lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Vuosaari Harbour

message: Once I've finished the list of ships built in Vuosaari, most of the article will be about the Vuosaari shipyard and not the harbour. I suggest that the article is split into two separate articles: Vuosaari harbour and Vuosaari shipyard. I could work on both articles afterwards. Tupsumato (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will split the articles. Tupsumato (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 
Talk:Motoman

message: I don't think this article is a candidate for speedy deletion. Motoman is one of the largest industrial robot suppliers in the Americas. They claim some 28,000 installations.  I created the article as a redirect to Yaskawa Electric Corporation. Since then some 16 different editors have contributed to making a sand-alone article out of it. At worst, it should be merged back into Yaskawa Electric Corporation. --agr (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None of that info was in the article, nor any other info that states its notability, therefore it looks like company spam to me. If you want it to be a stand-alone article please supply third-party sources that prove its notability, otherwise a merge back to its parent company sounds like a good plan to me. Wizard191 (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hang on

message: A cursory bit of research suggests that some dates are wrong, even contrary to Yaskawa's own claims. Motoman Inc. couldn't have been founded in 1989, since it was making robots as early as the 1970s. Heck, you can even see a Motoman-badged L10 model in the 1984 film The Terminator. It makes no mention of any history prior to 1989- what happened then? Was that the year that Motoman Inc. was formally renamed Yaskawa Motoman? Nope, that happened in 2010. What about Motoman Robotics Europe AB, which claims to have been around since 1976? I would like to improve this page sometime when I have assembled more comprehensive information.
My interest in this subject is mainly due to Motoman Inc. being HQed in my hometown in Ohio. Despite this, I don't know anyone who actually knows much about the history of the company. It's bizarre to me to see a company whose own public information is so inconsistent. Chaparral2J (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs some fact-checking
Talk:List of HTC–Highroad riders

message: Team "High Road" is now team Columbia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.62.216 (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Inter-Services Public Relations

message: The Controversy section reference is just based on allegation. 194.61.40.101 (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The ISPR have been under controversy, with even foreign sources pointing it out. Please look at the citations, instead of erasing the section. VirtualVagabond (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Controversy section and allegation about green entertainment. CPPConstruct (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Even foreign sources does not mean that its true, Allegation does not be necessarily true. plus its producing a negative image of our nation, which goes against our national interest. CPPConstruct (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m not here to work for a national interest, im here to lay down facts. VirtualVagabond (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Controversy Section 

message: I want to bring attention to the concerning issue of persistent vandalism and disruption. The page has been subjected to frequent instances of edits and disruptive behavior, compromising the integrity of the information presented.
 
Despite efforts to revert these edits and maintain the accuracy, the frequency and severity of vandalism have escalated, necessitating stronger measures to ensure its protection. As such, I request that the Wikipedia page be placed under protection lock to prevent further modifications. Atif ahmad8 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for page protection.
Talk:List of bicycle- and human-powered vehicle museums

message: It's not clear what the common selection criteria for this article is or even how the term "bicycle- and human-powered vehicle museum" is defined. Is the selection criteria that each entry have a stand-alone Wikipedia article already written about it or be a subject which could have an article written about it or is it something else? Is it just sufficient to provide a link to some official website in which the museum describes itself as a "museum" or does there have to be some kind of formal registration/status of it as a museum? There's lots of unsourced entries or entires simply supported by a link to their official website, but an article like this is not generally intended to simply be a place where anyone can just add their "museum" to the list with a link to their websites. :WP:SALs are still required to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and it's hard to argue such a thing if most of the individual entries are not Wikipedia notable on their own. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria unclear
Talk:Deutsche Tolkien Gesellschaft

message: WP:ORG has:
:A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.
this article quotes such a source. The 2006 J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia was published completely independently of the DTG, by Routledge. The article on the reception of JRRT in Germany confirms that the DTG is the principal address for "JRRT in Germany". The German language Wikipedia has a long-standing stable article on the group. In the light of this, it is a blatant misapplication of CSD A7 to tag this article as a speedy deletion candidate. If you want it gone, submit a proper AfD. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:New-York Tribune

message: I have changed the date of the start-up of the "new" New York Tribune (later New York City Tribune) from "late 1970s or early 1980s" to "1983" because I worked for its direct predecessor The News World between 1976 and 1982 in New York and I personally knew the top people who went on to publish the "new" Tribune after I left. They had been my colleagues on The News World. The News World simply became the New York Tribune in 1983, with a different design and style -- especially more emphasis on political commentary, etc. -- but basically put out by the same staff out of the same office at 401 Fifth Avenue (the former Tiffany building). The New York City Tribune later published some articles I sent them from the Middle East. The name of the company that published The New York City Tribune and now still owns The Washington Times, News World Communications, is derived from the name of its now-forgotten pilot publication: The News World. hillwalker (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: And if so, how extensive was this writing? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did [[Karl Marx]] write for this paper? 

message: On April 14, 1914, the title was still New-York Tribune , four days later, on April 18, 1914 it was New York Tribune without the hyphen  RabbitFromMars (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of New(-)York Tribune
Talk:Injection pump

message: no pic to show on  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.178.34 (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  By 60.49.178.34 at June 24, 2008‎ 07:35 

message: What is the material used in construct injection pump  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.89.33.199 (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automobile
Talk:KHQT

message: Per the WP:Disambig page, "If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary." Since the current radio station call letters are the primary identification and the former callsign of the other station is a secondary identification, a hat note is sufficient and requires no more steps than would a disambiguation page for people seeking the radio station.- Dravecky (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for deletion of disambiguation page
Talk:Recordings featuring the hurdy-gurdy

message: [Below is the text I entered yesterday in the talk page of the main article on the hurdy-gurdy.]
Well, after keeping this in the back of my mind for quite awhile, I decided today that it was time this Wikipedia article conformed to the spelling of 'hurdy-gurdy' according to the Oxford English Dictionary. It was easy to apply all the changes to this article and its associated article, Recordings featuring the hurdy gurdy, except that now I must also get the titles of both articles renamed, along with that of the disambiguation page, and also the category: , prior to correcting the spelling of the word 'hurdy-gurdy' in some (but not all) of the other articles accessible from the DAB page.
I will keep updating the present section as I make progress.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 11:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added the hyphen in 'hurdy-gurdy'. 

message: The band Korpiklaani from Finland plays the hurdy-gurdy in the music video for the song Rauta. I'm not sure how to add them. Lilmissbitty (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: metal-archives.com mentions hurdy gurdy on Rauta and Metsälle, both on the Manala album. I was hoping to find out who played it but no success yet. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finland
Talk:Parti National (Quebec)

message: Houldn't the heading read "Other Partis Nationaux"? Ground Zero | t 13:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Fixed. InverseHypercube 09:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Incisura rosea

message: This article was based on Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 . It has been revised on this date to eliminate a probable copyright violation of that book. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion.) Thank you.  ----Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Literary reception of The Lord of the Rings

message: The reception areas need to be redone.  The reviews written there are pathetically biased and negative to one of the greatest writers of all time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaTedder (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work needed 
Talk:Commissioners' church

message: Recommend that this page should be amalgamated with the Waterloo church article. --DonBarton (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the articles should be merged but wonder what would be the better title. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Peter. I am of the view that Commissioners' Church is the appropriate title as it is in widespread use in comparison to that of Waterloo church which, like you, I had never heard of prior to its use in Wikipedia. --DonBarton (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Well done Peter for allowing me to look at your draft amalgamation of the two pages. I fully support you in the work and effort you have put in.  I agree with your suggestion to a separate list-article even if with 600+ possible items, it could be a bit big, but i have seen longer ones!. Proceed to upload this to the main space and make a redirect for Waterloo church? --DonBarton (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note the debate on Talk:Waterloo church re the title.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amalgamation with Waterloo church?
Talk:Anatoma

message: This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.
For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter,  here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you.  -- ascidian | talk-to-me 13:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem
Talk:BBC Wildlife

message: Just noting that User:2.97.164.205 edited the article in May to add a comment of "No evidence for this.  "Animals" was a privately published magazine with no connection to the BBC." after the claim that "BBC Wildlife was launched in January 1963 as Animals Magazine". I've replaced it with a  tag and copied the concern here. --McGeddon (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any evidence that Animals wasn't privately published, but Wildlife does appear to consider it the magazine's predecessor, per their own website. I'll edit the article appropriately. --McGeddon (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Animals'' magazine
Talk:Anatoma aupouria

message: This article was based on Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 . It has been revised on this date to eliminate a probable copyright violation of that book. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion.) Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Queensland Fire

message: 
:Since the article has a photo now, I have disabled the  tag. If there are additional/better images needed, feel free to undo my actions. Avicennasis @ 06:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disabled reqphoto tag
Talk:Boya (caste)

message: This article is a bit of mess, with lots of apparently unsourced material, poorly sourced material and original research. In addition, there are bare links embedded in the text, POV and a list of references that are impossible easily to relate to any specific point because it is presented more as a reading list rather than as citations.
For now, I refer interested contributors to the articles on verifiability, reliable sources, citing sources, neutral point of view and original research. If anyone has any difficulties in understanding these then please feel free to ask. If the issues raised have not improved in, say, a month then it is quite likely that I will be stripping the article back so that it reflects those policies and guidelines. The issues have been tagged in some cases for two years or more and, well, enough is enough. I'll rescue what I can and delete the rest. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: The etymology of a Russian word is of no relevance at all to an article concerning an Indian social group. It matters not how well it is referenced (& some of the content was not well sourced) because the stuff is just pointless coatracking. Therefore, I have removed the Etymology section once more. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you've done, and have no problems with narrowing the scope. Apparently, the problem is the absence of the article Boyar (title), where the etymology of that title belongs. The history of the title may intersect with the article Boyar (caste), at lest there was an allusion to their common origin. Barefact (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know too much about Boyar as a title, although I do know that it exists etc. Yes, there might be a place for the etymology in such an article. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate this. Thanks.Barefact (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It still is not great. What we need is a source that links the communities. Words can move around without any significant linkage (admittedly, more so today perhaps than in the past). So, unless you can find some discussion by anthropologists or similar I still feel that this explanation has no place in this article. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Russian word 

message: I propose that Boyar (caste) be merged into Valmiki Caste. I think that the content in the Boyar Caste article can easily be explained in the context of Valmiki Caste, and the Valmiki Caste article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Boyar (caste) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Volt60x (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I can now add that :Ramoshi might also be a valid merge target: Boya is or was apparently a synonym for that community. WE desperately need some clarification here. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Baden 9 Kreuzer error

message: Virtually nowhere can I find a reference in English to this stamp as a misprint; it is usually called an error and most often called green not cyan, so let's rename it as Baden 9 Kreuzer error. Agree? ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I did not know the common English name. — Tirkfltalk 07:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for renaming and the other good work. BTW both the Baden and Bergedorf leads are very strangely worded. One of us should rewrite them. Maybe I will get to it later today. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title
Talk:Opel Zafira

message: Why no mention at all of the VXR model of Zafira?
There is one available in the UK but it's hard to get much information on it.
Jenova20 (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zafira Sport Models 

message: We're told that the name "Vauxhall" is used in the UK, and also that "Opel" is used in Europe except for UK. 86.132.140.45 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom? 

message: A quick skim through Google results reveals the following:
*The Irish Independent notes that "" is another word for "" and call it a ""
*The Guardian call it a "", a "", and compare it to "".
*Auto Trader call it a "", "", "", and a "".
*What Car? call it a "" and an "".
*Auto Express call it a "" and an "".
*Parker's Car Guides call it an "", a "", and a "".
*The RAC call it a "" and a "".
*Car Wow Call it a "", a "", and a "".
*Autocar call it a "" and a "".
*Top Gear magazine call it a "".
*Cars Guide calls it a "".
*Australian Car call it a "".
*Complete Car call it a "", a "", and a "".
*Changing Lanes call it a "" and a "".
*Car Zone call it "" while noting that it "".
From the above I don't see any real consensus from sources as to what size class this falls in, if indeed these size classes are actually a reveal thing and not just a result of Wikipedia editors engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as they attempt to build a database of different cars. Is it a large MPV? Is it a compact MPV? Is it a mini MPV? Maybe that's not a question that it's Wikipedia's job to answer. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compact MPV?
Talk:Kilmeny of the Orchard

message: I temporary reverted the edition because the copyright status of the photo taken from Flikr Web page is not clear. Unless these are not declared to be licence under Creative Commons, I believe it can't use for Wikipedia. Please read following talk.
* Legality of Referring to Flickr Images
* questionable image use
* Michael G. Halle image
Also see Help / FAQ / Photos http://www.flickr.com/help/photos/#87
you are automatically granted copyrights to your photos.However, the nonprofit Creative Commons offers six default licenses as an alternative to full copyright so you can choose the one that best suits your needs.
The image
http://static.flickr.com/91/267198886_34ab397931_o.jpg
was tagged as "Non-free", it's suspicious that this photo was really licensed under Creative Commons by person who post it. I will back the edition as soon as the photo is clearly explained to be contains no copyright problem. -- Tolena (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Created new image with new rationale and replaced in article; hope new rationale suffices...GrahamHardy (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Concerns
Talk:Anatoma finlayi

message: This article was based on Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 . It has been revised on this date to eliminate a probable copyright violation of that book. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion.) Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Journal of Genetic Counseling

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Genet. Couns.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 7#Genet. Couns. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Genet. Couns." listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]