lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Orbital (The Culture)

message: Given that The Culture aren't the only ones to have Orbitals, should this page be elsewhere? If so, where? 
-- Tzartzam
Indeed. Banks says in an article he wrote on the Culture that he nicked the idea ... -- Tarquin
:Actually, I meant that in his universe there are non-Culture Orbitals. Vavatch in Consider Phlebas, for example.
::Hah, I just thought "Good point". I didn't realise it was me who made the point in the first place as tzartzam!! Anyway, should we move this to Orbital (Iain Banks) or something? -- Sam
::: So about 3 years after this point was raised, I've moved the page to Orbital (space habitat). :-) Evercat 12:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it again to conform to Culture naming nomenclatura... MadMaxDog 05:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just had a look at the link for the Stanford torus and it is a similar idea but on a grander scale. The article is a bit vague but the orbitals rotate axialy (like a wheel) and are tilted approximately 45° to the star. They are quiet simple when you can visualise what they look like. Afn
ehm... and Chiark? (The Player of Games) --84.220.94.165 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Good shout. Added. --Guinnog 23:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Would it be possible to build an orbital out of carbon nanotubes?
:If you ask: could such an orbital be built currently, I severly doubt it - but ask a physics major instead. We certainly can't build it as Banks describes it, as they are held together with forcefields... MadMaxDog 10:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we build one?

message: A couple of issues regarding the section on government of Culture orbitals:
1. As I recall, more than one Mind can be in charge of running an Orbital, but I don't remember where I read that. I know for sure there's a reference to a three-Mind GSV in Excession, but I don't remember where I got the idea that some Orbitals are run by more than one Mind. If anyone else knows, maybe they can add it.
2. The section on government omits two other aspects of Orbital government described in the books: the General Board, vaguely described in "Look to Windward", is a sort of parliament, and the plate-building collectives described in "The Player of Games" could be considered governmental organizations - a sort of cross between parks board and zoning commission. I might add these at another time, but I thought I'd mention them here first in case someone else wants to do it. -Father Inire 11:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the bit about about the General Board, and the use of referendums to decide issues of public concern. "Look to Windward" is the source for both items. -Father Inire 09:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Government

message: In Surface Detail (2010) a ring-shaped ground vehicle is described: "Halo 7 rolled magisterially across the misty plain".  Is this a nod to the video game (which came out in 2001 and was based on the orbital concept)? 71.167.64.249 (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did he reference the game?
Talk:Use of Weapons

message: I have it as 1991. Can anyone provide a reference to it being 1990? Guinnog 00:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Publication date?

message: I've removed the "literary significance" section to here for now as it appears to be original research in nature.  The only source provided is an online review that essentially unverifiably repeats the claim in the article.  Personally, I don't disagree with the content that I've removed to here, but it's not backed up with any reliable sources and it pretty much is just one POV about the novel.
:Literary significance & criticism
:It is widely considered to be the best of the Culture novels, but also one of the least accessible due to its relatively complex structure. The Culture wrestles with its usual dilemma of whether or not to intervene in the affairs of other species.
:As in Look to Windward and A Song of Stone, the main theme is the horror of war.
:The book also includes, for the first time in a Banks novel, the possible beginning of another story. After the dénouement of Zakalwe's story, Diziet Sma visits a hospital in a less advanced civilisation.  There she finds a heroic but crippled soldier and offers him renewed health and a job, presumably as a Culture mercenary.  This section is entitled "States of War" and is labelled a prologue. As Banks has never announced any plans to write this story, it may be seen as adding a cyclical element to the story of Use of Weapons. As the central two strands of the novel cycle around to finish at essentially the same point, many readers find this circular interpretation appealing.
In other changes, I've also restored some text to the article that was removed by an anon a while back.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 
Talk:Martini (cocktail)

message: A Martinez cocktail appears — at least — 3 years prior to Jerry Thomas's 1887 edition of his Bartender's Guide, How to Mix All Kinds of Plain and Fancy Drinks (mentioned in the Martini page as its first description), in O. H. Byron's The Modern Bartenders' Guide, or Fancy Drinks and How to Mix Them, published in 1884 by ERxcelsior Publishing House in New York. (https://euvs-vintage-cocktail-books.cld.bz/1884-The-Modern-Bartenders-Guide-by-O-H-Byron/21/)
The "at least" is because on page 400 of the 1878 edition of Jennie June's American Cookery Book, Containing Upwards of Twelve Hundred Choice and Carefully Tested Receipts, at the sama publisher's, as scanned by Google from the Harvard University's copy (https://books.google.fr/books?id=enEEAAAAYAAJ&hl=fr&source=gbs_book_other_versions), appears a full page ad for The Modern Bartender's Guide [sic. Bartender" is singular in the ad]. So the question is : was there an edition of O. H. Byron's guide before 1884 ? One can read a discussion on the subject here : https://www.beeretseq.com/year-manhattan-and-martinez-cocktails-are-first-cited/
Anyway, the 1884 Bartenders' Guide, which, by the way, is mentioned in Wikipedias's Martinez cocktail's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinez_(cocktail)) should be cited in Martini's page. Krazycram (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First mention of Martinez cocktail 

message: A vodka martini that is shaken is called a Bradford 118.210.118.172 (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bradford
Talk:Media in Belarus

message: I've no views on the accuracy of this article, but it looks pretty non-NPOV to me. -- April 18:32 Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)
I've tried to make some changes to make it more NPOV without removing the content about Belarusian media propaganda. Alex 08:56 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)
Moved from the article to here:
:Some of these stories:
:* United Nations and OSCE observers came to Belarus to give weapons, ammunitions and explosives to terrorists and to train them
:* There are terrorist training camps in eastern Poland
:* Japanese secret agents paid Belarusians $500 to protest against Aleksandr Lukashenko with hope that protesters would be arrested and then could apply for refugee status in pro-Western countries to obtain high paying western jobs.
Actually I heard the third story while in Belarus on Belarusian TV days before the last election of Lukashenko, it was part of a story about the terrorists in Belarus (had history of terrorism in west and then tacked on info about Belarusian terrorists that was in line with the first two examples above. I can't recall the actual time or date of the broadcast, but it was in August 2001.Alex756
While it sounds POV, from all accounts I can find it's perfectly accurate to essentially describe Belarus as a totalitarian state.  In addition to journalists in work camps, several noted scientists have been arrested for their research into the lingering health effects of the Chernobyl disaster (the Bealrussian government claims there are no such lingering effects). --Delirium 03:57, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)
This article is *VERY* POV. IMO, it needs to be changed ASAP. Calling claims "absurd and amusing" is incredibly POV, and calling them propaganda is less so, regardless of whether the opinion is justified, which it seems to be.  Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the subject, so I can't rightfully edit it. --GregoryWeir 00:29, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Talk:I486SX

message: :FOLDOC WP:PLAGIARISM checked ~Kvng (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

message: It appears that whoever wrote this entry only knows of 486 chips from a history book.  The lack of FPU didn't aversely effect contemporary games, because the lack of the FPU was standard on machines of the era.  486 chips didn't have ZIF sockets, they had LIF sockets.  The ZIF wasn't introduced until the Pentium was released.  67.169.145.35 (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly erroneous.  ZIF sockets were not ubiquitous in the same way that they are now, but they were certainly in widespread use.  I have a couple of socket 2 and 3 motherboards upstairs with ZIF sockets.  See http://www.nuggetlab.com/comptia_equipment.htm for images of 486 ZIF sockets. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ZIF Sockets and FPU Usage
Talk:CN Tower

message: The article reads:
The reflective nature of the new buildings compromised the quality of broadcast signals necessitating new, higher antennas that were at least 300 m (980 ft) tall. 
How about:
The reflective nature of the new buildings reduced the quality of broadcast signals requiring new, higher antennas, at least 300 m (980 ft) tall.
85.193.228.103 (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more natural wording? 

message: Should I add the glass-falling incident on December 16, 2021?
Source: CBC article Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it myself in the pertinent section. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 16, 2021 Glass Falling 

message: Change this sentence:
Following the railway's decision to divest non-core freight railway assets prior to the company's privatization in 1995, it transferred the tower to the Canada Lands Company, a federal Crown corporation responsible for real estate development
To this sentence (with an update at the end):
Following the railway's decision to divest non-core freight railway assets prior to the company's privatization in 1995, it transferred the tower to the Canada Lands Company, a federal Crown corporation responsible for real estate development and attractions management. JeannieTee (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: From your source  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022 

message: 1) Not mentioned, whether the 13m+ red tip of CN tower is functional or not. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  *angry Ostankino noises* 

message: 2) Not mentioned, whether CN tower was broadcasting on same day it was opened or not. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  *more angry Ostankino noises* 

message: Changing E.R. Baldwin to Edward R. Baldwin. Edward is not referred to as E.R. in publications, articles, documents, etc. 73.238.234.37 (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: RealAspects (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2022 

message: Someone should correct the use of "antennae" in the article. Radio antennas are not spelled that way. Thanks 2600:1700:22F0:59EF:10CA:AB50:2549:E7CE (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Great catch! I have corrected it. Thanks! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antennae are only found on insects
Talk:King Solomon's Mines (disambiguation)

message: One of the worst films I've ever seen.  JHCC  (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1985 version

message: Disagree with split, at this time. Until the article has matured, there is no reason to add extra navigation complications. At least now we have the context and ease of navigation of listing all the movies in one place.  -- Stbalbach 03:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with the above.  Unless the articles can be expanded, it'll produce 4 stubs. Lugnuts 16:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've completed two splits to date. They're stubs, yes, but no worse than a lot of other stubs already out there. This way has the added bonus of not having to mess up the page layout with multiple film-infoboxen. --Agamemnon2 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, at this point this page should become a disambiguation page and the remaining articles should have their own articles created. I've changed my mind and believe each film should have its own article, it makes it easier to categorize and sort Wikipedia and removes duplications. -- Stbalbach 14:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Split and disambiguated.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: look, it's perfectly acceptable to say that a film is of poor quality and is badly made - I have not even seen the film but clearly it is one of those "so bad its good" type of films, a "snakes on a plane" type film, just look at the comments on IMDB. This POV stuff is really going too far - if you think this is somehow controversial and that some people think it's a fine quality film than please show me and Ill reconsider how to re-word it, but sometimes, things just are factual and true, even if they are "opinions". -- Stbalbach 14:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't base things on my personal opinion, if I thought it was bad has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure what your logic is - you say "bad" is my POV, then chastise me for not seeing the film and basing it on my opinion. I already mentioned "look at IMDB" - clearly this is a bad film - but if you want to take it to the next level, so we now have professional reviewers calling it a bad film. IMO it's already way too much detail and information in this article just to justify the clearly accurate "bad". -- Stbalbach 13:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  badly made film
Talk:Wilhelm II

message: The section entitled Life in Exile shows completely contradictory information about Wilhelm's attitude and statements about Hitler, antisemitism and the war, without any attempt at reconciliation. It appears that some of the references are revisionist and dubious, and should probably be removed, but if they are reputable attributions they should certainly be explained as the current narrative makes essentially no sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II%2C_German_Emperor#Life_in_exile
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.122.51 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Inconsistent treatment of the Kaiser's attitudes towards Nazi Germany 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED.  Hadal (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - Wilhelm II is certainly the common name for this German emperor. I would even argue that the other Wilhelm may be at the wrong title (William I, German Emperor). Estar8806 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

text: AKTC3 (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 March 2023 

message: Please add the following template, consistent with the other Prussian monarchs having that template on their page due to being listed there:
 2601:249:9301:D570:CC87:39C7:E038:494B (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thank you for noticing the omission. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023 

message: Please add the following template to the bottom of the article:
 2601:249:9301:D570:AD6E:66B3:8CCE:2900 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2024
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)

message: Is "QENS" an accepted ship prefix for ships of the Qatari Emiri Navy? It's not listed  in the Ship prefix article, but is used in the titles of several QEN ship articles, including QENS Al Fulk (L141) and QENS Al Zubarah (F101). Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is according to Jane's Fighting Ships 2015–2016 (p. 662).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  QENS 

message: I saw the thread at the top about the use of definite articles, but gained no clarity from it at all and I found little in the conventions guideline that clarified matters either. What is the general advice on whether to use a definite article or not, given that in BrEng is is more common to use "the" in good English than to avoid it. Is there a standing consensus or guideline on whether to use or avoid, or is it left more open than that? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a consensus and that's why the naming convention has adopted the "not needed, but not technically wrong either" approach. Sometimes it may sound okay ("It's the Enterprise"), but in most cases it feels unnecessary and even excessive in a Wikipedia article. Personally I only use it if there are words between the article and the ship's name (e.g. "...unlike the diesel-electric icebreaker Viktor Chernomyrdin..." or "...unlike Viktor Chernomyrdin..." but not "..unlike the Viktor Chernomyrdin.."). Tupsumato (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's more or less it - use it if you want, or don't. FWIW, I follow the same practice Tupsumato describes. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - thank you both. That seems a sensible path to follow, so I'll follow suit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One other minor point to make: when I refer to a ship class, I'd use the definite article, so for example, "...the " since in this case, "class" is the noun and the ship name is just an adjective. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Definite article with the ship's name

message: That's not proper grammar. How come people have such a hard time convincing others to use the correct pronouns for trans people, but ships automatically get "she"? Thus, I want to start a discussion about defaulting to "it", as a ship is an object, not a woman. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more "she" for ships, please.
Talk:Solomon

message: Images portrayed are not accurate representations of the description of King Solomon. Thiago1001 (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "the description of King Solomon" - where's this? Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Portrayal  

message: @Remsense Closer up images are an advantage. Faces are the most recognizable parts of people and if we want people to understand what they are looking at, we should show primarily the face.
The Doré portrait has a unclear and undetailed face. For one, it's already zoomed out. Another is that the face can't really be distinguished from the beard. Another is that Solomon's brow droops down to such an extent that his eyes are shadowed.
It is true that color is not an inherent advantage, but a color painting is more pleasing to look at than a black and white engraving, so it is more inviting to the reader, at least in my opinion.
Even if color is not necessarily an "advantage", I don't see why that justifies reversion. Can you prove that lack of color is an advantage? ―Howard • 🌽33 13:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox portrait
Talk:Joan Lindsay

message: The article now states that the so-called "final chapter" of Lindsay's novel Picnic at Hanging Rock was published only in the 1980s, "in accordance with her wishes".
Is this a fact, or a fiction? Is this statement based on verifiable fact, or just hearsay? I wonder. I would like some verifiable fact to back up this claim. But what if there isn't any verifiable fact - just hearsay? Should not the wording be changed, then?
Mcouzijn (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In accordance with her wishes" - fact or hearsay? 

message: "In 1967, Lindsay published her most celebrated work, Picnic at Hanging Rock, a historical Gothic novel detailing the vanishing of three schoolgirls and their teacher at the site of a MONOLITH during one summer." 
Hanging Rock is a mamelon, NOT a monolith
Hanging Rock, Victoria - Wikipedia 175.39.112.77 (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanging Rock is a mamelon, not a monolith
Talk:Brian Wilson

message: — Assignment last updated by Mallrat1995 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writing and Literacy in the Digital Age

message: I suggest changing the template from  to  (With the former embedded, similar to Freddie Mercury) 88.28.14.125 (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion  

message: The article should mention his chain smoking, as it altered his voice to a huge extent. (Aardi18 (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking 

message: There are rumors of his death today is there any solid proof? 73.231.125.76 (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: What is the criteria to start calling him a former musician etc.? He's pretty clearly not going to perform or record again. Just thinking out loud. Aresef (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former musician?
Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. The previous discussion ended a week ago. If you wish to challenge it, WP:MR is the venue.   Calidum 01:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 March 2022 

message: Really? Nothing about the Hollywood Stars of the PCL baseball league?  Why not? 2601:283:8301:820:0:0:0:9BBB (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollywood Stars of the Pacific Coast League 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jessicacariello (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: STS 1010
Wikipedia talk:Timeline/Archive 1

message: One of the standard uses to which I would put a timeline would be to view when an event happend in relation to another event. The problem I see with all proposed methods of displaying time lines is that it is difficult use any of these methods to get a quick visual understanding of the temporal relations of events. For a timeline to be useful in this way, the graphical placement of an item must be scaled based on its date. For instance, there should be a greater distance between 1054 (The Church in Rome breaks with the Church in Constantinople) and 1204 (Constantinople is occupied by crusaders) than there is between 1204 (Constantinople is occupied by crusaders and 1261 (Constantinople is liberated by the Byzantine emperor Michael Palaeologus).
Hope this makes sense, KalevTait 13:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Timelines