lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Brachioradialis reflex

message: Regarding an important medical article: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachioradialis_reflex
States: "The reflex should cause slight wrist extension and/or radial deviation,supination[1] and slight elbow flexion."
The brachioradialis does not cross the wrist joint and therefore should not cause wrist movement directly. The supination detected from this test also depends on the anatomical position of the forearm during the testing procedure; pronation may actually occur if the wrist is initially placed in supination for the testing procedure. 
The test is best detected by contraction of the muscle, elbow flexion, and or supination/pronation depending on the initial wrist position during the deep tendon reflex test. 
I am not great at citing information from books, but most biomechanical and medical texts should have better information than what is cited in this article. 
If you have medical personnel on staff this could probably be easily updated. 
I can attempt this if you supply me with easy to follow instructions on how to accurately cite a source on Wikipedia.
Thanks!
174.98.169.7 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Caviomorpha

message: Based on Paca, it looks like Agoutidae in the taxonomy section and in the info box should be replaced with Cuniculidae
70.238.151.218 (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Saddle (guitar)

message: </br>Got to kick this in high gear, it's a small article, but still has significance.</br>Assistance would be much appreciated, please talk if you would like to help with this article. Connor.fowler 21:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting this up 

message: Agreed, this would be a good paragraph within Guitar, but doesn't warrant a separate article.  A similar entry is also needed in Bridge (instrument).  But maybe a general article such as Saddle (instrument) would be appropriate, there is already a redlink for that at Saddle (disambiguation).   Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 15:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Franciszek Malewski

message: Halibutt did it again - let me cite: "In 1929 he was allowed to settle in". Nice read indeed. And referenced. And categorised. If you'll excuse my bad French.--Lokyz 21:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Halibutt's disruption
Talk:Inca Civil War

message: The figures in the 'Casualties' section don't make sense. How can estimates of the pre conquest population be as low as 60,000 when more than 100,000 died in the succesion war combat alone? Also the depopulation ratios of 20:1 or 25:1 between pre and post conquest are also non-sensical, as the article then states that that means 1 in 20 or 1 in 25 people died (i.e. 5% depopulation). As far as I know mortality rates post conquest reached 80% or more by the early 1700s. Also, the article doesnt mention what time period post conquest these figures pertain to?1812ahill (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty section 

message: No idea who wrote this but parts of it contradict itself, while other parts seem to just relay the same details over and over again. I removed the last paragraph, it looked like rambling.
Is there such a thing as 'Inca pride’ in South America, I’m genuinely interested and would believe it now. Someone has been watchdogging the pages related to the Inca empire, almost all these pages have passages that look like hate speech against the Spanish Empire. 
This is an encyclopedia and should be presented as such, not a soapbox to complain about centuries old war crimes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.185.146 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a rewrite 

message: The Belligerents section lists both Tumipampa and Tumebamba, but aren't those just different dialect names for the same entity?  Even the link to Tumipampa is just a redirect to Tumebamba.
Gecko G (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belligerents: Tumipampa/Tumebamba
Template talk:Documentation, template

message: The merge proposal discussion occured here. – Conrad T. Pino 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Template:Template doc 

message: I'm not feeling that template name "Documentation, template". That comma in there is difficult, and it looks strange as a URL because commas turn into escape characters:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Documentation%2C_template
I propose moving this page back to "Template doc" or to "Documentation template", where it matches the form of the other templates on Wikipedia. At least, it would be a little easier to parse. —Down10 TACO 08:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch, yes. This name is horrible. Move it to  or . No need to merge the two names as well ... AmiDaniel (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, template doc is much better! Verisimilus T 10:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comma Drama 

message: Hi,
Having problems setting the "sandbox-testcases" parameter: I want the documentation on Template:Fossil range to link to Template:Fossil range/Sandbox, but there's no documentation on this template telling me how to do so, and it's not immediately obvious from the source code.
Thanks,
Verisimilus T 10:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest change is move Template:Fossil range/Sandbox to Template:Fossil range/sandbox as the orignal name's redirection to new works just fine. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandboxes 

message: This template was created to facility a merge and it's final fate is under review here. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template's final fate 

message: This template implements or implemented the  classic "(icon) Template documentation" heading which is now the sole remaining reason for this template's existance. Changing this template's heading to the  look is best handled with a redirect. Let's discuss heading changes within the final fate discussion (see above for link). – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template's heading 

message: I think categories and interwikis MUST be in the template page like it is in any standard page. Because using it in the documentation page (with the  tags) confuses bots and even people, making editing more complex and error prone.
Documentation should be only be documentation and it should be NOT includes template related tags like categories and interwikis.
(sorry, my english isn't good) Martin Rizzo 13:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why this is actually a good idea is that high risk templates can be locked from editing, but interwikis and categories can be maintained by normal people without admin privileges (since the documentation pages are not locked). People and bots can learn how to do these things. +mt 17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories and interwikis
Talk:The Red Pen

message: As requested by Guillaume Tell I've had a rummage in the archives to see if it can be established if The Red Pen received its premiere on the BBC rather than on stage. As far as I can discover, it has never been staged. This is all I can find about the first broadcast:
*The Times,  20 March 1925, p. 6: "The first performance of a ballad opera, The Red Pen by Mr. Geoffrey Toye will be broadcast from all stations except 5XX and Belfast, on Tuesday at 7.30 p.m."
* Writing in The School Music Review, K. A. Wright (billed as "of the B.B.C. Programme Staff") stated that the 24 March broadcast of the work would be its first performance. He also gave the name of the producer and conductor, viz. I. Stanton Jefferies (no, neither had I), which I've added to the article. ("Wireless News", The School Music Review, March 1925, p. 325)
*The Red Pen was described as the only "novelty" of the BBC's "Wireless Opera Season" in 1927, though it was its second broadcast. The other operas broadcast were Rigoletto, The Bohemian Girl, Faust, The Barber of Seville,  Martha, Orpheus (Gluck), Fidelio, Romeo and Juliet, The Magic Flute, Philemon and Baucis, and Les Cloches de Corneville. (The Observer, 19 May 1927, p. 12)  The BBC published the libretto in 1927 details here, though I don't think you can necessarily conclude from that that the BBC commissioned the piece, as the Corporation also published libretti for all the other operas broadcast in that season.
I notice that The Times's obituarist (12 June 1942, p. 7) did not think it necessary to mention this work among Toye's compositions, though his ballets Douanes and The Haunted Ballroom were mentioned. The above is all I can find. Tim riley (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I think it's worth including some of that info. in the article. It would be interesting to know if the BBC did commission it consciously as a 'radio opera'. Perhaps the libretto would reveal some more details? There's also the question of whether it's a comic opera or an operetta (Grove) or ballad opera (above). P.S. Geoffrey Stanton and Stanton Jefferies! --Kleinzach 09:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premiered on the radio?
File talk:Porsche-VAG Alliance.svg

message: This vector image isn't valid anymore.
Cosworth Technology has been sold to Mahle GmbH.
--SgtH3nry3 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

message: Adjustments needed in ownership structure:
VW-Scania  20.03 holding and 35.31 voting rights
MAN-Scania 13.2 holding and 14.8 voting rights
Investor- Scania  11.0 holding and 20.0 voting
Wallenberg foundations  5.8 holding and 10.6 voting
VW-MAN  29.9 holding
Gradier 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holdings in Scania and MAN
Talk:Kostas (songwriter)

message: "The Lonely Side of Love" sounded so familiar when I first heard Patty Loveless' recording of it in 1989. In fact, when I heard her version for the first time on the radio in 1989, I took it for granted and KNEW that it was a re-make. I could have sworn that I had heard the song on the radio several years earlier than the Loveless recording of it; when it came out, I could swear that I heard it as early as the 70's. In fact, I'm almost certain. I seem to remember it being played on "Jamboree USA" on WWVA (Wheeling, West Virginia) back in the mid to late 70's, back when Buddy Ray was the emcee. There is a very, very, VERY close similarity in Kostas' song to an earlier song. It must have been VERY similar, because I'm almost COMPLETELY certain that I heard the song going WAY back before Patty Loveless recorded it. Now, I'm not insinuating ANYTHING, but, wow, I'm convinced that I heard that song as far back as the mid to late 1970s, or else it was something that sounded VERY much like it. Slater79 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kostas' "The Lonely Side of Love"
Talk:Ringelblum Archive

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Ringelblum Archive. This is a close call, but there seems to be a general consensus that the current title has a potential to mislead, and Ringelblum Archive, mentioned by several posters as a potential alternative, also has an advantage of being WP:NATURAL.  No such user (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oyneg Shabbos →  – This is a WWII group. "Oyneg Shabbos" is the same as the name "Oneg Shabbat" refers to "enjoyment on Shabbat". IZAK (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we all agree on one thing, and only one thing, this request is not going to materialize, which is the usual outcome. I'm sure participants are aware of that. My final comment is that the "enjoyment on Shabbat" was an intentionally misleading name of a clandestine organization. The name therefore will always be misleading for as long as "enjoyment on Shabbat" is what it is, no matter what spelling difference we use. Poeticbent talk 12:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
P.S. I'm not sure what to do with pages Oyneg Shabbos (which currently redirects here, to preserve linking) and Oneg Shabbat (which is a malformed two-entry dab page). In my opinion, both of them should redirect to the same target, but I'm not qualified to decide which one. No such user (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Anarchyte and No such user. I've changed all the redirects that were aimed at this page or at Oneg Shabbat (the former disambiguation page with two entries) to redirect to the appropriate section of Shabbat and added a hatnote to that article. Currently, Oyneg Shabbos (the old title) still redirects here. It's linked in ten articles and I'm too lazy right now to fix them, but eventually they should be fixed and Oyneg Shabbos should also be redirected to Shabbat#Other rituals. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 June 2016
Talk:Woman's Building (Los Angeles)

message: The Woman's Building in L.A. was named after the Woman's Building at the 1893 World's Fair. It was very famous. The Women's Building in SF is spelled differently. There are other Women's Buildings, but the SF is the most well-known.
----Sue Maberry (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Distinction

message: This needs to be a disambiguation; the Women's Building in San Francisco is notable and needs a separate article; and I imagine there must be other women's centers with this name. --Lquilter 22:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Would it make sense to create some subcategories (other than visual artists) under "Participants?" I see several writers, some musicians, etc. listed under "participants." Their contributions were undoubtedly important, but I don't think they can all be classified as visual artists. That said, I don't want to create too many lists on this page. Thoughts?Arthistorygrrl (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create new subcategories? 

message: The article was tagged as a self-published source, which I think of as a self-published book. This appears to have primary source issues, where several of the sources appear to be the Women's Building. I didn't change it, though, because it's entirely likely I'm missing something.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published or primary source
Talk:MATH (band)

message: MATH is a side-project of the influential Metal Blade Records band, 3.
:Then the article needs to make that clear in the lead section, which is where notability is generally asserted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done my best to assert notability per WP:MUSIC, but this article doesn't offer much. Reliable sources to verify its claims are essential. If this were solely a side-project of 3 (band), then by guidelines on music notability it would need to be merged with that parent article. The inclusion of an artist from Time of Orchids may warrant stand-alone status. However, the band's album is not individually notable per guidelines, and I am about to merge it here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:HMS Crescent (1931)

message: Given that neither Crescent nor Fraser are more noteworthy than the other, it makes sense this article is moved to HMS Crescent (1932) (ie the name and date of ship build), with HMCS Fraser (H48) as a redirect, rather than the other way around.  A few minor changes will also be required to the intro to indicate more fully the shared history.  If there's no objection within a couple of weeks, I'll make the change. Shem (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pennant numbers were liable to change until about 1948, and for numerous warships they were changed several times during the ship's lifetime; so the concensus we developed was that launch dates (which being historic data would not be open to change) would be used as an identifier for all British and other European warships. I appreciate that USN hull numbers are fixed and serve an entirely different function from the pennant numbers used for RN warships, so I will not comment as regards what US contributors wish to do for USN warships. But I strongly urge them not to try and use pennant numbers as part of the title of articles on any pre-1948 British warship. As regards ships which were renamed (such as the Crescent) it makes sense to have the article titled under the name which the ship had when launched, with a redirect for names which were acquired later in the ship's life. So I entirely agree with you that the article should be entitled HMS Crescent (1931) (NOTE 1931, not 1932 - she was launched 29 September 1931!), with a redirect from the later Canadian identity of HMCS Fraser (1937) (17 February 1937 was when she was formally transferred to her new identity). I don't think the "H48" has any relevence at all, and I'm sure someone trying to find the ship would not use that as an identifier. For most destroyers, the pennant letter was changed in 1940 (although this did not happen for "H" pennants). Rif Winfield (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mea culpa - I moved it to (1932) vice (1931) in the first place.  I can't imagine what I was thinking (perhaps it was a simple typo?)  I suggest we wait until we're happy with the disambiguation by date discussion before moving it once-and-for-all. Shem (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to HMS ''Crescent''? 
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists

message: What about guidline for Tallest building lists in countries? I think it may be based on that guidline with some small differencies. Do you think that will be better edit that guidline, so it can cover both cities and countries or to create separate guidline for countries? --Jklamo (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest building lists in countries 

message: What is the reason to exclude the street address of buildings from these lists?  It seems like a worthy use of use as it provides a geographic context to the each entry within the city.  I haven't been able to find any discussions on this topic, so I'd like to open it to discussion and see what consensus is on the matter.  VerruckteDan (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For most lists, there simply isn't enough room to add an extra column; the columns would be effectively "crunched" even more than they already are - see this edit of the New Orleans list. It also gets repetitive, as most cities have several buildings that use their addresses for names. Cheers, Rai-me 23:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street Address 

message: I really don't think these lists should include a section on "proposed" or even "approved" skyscrapers as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So many of these projects never come to fruition and need to be constantly updated (which is not happening), it does not make sense to include them. Perhaps under construction would be acceptable as there is something to physically report on, but for an encyclopaedia, wild speculation does not fit. Mattximus (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed? 

message: I think we should have a consensus of what references to use as sources. Most lists use Emporis, and SkyscraperPage or even SkyscraperCity. However the Skyscraper Center is now the database for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH). This would seem to me to be the most verifiable reference to use. the List of tallest buildings in Miami for example, has been recently updated with both CTBUHhttp://www.skyscrapercenter.com/city/miami and Emporis cited as sources. And although we are having a bit of a contentious debate on the talk page there now about accuracy of sources, currently I would argue that there are no better ones to use. 1305cj (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers#Reliable resources?. --Jklamo (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing
Talk:Ataluren

message: perhaps ptc-124 and ptc 124 should forward here to make search engine finds easier.Mkayatta 23:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both search terms give this page as their first results. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: The CAS number as written is correct, and can be verified at the NCBI PubChem site. It points to Ataluren. Unfortunately, I don't yet know how to change that red X to the green check mark in the right sidebar (Chembox?) of the Wiki article.  Suirauqa (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 2016

message: This entire page is wildly misleading an propagates the myth of Ataluren as a drug that affects read through. It is actually a compound that binds and stabilizes firefly luciferase, creating the impression that more of this luciferase is being made.  I have personally seen it raise the signal in a screen I am doing in which the increase in luciferase would be associated with transcription in a yeast cell, not translation in a mammalian cell (the screen for which Ataluren was developed).Hoffmacs (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 2017