lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:InfoWorld

message: Why does TechWorld redirect to this article? I don't find anything in the article that mentions TechWorld or relates it to InfoWorld. --MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  TechWorld 

message: Unfortunately, many InfoWorld citations in Wikipedia don't mention the  and  numbers of this newspaper, although this information belongs into a proper citation.
Most probably, this is because many people just refer to the scanned versions of the paper as provided by Google Books. Since it is sometimes difficult to look up the volume info there or to decipher them in the sometimes weak scans, here is a reference list for all print issues of InfoWorld between 1979 and 2007.
I hope this helps a bit when verifying and/or retrofitting volume information in/to WP citations:
* 1979: Volume 1
* 1980: Volume 2
* 1981: Volume 3
* 1982: Volume 4
* 1983: Volume 5
* 1984: Volume 6
* 1985: Volume 7
* 1986: Volume 8
* 1987: Volume 9
* 1988: Volume 10
* 1989: Volume 11
* 1990: Volume 12
* 1991: Volume 13
* 1992: Volume 14
* 1993: Volume 15
* 1994: Volume 16
* 1995: Volume 17
* 1996: Volume 18
* 1997: Volume 19
* 1998: Volume 20
* 1999: Volume 21
* 2000: Volume 22
* 2001: Volume 23
* 2002: Volume 24
* 2003: Volume 25
* 2004: Volume 26
* 2005: Volume 27
* 2006: Volume 28
* 2007: Volume 29
Deriving the exact issue numbers from the publication dates is a bit more complicated since the publication switched from monthly to weekly delivery, and also there are a few special issues like double-issues not following the usual scheme. Nevertheless, for convenience, here is a list of most issues between 1986 and 2007:
* https://books.google.com/books/serial/ISSN:01996649?rview=0&hl=en (Scanned print issues from 1986, Volume 8, Number 45 up to 2007, Volume 29, Issue 13 with publication dates)
* https://books.google.com/books?id=vTcEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PP3&lpg=PP1&focus=viewport&hl=en (Scanned print issue of 2007, Volume 29, Issue 14)
Note that in this Google Books list some issues are missing and the listed volume numbers are not correct in a few case. Also, some of the shown magazine covers are mixed up.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  InfoWorld year - volume reference
Talk:Institute for Legal Reform

message: I have added an  tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost joyce for evidence. The article will need a thorough review ensuring due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undisclosed paid edits
Talk:International University of Monaco

message: I changed MBA of Business Administration to Master of Business Administration since MBA is acronym for Master of Business Administration and therefor it makes no sense to say MBA of Business Administration because that is equal to saying Master of Business Administration of Business Administration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orri (talk • contribs) 12:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MBA 
Wikipedia talk:Evaluating Wikipedia as an encyclopedia

message: It might be helpful to carry out some statistical surveys comparing the Britannica's coverage and depth to those of corresponding articles in Wikipedia.  For example, we might look at a random sampling of the Britannica's Micropedia articles and assess how well they are treated in Wikipedia.  Does anyone object to this as WP:NOR?  Willow 17:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about relevance of [[WP:NOR]] for essays

message: something that may be of use in this essay is a blooming Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vandalism_studies which could speak to reliability and stability. Some initial data is here. JoeSmack Talk 01:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism studies 

message: Hi Gwern, it's great that you're being more scrupulous than I am about referencing, but I'm not sure if I understand the WP:NOR objection?  There seem to be three facts that might need a source: the age of the Yongle, the designation of the Yongle as the largest, and its likely size, and I wasn't sure which one was lacking.  For the first, the EB reference does say that the Yongle was finalized in the early fifteenth century (~1407, from other sources); simple subtractions such as 2007-1407=600 years don't violate WP:NOR, as I understood from the discussion page.  Second, the EB reference also says that the Yongle was "probably the largest encyclopedia in history".  Admittedly, I should've included the qualifying "probably", but I was working from a faulty memory; however, there really doesn't seem to be any plausible competitor known to history.  I'll see if I can find another reference to back that up, though.  Third, is there any doubt that Wikipedia is larger than the Yongle ever was?  If so, I'll try to find a reference that estimates its size, so that we can reference the "eclipsing" part.  Hoping to clarify things and reference them properly, Willow 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens, I discussed this very topic a while ago on the Yongle talk page before I ever saw this page. My essential point was that you're comparing apples and oranges. One is written in classical Chinese, an allusive compressed and cramped language in ideograms, and the other is colloquial modern English in an extended alphabet (if you want to include all the foreign letters and special symbols). You can't simply say that Wikipedia has half again as many characters as the Yongle does ideograms (or whatever) and so Wikipedia is probably bigger. I suspect it is, but given the state of disrepair of the Yongle encyclopedia and the lack of a good idea of how much to multiply number of ideograms to to get a reasonable size comparison, it is OR to say anything but that they are both very very big. Now, if you get an expert on Chinese literature to provide a size comparison, go for it. --Gwern  (contribs) 19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of Yongle encyclopedia?

message: Material on Readabilty values is now added. Collect (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  added info on grade level values
Talk:Ski, Norway

message: "The centre, at present, is an unappealing mess of ..." 
This is an opinion, a word like "unappealing" must be in violation of the NPOV?
Greswik 17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Actually, I just realised: this article coveres both the municipality of Ski, and the city of Ski.
This should normally be two articles.
Granted, it's not much here, but it should still be split... Greswik (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The "city" which you refer to is a municipality center much like many other Norwegian municipality centers. The fact that the municipality has gained city status in recent years reflects the silly change of the city requirements in 1997 which made it possible for any municipality with 5,000 inhabitants or more to become a "city", which is basically ridiculous but panders nicely to parochial vanity and local chauvinism which is prevalent in the vicinity of Norwegian mayors. __meco (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be two articles - one for the municipality, one for the city 
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson

message: I think it might be wise to discuss whether we want to feature an article about a porn star. History of Erotic Depictions got a fair bit of backlash when we initially featured it (in fact, in those discussions, I pointed out that Jenna Jameson might at one point be featured and that this might be reasonable). However, we do need to consider Wikipedia's PR and having this on the mainpage could be a PR concern, and there is the additional concern that this might turn off teachers who would otherwise have their students use Wikipedia. Finally, I believe there is at least one article which has reached FA status but the decision was made not to feature it since it was too technical a subject (maybe someone remembers what that is) so there is some precedent for this. (I'm sticking this on the talk page rather than the main candidate page since it isn't directly an FA concern). JoshuaZ 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it fair to say that this article might never actually make it to the main page?  Obviously, that's a Raul-level decision, but that may solve the problem, although I personally hate to even consider it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's important to make the distinction between featuring the article, and putting it on the main page. Raul keeps his "very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page" so you could ask him whether this will be added to it. Trebor 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On concerns about featuring this article not directly related to FA standards
Talk:Hughes

message: clicking on hughes electronics seems to take you to hughes aircraft?
:That is because of what is called a redirect.  Some article names are set up so that when you click on one article name, if that name is not the name of the main article, clicking on it takes you to the main place that the article is located.  Hughes Electronics is the old name of what is now Hughes Aircraft.  If you look a little further down in the article you can see the information about Hughes Electronics.  We don't have a separate article for Hughes Electronics probably because Hughes Aircraft is the main topic.  Joie de Vivre 17:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see talk:Curtis Hughes -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "{{noredirect|Mr. Hughes}}"
Talk:U2charist

message: Re-wrote entire article after PROD.  Someone who actually thinks this is a good idea (not the page, but the subject itself) please, please, please take over this article.  It's got current relevance, lots and lots of references, so you'll enjoy it.  I, on the other hand, still feel nauseous.  --Chalyres 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone??? 

message: Surely not... 69.196.132.122 (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this for real? 

message: Certainly incorrect. Please provide source for this. The reason for the invention of CCLI is because of the copyright infringements of churches -- it has nothing to do if the effort is profit generating or not. The copyright holders of church music were suing other churches, what do you think a securlar ASCAP has to say? This argument has been used falsely for years by churches for their violating of copyright.Tiggerjay (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASCAP does not require a license...
Talk:Dunmore, County Galway

message: Reverted page to aug 25th edit after sept. 11th vandalism edit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchman (talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 
Talk:That's How It Is

message: An article for this song is not necessary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also, the movie is fiction!!!!!!!!!!--Jeffhardywhyx 17:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: While page was a redirect page, I've changed it into an article page for a song by hip hop artist Casual. Hope no one minds. WikiGuy86 (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article change
Talk:Anti-Syrian

message: This article is completly unsourced. Moreover, generally articles should not be created around allegded public moods or feelings, unless there is a particularily strong (and sourced) argument for it. --Soman 17:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is redundant, there is already a more appropriate March 14 article. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneeded.
Talk:Flavin group

message: I removed a comment from the FADH / FADH2 section:
>>(I thought they yield 3 ATP <--> 1 FADH2 = 1.5 ATP)(John aTr)
Charlie McKeon Jr  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.44.135 (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Comment from Article 

message: The caption for the picture of isoalloxazine mentions an R-group.  This isn't present in the picture, on top of which the substitution to convert isoalloxazine into flavins happens at not one, but three positions round the ring system.
DragonElf66 (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone must have changed the picture without changing the caption. I've removed reference to the R group now.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate picture caption
Talk:South African poetry

message: I'm an American who enjoys Afrikaans poetry--an odd taste, eh?  Anyway, the Afrikaners seem a little underepresented here; I've added a few names.  Should we specify the poet's language here?  Some do both, e.g. Breytenbach; any editorial suggestions? . . .Nhrenton 17:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we specify language? 

message: The politikal korrectniz of this section reduces the authors of it to the status of bigotted clowns. What fair-minded person can write a "colonial history" of South African poetry without mentioning Marais? What is wrong with you? Captainbeefart (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Colonial Period
Talk:Glucose oxidase

message: The reference "Glucose Oxidase Technical sheet" under Application Title and Glucose Monitoring Subtitle needs repair, as it links to 404 page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebschuth (talk • contribs) 08:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Gametogenesis

message: I am considering developing this page further as part of an educational assignment in Fall of 
2013. If someone else is also working on this, please send me a message and let me know 
soon, so we donʼt duplicate initial efforts in page development. I would like to include further information on the implications of genetic recombination and the need for DNA repair mechanisms. Here's the relevant source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11226027  NJSfour (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA repair mechanisms involved with gametogenesis

message: Is there a name for the single process of a gametid turnin into a gamete? Gametogenesis is the whole process from gametogonium, so that can't be it. Perhaps it's irrelevant. Mikael Häggström 14:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process of gametid? 

message: Primordial germ cells, unlike gametocytes, multiply by mitosis. This page used correctly to say to. It was wrongly changed to "meiosis" on 28 February 2008. I have undone the change. Prim Ethics (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitosis 

message: Is Gametocytogenesis the same as Gametogenesis? If so, the articles should be joined. — Daniel FR (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no expert on this but it seems like Gametocytogenesis makes  gametocytes, while Gametogenesis leads to mitosis. Oldag07 (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gametocytogenesis]], anyone? 

message: My understanding is that in vitro gametogenesis is the process and in vitro generated gametes is the finished result.  For this reason, one article should primarily focus on the process and the other article should focus on the finished result.  If this is incorrect or you have a better way to discuss this please comment. Waters.Justin (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: In vitro gametogenesis versus in vitro generated gametes

message: i have  a answer Kimambo peter (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  does  gametogenesis depend on meiosis or mitosis 

message: Voice 2409:4070:4D35:88D9:0:0:DC48:2405 (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoology 

message: — Assignment last updated by Primashailes2022 (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Molecular Genetics
Talk:Borough (Connecticut)

message: Ansonia (Derby) b1864 --> nt1889 --> cc1893
Bantam (Litchfield) b1915
Birmingham (Derby) b1852 --> cc1893
Branford b1893 --> d1970s
Bridgeport (Stratford) b1800 --> nt1821 --> c1836 --> cc1889
Bristol b1893 --> cc1911
Colchester b1824 --> d1990
Danbury b1822 --> c1889 --> cc1965
Danielson (Killingly) b1854
Essex (Saybrook) b1820 --> d&nt1854
Farmington b? --> d1947
Fenwick (Old Saybrook) b1899
Greenwich b1858 --> d1932
Groton b1903 --> c1964
Groton Long Point (Groton) b1990
Guilford b1815 --> d1941
Hartford c1784 --> cc1896 (never been a borough)
Jewett City (Griswold) b1895
Killingworth b1820 --> d?
Litchfield b1879
Meriden b? --> c1867 --> cc1922 
Middletown c1784 --> cc1924 (never been a borough)
Naugatuck b1893 --> cc1895
New Britain b1850 --> c1870 --> cc1906 
New Canaan b1889 --> d1935
New Haven c1784 --> cc1897 (never been a borough)
New London c1784 --> cc1874 (never been a borough) 
Newtown b1824
Norwalk b1836 --> c1893 --> cc1913
Norwich c1784 --> cc1952 (never been a borough)
Putnam b? --> c1895 --> d1984 
Ridgefield b1901 --> d1921
Rockville (Vernon) b? --> c1889 --> d1965 
Shelton (Huntington) b1836 --> cc1915
South Norwalk (Norwalk) c1870 --> cc1913 (never been a borough?)
Southington b1889 --> d1948
Stafford Springs (Stafford) b1873 --> d1991
Stamford b1830 --> c1893 --> cc1949 
Stonington b1801
Torrington b1887 -->  cc1923
Unionville (Farmington) b1921 --> d1947
Waterbury b1825 --> c1853 --> cc1902 
West Haven (Orange) b1873 --> d1911 --> nt1921 --> cc1961
Winsted (Winchester) b1858 --> d1915 --> c1917
Wallingford b1853/1868 --> d1958
Willimantic (Windham) b1833 --> c1893 --> d1983
Woodmont (Milford) b1903
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: It says the boroughs are incorporated areas of towns.  Does this mean the Connecticut towns themselves are not considered incorporated?  And can a borough in CT span town (and possibly county) lines the way villages can in New York, or must a borough's territory remain within only one town?   98.221.141.21 (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature of Boroughs
Talk:Valsalva Maneuver

message: This page should be made into a redirect to Valsalva maneuver, not deleted. <3Clamster 17:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It was wrong for me not to consider that alternative. 201.217.133.107 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Tony Church

message: Please come one, come all to add things to this prestigious man's article.--Drboisclair 17:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have only just come accross article. Yes it is small at the moment but there are many actor articles here at wikiP with just as little info on them as this one has at the moment and they are not tagged for deletion. I will try to get back here and add some info soon, but, I am involved a project at the wikifilm project that may keep me away for a few days. However, as I am not the only editor who may have something to add to this page I am removing the tag . MarnetteD | Talk 15:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the removal of this deletion tag for all of the same reasons. I thank User MarnetteD for his kind attention to this article.--Drboisclair 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: old moonraker seems to be everywhere (ubique).  how he came to be aware of the details of tony church's career is a mystery.  i worked with t. church, and many other distinguished actors and directors at the royal shakespeare company during the 1960's and 1970's. Additionally, I was an Arts/Theatre student at the London Guildhall School and went on to the BBC (Reith Gold Medal Award) which Stanley Lebor (QV) and Charles Kay (QV) were also awarded. I knew all of the 100 strong RSC and worked with almost all of them, as an insider. It may be better if outsiders stayed away from theatre business commentary unless very well informed by professionals.Miletus (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  old moonraker (again)
Talk:South Korea women's national football team

message: i think this page needs major work. it's in a pretty sad state.Jettd42291 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Jayne Heitmeyer

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Although her birth year is sometimes given as 1970, this is incorrect. She was born in 1960. This is obvious when you realise that she was in the High School class of 1979 at the International School of Geneva (see external link). If she had been born in 1970 that would mean she would have graduated High School at the age of 8! I was in her class. [Jayne in Grade 4] (The date on the picture is the year these people would have graduated high school, not the year the photo was taken.) I am sitting on the pillar on the left. Jayne is in the second row, higher than the rest of the row, in the white dress, directly in front of the teacher, Mr Barnett. Quakerman 21:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 10 years old in 1970, when this picture of the class that would graduate in 1979 was taken! This is the class that graduated in 1979. Are you saying that Jayne graduated highschool at the age of 10? Harry the Dog WOOF 13:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a suggestion that the birth year is actually 1961. Does anyone have any verifiable sources for this? Harry the Dog WOOF 16:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Here is a link to the 1974 yearbook hosted on the school's own alumni website:  Heitmeyer appears in the bottom photo on page 62. This puts it completely into context. She would have been 4 in this photo if she had been born in 1970. So 1960 or 61 must be correct. And how likely is it that there were two Jayne Heitmeyers from Canada at a school in Geneva in the same decade. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth Year 1960
Talk:Furbo, County Galway

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
Na Forbacha aint where you show it on the map....it is in the coast road near Bearna not Clare
—51.171.97.160 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: . I've emended the coordinates. Thanks for pointing out the error. Deor (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error
Talk:List of patent case law

message: Is Typhoon Touch v. Dell (US, 2008) notable? Doubtful. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typhoon Touch v. Dell 
Talk:Sciotoville Community School

message: The school name is a bit confusing.  They go by Sciotoville Community School or East High School.  Not sure which name is on the building itself. EagleFan 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: School name
Talk:BST

message: This (disambiguation) page has been warped into a "Brothers Stick Together" page which, apart from being information-poor and probably not suitable as it currently stands as a encyclopaedia entry, replaces the very useful disambiguation page. At present it borders on vandalism - See "BST" version before revert".
If "Brothers Stick Together" meets wikipedia guidelines as an encyclopaedia page, I think it would serve users better by being created under its full name and an entry/link to it put on the disambiguation page. Blueglow 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Brothers Stick Together" vs. disambiguation 

message: Those are not Time Zones; see the Time Zones page. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Time Zones 

message: BST is also, from information received, used for Bangkok
Standard Time, Brazil Standard Time, and Bering Summer Time. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other "time" meanings