on a life of its own eventually getting to over 4500 transclusions. I've removed this template from pages where it was redundant to another redirect-category template, and replaced it with a more specific template from those listed on the  where it was the only redirect-category template on the page.
So now I suppose this template is just hanging around for the convenience of editors who don't want to take the time to peruse the  for a more specific redirect-category template, and expect another editor (like me) to do that for them. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A pointlessly vague Rcat template
Template talk:Ccm

message: Why Straight Edge is listed in the "Other topics" section? In fact i think it's outrageous, straight edge is not by any means religious. As an offshoot of punk movement, it's mainly connected to anarchism, not any organized religion. The fact that some christians don't drink or use drugs doesn't mean they are straight edge at all. In most cases they are just following their christian beliefs. There's no credible connection. Please don't try to christianize everything.
update: "rev - numbers of Chn kids into Straight Edge therefore appropriate under Other"
I'm sure many christian kids are into different things. However this is off-topic, far-fetched and doesn't hold any encyclopedic value.
--Nitret 03:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straight edge listed in "Other topics" section.
Category talk:Environmentalism

message: There are too many articles in this category; they need to be sorted into appropriate subcategories. -- Beland 21:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cleaned out all irrelevant articles. Alan Liefting 01:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many articles?

message: The content of this category are not suited to the category name.  Deleting the old :Category:Environment was a mistake in my opinion.  At the very least a category called Environmental issues should be created.  Alan Liefting 06:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This category was merged with :Category:Environmentalism.  See Wikipedia: Categories for deletion (Aug 27).  A new vote gave a consensus to unmerge it.  See Wikipedia:Categories for_deletion (Oct 30). Alan Liefting 01:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate category name?
Talk:Lands of the Bohemian Crown (1867–1918)

message: The idea of merging this article with Austria-Hungary is absolutely stupid. This article is part of the Czech history series and focuses on Czechia, not on Austria-Hungary as such. Juro 21:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I don't have strong feelings about this, but if you're going to do a move like that, you might want to edit the content of the article to reflect the move... The term "kingdom of bohemia" doesn't appear anywhere in the article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent move from "Czech lands"
Talk:12 metre yacht

message: : The old contents of this page appeared to be a copy of http://www.classic12metercharters.com/history.asp.
please do not delete the page for the moment, I am new to wikipedia, and I will contact the copyright holders about a release of the information for use on wikipedia to educate the public on this kind of sailing vessel - very sorry for any misshaps :( --Dhpc_Raptor 22:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
: We already have an article on this class (although not with as much detail as the stuff you found), so I have turned this page into a redirect. If you get permission to use their content, you should add it there - except for the long list, which bloats the article, and should go in a separate page, say List of U.S. 12-metre yachts, which you can link to in the 12-metre class page. I'll put a link to the page you found in the article, since it has lots of good info. Noel (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio
Talk:Hugh Doherty (Irish republican)

message: It seems laughable that the word "terrorist" is not included anywhere in this article. Such remarkable omissions bring disrepute on all of wikipedia and its editors.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.88.251 (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There should be a page here - I've just been watching the British Channel 4 Documentary, 1974 - The Year London Blew Up and this links through to an Olympiad. At the very least there should be a disambuagtion page and a stub. Can anyone help?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.42.127 (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed, done!GiollaUidir 18:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does it make sense to categorize Doherty as an Irish Republican when he is in fact Scottish-born and bred? Irvine22 (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One can be either a Irish Republican of any nationality, but one can only be an Irish Republican if one is of Ireland. I think the category encompasses the former. Rockpocket 05:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hugh Doherty seems to be categorized as both an Irish and Scottish person? And if he's Scottish, born in Glasgow, wouldn't that make him also British?Irvine22 (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish? 

message: I'm wondering where to place the sourced information about the birthplace of Hugh Doherty (Glaswegian: Shuggy Docherty)in the article? He's already in the Category: People from Glasgow, but there is no source currently given for that.Irvine22 (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

message: I see this has been flagged due to self-publishing. The second edition, which is the edition I own was certainly published on CreateSpace. However the first edition was published on Routledge, so I feel the self-published nature of the second edition is irrelevant. FDW777 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Road to Balcombe Street
Talk:Pop standard

message: I wrote the article on classic pop, and I agree that a merger with the article on pop standards may be prudent.  I must point out, however, that there is a subtle distinction between the two.  Pop standards generally refers to the songs themselves, while classic pop refers to the sub-genre as a whole within that of popular music.  Therefore, one would state that "The Way You Look Tonight," by Jerome Kern and Dorothy Fields, is a pop standard.  One would also state that "The Way You Look Tonight" is an example of classic pop.  The style of Rosemary Clooney is that of classic pop, but she is obviously not a pop standard.  The two terms are not necessarily interchangeable.
The term classic pop can also refer to a specific time period within which the sub-genre flourished, but the exact duration of that time period is quite debatable.  I would tend to place it between the end of the First World War and the beginning of the rock and roll revolution in popular music in the United States, so about 1918 to about 1955.   24.60.181.121  22:22, 4 September 2005
:I agree with the proposed merge, though it seems nothing has been done about it in a year. The article could easily incorporate an explanation of the terminological distinction mrntioned above. Might it also be worth looking at a further merge with Traditional pop music? --Matthew Humphreys 12:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This article focused most of its attention on Tin Pan Alley/Broadway writers and late era artists, so I added a number of names to this piece. In trying to epitomize the era of pop standards, and their standard-bearers, this list left several seminal artists, composers and bandleaders out. 
EG Dinah Shore and Doris Day were formerly anonymous "songbirds", who with Frank Sinatra, began to get fan and critical attention as "lead" singers.  Early big bands for instance, might not even list the name of the singer on the record or single them out as individuals.
Nat King Cole, Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and Ella Fitzgerald were not even mentioned once on this list. Appalling, as they all succeeded in crossing jazz over to a diverse and wide audience, and are all considered "standards" or classics themselves.
As far as bandleaders, Nelson Riddle and Guy Lombardo would be considered "safe" artists, but essentially influenced by trendsetters like the Dorseys, Benny Goodman, Cab Calloway and Count Basie.
Arguably, this entire genre had a lot to do with Rudy Vallee's showmanship at plugging songs, and other artists and broadcasters who made radio a platform for major hits - Eddie Cantor, Arthur Godfrey, and "Your Hit Parade". 
Essentially, as with rock n' roll, what was once considered "race music" became popularized and sometimes sanitized for a popular audience, and became "standard" through the medium of broadcasting. The article does not convey that, and these points and standards belong in any merged article. 67.10.133.121 06:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Names
Category talk:Magic (supernatural)

message: User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way! 
: Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles 

message: I personally feel that Wikipedia is doing the art of magic harm. There are articles that reveal the secret behind key tricks and I'm of the opinion that the explanations should be removed. We already had "Magician's Secrets Revealed" on TV. There's no need for us magicians to have to deal with this too.TheGhostChild 20:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the revealing of magic trick techniques

message: This category really should be titled either "Magic (occult)" or "Magic (esotericism)". -- œ™ 00:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename category
Category talk:Religious practices

message: User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way! 
: Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles
Category talk:Alchemy

message: User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way! 
: Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles
Category talk:Occult

message: User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way! 
: Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles 

message: should be called :Category:Occultism, we don't have simple adjectives as category names. dab (𒁳) 11:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rename

message: Why there is not a link (under the headline "see also") to the portal (of occult)?!93.173.208.102 (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: portal
Category talk:Mysticism

message: User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.
Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way! 
: Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles 

message: By the standard of "Pseudophilosophy is a broad system of theories or assertions that claim to be or appear to be philosophical, but that are not accepted as valid logical thought by the scholarly academic community" continental philosophy also becomes pseudophilosophy, as does Platonism and Neoplatonism, which are central in western mysticism. So I'm looking forward to some valid sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: All the examples you give are well accepted within mainstream academic philosophy. In the case of Platonism, and Neoplatonism, they are historically accepted as philosophy, and do not qualify as pseudophilosophy. Mysticism, on the other hand, is usually one of the first examples given of pseudophilosophy. This isn't to say that it isn't a wonderful thing for some people personally, just like religion. However, mysticism involves essential logical contradiction, and accepting that a claim is true and false at the same time, etcetera. Therefore it is not limited by reason and logic, as valid philosophy is. Greg Bard (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice irony that philosophy, 'love for wisdom', started with the search for the remembrance of 'The Good', and ends up with strict rationalism, excluding the origins and later descendants of this kind of philosophy. Nevertheless, I'm still looking forward to sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudophilosophy
Talk:Southwell, Nottinghamshire

message: The pronunciation of Southwell has been described as a subject of debate since Southwell oldid=6906797.
I think that this is not the case at all.  Southwell is pronounced south-Well
I base this assertion on the fact that I have lived in south Nottinghamshire for some time and I have never ever heard a local person use any other pronunciation, and that I have often heard people correct others, saying that other pronunciations are simply wrong.
It is certainly worth including the pronunciation, and pointing out that people who first come across the name by reading it rather than hearing it often get it wrong, but I think the current article isn't accurate.
The history of the pronunciation (and how it came to differ from the speling) is still interesting and worth including.
Anyone else care to comment?  Are there any local people who say south-well and refuse to accept this "correction"?
TomViza 16:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stored three months on an outhouse shelf and Bramleys become sweet. Bmcln1 (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: In the lead is a text about the "well", being at "GR708535". What does this mean? I think this needs a bit of explanation. Dick Bos (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At a guess the GR refers to grid reference and from the format it is an Ordnance survey reference, though is missing the square reference, assuming it is close to Southwell the reference should be SK708535, which gives you  as a location. Keith D (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GR708535

message: Hi everyone, I've just formatted the transport (Bus services) into a table format. By doing this I have added references for each service and removed those not in use any more; therefore for voiding the notice previously at the top of the section (which I have removed). If anyone has a problems let me know! Døddmeïßter47™ 22:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to remove 1 of the references as it was to another wiki article. You cannot use another wiki article as a reference to support something it must be to some external source. Keith D (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing in transport section 
Talk:Heathrow Terminal 4 tube station

message: I'm afraid your scanned image of a tube map showing the T4 closure is almost certainly a copyright infringement. Sapient 23:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Not sure quite what this is trying to say...
:"While there is generally a gap of two minutes between underground stations, the loop takes seven minutes to complete, making the times to reach the loop line stations marginally longer than to travel the same number of stations elsewhere on the line."
According to the Piccadilly Line timetable, the intervals between stations from Hammersmith to Heathrow are as follows (the reverse times differ slightly): Hammersmith - 8min - Acton Town - 3min - South Ealing - 4min - Northfields - 2min - Boston Manor - 3min - Osterley - 2min - Hounslow East - 1min - Hounslow Central - 2min - Hounslow West - 4min - Hatton Cross - 3min - Heathrow T4 - 5min - Heathrow T123 - 3min - Hatton Cross.
So yes, the interval between Heathrow T4 and T123 is quite long, but not really long enough to be notable. I'll remove the paragraph unless anyone objects. Mtford 00:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaps between stations 

message: What's interesting about this article is that the contents appear *after* the article.  Aren't contents supposed to be before the article?  I may be totally wrong, and I haven't looked at other articles to see if that's how it's typically done here, but it just seems wrong to me. Nzseries1 (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents are after the article 

message: This report from circa 1986 is an excellent source published in the Electric Railway Society Journal Vol 31 No 184 July-August 1986.  —Sladen (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh sources 

message: The data available from TfL (http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/london-underground-performance-reports) suggests that the auto-included tube station exit numbers are incorrect for 2011.  The current number is actually the number for Heathrow Terminal 5 (4.05M), whereas it should be 2.43M. I couldn't figure out how to change that. Jake Lishman 20:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect tube exit figures 

message: Surely this is currently wrong, stating as it does Preceding Station: terminus, Following station either Hatton Cross or Heathrow 123?
As the ONLY station on the network with a one-way service as stated in the article, surely this is the one station we can be sure of the preceding and following stations?
ALL trains passing through the station have come from Hatton Cross (preceding) and go to Heathrow 123 (following)? Can somebody fix this. It looks as though it has perhaps been copied from the article from the T123 or T5 stations.
[edit] I have had a look at the edit page for the relevant box and it is certainly too complex for me to change.
109.246.69.106 (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preceding/following station box