lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Carlotta, California

message: Wasn't Carlotta for sale on eBay a few years back? I remember reading articles about its sale, but I never heard what happened with that (was it real or a hoax?). Here are a few hits from Google that might be relevant:
Donegan, Lawrence, [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,905864,00.html 
How online auction makes a mint from trading places], March 1, 2003
Gurnon, Emily, Carlotta goes up on eBay, February 20, 2003
* Yup you are right, thanks for the leads !! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: I can't find any sources to back up the extravagant claims of movies being filmed "in and around Carlotta". According to Warner Brothers, Big Trees was filmed in Orick, about 50 miles away. The relevant part of Outbreak was filmed in Ferndale, closer at just 12 miles. Some of Starwars: Return of the Jedi was filmed near Crescent City (about 85 miles), and the forest scenes were filmed at the Avenue of the Giants, 15-30 miles away. None of these locations seems to be "in and around", So I'm removing the entire section. Robsavoie (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlotta in the media section 
Talk:Heinkel He 343

message: This is a pretty minor point, but in this article it says at the end of the first parsgraph "By the end of 1944 work was nearly finished by the Heinkel engineers, when the order was cancelled due to the Emergency Fighter Program." This stronly implies (although not actually stating) that that was the end of work on the machine.
Yet at the Emergency Fighter Program article, the end of the first paragraph states "...Heinkel He 343 were worked on fitfully in the last months of the war." 
So if the Emergency Fighter Program article is correct, I think the operative sentence in this article should be amended. But I don't know if it's correct. Herostratus (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  slight discrepency between articles?
Talk:Carmel River (California)

message: a stub.  it needs expansion especially in hydrology, ecology, history, prehistory and management. need more sourcing and images. High importance is from the high national and even international name recognition of this entire area around carmel. Anlace 03:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial assessment
Talk:Carmel River State Beach

message: Updating importance of article from "low" to "mid" (as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_California/Assessment#Importance_scale - "Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area." state beaches qualify as notable protected areas, and notable in their particular geographic location.)
-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing importance to mid

message: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-57430215 Graywalls (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  source parked
Talk:Dornier Do 19

message: There seems to be some confusion on just whom succeeded Walther Wever.  The Ural bomber stub and the Dornier Do 19 stub each read that Albrecht Kesselring, often somewhat misnomered Albert, succeeded Wever.  The Junkers Ju 89 stub reads that Herman Goering succeeded Wever.  Walther Wever's own stub reads that he was succeeded by Ernst Udet and Hans Jeschonnek.  I think it's probably not unfair to say that Wever was succeeded by two people as he held two jobs in quick succession not too long before his death.  It's also probably not any easier as I understand that the division of labor for Nazi military officers could be arbitrary and unclear.  Still I tend to think we can safely eliminate Herman Goering as he would actually have been Wever's boss, although I'm not sure how Wever felt about that.  Looking at Kesselrsing's article I see he did in fact succeed Wever as the Luftwaffe's Chief of Staff.  There seems to be some confusion over Hans Jeschonnek because he was the Luftwaffe's Chief of General Staff.  What's the distinction?  I don't really know.  It's less clear who succeeded Wever as Commander of the Reich Air Ministry.  One might suppose it to be Ernst Udet.  But in fact, Udet was Commander of the Air Ministry's T-Amt.  It is entirely possible that since in many ways the Air Ministry was his personal office Goering simply declared himself Commander of the Air Ministry.  And are we sure Wever's death was an accident?
I'm going to Copy and Paste this onto the discusion pages of the four relevant articles. 76.111.89.206 (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walther Wever's successor
Talk:Carmichael, California

message: Under notable residents, it would be advisable to add Adrian Lamo's name.  He is apparently living with his parents who live there.  Thanks - sac  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.31.72.113 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Boeing XPBB Sea Ranger

message: I extended this as much as I could. I suggest also to rename the page: The article take its name from the basic type designation, PBB, or from the designation of the only model actually built XPBB-1. But XPBB is an unhappy compromise between these options. Mutatis Mutandis (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename for consistency?
Talk:Brewster SB2A Buccaneer

message: i have been googling, and I can't find a single picture of a Brewster Buccaneer with anything that looks like a dorsal turret. They all appear to have simple flexible guns in the rear cockpit. And on this page, http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Brewster-Buccaneer.html, it says that they tested a powered turret on the prototype SB2A, found it caused severe buffeting, and so removed it from the design. Is there a possibility that the article is wrong? Because it says that they all have "powered dorsal turrets", except for the ones provided to the RAF. If that's true, why can't I find a photograph of a SB2A with a turret, in either US or RAF markings? TBF Avengers have powered dorsal turrets, and they are quite obvious at first glance. And a "gun turret" has a pretty specific definition.
::
::The prototype had a dummy enclosed turret which was deleted on production examples, not just the British ones, 
::An enclosure is not required for it to be a turret as the term covers all gun mountings that rotate. A powered gun mounting was used, complete with its own armour shield - it just didn't have the glass enclosure it was originally intended to have. It was this powered mounting that was deleted on the British examples, which would have been fitted with British weapons which didn't work with the turret.NiD.29 (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On seeing the criticism it is curious looking at the Bermuda in that it has better proportions and looks far more 'right' than the competing SB2C Helldiver and I would be willing to bet that the Bermuda was possibly the better aeroplane, if only the production and other problems could have been solved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.167 (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  powered turret? 
Talk:Curtiss SBC Helldiver

message: Considering that the Ju87 predates the SBC, it's unlikely that the Helldiver influenced the design of the Stuka.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.223.65 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have your Helldivers mixed up. FWIW Bzuk 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? The Ju 87 first flew in May 1935, seven months before the maiden flight of the SBC. Therefore it seems unlikely that the latter was a design influence on the former, though it's possible that it may have influenced later iterations of the Stuka. Are there any citations that might support such an assertion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.247.231 (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If a Helldiver influenced the Stuka, it was probably the O2C not the SBC. Germany did order two Curtiss Hawk IIs for dive bombing trials.Nigel Ish 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would like to know, if it was this aircraft that was seen the 1933 King Kong...
I remember seeing the crew of one of these aircraft in the movie and it was a close up...
There was a pilot and a gunner...
Anybody got anything to add?
Michael 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the models used were cobbled up using a Vought Corsair as the real-life example that was modeled. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Cinematic History... 
Talk:Carolands

message: I removed this sentence: "Despite its impressive architecture and lovely surroundings, the house has been reportedly haunted following the kidnapping and torturing of two young women in 1985." This was added to the introduction by User 71.198.228.113 on March 15, 2008, without a media reference or footnote. ("Reportedly haunted"?)
It's true that the Carolands, with its boarded-up windows and disheveled gardens, looked for many years like a Hollywood version of a haunted house. It certainly enjoyed a "haunted" reputation for generations of Burlingame and San Mateo high school students who, as a rite of passage during the 1970s and early 1980s, broke into the abandoned chateau at night (where they would play variations of "boo" with each other). 
The 1985 security guard incident traumatized the local community, and apparently caused some people to attribute the chateau's (hitherto benign) "haunted" reputation to the security guard incident itself. To my knowledge, there have been no journalistic accounts of paranormal phenomena in the Carolands. Lindesfarne (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Haunted?

message: For images I took of the home's interior in 1998 before its restoration and decoration, check these two out. I think they would make helpful additions to the article, but I'm not sure how to transfer them over from Wikipedia Commons. Some touch-up efforts here might be welcome (I wish my scanner were better). Lindesfarne (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More images

message: Some other historical links I'm collecting here, until they can be integrated into the article:
* 
* 
—Mliu92 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Other links

message: According to the county surveyor the square footage of the mansion is . See:  On the other hand, most newspaper articles cited in this article state the square footage of the mansion exceeds 65,000. Doing a quick estimate based on stated exterior dimensions and floors (120 ft x 130 ft x 4.5 floors) = 70,200 square feet, so 65,000 is a believable number.
—Mliu92 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 
Talk:Martin XB-48

message: Is the serial number of the second prototype correct? If the one is 45-59585, I would guess that the other would be 45-59586 instead of 45-586.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.198.108.10 (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This sentence makes no sense: "Although the pictures make it look like the aircraft has three engine gondolas under each wing, the jet engines were actually clustered in a pair of flat three-engined gondolas with an intricate system of air canals between the engines providing cooling."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that at first. On second reading, though, it seems the engines were grouped into a three-engine "pod," with one of these units on each side. It is convoluted wording, but I think it makes sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: I recently had a higher quality photo on here that gives you better detail of the aircraft, and I check now and it's back the original.73.230.178.114 (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, as you could have discovered for yourself by looking at the article's history. My edit summary states "previous image is better", and it is. It's a much better angle, giving a better view of the aircraft. The image you added is of higher resolution, but that doesn't matter in a thumbnail image. I've no issue with the photo being added somewhere else in the article, but it doesn't need to be in the lead. BilCat (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who just changed my photo?
Talk:Horten H.XVIII

message: "Myhra, 1998." is a very poor reference format. More of David Myhra's work (assuming that's who it refers to) can be found on his site - http://www.luft46.com/Myhra/dmyhra.html 
Schiffer Publishing also seems like it might be (at least in part) a Self Publishing company. http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41604  
Most stealth claims I've found assume that Horton aircraft are going up against 12m wavelength Chain Home radars (which had been largely replaced by 10cm radar by 1942-1943) and based upon wave top level flight, which is largely incompatible with a transatlantic crossing; at least with an aircraft of this design. Does anyone have a specific citation for this questionable claim?
ANTIcarrot (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Myhra's reliability on stealth claims 

message: I don't see a year built or even how many were built during this time.  Can we get that in there?  Interesting... Dinkytown talk 05:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. None were built, ever. Does that help? Greglocock (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year?
Talk:Boeing XB-44 Superfortress

message: Shouldn't this aircraft really be part of the B-50 Superfortress article? There's only really one actual paragraph here, which would fit into the B-50 article rather neatly. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As written, yes. Might need some verifiable sources to back this up though. - BillCJ 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it does need to be merged. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree, it should be merged. --Compdude123 (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stand-alone article 

message: This needs drastic overhaul... give an infobox, give specifications, comparisons with the B-29. Career in service, if any. The Design and Development is also skipped. More references should be added along with any info that comes along. Otherwise, I'd suggest AfDing this and adding the info to the B-50 page. Sniperz11talk|edits 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, it ought to be merge with the B-50 article.  It was just a B-29 testbed for the engines that would be used in the B-50. -Compdude123 (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's consensus to merge and redirect (not AfD!), I just need to get around to doing it. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MILHIST Assessment
Talk:Boeing B-54

message: Suggest this be merged with the B-50, since it was a proposed variant that was never completed. --Colputt 00:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. I came here specificially for the B-54. That's because I'm interested in the engineering, rather than in the USAF procurment program. There were defense contracts and the B-54 was named, marketed, engineered and flown: it's just that the USAF never bought any. The B-54 had anti-skid braking, and may have been the first Boeing design to have that. B-54 was near the end-point of development of the B-29, but they aren't the same aircraft. For me, just having the listing is valuable, even when it says that there isn't much to say. Why should I have to search through a B-50 (or B29/50/54) article to find that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merger 

message: :I just read over the article and wonder: 
*1)- Why it was never merged per discussion?, and 
*2)- How it achieved a B-class rating with what seems to be fundamentally flawed and conflicting content? 
:The B-54 was apparently cancelled in the production stage (not sure how far in) and never flew. The lead states: "The Boeing B-54 was an American strategic bomber" also with "the prototype was canceled before completion, and the aircraft was never flown."
:The wording and any definition would be that the plane "never" actually existed yet the article presents that it did------ but---- not really, and is presented on a list article, but was not actually a completed prototype or experimental aircraft. The definition of "prototype" would be A full scale working model so "the plans were scraped" or "the intended prototype was cancelled".
:There was discussions that this article be merged to Boeing B-50 Superfortress and that specifications are mostly (except intended added length, wing-span, and engines) the same so I am perplexed. It seems obvious the B-50 "might" deserve a B-class rating (I didn't evaluate it), but it is clear this article should not, and should be merged into a section with prose containing the specification differences. It is my opinion (shared by others) that not everything that has a few references actually deserves an article.   Otr500 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues
Talk:Casa Conejo, California

message: This page should probably mention that "Casa Conejo" was originally the name of the housing development of the late 1950s-early 1960s, under/during which most of the houses in the census-designated-whatchamacallit were built. Unfortunately, other than having lived there for 32 of my 35 years, I don't really have any sources to cite for this factoid, else I would go ahead and add it. -Martha 72.81.97.124 19:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Casa de Fruta

message: What, nothing about the world-famous plate twirlers? Come on now. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring omission 

message: If you read the citation, the Portuguese farmers who settled this area call it the Y. Supposedly, it takes the Y because somebody in the family was named Ynacio or Ignatius. It is not called a Wye or labelled as such.   Ronbo76 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locals call the road the ''Y''
Talk:Casa de Oro-Mount Helix, California

message: WTF "unincorporated parts of the cities of El Cajon and La Mesa as well as part of the unincorporated community of Spring Valley. The CDP gets its name from the neighborhood of Casa de Oro, which straddles the line between Spring Valley and unincorporated El Cajon, and Mount Helix," is this bs?  How can there be an unincorporated part of a city?  This is all in San Diego County....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.100.78 (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Steve Webb (ice hockey)

message: I have categorized this page as requested by Category needed. If anyone has a more accurate category for this article, please feel free to add in the necessary details. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Picaroon9288 22:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added category
Category talk:Video game mods

message: Doesn't anyone think this should be combined with :Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels? Chortos-2 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bit of cross-over, but not all remakes/sequels are mods, and visa versa. Marasmusine 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Castilleja School

message: "In PE, the girls are forced to endure strenuous workouts that leave them fearing for their lives as they run laps, lift weights, use medicine balls, and cant talk or have fun in doing so."
Shouldn't this be taken out, as it isn't accurate and is biased? 67.169.183.11 (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - removed. Still LOTS of other POV stuff to go. It needs a major cleanup. Arthur (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV PE description

message: The article says that Castilleja has "an intramural Quidditch league".  That's been in the article since 2006, put there by an anon.  And nobody noticed. --John Nagle (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "An intramural Quidditch league?" 

message: This edit  essentially replaced the entire article, with no discussion or even an edit comment. Unclear why. Smaller changes, discussed on Talk first, would be appropriate.   Reverted to previous version. --John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge edit reverted 

message: The only reason I arrived at this page was the Cashback controversy. The school is more famous for this outside of California than anything else. The fact that it's been removed speaks volumes. It's a pure PR piece, reads like a prospectus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.120.19 (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a couple of reliable sources, then. I came across this article because of people posting about the controversy on the cashback (film) page. They cited only blogs and personal websites which are not suitable sources. GDallimore (Talk) 17:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: In addition to having been an actress and model, Josie Maran is an accomplished entrepreneur. She is doing quite well with her company Josie Maran Cosmetics. Why not add entrepreneur to 'actress' and 'model'?
71.139.161.30 (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That information is covered in Maran's own article.  Schools' notable alumni/ae lists aren't the place for an exhaustive recitation of every noun that can be used to describe the listed individuals. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Alumni - Josie Maran
Talk:List of airports in California

message: Due to the extremely large size of this page after the addition of every private-use airport in California, I have moved that entire section to its own page: List of private-use airports in California. - Zyxw 05:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Private-use airports

message: Does someone who knows this article's structure well want to add a place for a terminal which will be in California but which serves an airport on the Mexican side: By 2015, the Tijuana Cross-border Terminal in Otay Mesa will give direct access to Tijuana International Airport, with passengers walking across the U.S.–Mexico border on a footbridge to catch their flight on the Mexican side.
What are your sources for this???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:C381:530:4536:33AE:5FBB:FD3C (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross border terminal

message: Oxnard Airport is a Primary Commercial Airport, but it is listed in the table as a mere "General Aviation".  I would change it, but I don't really know how to edit it properly.  Can someone please do it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CD8A:F960:1860:CD0A:253C:BFC2 (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be because (due to air traffic numbers) there is insufficient volume for it to be currently classified as "Primary Commercial Service" - not to mention that there has to be AT LEAST air taxi operations from an airport in order to be considered "commercial service." 2601:442:C381:530:4536:33AE:5FBB:FD3C (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxnard Airport
Talk:Castle Crags

message: I don't see why there is a redirect unless it is until an article on the state park is written perhaps? It was confusing as this is not about a park but about a geographical landform. I'd rather see the red link to encourage our gifted writers to create the missing article -could this be "un-redirected"? Cheers Marcia Wright (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the redirect? 
Talk:Castro Street Fair

message: Here's a Google Book search,
...and a two local GLBT news searches. Banjeboi 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sources 

message: This page could use more history on the Castro Street Fair. Not just that Milk started it, but also what it's significance was to the relevant communities. Maybe a quote from someone who organized it... Stayhomegal (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs More Specifics