lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Manchester United F.C.

message: There is also the Ineos own post if you want to use it. The link although a primary source does clarify quite nicely what they brought. Govvy (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ineos  

message: Edit request in the management section. Omar Berrada is appointed as the CEO though he is not due to start until the summer as stated in the article [1]. Patrick Stewart (Chief legal officer / General counsel) is continuing as interim CEO as stated in the official Man Utd statement [2]. The request to change the management section of the article to reflect the current structure rather than the future.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68044768
[2] https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/man-utd-confirm-appointment-of-omar-berrada-as-new-ceo-20-january-2024 AHES03 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done Pinchme123 (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's Ryan Bevan. Someone please remove that as someone must be messing around 82.16.11.230 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2024 

message: Take out Shola Shoretire, he’s a reserved team player 2A02:C7C:662A:6A00:5D89:94D7:C0BD:3D61 (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024 

message: The club emblem used on the page is out of date and needs updating. The club gave its emblem a minor refresh and the main logo on the page is now incorrect. See link for the updated, correct emblem. Notice the solid block underneath the ship and a few other minor changes. This logo is used by United on their website and marketing material so it should be used on the article. TheWiremu (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you don't have access to a free image of the new emblem, you can always use WP:GLI to request what you're after.  M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how I can be more specific to be honest. The main emblem used on the article (i.e. the one on the information panel on the right) is out of date and needs replacing with the one I linked before, as it's the one now used across the club. TheWiremu (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024
Talk:Pictures at an Exhibition (Emerson, Lake & Palmer album)

message: As this is a notable classical piece, there are many albums called Pictures at an Exhibition — some of the Mussorgsky piano original, some (perhaps the majority) of the Ravel orchestral arrangement, at least two (this one and an electronic one by Isao Tomita) interpretations of the orchestral version.  Why should this version in particular, which was originally released as a freebie accompanying Trilogy and is reckoned by many fans (including me) to be positively the worst ELP album ever, get the accolade?
I think this page should be moved to Pictures at an Exhibition (Emerson, Lake & Palmer album) and the present title should be turned into a disambiguation page. -- 217.171.129.77 (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate the title? 

message: There is something wrong with the infobox: it appears far too big (tried to view it with two different browsers, just in case). But I don't know how to fix the problem.--Mycomp (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: "* Although the CD lists this as being the 'medley', recorded in 1993, released on The Return of the Manticore box set and some pressings of the 1994 album In the Hot Seat, it is actually a live recording of the band's performance of 'Pictures' taking from their first Isle of Wight show - including the famous cannons being fired at the end."
Utter nonsense.  The studio version from 1993, included on 'Return of the Manticore' and on the 2008 remaster of the 1972 album, is definitely NOT the Isle of Wight recording.  It is a studio recording that has the band playing with an orchestra.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.94.150 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Studio version"
Talk:HMS Enterprize (1774)

message: Enterprize or Enterprise? The text is ambiguous.
:Colledge just has "s", but there is apparently some debate about this one, thus the ambiguity. Stan 17:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, added alternate spelling. Doovinator 18:24, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: For a start variations in ship names are not uncommon. Curacao is spelt as shown, but every naval ship has been named HMS Curacoa. Variations abound as to how HMS Hinchinbrook (1778) was spelt, and some ships have been named HMS Favourite, others have been named HMS Favorite. It is not necessarily a difference between British and American English (and I very much doubt it is in this case - the American spelling is Enterprise as well, Enterprize is an archaic variation more likely to be encountered in older documents, such as perhaps naming a ship in the eighteenth century). That said, both Colledge and Winfield use 'Enterprise'. I'll ask around for sources that use Enterprize. Benea (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Wikipedia talk:IRC channel scripts

message: With this script loaded, any time you paste something which contains two linebreaks in a row, it produces:
 Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "/home/whapts3/.xchat2/wikilink.py", line 15, in subwmlinks
     chunks = re_link.split(word[pos])
 IndexError: list index out of range
This is ugly.
:Fixed. Jeronim 17:10, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug in wmlinksubber.py
Talk:Agrarian Party

message: The Centre Party (Senterpartiet)in Norway was called The Farmers' Party (Bondepartiet) from it's founding in 1920 until 1959.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_%28Norway%29
Also in Sweeden, The Centre Party (Centerpartiet) was called the Farmers' League (Bondeförbundet) until 1957.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Party_%28Sweden%29
88.91.192.74 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norway and Sweeden
Talk:Rodrigues

message: This line is unclear for me. In 1968, Rodrigues was joined with Mauritius when it attained independence; today it is an autonomous region of Mauritius.
Did the island become an autonomous region in 1968 or 'today' i.e. whenever this was written down?  Klaas `Z4␟` V 16:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I got an answer in Dutch Wikipedia. I'll edit the line myself :-)  Klaas `Z4␟` V 07:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence 

message: The article mentions deforestation in the Mascarenes, and pictures show a rather treeless land (with some scruffy-looking clumps of vegetation), but it's unclear what the original flora of the island was, especially with all that rain (which tends to encourage lots of plant growth).  Was it forested?  Is the soil so bad that trees can't grow much?  Did humans cut down the trees?  Did introduced animals destroy them?  Or is there actually a decent amount of woodland left? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flora? 

message: The Rodrigues Regional Assembly page has a lot of great information about the government of Rodrigues. I think it would be a great second link. http://assembly.rra.govmu.org/English/Pages/default.aspx ৳€Ø฿€ƦȺ₡Ⱥƪ৳€Ø฿€ƦȺ₡Ⱥƪ 18:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But this article isn't about the government. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Link to Rodrigues Regional Assembly 
Talk:Sophistry

message: Hello there.  I seriously think this article needs to be under Sophism, and NOT Sophistry.  I am going to figure out how to change it and change it; if there are any objections, please voice them.  Possibly also merge it as below comments say, but under the title Sophism.--ArcticFrog 15:57, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - this should be merged with sophist. By the way, if you make an account here, you can set up a watchlist of articles to keep an eye on - useful for both preventing vandalism and also for learning new things about topics you're interested in. And if you sign your discussion page comments with four tildes (~), you get a nice time/date stamp with a link to your user page. Welcome aboard, and edit boldly! If you think something should be radically altered, then feel free to alter it. Kwertii 20:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Moved paragraphs here from the article (above). Kwertii 02:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Rock & Roll Machine

message: They also released a silver vinyl edition in Canada with their signatures etched in the inner groove, as well as 
Ver 1: Cobalt Blue
Ver 2: Light Blue
Ver 3: Cobalt and Baby blue with orange splatter
Ver 4: Red, orange, blue, black splatter 67.70.57.47 (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silver Vinyl
Talk:Just a Game (album)

message: I noticed that the cassette that I have does not match the listing provided in the article. Rather, the order matches the CD order. I wonder if they changed the order for cassettes produced later (say 1983+). Does anyone have any additional information? As it stands, the article is not completely correct. Bdevoe (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cassette Listings 
Talk:Remain in Light

message: I recently found out that "Born Under Punches (The Heat Goes On)" was released as a single in only Japan, so I made changes to that article to reflect that. I don't know where or how to insert the Japan-only single release in this (album) article without affecting the FA status. George Ho (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Born Under Punches (The Heat Goes On)" as a single 

message: The article includes mention of the (superficial?) similarities between this track and songs by Joy Division, but wouldn't it more relevant to mention bands that TH might actually have heard, like The Stooges and Wire? Dadge (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We're currently following what's on page 178 of Bowman (2001). But it sounds much too speculative to me and without any better source(s) (e.g. interview(s) with band members) I think it should probably be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Overload 

message: The text mentions nine different genres, with sources. Should these all also appear in the infobox? Or if not, which should get preference? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres
Talk:More Songs About Buildings and Food

message: *All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 21:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>'''

message: I had thought that the relative chart positions spoke for themselves - so this sentence in the lede was just summarizing the chart tables. Talking Heads: 77 made No. 60 on the UK charts, but failed to make the US charts at all, while this album made US No. 29 and UK No. 21. But I agree they do not relate to exact numbers of units. I'll try and look for a source which says this explicitly. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "significantly more" popular
Talk:The Specials (album)

message: I've temporarily replaced the  message in the album box as it's stopped working since the update to MediaWiki 1.3. See bug report 963647 on Sourceforge. --Lancevortex 17:25, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: AlbumboxStart
Talk:Defenders of the Faith

message: I propose that Freewheel Burning and Some Heads Are Gonna Roll be merged into Defenders of the Faith. The contents of Freewheel Burning and Some Heads Are Gonna Roll could easily be explained in the context of Defenders of the Faith. Really, this article needs to be expanded, and a section devoted perhaps to musical style or songs would provide the information present in both song articles. In addition, I believe both songs fail WP:NSONGS, in that they lack citations and are therefore mostly WP:OR. I, of course, believe that reliable sources are out there that discuss these songs, they just aren't notable enough to have their own separate articles. Johnny338 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge – Both fail WP:NSONGS. The1337gamer (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Don't merge - Actually the singles charted in the UK and in the US and were covered by other bands. Two factors of notability according to WP:NSONGS. Lewismaster (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The redirect Love Bites(Judas Priest song) 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.  Steel1943 (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Love Bites(Judas Priest song)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:2112 (album)

message: Under the track listing for the 2012 Deluxe Edition bonus tracks, I believe the date for A Passage to Bangkok is incorrect. I only own a digital copy of the album, so I do not have liner notes. But according to http://www.classicrockrevisited.com/show_review.php?id=995, the date and venue is actually Manchester Apollo, Manchester, England - June 17, 1980. This would seem to be correct, as the band did not play that song on the Moving Pictures 1981 tour, according to http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/setlists.php#MOVINGPICTURES. However, according to the same source, they did play it during the 1980 Permanent Waves tour. Mdlark1966 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tour Dates for bonus tracks 

message: It is not progressive metal, but a great influence for style. But I will not edit, I'll let all of you with this shame.--Fran1996 (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive metal? 

message: I'm tired of this sickness of people staying altered genres at all times. So I suggest that other Wikipedia users vote for the genre(s) they think match this album.
Instructions
*Vote +1 if you agree
*Vote -1 if you don't agree
*Please don't put negatives votes mixed with positives votes
*All who voted must sign next to it otherwise the vote will not be valid
Ex:
Genre
+1--Fran1996 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre Voting Suggestion

message: Hard rock
+1--Fran1996 (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre Voting 

message: Who made this edit, linking 2112's "Overture" to a page about Rush's instrumentals, that doesn't even mention the source material? How on Earth does this help anyone? O0drogue0o (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track listing
Talk:Fly by Night (album)

message: Is it Fly by Night or Fly By Night? The article's title has a lowercase b, but the song is listed uppercase. --SPUI (talk) 03:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about title

message: At 14:26 on March 20, 2010, Hemispheres1978 edited the article to remove "is the only Rush song to feature slide guitar, played by Lifeson, and" from the article.  All the other edits by this person have been vandalism.  I do not know enough about this album and Rush's later albums to judge if this statement is true, or not.  If it is true, someone may want to put it back in the article.Makyen (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit by Hemispheres1978

message: This is really weird. I used to put the date on records I purchased. This one was purchased on vinyl LP around the 20th of January 1975, so how on earth it wasn't released until February 15 the same year seems really strange to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzmicke (talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date
Talk:Works (Pink Floyd album)

message: See the Talk:Meddle page as to why "You'll Never Walk Alone" is not listed separately. BotleySmith 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fearless 

message: Hi. I have a CD copy of this album, and its song lenghts are approximately the following:
1. OoTD - 6:00
2. AL - 2:53
3. Fearless - 5:38
4. BD - 3:43
5. Eclipse - 2:06
6. StCFtHotS - 5:22
7. SEP - 2:46
8. SSoSFAGTiaCaGwaP - 4:39
9. FF - 4:08
10. Embryo - 4:41
And I see these are different lenghts that in this article. But in this article it reads that the total lenght is 42:10, which is somewhat the same I get when I sum the lenghts of my Works albums' songs. So, do the song lenghts in this article match to the vinyl version or wtf?
--Deba Tihs ´n´ Mad Dog 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song lenghts
Talk:The River (Bruce Springsteen album)

message: "Originally, the album was going to be a single set..."  Anyone able to verify this statement and the suggested playlist? Jubilee♫clipman 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Single Album?

message: I am not good at writing whole sections but feel like this album deserves more even in the first paragraph and a critical reception section. --Jennica✿ Talk 08:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand 

message: I'm not sure how this is Springsteen's "sole" double album when The Rising, Devils & Dust, Working on a Dream,  Wrecking Ball and High Hopes were all issued (at the time of their initial releases) as 2-LP sets. Everyone But You (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sole" double album?
Talk:Breathe (Faith Hill album)

message: The musicians involved in the making of this music are not listed here.
Mydogtrouble (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musicians?
Talk:Mean Business

message: Under the "Track Listing" heading, it states "1986 vinyl edition & 1986 Compact disc edition" - I considered deleting this because it seems really obvious, most notably because it is lacking any other editions' track listing. 
I did NOT delete that sub-heading, however, because I thought that there may have perhaps been a reason that it is there AND I'd like some input from other users here.
Your thoughts...keep it or nix it? FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track Listing ?
Talk:Fleetwood Mac (1975 album)

message: The album "set a record for most weeks on the chart before reaching the top position".  Okay, what was the record?  dbenbenn | talk 22:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record? 

message: I'm going to add Christagau's and take off Rolling Stone's, because they have it confused with the 1967 Fleetwood Mac album. The Person Who Is Strange 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings 

message: I really don't know if that's true.  According to the RIAA site, this album has only been certified for five million copies.  Granted, that certification is 24 years old from 1986, but no recertification has occurred, so I don't see where that information is factual or verifiable.  Any thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.235.253 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  13 Million? 

message: "To avoid confusion, it is often referred to as 'The White Album', in reference both to the album's artwork and to The Beatles' own self-titled album.[3][3]" The source cited twice at the end of this sentence does not actually say anything about why the album is sometimes referred to as "The White Album." I also don't think this source can be considered reliable (it's a blog), so I'm just going to rewrite this sentence and replace the source with a more reliable one. Vj7102 (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations
Talk:Foo Fighters (album)

message: What is the signifigance of the album cover? --Richy 21:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover

message: Shouldn't be "grunge" as well? The album sounds very very grungy, especially stuff like "Exhausted" and "X-Static" Speedboy Salesman 13:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Grunge was a culture not a genre anyway. This music sounds like alternative or punk rock, distorted guitars, aggressive drums, and most of the songs are up-beat rockers and the singles as well. Not a whole lot of angst on here. Look at the "grunge" bands they tagged, did any of them necessarily sound the same? Its a rather dumb tag if you ask me. 131.125.115.15 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What? Grunge is a genre, just as any other genre is a genre. And this album (along with all Foo Fighters earlier stuff) sounds like Post-grunge, which it is. It sound NOTHING like punk rock.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.139.181 (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: Does anyone else feel this is an extremely important album that could easily have an article like No Code for example, or possibly even a featured article one day? This album has enough history surrounding it that I feel this could be a really interesting, significant article, if improved. I've done a fair amount of work on it myself, but am limited at what I know how to do.
For starters there needs to be references added. It would be great to see the History section broken up and expanded into these appropriate categories:
* Recording
* Music and lyrics
* Release and reception
* Tour
For now, I've left all information in chronological order. The Packaging and Accolades could be expanded. The Chart positions is in desperate need of some help. Song samples, photos and additional album art could eventually be added. Are there enough editors who care as much about this album as I do? 98.210.231.173 (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article upgrade
Talk:There Is Nothing Left to Lose

message: It's fairly well known among fans that Dave and Taylor each did about half of the drumming on the album, but I can't find anything concrete where they say this. I only remember Dave saying in a print interview that he was proud of Taylor's work on "MIA," and I'm pretty sure Dave did "Learn to Fly." And I don't know if it's ever been established who exactly did what. Can anyone find any sources that would acknowledge this to some extent? 72.234.14.160 (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the documentary for the album, Dave talks about how he played the drums on “Learn to Fly”, specifically how he wanted the bass up more in a specific spot. Taylor also confirmed “Aurora” in his masterclass video. Imagine offline (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drums 

message: * http://www.alternativenation.net/foo-fighters-nothing-left-to-lose-retrospective/ Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:The Argument (Fugazi album)

message: The Overview section consists of nothing but POV material.  No sources are cited for a single review, and claiming that "one is hard pressed to find a single dissenting view of the album" is ridiculously POV and most likely original research.  Although not a POV issue, no sources are cited for the analysis of any of the songs or quotes.  --170.28.224.114 16:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: *All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 19:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>'''

message: Is it just me who liked the old version (the one with information to every song, from August 31) much better? 84.156.216.232 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old version

message: I was trying to find out about a type of particle involving the new partical accelerator (I don't know how to spell it) and when I typed in Strangelight, I was redirected here. Why?--192.91.147.35 (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Strangelight

message: As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this retrospective review of The Argument. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the review and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the professional reviews section on this page. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! (favorable) Mike harkin (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Review suggestion