lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:67 X

message: Since this car is really a (heavily) customised Oldsmobile Toronado, shouldn't it really be a sub-section of the Toronado article?
:Fully agree. I was very close to boldly doing this earlier. I suggest you do just that...  --Biker Biker (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added merge tags here and at Oldsmobile Toronado. If nobody objects in a day or so then I'll move it across.  Stepho  talk  03:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Good work! Should we create a Jetway 707 page as a re-direct as well?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to Jetway 707! I did tweak it a little to use an anchor, because section titles tend to change or get duplicates.  Stepho  talk  05:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Should we re-name the limo section to Jetway 707 to be more specific?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't bother me either way. This is the reason I use anchors - section titles tend to change.  Stepho  talk  07:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Toronado article
Talk:Mitsubishi Pajero Junior

message: Section "Pajero Jr. ZR-II" says, ..."an additional cluster of digital instruments which included an altometer, compass, outside temperature gauge and a clock." I'm assuming it should be wikt:altimeter, not wikt:altometer, but I'm not sure. Anyone know? If not, I might eventually change it to "altimeter". Zeniff (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  altometer or altimeter? 
Talk:Mitsubishi RVR

message: Mitsubishi Space Runner has rare 4-door body. Never heard of 3 or 5 door versions, if you know one, please add sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekrutacja (talk • contribs) 07:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

message: I did a tidy up to avoid "recentism" and fix the layout issues caused by the humungous infoboxes, which included moving some of the details into the main text. I've also used some unusual section headings; because of Mitsubishi's weird naming habits it might not be obvious to a casual reader what's what, so I've put all the names in each header to make them visible in the TOC. Not 100% that it's the best idea though, so open to alternatives. --DeLarge (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of 3 March
Talk:Shivani Kapoor

message: This page should not be deleted, because she is going to be in a movie directed by a top director in India!
:Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia; however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of biographies and biographies of living persons. Please also provide sources to establish the subject's notability. Of course, the need for sources goes beyond notability. Information added to an article must be verifiable, and facts included must be attributed to a reliable source. Thanks. --Evb-wiki 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker

message: I have just removed a source - haripad.com - from this article. The earliest version of that website can be seen here, in September 2007 and it is a clear copy of our content from around June/July 2007 when this article was created. In other words, it is a mirror. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware of mirrors 

message: A bunch of obscure sources are being added to verify this guy's birth name. They're written by people I've never heard and, with one exception, published by outfits I've never heard of. I've got grave doubts about the reliability of this material and why it seems to be impossible to find similar mentions in more mainstream publications. I'm really concerned that it may be the result of long-term off-wiki misinformation or similar, which is something we already know Chekavar people do on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original name 

message: A couple of accounts have added a lot of material recently but both have been checkuser-blocked as sockpuppets. Worse, there was some copyright-violating/close paraphrasing that has necessitated a reversion deletion way back to 2007. Please see this (permalink - the thread may continue). - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding recent edits
Template talk:Amtrak Michigan Services

message: What is the distinction between minor and major stations on the diagram?  --Shadowlink1014 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the top of the timetable, Amtrak lists several cities in large letters.  It does that on every timetable, so I have been using that as the guideline for all the Amtrak route diagrams I have created.--  Talk [ (+)] 23:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I didn't know they listed them like that.  Thanks, it looks great!  :)  --Shadowlink1014 03:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major/minor stations
Talk:Zastava Skala

message: For those curious, a 1990s Zastava 101 was the car driven by that comedian known as Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear episode 3 of series 16...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.84.172 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

message: Tone and some of the content really doesn't seem encyclopaedia-worthy. Sort it out, chaps. 80.189.203.69 (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this all copied from a press release or fan-site? 
Talk:TX1

message: Isn't it a bit misleading to have the same picture illustrating the articles for the TX1 and TXII? It's got to be one model or the other, it'a impossible for it to be both. BillyH 01:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

message: … lands here.  Why? Mr Larrington (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitsuoka Yuga…
Talk:Toyota Porte

message: Is this car related to the simillar Peugeot 1007? the dates are simillar and the companies have worked together before (Aygo/107/C1).(86.31.187.246 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, only the outer appearance is similar, everything else is different. 182.30.116.212 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSA relations.
Talk:Toyota Probox

message: Why does this page exist? This thing is just a market variant of the first generation Toyota Succeed. It’s not like there was more than one generation, and each generation was a rebadge of a different models (like the Scion xB, for example). It was just the one generation, and it doesn’t even seem to have a different bumper or anything major that might distinguish it from the Succeed version.
-TBustah, 18:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Toyota Succeed
Talk:Toyota Ipsum

message: I live in the United States, and because these were never sold here, the main editors need to be auto enthusiasts from Europe and elsewhere. Quiet Andrew! The McCarvers are coming! (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: The intro says "The Ipsum, like many Toyota products, was shared as a trio of the Toyota Gaia, and sold only at Japanese Toyota dealerships called Toyota Store, next to the Toyota Carina. The Gaia was unique to Toyopet Store locations, and the Toyota Nadia was sold at Toyota Corolla Store. "
Doesn't that only apply to the Japanese Domestic Market? Toyota uses conventional dealerships in Europe and other markets, doesn't it? We certainly never refer to Toyota dealerships as "the Toyota Store" in North America. Their dealerships are just like any other manufacturer's around here, and you can buy all Toyotas from the same dealership, often Lexus and Scion as well. I assume Europe is the same. So this doesn't cover a worldwide perspective.
Idumea47b (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. The use of separate Japanese dealerships with limited ranges are indeed different to how Toyotas are sold in most countries. See Toyota dealerships (Japan). It should be qualified as something like "In Japan, it was sold only at the Toyota Store ..." .  Stepho  talk  16:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealerships
Talk:ZENN

message: A recent article from AFP Canada puts brakes on electric vehicles seems to have caused a lot of confusion about the ownership and location of ZENN Motors Inc.  The article contains the following paragraphs.
"We found Transport Canada to be very hostile towards low speed electric vehicles," echoed Danny Epp of Dynasty Electric Car in an email to AFP.
The Canadian company was recently sold to a Pakistani group which plans to move production to Karachi and continue exporting its vehicles to the United States.
 
Unfortunately the article also mentions ZENN Motors but as can be seen in the above quote, the company being moved to Karachi is Dynasty Electric Car, not ZENN Motors Inc.  Also the fact that ZENN Motors is still listed on the Canadian exchange (symbol ZNN) certainly implies that no one has bought it.
tvillars (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZENN Ownership 

message: "The Company maintains a low profile, but others in the automotive and CleanTech communities are calling their storage technology ‘game changing’. Such a breakthrough has the potential to transform the energy sector and the automobile industry in particular."
This statement is unsourced.  In addition, it is hype.  EESTOR appears to be a scam.  They have made extravagant claims about the ability to store 52KWh in a 400# package, but have demonstrated no prototype.  They claim they are waiting for funding to go to production, but they have been waiting for two years.  If you actually have game-changing technology that works, you disclose your patent app, show one unit that works, and if it does, the VCs will swarm you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.112.75.239 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is there so much material about EESTOR in this article? Given that it seems speculative at this point, surely a passing mention is sufficient? LeContexte (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  EESTOR 

message: Also according to Ian Clifford a normal household outlet with 110 volt supply can fully charge the EESTor powered CityZENN in 4 hours [...] and a normal household outlet with 220 volt supply can fully charge the EESTor powered CityZENN in 3-6 min [...]. To transmit 52 kWh in 4 hours you need a 13 kW power outlet. To transmit 52 kWh in 3 minutes you need a 1 megawatt power outlet. If these are "normal household outlets" to Mr Clifford I know why California is short on energy.--87.162.4.197 (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Household outlet? 

message: Hi, I heard Zennwiki decided to use an old table of the past before the popularity of Infobox Automobile?  For adding, tables are much harder than Infobox Automobiles nowadays. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting A Table In '08??
Talk:SsangYong Kyron

message: I deleted the following line from the article; "The Kyron has exceed sales expectations  It is a success in Europe, especially in Italy."
I hope every one will agree this is quite a bold statement and it surely shouldn't be put in this (or any) article without a proper source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.93.2 (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Pineapple fez (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales / success
Talk:Subaru TransCare

message: I'm not at all convinced that this deserves an article all of its own, but I think an article on car modifications for disabled people is certainly viable. Is there already a suitable article? --Mirokado (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of, in fact even hand controls is a redlink. Maybe we could start a sandbox at the disability wikiproject to play with ideas for such an article. Roger (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I've started WP:WikiProject Disability/Sandbox as a home for sandboxen, and WP:WikiProject Disability/Sandbox/Automobile modifications for drivers with disabilities, with the sort of framework I start with for one of "my" new articles, for us to work the draft up. The name is a bit long at present... --Mirokado (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaked wls after a move. --Mirokado (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge or rename and extend?
Talk:Toyota Corona T190

message: The article claims that the GLi 1.8 was introduced in 1996, yet I own one built in 1995. I don't know about the other models, but I suspect that some of them were also introduced before 1996. James Foye (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a difference due to Americans using "1996" to mean the 1996 model year (anywhere from 1 Jan 1995 to 31 Dec 1996 but typically Sept 1995 to Sept 1996) as opposed to the rest of the world using "1996" to mean the calendar year 1996 (1 Jan 1996 to 21 Dec 1996). See Model year. Much better if the actual month and calendar year is used to avoid confusion. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1995 GLi
Talk:TX4

message: I don't know much about London Taxis, but I do know that "GM Chrysler" is an incorrect pairing -- General Motors and Chrysler are competitors, not related companies.  Perhaps somebody who knows whether it is a GM transmission or a Chrysler transmission can correct the article?  --Bass hound (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be the answer New Venture Gear 122.107.58.27 (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: New Venture Gear is not a "GM Chrysler" enterprise.  It's owned by Magna Powertrain.  Magna's transmissions are used by most major manufacturers. Santamoly (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  Ah, if only you'd read the whole first sentence of the article - "New Process Gear, a division of Magna Powertrain, was a joint-venture automobile transmission company set up by General Motors and the Chrysler Corporation in February 1990." 
New Venture Gear is indeed not a "GM Chrysler" enterprise. But it was when it was created until February 2002. And hence, at least historically, "GM Chrysler" is not an "incorrect pairing", but possibly an "obsolete pairing". In any event, your change to this article has elegantly deferred the issue. 122.107.58.27 (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GM Chrysler??? 

message: Anecdotally the reason for there being no TX3 and the marque number going straight to 4 is because the engine is Euro IV compliant and also for the vehicle to have a connection with the famous Austin FX4. Or how about because TX3 is a long standing Ford nameplate, and likely wasn't available? --Falcadore (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: TX3
Talk:SsangYong Actyon

message: How to do a Power Drain  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.76 (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Toyota Ractis

message: Does anybody know how the following models are related to each other?
*Ractis
*Verso-S
*Vitz
*Platz
*Fun cargo
*Yaris
*Yaris Verso
*Corolla Verso
Some are obvious from the article but it looks like a lot of these models are actually the same thing and should have their articles merged.  Stepho  (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Corolla Verso is a different car. It is based on Corolla platform so it's a C class MPV which is sold in Europe as simply Verso. Yaris and Vitz are the same car. Yaris is the name used in Europe, North America and some other markets, Vitz is used in Japan and some Asian markets. Yaris Verso was the B class MPV version of the Yaris but its production ceased in 2005.Fun cargo was its name in some markets. Toyota Platz was a B class sedan based on the first generation Yaris/Vitz. And Ractis is the car which replaced Yaris Verso/Fun cargo in 2005 in some countries. In others it wasn't on sale anymore. And with the debut of second generation Ractis Toyota is back to B class MPV market in Europe. It will be called Verso-S there. So simply Verso-S is the name used for the second generation of Ractis. They are basically the same car. So I insist it should be noted that with the second generation Ractis is sold as Verso-S in Europe. If it wasn't on sale in Europe why on earth they would premiere it in Paris anyway. --Sakrileg (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationships
Talk:Marsh Chapel Experiment

message: This article tells us of an attempt to replicate the experiment in 2006, but it does not mention Doblin's (1991) replication,which can be found in the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology for 1991. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do. Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Doblin

message: :The round window above the altar at Boston University's Marsh Chapel resembles a mandala
How is that relevant? Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange lead caption

message: "[psychedelic] mushroom use may constitute one technology for evoking revelatory experiences"
A revelatory experience is one in which notable information is revealed.  For example, when the structure of benzene came to organic chemist August Kekulé in a dream, it was a genuine revelatory experience.
If the experimenters documented that notable information was revealed to the subjects, the article should explain this.  If not, it is extremely doubtful that the subjects had genuine revelatory experiences, and the phrase should be stricken from the article. 71.219.214.111 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revelatory experiences? 
Talk:Berolina pawn

message: Almost every page on a chess variant includes the starting position in the page image, and I see no reason for this page to be an exception. It should be added by someone other than me, though, because I have no idea how. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting position 

message: I'm pretty sure there's some kind of template specifically for proposing splits, but given that everything on Wikipedia is impossible to find, I'll just make a normal comment.
Berolina chess uses Berolina pawns; Berolina pawns are used in fairy chess puzzles. This article's title implies that it is about just Berolina chess, but in fact the article seems to be trying to be about all of the aforementioned topics. Given that the Berolina pawn seems to be an extensively used fairy chess piece, I believe that would give it the required notability for its own page. In any case, I definitely don't think the page should stay in its current state; to reiterate, it is trying to be about several things at once. In case the Berolina pawn on its own doesn't meet notability standards, its section can just be deleted.
Alternative proposal: This page itself can be moved to "Berolina pawn". Both Berolina chess and puzzles featuring the Berolina pawn could exist as sub-topics within the page quite nicely. So... I'll just leave this comment here to be read by people with better judgement than I have. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree w/ above alternative proposal. OCC does the same under entry 'Berolina pawn'. --IHTS (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: To clarify, my problem with the usage of this word was not that I doubted the Berolina pawn's popularity; my problem was that the word had no context attached to it to actually explain how or why the Berolina pawn is popular.
Honestly, though, it's not that big of a deal to me anymore. I've left it alone, and in the meantime, I've made an edit elaborating a little bit on the Berolina pawn's popularity, using the same source as a citation. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "popular"
Talk:Evgenij Miroshnichenko

message: I think, this article is of Mid importance for the chess project, because
*Miroshnichenko is a grandmaster, 
*Miroshnichenko was twice ukrainian champion (Ukraine is the fourth chess nation in the world according to FIDE),
*Miroshnichenko's best rating was 2696,
*Miroshnichenko has an impressive record of international tournaments first or equal-first places (see the polish page, :pl:Jewhen Mirosznyczenko, for a list which goes up to 2009)
*Miroshnichenko was the number 55 seed in the Chess World Cup 2005.
Cbigorgne (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Perhaps a little hasty. Ill look through the Polish wiki and bring in what I can. Ill post here when I'm done. Ill leave the importance as it was. Jkmaskell (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance rating
Talk:Aratron

message: Arathrons full potential might not be listed here; yet I think it is beyond Wikipedia to do more than list published material, and perhaps only the Arbatel at that. If someone publishes a magickal diary detailing work on Aratron and achieves notability on those terms, I would say that it could be considered for addition here.
Clown in black and yellow 15:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: revert on 8/25/2007

message: So all the information can be in one space, easily accessible. Single pages per spirit aren't needed, as per precedents established with other canonical figures. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to Olympian spirits
Talk:The Dooley and Pals Show

message: *in December 2010-December 31, 2011 on PBS Kids Sprout
*NJN
It's 1993 Year
Just because The Dooley and Pals Show is not on PBS anymore, doesn't mean we remove some PBS info from the page. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  PBS
Talk:Ernesto Inarkiev

message: Wikipedia generally discourages the use of such sections. Specifically with this article, the "controversy" is given disproportionate significance within the article and the text itself isn't written in a neutral way. As I explained when I removed this section, this was a minor controversy that will be forgotten in a year's time. I fully understand why this has been added but I cannot agree with it. How do other editors feel on the issue of such sections? Jkmaskell (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through the section to fix the major issues like the title, use of the word "steal" and clarify the events. Reddit/Chess has 44th the latest mention of it. Only a few controversies genuinely deserve a section, like Topalov/Kramnik. The rest, its trivia, which only serves to make the subject look bad and unbalances the article. Wikipedia is not Google. Jkmaskell (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sort of an open blog, it must be based on reliable sources, not on Reddit or other forums which are heavily biased. I agree with User:Jkmaskell, I think the Kramnik-Topalov is the only controversy worth to be covered. Nakamura also had an unsportsmanlike behaviour in the Candidates 2016, a much more important tournament than the world rapid and blitz, but it's not mentioned at all in his entry. This is just another example of the systemic bias of the English Wikipedia. I think the whole section should be just removed. Sophia91 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" section