lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Khmu language

message: Is it a tonal language?  Badagnani 08:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but there are registers. — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tonal?

message: are they considered cambodian? 2601:201:8201:F5B0:6D21:2352:6CFF:2AD3 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey 

message: are they considered cambodian ? or lao? 2601:201:8201:F5B0:6D21:2352:6CFF:2AD3 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnicity
Talk:Laotian French

message: It would be interesting to know how many people there are who speak French in Laos, and a source to the statement of steady decline would be great too. Aaker 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of speakers

message: I believe this is the correct adjective. FilipeS (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested move: Lao French → Laotian French
Talk:Douglas C-133 Cargomaster

message: I was at Travis Air Expo 2008 today and they retired a C-133.  I don't know any more details, but I have photos if needed. PM me. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired 

message: This article claims that the above was a factor in the retirement of this aircraft. Really? Stress corrosion is usually associated with operation in a corrosive environment, like in a chemical plant. It's hard to believe that the C-133 operated in a particularly corrosive environment - probably just good ol' fashioned metal fatigue accelerated by vibration. Jmdeur (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Stress Corrosion? 

message: Shouldn't we include the Short Belfast here, it has a link in the opposite direction? I would do it myself but don't know how to.Kitbag (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable aircraft 

message: Article mentions several craft being lost "possibly due to the unusual stall characteristics" of the aircraft. What was unusual about them? -- 145.228.61.5 (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stall characteristics
Talk:Organization of Japanese forces in Southeast Asia

message: This list has potential to be very useful, however, it seems advisable to add some additional information as the data is compiled. Most importantly, the units in various locales, the commanders, and even HQ locations changed during the war. For this reason, I think known dates should be added.Dewobroto 16:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of dates 

message: The "Dutch East Indies" actually includes the occupied neutral colony of Portuguese Timor from February 20 1942-late August 1945. Some indication of that would be more accurate. "Dutch [Netherlands] East Indies and Portuguese Timor" might be one way, but there are of course other tricky points where command structures cover more than one former colonial territory, like that of the 25th Army during the 1st year which covered part of the British and Dutch colonies of SEA.Dewobroto 16:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Boundaries of former colonies 

message: During the war the Japanese forces in Southeast Asia were in a constant state of flux. Units were formed and disbanded, moved in and out of the theater, and were absorbed into other organizations. Commanding Officers changed frequently. This OB is essentially useless as it gives no indication of time period. Also, to make any sense, it needs to show the hierarchy of unit subordination. In other words, which unit belonged to which higher headquarters. For example:
::7th Area Army
::::16th Army
::::::x Division
::::::y Division
::::::z Independent Brigade
::::25th Army
::::and so on...
Additionally, the title is misleading because the Japanese did not think of South East Asia as a discrete area in the sense that the Allies, for example, regarded the European Theater of Operations. For the Japanese, the area was overseen, garrisoned, and defended by a number of roughly coequal "Area Armies" each in competition with the others for men, material, weapons, and supplies.
Oldbubblehead (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Period/Unit Subordination
Template talk:Unblock-un

message: Anyone have an opinion on dropping the reminder to bureaucrats?  On one hand, it can informative to a newbie blocked user of the process occuring behind the matter, but on the other hand it is blatantly obvious; no bureaucrat is ever going to forget to check the page history.  I suppose I find it distracting. ~ PseudoSudo 00:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropping the reminder 

message: Would it be possible for this template to check whether the new user name is the same as the old one, and display a different message in that case?  I know, I know, but people actually do this.  Repeatedly.  Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check for same username 

message: Change:
 This blocked user is asking to be unblocked to request a change in username.
to:
  This blocked user is asking to be unblocked to request a change in username.
to use the new icon.
UpEpSilon (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current icon is quite appropriate; it is a question from an editor after all.  — Edokter (talk) —  11:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2014 

message: I'd like to propose changing the current way of doing the account availability check via Special:ListUsers to using Special:CentralAuth to see if the username is registered on any WMF SUL wiki. Thoughts? --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: . Please revert and notify me if you disagree. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Please remove the "autoblocks" link (Template sandbox edit). Xtools no longer has an autoblock list like it previously had, now all of those links redirect to :mw:Autoblock which is not that useful. Thanks. Majavah (talk!) 18:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 18:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 24 October 2021 

message: Template:Unblock-un has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. kleshkreikne. T 07:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request to complete TfD nomination
Talk:Florida State Road 616

message: Wasn't there plans a couple of years ago to rename SR 616 after Ronald Reagan? If so, I think the plan failed before it ever got off the books. 71.99.191.76 00:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed Renaming
Talk:Star Wars: Rebel Assault II: The Hidden Empire

message: :this game was the first media to incorporate live-action actors and footage in the Star Wars universe since Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi.
What about the Ewoks movies? Staecker 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First? 

message: it enables the game to be made very easy by making the player invulnerable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.73.96 (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  maybe the article should mention the difficulty editor
Talk:Tokugawa Iesada

message: An interested editor "tweaked" the succession boxes in articles about the 15 Tokugawa shoguns; and the change became a thread topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Tokugawa shoguns.  Although a corollary thread topic was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty#Japanese shoguns, no comments or suggestions were elicited.
Aumnamahashiva substituted "regnal" succession boxes; and an plausible  rationale for those edits was offered, focusing primarily on the functional sense in which the Tokugawas were hereditary autocrats.  In contrast was an argument that the regnal succession box is, by definition, misapplied.  Although the terms "reign" and "rule" are conventionally used by scholars, neither the Tokugawa, the Ashikaga, the Hōjō nor the Minamoto shoguns were "royalty" as that term is defined in Japanese history and culture.
Participation in this thread was limited, but I construed it as sufficient justification to restore the previous (non-regnal) succession box.  This explanation and the links to soon-to-be-archived threads may prove to be helpful in the  future? --Tenmei (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession box
Talk:Tokugawa Ienari

message: An interested editor "tweaked" the succession boxes in articles about the 15 Tokugawa shoguns; and the change became a thread topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Tokugawa shoguns.  Although a corollary thread topic was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty#Japanese shoguns, no comments or suggestions were elicited.
Aumnamahashiva substituted "regnal" succession boxes; and an plausible  rationale for those edits was offered, focusing primarily on the functional sense in which the Tokugawas were hereditary autocrats.  In contrast was an argument that the regnal succession box is, by definition, misapplied.  Although the terms "reign" and "rule" are conventionally used by scholars, neither the Tokugawa, the Ashikaga, the Hōjō nor the Minamoto shoguns were "royalty" as that term is defined in Japanese history and culture.
Participation in this thread was limited, but I construed it as sufficient justification to restore the previous (non-regnal) succession box.  This explanation and the links to soon-to-be-archived threads may prove to be helpful in the  future? --Tenmei (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession box

message: What's the deal with this pillow fight? Is it a real thing, or just some troll making stuff up? If it's real, that would be kind of hilarious and awesome. But it needs a citation.... LordAmeth (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pillow Fight
Talk:Tokugawa Ieharu

message: An interested editor "tweaked" the succession boxes in articles about the 15 Tokugawa shoguns; and the change became a thread topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Tokugawa shoguns.  Although a corollary thread topic was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty#Japanese shoguns, no comments or suggestions were elicited.
Aumnamahashiva substituted "regnal" succession boxes; and an plausible  rationale for those edits was offered, focusing primarily on the functional sense in which the Tokugawas were hereditary autocrats.  In contrast was an argument that the regnal succession box is, by definition, misapplied.  Although the terms "reign" and "rule" are conventionally used by scholars, neither the Tokugawa, the Ashikaga, the Hōjō nor the Minamoto shoguns were "royalty" as that term is defined in Japanese history and culture.
Participation in this thread was limited, but I construed it as sufficient justification to restore the previous (non-regnal) succession box.  This explanation and the links to soon-to-be-archived threads may prove to be helpful in the  future? --Tenmei (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession box

message: MAYBE this is like the succession boxes but several shoguns dont have the same type of page, is there a way i could help out in guiding these back? (I'm still wikipedia-noobified.)  this means a lot to me, as i have a huge interest in visual asia, including japanese history. --XxReikoxX - The Visual Asia Geek (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matching side boxes?
Talk:Tokugawa Ieshige

message: An interested editor "tweaked" the succession boxes in articles about the 15 Tokugawa shoguns; and the change became a thread topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Tokugawa shoguns.  Although a corollary thread topic was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty#Japanese shoguns, no comments or suggestions were elicited.
Aumnamahashiva substituted "regnal" succession boxes; and an plausible  rationale for those edits was offered, focusing primarily on the functional sense in which the Tokugawas were hereditary autocrats.  In contrast was an argument that the regnal succession box is, by definition, misapplied.  Although the terms "reign" and "rule" are conventionally used by scholars, neither the Tokugawa, the Ashikaga, the Hōjō nor the Minamoto shoguns were "royalty" as that term is defined in Japanese history and culture.
Participation in this thread was limited, but I construed it as sufficient justification to restore the previous (non-regnal) succession box.  This explanation and the links to soon-to-be-archived threads may prove to be helpful in the  future? --Tenmei (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession box
Talk:Tokugawa Yoshimune

message: An interested editor "tweaked" the succession boxes in articles about the 15 Tokugawa shoguns; and the change became a thread topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Tokugawa shoguns.  Although a corollary thread topic was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty#Japanese shoguns, no comments or suggestions were elicited.
Aumnamahashiva substituted "regnal" succession boxes; and an plausible  rationale for those edits was offered, focusing primarily on the functional sense in which the Tokugawas were hereditary autocrats.  In contrast was an argument that the regnal succession box is, by definition, misapplied.  Although the terms "reign" and "rule" are conventionally used by scholars, neither the Tokugawa, the Ashikaga, the Hōjō nor the Minamoto shoguns were "royalty" as that term is defined in Japanese history and culture.
Participation in this thread was limited, but I construed it as sufficient justification to restore the previous (non-regnal) succession box.  This explanation and the links to soon-to-be-archived threads may prove to be helpful in the  future? --Tenmei (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession box

message: Who added Ten'ichi as illegitimate child? The entire Ten'ichibou incident is complex enough to at least warrant a mention on discussion page. Among other things, research on the incident is muddled up by the 1920s novel Ooka Seidan (see e.g. https://homepages.wmich.edu/~jangles/articles/tenichibo.pdf ). For example, in actual fact it is (as far as I can tell, anyway) unclear whether Yoshimune actually acknowledged Ten'ichibou as his own. Also, Ten'ichi was not the dude's legal name, nor was Ten'ichibou; it was a name he took on which means "Best boy under the heavens" or "Best monk under the heavens"... would appreciate some clarity on its inclusion. 45.46.174.146 (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, my bad, the article linked is about a different telling of the story; nevertheless the version in Ooka Seidan, and in fact most versions of the tale, are a hoot too. 45.46.174.146 (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Ten'ichi
Talk:Tokugawa Ienobu

message: An interested editor "tweaked" the succession boxes in articles about the 15 Tokugawa shoguns; and the change became a thread topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Tokugawa shoguns.  Although a corollary thread topic was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty#Japanese shoguns, no comments or suggestions were elicited.
Aumnamahashiva substituted "regnal" succession boxes; and an plausible  rationale for those edits was offered, focusing primarily on the functional sense in which the Tokugawas were hereditary autocrats.  In contrast was an argument that the regnal succession box is, by definition, misapplied.  Although the terms "reign" and "rule" are conventionally used by scholars, neither the Tokugawa, the Ashikaga, the Hōjō nor the Minamoto shoguns were "royalty" as that term is defined in Japanese history and culture.
Participation in this thread was limited, but I construed it as sufficient justification to restore the previous (non-regnal) succession box.  This explanation and the links to soon-to-be-archived threads may prove to be helpful in the  future? --Tenmei (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession box
Talk:Talorgan II

message: Something is not right here. The page states that he was "king of the Picts from 783 until 785" and "succeeded by his son Drest". Drest VIII, however, is stated to have been "king of the Picts from 782 until 783, succeeding his father Talorgan". This seems to be the other way round.
List_of_kings_of_the_Picts lists both a Tallorc II (778–782) and a Tallorc III (783–785) (both with incorrect wikilinks), is it possible that these two got mixed up in this page ?
-- Kwakeroni (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing and succession
Talk:List of crossings of the Delaware River

message: The state names should come out of the location column, using pipes in the town links.  The information is redundant from the section titles, and will save on some cell wrapping.--J Clear 01:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup suggestion 

message: After adding this template, I went through and named all the existing coord templates, converting "coor dms" to "coord" while I was at it, and copied any coords from individual bridge pages if they were there but not in this list.  More coordinates would make the "Map All Coordinates" more impressive. - Denimadept (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "Map All Coordinates" 

message: Most of the bridges on this list replaced a now-closed ferries.  We have a closed bridge on this list so I think including historic ferry lines would also be appropriate.  Conversely, there is a proposal for a tunnel to replace the Cape May-Lewes Ferry and I just added the botched tram to the listing.  My assumption is that this list should be inclusive and include all current, past or proposed crossings.  Caution should be used on the northern end of the river where a tree falling over could form a crossing.  Also, crossings that aren't either fixed or regularly scheduled (like Washington Crossing the Delaware) should be excluded.  If you have other opinions, let me know so we can reach a concensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's included in this list 

message: This section provides very little actual fact and seems to be little more than the negatively biased opinions of the author toward the city of Camden.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.174.29 (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Issues in "Camden, New Jersey Problems" section
Talk:Country Music News

message: I looked for an ISSN for this publication in WorldCat and on the publisher's website but didn't see one.RainbowCrane 01:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ISSN:  0714-8356  Argolin (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISSN 
Talk:Nicholas Saunders (activist)

message: I consider that there should be a page about Nicholas Saunders since he has directly or indirectly influenced thousands or millions of people through his writings and businesses. However I do not have any great authority on him, and the one person I could think of who would have - Nicholas Albery - has also died. I have tried to include only the less contentious (and less proprietary) facts of his life from the sources I have consulted, which I have listed in External Links.
Incidentally the page seems to have acquired a lowercase initial 's' for the surname which I don't know how to correct. --John Stumbles 01:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have a copy of the Alternative London book with details of how many copies of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions sold. The Alternative London page just links back to Nicholas and I think it's a pity it doesn't have a page of its own and it's a fantastic publication. Is anyone else working on this page, if not I might make some changes:)
Veryscarymary (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy of Book

message: External Links in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.189.101 (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links
Talk:Cruise Chaser Blassty

message: The second-to-last boss of the Final Fantasy XIV: Heavensward raid series is named Cruise Chaser, with an almost identical design and almost certainly a reference to Cruise Chaser Blassty, being a title that has had Uematsu and other original Square staff working on it. If there are no objections I will add this into a "Trivia" or "Other references" section. ☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 16:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy XIV reference
Talk:Echmarcach mac Ragnaill

message: Benjamin Hudson (Viking Pirates and Christian Princes, pp. 142–143) says that that Margad represents Murchad (i.e. Murchad, son of Diarmait mac Mail na mBo). He doesn't connect Echmarcach with Gutthorm Gunhildarson and the expedition to Wales. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Margad is equated with Echmarcach in a footnote in my copy of Heimskringla and that is all I know about this matter.   Fornadan (t) 20:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Margad
Talk:William III, Earl of Ross

message: I am researching the activities and rationale behind the Harlaw campaign mounted by Donald, Lord of the Isles against Scotland in 1411 and this article is important to that research.  As it currently stands it contains a number of inaccuracies and I am proposing a re-write which I include below.  If there is no input in a week I'll edit the page with the new article. Family locator (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article Suggestion
Talk:Ferteth, Earl of Strathearn

message: "King Máel Coluim seems to have believed the revolt to have some justification, as there is no evidence that any retribution was taken against either Ferchar or any of the other six Mormaers involved." This sounds like an awfully weak argument (from silence) to me, and as such should be immediately removed from the article if it is not in the sole cited source. I just want to check here that it is indeed in the scholarship and is not a piece of (maybe inadvertent) OR. 216.8.154.110 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's OR by Cynthia Neville (p. 19). Ideally, it would be balanced better with other assessments of the revolt, but it's just a stub/start class article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's in the source, right?
Talk:Máel Snechtai

message: "Perhaps then the events of Máel Snechtai's caused some kind of identity disassociation between the Men of Moray and the Men of Scotland.". Máel Snechtai's what?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.123.33 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The current text says:
He is called on his death notice in the Annals of Ulster, "Máel Snechtai m. Lulaigh ri Muireb" (="Máel Snechtai, Lulach's son, King of Moray"), which is a significant terminological development, since previously the titles for the ruler of Moray had either been "King of Scotland" or "Mormaer." The title is repeated for his successor, Óengus (if indeed the latter were his successor).
This is nonsense. He was "king" of Moray because Malcolm III's writ did not run there. The contributor has a rosy tinted view of how these things worked in those days. Moray was regarded as enemy country and the beacon system from Craigelachie shows that trouble was expected at any time. Applying the same term to Angus was a matter of the Irish Annalist not understanding what had changed in the meantime. Freuchie (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title