lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of Spider-Man comics

message: I worked hard on compiling this list of comics. Did it all in one night based on other pages. After doing some searching it became quite evident that it was impossible to find a definitive list of Spider-Man comics books in one page. I had to click all over different articles just to get SOME of the comics; not all comics have been listed in other Spider-Man related articles. The goal here is to combine all that into one list that anyone can use as a guide. A couple of things that need to be added:
*Titles need to be put in italics
*ISBN #s need to be gathered
*Limited series section needs to be fixed.
Those are the changes I can think of for now. When creating this article I relied heavily on List of Batman comics. I helped add a lot of the comics there as well. While I was not responsible for the layout it has now, I am quite satisfied how it looks. More importantly, that List of Batman comics has all the trade paperbacks listed in one single page. I used that page last summer to buy most of my books in fact. That was my goal with creating this article for Spider-Man comics. It's my first article as well. Hope I got everything right.
Dark88 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes that need to be made

message: i think it would be awesome if someone could add the aproximate DATES of the comic series at least year nad month of when was it released.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.118.51.2 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates 

message: Where does the Spider-Man and Batman one-shot fit in here?   GoingBatty (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Placed it in the 'One-Shot, Mini Series, Graphic Novels' section. I wasn't able to find out if this was a one-shot cross-over or a graphic novel so I didn't label it. ChaoticHeavens (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spider-Man and Batman
Talk:Hypocalymma

message: I've uploaded the following new Hypocalymma photos. Dcoetzee 04:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photos 
Wikipedia talk:Special:WhatLinksHere

message: Isn't there a way to filter the links that are comming from a template?--Westermarck (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hide links from Template 

message: It would be very neat if this special page besides listing out the articles would also count them for you. I believe it would be easy for implementing and helpful for. ex when doing robotic corrections of links.  Wesalius (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of linking pages 

message: Please join the discussion in VPT about whether WLH should include links that are between WP:INCLUDEONLY tags in its list. Nickps (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links between includeonly tags
Talk:Female perversion

message: There is no cited mention of opposing ideas or responses to this paper these are needed for balance --Nate 11:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was written by a single individual, relying on a single source that is not recognized as a standard reference in the literature.  In addition, the supporting sources would appear, at quick glance to be POV and agenda driven themselves.  DashaKat 12:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  just to clarify I agree with the tag & was adding part of the reason --Nate 13:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, I understand.  Good faith.  So, let's get to work!  DashaKat 16:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Al-Khisas raid

message: Is 10 a "large number"? I personally think not. In which case this should be renamed to "incident" or "attack" or similar. Otherwise any terrorist attacks that kill 10 or more people should likewise be listed as a "massacre". Wikipedia will quickly fill up with "massacres" diluting those that really are massacre of large numbers of people. Oboler (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Renaming, per the discussion here NoCal100 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I disagree. ten people killed is enough to qualify as a massacre and the reliable sources cited use the term "massacre" and not "raid. Tiamuttalk 13:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, which cited source calls it a 'massacre'? The Benvinisti books calls it "attack" (4 times), "retaliatory raid" (once) and "raid" once. The NYT article also calls it a raid, in the headline. NoCal100 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Oops. My bad. I thought this was another article where I remember such a source being appended. No worries. For now, because of the lack of a reliable source, I'l accept "raid". Please note however, that the definition of a massacre that was operative at Wikipedia for some time was more then 10 civilians killed in a single incident. This was qualified under that definition. But I'm not willing to war over it, particularly if a new consensus on how to define a massacre is emerging. Tiamuttalk 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess Oboler and NoCal100 will agree to moving  Mercaz HaRav massacre to Mercaz HaRav attack ? After all, fewer people were killed at Mercaz HaRav... While we are at it: Munich massacre should be moved to Munich raid?? Anyway, KimvdLinde collected definitions of the word "massacre" here: I suggest we move this back. Regards, Huldra (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see now I could have been clearer  when I wrote "Agreed". I agreed with Oboler's suggestion that the article  should be renamed to "incident" or "attack" or similar, but not with his rationale of "10 is not a large number". The number of those killed is not a factor in deciding what to call the article - which should be what reliable sources call the incident. That is why I referred to the discussion here, which ended with an apparent consensus to name articles "by the name most commonly used in reliable sources". The reliable sources for this article call the incident a raid or an attack, not a massacre. NoCal100 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived version of that discussion here, --Huldra (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  massacre? 

message: Any objections to changing the name to "Al-Khisas massacre"?
See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/About the use of the word massacre
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to "Al-Khisas massacre"
Talk:Al-Zarnuji

message: My gut feeling is that this author is sufficiently notable. His work (this one book) seems to be a basis for religious education in the Shariah tradition of Islam and has been for nearly 800 years. Perhaps the uploader can provide more information. The photo, by the way, is great - fully legible. The title given there (at the top of page 1) reads: "hādha kitāb ta'līmu'l-muta'allam" (This is the book of instruction of the learner). This should be reconciled with the given title. Cbdorsett 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about notability and am not deleting at this time. It would definitely be good to see this expanded to give readers, especially those unfamiliar with Islam, some idea about what the book is. Kafziel Talk 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Altındağ, İzmir

message: The place marked as Altındağ on Google Earth and Google Maps is not Altındağ, but it is the north-east corner of Evka 1, which is a district of the town Buca, İzmir.  I don't know how to correct it.  Someone who knows how to edit Google Earth marks may probably do it.
¨¨¨¨  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.79.129 (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong mark on Google Earth and Maps
Talk:Dayr al-Qassi

message: Palestinian Ambassador to Canada, Nabil Marouf, was born in Dayr Al-Qassi 192.150.5.2 (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done,  (thanks for the info!) Huldra (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2018 

message: Hi ! There is a mention of the sale of the village by Geoffrey de Tour (with a link to the chamberlain with this name) in 1183. This does not make sense, as this person was as far as we know active around 1240). I cannot correct myself as the text is protected. Thanks, --Cgolds (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  It is a misreading of the source. I'll see if I can fix it. Zerotalk 08:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you ! The source says Gaufrido Torto, which is translated in several sources by Godfrey Le Tor. There is a mention of a sale by this "name" in the 1160s (!), then the sale mentioned here in 1183. It is (almost) technically possible, of course, that it is the same as the chamberlain, but … ?. For the moment, I have not be able to discover more. All the best--Cgolds (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I suspect we are dealing with two people or even more. The article of Frankel (p260) mentions land "held by Godfrey le Tor and his father before him". An 1169 document by Godfrey le Tor is mentioned in many sources. Perhaps our problem is just that we are wikilinking the name incorrectly. Zerotalk 18:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Yes, I think that you are right. At least, it is a good assumption  : keep the name (Godfrey le Tor seems the safest, by the way) and certainly de-wikilink. Thank you in advance, --Cgolds (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godfrey de Tour 

message: Re-hi ! Checking the 1945 source for the section on Mandatory Palestine, , I read it as saying that there were 880 Christians and 370 Muslims, not the opposite. I am aware of the discussion above (2014), but not convinced that the situation in 1931 implies such a variation in 1945. It is perhaps not clear if these data are for Dayr al-Qassi (as the village is grouped with two others), but in any case I do not see the data as given in the article. Best, --Cgolds (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1945 Data
Talk:List of telephony terminology

message: Hi, was reading this page and I noticed Unblocking was down with (illegal) next to it. While some methods of unblocking a device are illegal, unblocking is not in fact against the law. In reality if unblocking a device was illegal then the entire mobile device industry would quickly come grinding to a halt. 90.152.12.130 11:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unblocking 

message: There is no reason to split these up by country of use as mobile device lingo is universal. Assigning country specific terminology to this is like trying to apply it to computing, mathematics or physics. If it is a country specific term then it is almost certainly not the industry standard terminology. Perhaps those terms should be in the notes field of the standard term? 90.152.12.130 11:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree.  Yes, mobile jargon is mostly late 20th century and international, but much of wirephone jargon is mid century and peculiar to a country.  If CID, CLID and CLI are used in different places, all should be listed together with their respective nationalities as an aid to those unfamiliar to some other country's terminology.  Jim.henderson 13:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split by country 

message: Rather than simply being a list this page should be turned into a glossary.  This will make it more useful to readers. The table of acronyms should be place in the main body of thel ist rather than as a separate table. -- Alan Liefting talk 07:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turn into glossary

message: Add "Sidetone" and "Comfort noise" to "List of telephone terminology" and "Index of telephone-related articles"
173.164.209.28 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Sidetone and Comfort noise to list of
Talk:Khirbat Jiddin

message: This whole "story" about the 1948 destroyed village is completely bogus. No, not "inaccurate", no "exaggeration" not even "biased"… a total fiction. No need to do too much searching\; there was no village called Jidin on 1948. The site is no more then an old ruin on a Crusader-Ottoman fortress. It has been part of the Jewish Kibbutz Yehia'm in 1948, and was so in the years before. The whole story about the occupation during the war was made up. The picture of the allegedly "destroyed" mosque, belongs to the fortresses own mosque: not in use for at least 150 years now, falling into ruins like the rest of the fortress due to time and wars going back well into the 19th century. This page requires to be re written from first word till the last.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.176.139 (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There were many bedouin living in and around the castle ruins until 1948.  Both Morris and Khalidi regard that as sufficient to list it as a depopulated village.  Zerotalk 02:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "story" about the 1948 destroyed village is completely bogus

message: Ok, so Khalidi, 1992, p. 18, writes that this place (including Arab al-Suwaytat) had 1,500 inhabitants. However, Hadawi  (which Khalidi used) does not list any number of inhabitants, either for Khirbat Jiddin  (p.  40) or  Arab al-Suwaytat  (p.  41).
Neither did the original Village Statistics,  pp.   4,   5.
Also, both counted  Arab al-Suwaytat under Tarshiha, not Khirbat Jiddin!
So where the heck did Khalidi get the 1,500 numbers from??  Huldra (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, did you get an answer to this question by now ? I am translating the text for the French Wikipedia and was blocked exactly at this point. For the 1500 inhabitants, the reference is to the 1945 Statistics, which is blatantly false. If it is Khalidi (I do not have the book here), at least what is the source should be corrected (I cannot do it as I have not enough contributions here...). But it would be nice to understand the situation. Palestine.remembered gives 1740 for the population in 1948, I do not know their source. Thank you in advance, --Cgolds (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1500 people in 1945? 

message: In the current localities section it lists a place called “Kiryat” which is a common word in the name of Israeli Settlements meaning “Town” or “City” but I can’t find any information about a settlement known as just “Kiryat”. In short it should be removed because it might not exist but in long if there’s an Israeli settlement that has “Kiryat” in its name and Is built on top of this place then it should specified for example “Kiryat Gat” and “Kiryat Bialik”, the “Gat” and the “Bialik” distinguishes these two places (note that there’s also a kibbutz with the name “gat” but the word kiryat distinguishes the modern city from the nearby kibbutz but that’s for a different topic) TazunaJersey (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What’s “Kiryat”?
Talk:University of Birjand

message: This appears to be Birjand University http://www.4icu.org/reviews/2241.htm I would double check before moving on this though because I'm not that adept at Persian yet (finished a year of College level education.) -Robgea 11:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Université de Birjand. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Université de Birjand" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Kuwaykat

message: Does anyone know if the following pictures (from "commons") are taken on Kuwaykat land? Regards, Huldra (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures? 

message: In Khalidi, 1992, p.22 he writes about Kuwaykat: "The Crusaders knew it as Coket". He gives no source. 
I think this is (one of the rare!) mistakes made by Khalidi; I believe he has mixed up this place with Kawkab al-Hawa (which *was* known as "Coket" to the Crusaders.)  No-one else mentions a Crusader connection with Kuwaykat. I have therefore removed it.... (The Pal.Rem. site also mention it...but they have in all probability taken it from Khalidi). Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khalidi-mistake? 

message: writing Druze Palestinian is somewhat not correct. " In 1957, the Israeli government designated the Druze a distinct ethnic community at the request of its communal leaders" from the Druze value. 
according to this value, if they are Druze, they can not be Palestinian. as Druze in Syria and Lebanon are Druze in Syria and Lebanon,a different ethnic and religious group.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.202.41 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  druze palestiniane  

message: Kuwaykat (Kuweikat) was one of the earliest Druze villages in Palestine, soon after the religion was established. However it wasn't Druze in the late 19th or 20th centuries.  I'll come back with edits and sources. Zerotalk 14:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  not Druze 

message: In the 1948 War and aftermath section, it says "The first attack on the village of Kuwaykat during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War took place on 18–19 January 1948."
This is something that I keep seeing all over Wikipedia. If it's before May 15, 1948, it's not part of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. It should be classified as part of the so-called 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine. --Crazyketchupguy (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Not 1948 Arab–Israeli War
Talk:Al-Mansura, Acre

message: The SWP messed up here. It lists two different Kh. el Mansurah on p. 242, one in position  (Nd) and one in position (Od). From the map I can only find *one* Kh. el Mansurah, halfway between  (Nd) and (Od)…but is is described on p. 242 twice!
In the Mills 1931 data, this place is explicitly under Fassuta. Note that in the original 1945 data it is not mentioned at all (See here, pp 2-3), but Hadawi has grouped it  with Fassuta/Deir el Quasi, which seems reasonable, given the 1931-data.  Huldra (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification
Talk:Al-Nabi Rubin, Acre

message: For this village, in Khalidi, 1992, p. 27, he writes that the Israeli settlements on village land are Shomera, Even Menachem, Kefar Rosenwald, Shtula....which amazingly are exactly the same settlements he writes on p. 32 are on Suruh  land! Me thinks we have to study the maps, here....Huldra (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: On second though,  they are very close, both have same grid 177/276 (correctly given in Khalidi), but still....Huldra (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major mistake by Khalidi ...or? 
Talk:Al-Ruways

message: I thought United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, A/AC.25/Com.Tech/7/Add.1  and Hadawi were based on the same numbers??
However, looking at just one page (p. 41) in Hadawi, and comparing it with the UN-data, gives totally different data:
(Hadawi first number (for “Arabs”), UN second number (total for “non-Jewish”):
*Mi'ilya:   900  vs. 430
*Nahf:  1,320  vs.  770
*Sajur:   350 vs  1,690
*Sakhnin: 2,600 vs 330
*Sha'ab: 1,740  vs  350
*Sumata: 1,130 vs 2,600
*Umm al-Faraj:  800 vs 3,830
*Tamra:  1,830 vs  1,130
How  is this explained? Huldra (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore the html text; it is badly scrambled.  Use the PDF file at the bottom of the page.  Here. Zerotalk 09:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Whaw, somebody really messed up that  html text, thanks for the PDF file-link, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How easy it is to forget…  Huldra (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem in the 1945 data. 

message: Khalidi, 1992 writes that Al-Ruways  is Crusader Careblier, and it looks as this agrees with Clermont-Ganneau(?)
However, Conder, 1890, p. 35 seem to suggest el Khureibeh on Mount Carmel. That is still on SWP map 5. It was noted by Guerin, 1875, p. 249, and SWP I:322  ("ruins of a village, destroyed by Ibrahim Pasha")
And Bronstein, 2005, p. 46 refers to a Tel el Charruba as the Careblier mentioned in 1266. Can there be more than one Careblier? See also R.H.C. p.  133, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Al-Ruways  actually the Crusader Careblier??
Talk:Suhmata

message: In the Ottoman era section, in the last paragraph, Suhmata is referred to as Sahmata, which I believe is a typo? Sahmata should be changed to Suhmata.
In the British Mandate era section, Suhmata is referred to as Submata in the second paragraph, which I believe is a typo? Submata should be changed to Suhmata.
Change: An elementary school for boys was founded in the village in 1886.[12] A population list from about 1887 showed Sahmata to have about 1,500 inhabitants; 1,400 Muslims and 100 Christians.[19] 
To: An elementary school for boys was founded in the village in 1886.[12] A population list from about 1887 showed Suhmata to have about 1,500 inhabitants; 1,400 Muslims and 100 Christians.[19]
Change: In the 1922 census of Palestine conducted by the British Mandate authorities, Submata had a population of 632; 589 Muslims and 43 Melkite Christians,[20][21] increasing in the 1931 census to 796; 752 Muslims and 44 Christians, in a total of 175 houses.[22]
To: In the 1922 census of Palestine conducted by the British Mandate authorities, Sumata had a population of 632; 589 Muslims and 43 Melkite Christians,[20][21] increasing in the 1931 census to 796; 752 Muslims and 44 Christians, in a total of 175 houses.[22]
 95.80.47.230 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In both these cases, the spelling follows the source. It is usual for transliterations from the Arabic to differ from source to source. Whether we should copy from each source in our article is a question that could be discussed, since it does look odd to people who don't realise what is happening. Zerotalk 13:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typos
Talk:Al-Sumayriyya

message: The Picture is a Roman Aqueduct from 2000 years ago, had nothing to do with Al-Sumayriyya. Hanay (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The aqueduct on the picture is said to be situated near Lohamei HaGeta'ot, which is now on the lands of Al-Sumayriyya. As the aqueduct near Al-Sumayriyya was noticed in the nineteenth century, it may be the same ! --Cgolds (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Aqueduct
Talk:Suruh

message: The anon editor claims, in this edit, that Morris does not support the material. Morris says the following on p 506:The border-clearing began a few days before. On 7 November, the Ninth Brigade ordered 'all the inhabitants of . . . Iqrit', about three kilometres south of the frontier, to evacuate their village – 'except the priest' – the following day and move to Rama, 'for reasons of public security'. They were told that their removal was for 15 days. Simultaneously, orders were issued to the remaining inhabitants of neighbouring Tarbikha
(Shi‘ite) and its two satellite hamlets, Suruh (Sunni) and Nabi Rubin (Sunni), to leave for Lebanon, which most did.Morris directly supports that Tarbikha, Suruh, and Nabi Rubin were given expulsion orders, though I suppose he doesnt say that the Ninth Brigade issued the orders for these villages, only that they gave them for Iqrit. The citation also supports that most of the resident left for Lebanon. I am restoring the next with the mention of the Ninth Brigade elided. nableezy - 06:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morris p 506 

message: See Talk:Al-Nabi Rubin, Acre, lets keep the discussion over there, Huldra (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khalidi mistake w.r.t Israeli settlements??