lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Beacon Street Girls

message: Why does it look like a bunch of tween girls who failed to use the right exclamations, use proper grammer, and type correctly for the audience wrote this?
:Wikipedia is not a forum. Every good user, and anonymous users, are trying even now to improve Wikipedia. Be patient; there's lots of vandalism. 99.178.102.54 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: I'm suggesting that all of the individual titles in the series be merged into the main article space because I wasn't able to find enough reliable sources for each novel to show that they're independently notable outside of the series. A redirect to the main page would be far better served in my opinion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *If no one has any objections and/or if nobody can find enough reliable sources to show that each novel deserves an article, I'll merge everything on March 17th.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: *Also, I'm going to edit the main article and pare down the amount of character lists. Having some information about the main characters would be good and I don't think the series has enough notability to warrant having a "list of characters" entry, but the current article is just a list of every character that's ever appeared in the series. This should be about the series and its impact, not about every minor character. That's best kept for a fan wiki.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging titles to main article 

message: In a book it says that if marty  chews on Happy Lucky Thingy it becomes alter ego Mad Nasty Thingy, which is presumably Happy lucky thingy turned over. Daisy134 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  About happy lucky thingy 

message: The redirect Out of Bounds(novel) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Nickps (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Out of Bounds(novel)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Jamalpur, Pakistan

message: Jamalpur is the beautiful village of Pakistan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usman Faraz (talk • contribs) 04:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

message: Article content forked from edits by User:Dew pansy at Jamalpur (which is the disambig page for this name). --Ragib (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Note
File talk:2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries.png

message: Does this really need to be simply different shades of blue?  I think people will understand that it's the Democratic Party.  Right now it's not very easy to read. Subsurd (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I cannot tell the difference between "pale" and "sky" blue in this picture. How about some more contrasting colors? I would do it myself but I don't know how! WikiTony (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shades
Talk:Cadcorp

message: This entire page reads like an advert to me!
78.147.28.82 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Moto Guzzi California

message: Made a minor correction. Electronic fuel injection was first offered on the California IIIie in 1993. The original statement that EFI was not available until 1998 is wrong. Carburetion or EFI was offered as an option until the introduction of the EV (so for the California III and the 1100), which was EFI-only. My only link as of now is a spec sheet of the Dutch Moto Guzzi club: http://www.mgcn.nl/dameijer/California-III-IE, but a little digging is sure to turn up an English or Italian source. Mvdwege (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First offering of EFI models
Talk:Magic City

message: * This page would be more informative if the circumstances and date for each appellation were added. I'll try to get a start on it. --Dystopos (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not the purpose of a disambiguation page, that information should go on the articles' page. Rich257 (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, and despite the style guide, the proposed context would better serve the purpose of disambiguating the term. An alternative would be to put an explanatory article here that only incidentally serves to disambiguate, as few people are likely to confuse the names of cities with their nicknames. --Dystopos (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Door breaching

message: I can't seem to find any information on advanced, powered (hydraulic or compressed air?), man-portable piston battering rams. They look like a normal battering ram http://www.columbussupply.com/images/products/firetools/entry-kbr.jpg except with a piston coming out of the front that slams forward once the piston is thrown against a door and makes contact. 65.191.180.91 (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can find.  A quick search came up with US Patent 5415241, for an "Explosive actuated battering ram".  From the text decription, it sounds kind of like a big powder actuated tool, like the big cousin of the nail guns powered by  blank cartridges.  scot (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be! The force of slamming the piston ram against the door (in the exact same manner that you would normally) could cause the piston to ignite a charge behind it inside the ram. Actually, I just googled for "explosive actuated battering ram" and the first result ( http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5415241.html ) describes exactly what I was thinking of! Amazing! I looked at the patent images on another site. The description matches it to a T. Thanks! I'm not sure how much real-world use it has at this point, however, so whether it should be included in the article is uncertain to me. 65.191.180.91 (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piston battering ram? 
Talk:Professional services automation

message: To prevent this from turning into a link farm, I suggest that this page assumes the same policy as List of project management software and Comparison of time tracking software, and only provide internal links to software developers/applications with Wikipedia entries.KarsKormak (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of external links here 

message: The section in the article has incomplete information, as if someone started writing and forgot to complete the section. The only sentence has no ending. Someone should review this for missing content and include it, or remove the section. (araffals 00:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSA Software Awards 

message: This article could be combined with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_PSA_systems making both of them a little less stub-like.
Then it should be marked as a stub, because there just isn't enough info in the two combined.
RichardLynch  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.103.133 (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combine with Comparison
Talk:Libertarian Democrat

message: An IP has recently deleted material supported by www.ontheissues.org/ & other sources. Discussion is invited as to whether these sources are WP:RS. (The material is now restored.)  – S. Rich (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  OnTheIssues.org as RS 

message: This article is going to suffer repeated EW as long as we have the "libertarian-leaning" terminology for the description. It leaves the door open inclusion of Obama (and others) simply because OTI's grid shows the particular Democrats as supporting positions in the libertarian grid. I propose that the "libertarian-leaning" parameter be replaced with "who are described as libertarian or who have been endorsed by Libertarian parties." (This parameter can be applied to the other parties, in which case Senator Paul gets a libertarian leaning description because there is RS which says so.) Comments?  – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  The fact that we someone who is about as far as you can get (by all metrics) from being libertarian-leaning being listed here as such shows that we need a more objective and sourced-based standard.  North8000 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, it would probably be even better to delete the entire list. It seems to be a source of information-free drama and POV. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know Cuomo and Patrick get no acclaim from libertarians. Why are they here? J390 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolving the "Obama as a libertarian-leaning" debate
Talk:Emílio Peixe

message: This article is proving difficult to find sources for.  So far, three things have mentioned three separate playing careers.  In three separate languages, none of which is English.  If anyone has any sources that could be useful, I'd appreciate it. matt91486 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally this source here might be of note, but I cannot make sense of it. matt91486 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Catahoula bulldog

message: This article is unsourced and needs to be merged into Catahoula Leopard Dog because the latter is the only significant breed that can be determined by appearance.  The percentage of American Bulldog remains undetermined short of DNA testing; therefore, this particular cross fails notability as a purebred that breeds true.  We should not allow WP to be used as a marketing tool for the purpose of establishing recognition for an unrecognized dog whose parentage cannot be confirmed by RS.  The best we can do is merge it as one of several crosses with Catahoulas that dog breeders have attempted but were unable to secure the needed foundations to consider the cross anything more than mongrel, except for the Catahoula features.  One of the many  questionable sources about the Catahoula bulldog states:  <—- and therein part of the problem lies.  Atsme Talk 📧 15:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed breed
Talk:Munirih Khanum

message: I have heard several people requesting more information and to know more regarding Munirih Khanum. She was the wife of Abdul Baha, who was the leader of the Baha'i faith, and the mother of his daughters. I'm hoping to expand this page to include more regarding her childhood, marriage, and children.
As to her notability, I suppose she's only slightly more notable than Helen Herron Taft perhaps, but interest has been displayed in this particular topic and I thought I would try and piece it together, perhaps with some help from other wikipedians with more knowledge on the matter than I. Peter Deer (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Deletion
Talk:Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge

message: I did change the image for a better one. I wonder what is the meaning of "original poster". Of course one should revert my edit if the former image was more "original". (Which I doubt, for the lack of borders.) --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better image
Talk:Reading First

message: I got here from Emily Hanford's "Sold a Story", a podcast-format longform article series on the persistent use of three-cueing/"whole language"/"balanced literacy" approaches, which described Reading First as an attempt to encourage effective (i.e., phonics-based) literacy instruction in schools.
The last substantive edit was in 2008, and the article focuses on conflicts of interest as well as allegations that it broadly "does not improve students' reading comprehension". There's a sense of 'some people say this, some people say that', with no attempt at synthesis. (As of this writing) the Whole language article is very clearly critical of the concept, but Reading#Effectiveness_of_programs is equivocal, and simply recaps a _lot_ of debates without clearly explaining the state of knowledge.
My goal for now is to:
* Explain the motivation for Reading First.
* Describe how it descended from a Texas-based program backed by Laura Bush.
* Explain the goals of the project, i.e., why people (including Reid Lyon and Susan Neuman) thought it would work.
* Describe why it didn't work. In part, Proponents of Reading Recovery, another discredited approach, lobbied to have their programs included, and attempted to dilute the program's effectiveness.
grendel|khan 00:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workplan for this page.
Talk:Bernard and Doris

message: According to the film, she left him 5 million as executor of her estate, to run trusts she had set up in the document. He then left in his will everything he had to the Doris Duke Foundation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.134.31 (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics/COTF

message: I will be uploading my material I created for WP:UNI/COTF and transfer them over to WikiProject Robotics.  This is the best way to go about this.  We may not have to have an active program, but when there are enough users to perform the collaboration after our initial assessment drive, we will begin this collaboration as we see fit.  And when the time comes, we will be ready.  Refer to WP:UNI/COTF for the set of instructions, rules, and guidelines I have set for that program and express any concerns on adaptability on this talk page.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  COTF Establishment Materials
Talk:Beykent University

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.beykent.edu.tr/WebProjects/Eng/beykent.php. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 
Talk:Transfer credit

message: Of course these two articles should be merged. Who would defend that their should be separate entries for Transfer Credit and Credit Transfer. I can't think of many examples that are more obvious.
Sjledet (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2008
:Ok, I admit I added the tag out of laziness, not because I thought the merge would need discussion... would you do it? I don't have the time right now... Waldir talk 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done the merge, migrating "Transfer Credit" into this page because it has been around longer.  I expect this choice of page name to be unpopular to some, as this concept is known by various names (I personally prefer advanced standing), but it is more important to expand the content that quibble about the page name. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Styxosaurus

message: The citations to websites should really be converted using the  tempate, so that there can be an accessdate in case the website gets taken down. As well, the last paragraph describing the species has some awkward sentences. Murderbike (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i've fixed the citations, but i may noy get around to looking at the last paragraph until later today.Ryan shell (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just came across this. Good, valid reference material should be independent of a particular website and found by direct query. Access date strikes me as no more relevant than the day a book is checked out of the local library. The date of the material of course is.  Keep things simple. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not sure what you men by "independent of a particular website".  The need for access date is due to the propensity for websites to change and update information on pages, a problem that is not found in print resources as they will have a different ISBN for each printing.  Thus it is very important to have the access date so the correct version of the page can be located if the site changes or goes down. --Kevmin § 18:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Do automatic taxoboxes  add anything of substance, other than an extra, and superfluous layer of information that's an extra step to modify, should that be necessary. Simple and direct seem usually better. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the automatic taxoboxes do add information.  For a full discussion see the automatic taxobox talk page Template talk:Automatic taxobox. --Kevmin § 18:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic Taxoboxes
Category talk:Television networks by language

message: I propose that this category should be broadened out to include lists of channels and stations, not just networks, by language. There is a separate :Category:Television stations by language - is the separation helpful? I'm not sure if I've thought through the differences between networks, channels and stations. Please comment! - Fayenatic (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rename
Talk:Ezra Weeks

message: Do not delete.  Doing research on this Builder/Designer.  Participated in the Design and Construction of Hamilton Grange.
:I'd advise you to add an "under construction" tag -- which is the words "underconstruction"  with no space between, enclosed in double curly brackets -- to the page.  If this page gets deleted before you're ready to add the results of your research, let me know and I'll make a "sandbox" page for you where you can work on it until you're ready to re-mount the page with more complete research.  (I'm sorry if you're having a hard time -- frequently, editors work on pages off-site until they're ready, then add them with their research complete.)  Let me know if there's something I can do to help you further. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Lloyd George ministry

message: This is seriously non NPOV. It is also factually wrong.
* Conservatives joined to get the r"eflected glory of the man who won the war", the coalition was formed early in the war when Asquith not Lloyd George was Prime Minister
* Conservatives 'championed free trade' nothing of the sort, their manifesto included tariff reform a Conservative/Unionist policy since 1903. Baldwin in fact fought -and lost- the 1923 election on a tariff reform platform 
Serious editing needed here Backnumber1662 (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coalition Government 1852–1855 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 22:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:United Kingdom coalition government (1852–1855) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Trio elétrico

message: According to Wikipedia etiquette I have moved this article to "Trio elétrico" since it is not a proper noun. "Trio elétrico" should not be capitalized for the same reason "Station wagon" isn't. jggouvea (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

message: As the correct name is trio elétrico, Trio-elétrico should be merged into trio elétrico. --Carioca (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge articles
Talk:Warren Goldfarb

message: Two Are Tied for Top Score in State Scholarships Tests, Robert H. Terte, New York Times, February 25, 1965. I don't have free access to this article, unfortunately, so I can't tell easily how it relates, but it came up on a news search for Goldfarb. Maybe he's one of the two students? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another news story 

message: I made a choice when I wrote the article not to link "classical decision problem" to decision problem.  The decision problem article is about decision problems in their full generality, meaning any problem that can be phrased in terms of acceptance by a Turing machine.  But "classical decision problem" is much more specific.  It refers to the problem of finding the maximal decidable classes of formulas of first-order logic.  The decision problem article doesn't treat this at all, and so I thought it would be better to link to a correct article that doesn't exist yet rather than to include a misleading link to a mostly-irrelevant article that does exist. -- Dominus (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical decision problem
Talk:37 mm flare

message: Is is smoothbore or rifled?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.226.69 (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 37mm, originally known as "1.5 inch," gas guns have been around since the 1930s, long predating the military 40mm grenade.  Some manufacturers' names include Lake Erie Chemical Company, R.F. Sedgley Company, Smith & Wesson and Defense Technologies.  DefTech is still marketing S&W-made 37mm guns at present.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.221.121 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a "variant" of 40mm
Talk:Buck and ball

message: Two references are listed in the article. Many statements need inline citations. The article probably should have a header about needing improvement. I couldn't find the right section in Help regarding the headers & am not sure if regular users are supposed to add them to an article, or if they are added by meta-level reviewers   :p
Aimzzz (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs citations throughout article
Talk:Continuous-rod warhead

message: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/index.html
Part 13.4.4
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.144.254 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the reference and corrected the description. Such a cutting would indeed be only possible with a particularly oversized CRW, but missiles that size use fragmentation warheads instead. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible reference... 

message: It is just similar to one. A annular fragmentation effect is created by actual fragmentation, which is designed to throw the fragments in an annular expanding ring. The expanding rod is a related but different concept. There is no fragmentation involved, in fact they spend a great deal of effort to ensure that it doesn't fragment. "Annular blast expansion" would be a better term.
Idumea47b (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's NOT an annular blast fragmentation pattern
Talk:ULPower Aero Engines

message: At the European largest GA Expedition, we shaw in Spring 2012 the 200hp Model UL 520 , à 6 cylinder direct drive with electronic ignition, injection and FADEC. Could you please integrate this information in your site? 
All Builders they are studing engine solutions needs the overview quite bevore they buy. That's why I strongly recomend you to add all available information about modern aviation engines.
--81.13.237.223 (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's about UL 520 ??