lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Beretta 92D Vertec

message: I'm merging this page with Beretta 92 as it's only a variant of the original and th e page contains only duplicated data. Please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which lists the following guidelines:
* There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
* If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
* If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Deon Steyn 09:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Beretta 92 Steel I

message: I'm merging this page with Beretta 92 as it's only a variant of the original and 
the page contains only duplicated data and doesn't meet the criteria for a seperate page, please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which lists the following guidelines:
* There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
* If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
* If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Deon Steyn 09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Beretta 92CB

message: I'm merging this page with Beretta 92 as it's only a variant of the original and 
the page contains only duplicated data and doesn't meet the criteria for a seperate page, please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which lists the following guidelines:
* There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
* If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
* If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Deon Steyn 09:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Type introspection

message: This page has a nonsensical differentiation between Reflection and Type Introspection, as it grandiosely defines what is correctly pointed out below, is simply RTTI (Runtime Type Information). The ability to manipulate the values and metadata of objects at runtime has nothing to do with Reflection (changing the values associated with an object is just basic programming state change!). Reflection originated to allow inspection of RTTI - notably in Java - not modification, which is NOT A PROGRAMMING PRACTICE IN ANY OF THE SUPPOSED LANGUAGES BEING QUOTED. I strongly agree with the opinions below that there is NO NEED for this separate, poorly worded page. Reflection, Type Introspection and RTTI should just be a single page.
The redirect from Introspection_(computer_science) to this page seems inappropriate - introspection covers so much more than type introspection (what about state, for instance?).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.211.47.146 (talk • contribs) 09:38, July 12, 2006
This page seems to be a non-standard term for reflection. This page should probably mention this fact and/or be reverted to a stub that redirects to that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenLTitzer (talk • contribs) 07:29, February 4, 2007
* For me, this page seems more similar to Run-time type information. If we consider these three pages, I think there is at least one too many.Medinoc (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to other pages 

message: The C++ example really should not use code from the boost library.  It will make for a simpler example. Chojun (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  C++ 

message: Shouldn't the main article also include the the programming languages REXX and Object-REXX (ooRexx), as they include the built in function "interpret?"  Interpret allows an application / program to build and execute at run time its own code and data.  --Bmoshier (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  REXX and Object REXX
Talk:Beretta 92 Stock

message: I'm merging this page with Beretta 92 as it's only a variant of the original and 
the page contains only duplicated data and doesn't meet the criteria for a seperate page, please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which lists the following guidelines:
* There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
* If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
* If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Deon Steyn 09:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Fort Drum

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.  With appropriate references and citations, this article would easily be a B class    --dashiellx (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Article lacks inline citations, and image usage does not meet WP:MOS (stack up, et al).  With inline citations, and some copy edit, could be upgraded.  Graded as High Importance due to impact on history of New York State. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject New York Assessment July 2009 =

message: Is Ft Drum 65.8 km2 or 434 km2 because the article says both  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedna1000 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size? 

message: The lead paragraph states the area is 107,265 acres (434 km²)which would be 167.6 sq mi, but the data box lists 25.4 sq mi (66 km2)which would be 16,256 acres.  So there is more than a 6 fold discrepancy in the physical size of Fort Drum.
Fort Drum official website supports the larger figure, so unless someone has a more authoritative source I would suggest the data box be updated to reflect this.
It appears the smaller number reflects only the Census Designated Place (which is likely just the cantonment area), rather than the entire military installation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.47 (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area Data is Inconsistent 
Talk:Beretta 92SB Compact

message: I'm merging this page with Beretta 92 (which now contains information on options and variants) as it's only a variant of the original and the page contains only duplicated data and doesn't meet the criteria for a seperate page, please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which lists the following guidelines:
* There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
* If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
* If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Deon Steyn 09:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Beretta 92FS Compact L

message: I'm merging this page with Beretta 92 (which now contains information on options and variants) as it's only a variant of the original and the page contains only duplicated data and doesn't meet the criteria for a seperate page, please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which lists the following guidelines:
* There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
* If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
* If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Deon Steyn 09:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Beretta 92D Compact L

message: I'm merging this page with Beretta 92 (which now contains information on options and variants) as it's only a variant of the original and the page contains only duplicated data and doesn't meet the criteria for a seperate page, please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which lists the following guidelines:
* There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
* If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
* If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Deon Steyn 09:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Beretta 92FS Centurion

message: I'm merging this page with Beretta 92 (which now contains information on options and variants) as it's only a variant of the original and the page contains only duplicated data and doesn't meet the criteria for a seperate page, please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which lists the following guidelines:
* There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
* If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
* If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Deon Steyn 09:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Richard A. Cody

message: *The original version of this article incorporated text copied from General Richard Cody's Biography on the website of the US Army.  By statute, works authored by US Government employees in the course of their duties are in the public domain. -- But|seriously|folks  20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one line: Cody wife Vicki died 2years ago, one daughter makes absolutely no sense. The General has 2 sons who also became aviators in the 101st Airborne. No obituary for Mrs. Cody (may it be long and far away in its arrival) can be found through open source as of this writing. Jun Kayama  05:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution
Talk:United States Army Training and Doctrine Command

message: I propose that Commanding General, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command be merged into this article.  The other article adds nothing that cannot already be added into this article or is not already here, and this article already lists all of the commanders of the Command. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merger
Talk:Loo (wind)

message: Request for deletion removed as the article is relavent, reference also added. IrfanAli 09:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

message: It is very special 2405:201:C026:60BF:4942:33B3:DCFE:5871 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sky
Talk:Erik Zabel

message: There's no mention of Eric being in 'Hell On Wheels' ~ doco on 2003 Tour de France --goon 09:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Erik Zabel was stripped from several of the wins mentioned here, this includes both the total number mentioned as well as such "wins" e.g. made during the 1996 Tour de France - where he therefore did not win anything. 91.198.204.122 (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up of "wins" needed
Talk:Derwent Valley Mills

message: I've started a discussion on the WikiProject Derbyshire Talk Page on the merits of creating a new category to link together different pages and topics relevant to the World Heritage Site. Any thoughts or suggestions would be welcome there. 
. . . And for anyone reading this in October 2017, don't forget Derbyshire Discovery Days are about to kick off from 14th October, visiting many features within the WHS. Full programme of events and details on the Derwent Valley Mills website.
Nick Moyes (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category proposal: Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site
Talk:Beretta 96

message: I'm merging this page with Beretta 92 (which now contains information on options and variants) as it's only a variant of the original and the page contains only duplicated data and doesn't meet the criteria for a seperate page, please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which lists the following guidelines:
* There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
* If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
* If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Deon Steyn 10:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Battle of Węgierska Górka

message: Failed due to insufficient citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review
Talk:Unfinished symphony

message: Both 'Roma' and the early Symphony are essentially complete works.Cenedi 10:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just written "Roma" Symphony (Bizet), and I agree with you.  But rather than removing it at this stage, I've added some comments, to the effect that it may be considered "unfinished" in the sense that Bizet was never truly happy with where it was at, but it is certainly finished in the sense that all 4 movements are present, and all are fully scored.  It is often described in sources as "unfinished" (but then, a lot of sources also call it a "suite", so what do they know).  It might be educational to leave it here to let readers know it really only half-belongs here, if that makes any sense.  Maybe we can do this a better way.   --  JackofOz (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: On further reflection, maybe we need a separate section for works that were fully scored, but the composer was not happy and kept revising them.  In some cases, they finally wrote what they intended to, but in other cases they never quite knew what they wanted to say, and died before finding out.  Bizet's Roma would certainly be in this category.  It does not meet the usual criteria for an "unfinished symphony".  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bizet doesn't belong

message: Note that Peter Schikele did not claim that PDQ Bach wrote the Unbegun symphony; he claimed it as his own (but was born too late to begin it).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.46.140 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schickele

message: Instead he started composing what would become his first symphony in G minor, which is famous for being the first symphony in history that changes key and ends in C major.
: What is this claim about?  Lots of symphonies change keys mid-stream.  Hardly any don't.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  03:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nielsen
Talk:Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson

message: "Dissatisfied by misfits of the Danish local officials" makes no sense to me. Please try to rephrase it. Chicheley 10:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistranslation ? 

message: A couple of paragraphs of this article (the one beginning "Engelbrekt created..." and the next) are  national romantic hero-worshipping junk of the worst kind. This kind of crap may have been acceptable in the politic rhetoric of the early 20th century, but has no place in an encyclopaedia article. I am gong to remove these paragraphs. The rest of the article is rather insubstantial but passable. Olaus 09:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hero-worshipping junk

message: I'm sceptical if it's accurate to describe him as a nationalist leader, the modern connotations of this implies far more than Engelbrekt ever fought for, especially when there's not a source for it. Amtays (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: He was (very well-sourced) vehemently against the union with Denmark and aligned himself strongly only with people who wanted to see a fully independent Sweden. To me, that's a nationalist leader. What wording would be better? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "nationalist leader" 

message: "military boss" seemed to be an untypical title. If you were referring to his title of , then I'd think "Captain" or "Commander-in-Chief" or some established phrase would be better. "military boss", an uncommon phrase, seems more like the title of a modern warlord to me. Even just "Military leader" or "Military commander" would be at minimum better I think. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "military leader"
Talk:PBA Rookie of the Year Award

message: I made the latest edit. I just forgot to log in. Photon shermie 10:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Anybody know their colleges? Except for these...
* Manansala (UST?)
* Caidic - UE
* Lastimosa - Ateneo
* Quilban - Baste
* Limpot - La Salle
* Victoria - San Beda
* Aquino - Adamson
* Ildefonso - NU
* Ritualo - La Salle
* Alvarez - Ateneo
* Fonacier - Ateneo
--Howard the Duck 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colleges
Talk:If There Is Something

message: I've never noticed any Eno synth playing on this song, are you sure this is on it? At most he is using his VCS3 to filter the sax and geetar lines, surely.--feline1 10:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Maybe I made the mistake again of trusting this site. They give the credits to the song, but it appears that they take the credits simply from the album credits, so not all listed instruments may be present on the song... Recalling the song I can't remember any synth, so I guess you are right. --Pie.er 11:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. The album cover notes are very general, and not really accurate (eg they don't mention that Eno & MacKay sing backing vocals, or go into the details of Ferry's keyboard rig - Hohner pianet, mellotron, piano). If you don't mind I'll edit your stuff a bit more now!--feline1 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead:) I don't mind that you improve my early roxy music paragraphs; I hope you don't mind me putting the (inaccurate badly styled badly written) information there in the first place ;) --Pie.er 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, it's all part of the editing process!--feline1 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: eno synth
Talk:Beretta 96D

message: I'm merging this page with Beretta 92 (which now contains information on options and variants) as it's only a variant of the original and the page contains only duplicated data and doesn't meet the criteria for a seperate page, please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which lists the following guidelines:
* There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
* If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
* If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Deon Steyn 10:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Syntactic web

message: I get the hang of your arguments and I think at least for the moment they are correct. On the other hand you can interpret the notion of the Semantic Web in an anthropocentric manner. This new level of the Web is semantic, because it operates on knowledge and terms respectively more human-like. In other words: Not the Semantic Web as an entity is semantic but it acts with human semantics and therefore is recognized by humans as a "semantic web".  --Ontoversum 10:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

message: JA: In its current state the syntactic web article amounts to nothing more than an op-ed piece, and someone is bound to challenge its right to exist in Wikipedia eventually if that's all it remains.  Not me, as I could not do that consistently without challenging myriads of other articles on the same, er, grounds.  And since the subject is interesting in its own right, the instigator thereof might consider documenting the use of the term syntactic web as it may occur in peer-reviewed print somwhere, and further anchoring the claims of the text with a few standard citations.  A word to the wise, Jon Awbrey 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Towards a genuine article

message: I removed the entire article, aside from the external link, and wrote some new paragraphs in its place. It was one person's (contrarian) opinion, and, while interesting, didn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Yaron K. 21:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I've corrected the capitalization of the wikilinks for World Wide Web and Semantic Web in the article body; those are proper nouns and should be capitalized, just like their article titles.
In that spirit, I believe the title of this article, Syntactic Web, should also be capitalized. However, there's already a redirect page at Syntactic Web, so a simple page move isn't possible.
Similarly, the 'W' in :Category:Semantic web should also be changed, but that will require going through the category rename process.
I don't have time to follow up on either of those. Can someone else do it? —mjb 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization / article rename