lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Réunion ibis

message: Réunion Flightless Ibis - move to Réunion Sacred Ibis. This bird was not flightless and the new name would be in line with ibis vernacular names. Dysmorodrepanis 19:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Any chance there could be a drawing/picture of the bird in some exotic books like that of Dodo?
:There are some on the Web: here and here. Whether head and upper neck were feathered or nude is uncertain - the relationships suggest they were nude and there is no real reason to suppose that the species evolved a feathered head again (the adaptive value when  - as one report puts it IIRC - browsing through "the filth" for worms etc is obvious). But no report mentions a nude head, so take your pick. Dysmorodrepanis 04:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OIC, you seem to mean a drawing from life! No, none that I know of. The extinct birds of Réunion are the least well documented in all the Mascarenes. Dysmorodrepanis 04:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawing 

message: There is a picture of a white dodo-like bird in the article and it's supposed to be an albino dodo. 
I read from somewhere that this can be another species, because if the bird was indeed an albino dodo, its claws should be close to pink or white. 
In the painting, the claws of the bird is black. Can it be that this is NOT an albino dodo, but another species of dodo-related bird?
:It is just a hypothtical drawing. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Dodo? 

message: I tried to fix this phrase in parentheses:
Similar nesting behaviour as on Rodrigues (of for the dodo for that matter) was never reported,
but I wasn't certain what meaning was intended. I opted for:
Similar nesting behaviour as on Rodrigues (in the Réunion bird, or in the dodo for that matter) was never reported,
hope I got that right.  Card Zero  (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "of for" 

message: Why are they extinct? 98.240.146.10 (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hunting and deforestation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  So...

message: Though the article has promoted, I have no problem with arguing further about improvements, Snowman. So I will respond to your comments here. 
*You seem to misunderstand what Fuller says in his books. He does not claim the white Dodo is valid, but he states that though no raphine bones have been found on the island, it does not mean there never was one (without specifying colour). That is why Cheke and Hume dismiss his claim. 
*Your interpretation of Buffon is different form how I understand it. He does not mention any voyagers seeing Dodos on Réunion, so I'm not sure what you mean by "where the ship went". 
*As for Gibbs, the article clearly uses plural, as in "such views", indicating that it is not just Fuller who is dismissed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuation of FAC comments
Talk:Joe Castiglione

message: Joe Castiglione is also the name of a rather prominent athletic director in college sports. He is the former AD at the University of Missouri and is now the AD at Oklahoma University. Could we consider creating seperate pages for the Red Sox announcer with the name and for the Oklahoma AD with the name?
Thanks.
:Done.  The article was given the name Joe Castiglione (Athletic Director).  It's a stub--please expand it. Chick Bowen 01:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Both Joe's and his son Duke's names on their pages end with "Jr." Is Duke the 'III' or is Joe 'Sr.'?
Ttenchantr (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who's Junior?

message: I added information about Castiglione's new 2012 book.Petercannon usf (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Book Added 
Template talk:British honours system

message: I created this template, as I felt that the series of articles listed deserved such a template.
The Gundam Wing Universal Century template was used, as it was the first I could find.
Also, if anyone knows of a list of templates on Wikipedia, and could direct me to it, I would appreciate it.
-- Sasuke Sarutobi 18:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: Order of St Patrick is on the front page right now, so I don't want to drastically alter the template. However, I find the current version hard to read, being simultaneously too large and overcrowded. I propose the following instead:
British honours system
Current Orders
Garter - Thistle - Bath - Sts Michael and George -
Distinguished Service - Royal Victorian - Merit - Imperial Service - British Empire - Companions of Honour
Old Orders
St Patrick - Royal Guelphic Order - Star of India -
Indian Empire - Crown of India
Other Honours and Appointments
Hereditary peer - Life peer - Baronet - Knight - St John - Other orders and decorations
Melchoir 01:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation 

message: I have added the Order of Burma to the old orders section.  I did this since it was done by the Soverign in right of the British Empire (if the Indian Orders can be included why not this one?) Dowew 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Burma 

message: I have added the Order of British India to this template —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dowew (talk • contribs) 08:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of British India 

message: This should not be on the list; although this was conferred on many Britons it was not a British order. It was conferred by the Crown of Hanover and continued to be so after 1837. Opera hat (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The Guelphic Order was definitely not British, but a Hanoverian honour. The most recent edition of the Coat of Arms, published by the Heraldry Society, contains an article that explains it all quite well. Also, the Venerable Order of St John is an Order and not a separate type of honour.--76.235.212.20 (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Guelphic Order 

message: Since the honours are technically dormant rather than former should that not be what it is called?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawjam (talk • contribs) 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. Seems like changed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Dormant not former

message: There should not be an external link contained in a template.  Per WP:ELNO "4. Links normally to be avoided " and "18.  External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages."  It should instead be located in the External link section of the appropriate article(s). — MrDolomite • Talk 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the removed link so it can be added as needed elsewhere.  Order of Wear. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to PDF
Talk:The Golden Years (EP)

message: A search on everyhit.com:  gives No.8 in May 1980. Alf 22:03, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and the sleevenotes to the Bronze Years box set says it was released on 3 May 1980 (and, yes, hit #8). So, where do the dates in the article come from? For now, I'll change it as sleevenotes have to be considered reliable (although in reality they're often wrong). --kingboyk 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appeared in Roda's second edit to the edit to the article, Burridge's book has May 3, 1980 also, so we're fine with that.--Alf melmac 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The release date is correct (easily verifible in Guiness British Hit Singles - 7 weeks on the charts, peaked at #8). I would suspect if there's any confusion with a festival on that date, then it may have been promoted on the back of it. But definitely recorded well before 25/May/1980. — Drwhawkfan (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: can somebody please make a link to the unrelated film of the same name, The Golden Years (1960 film) Yet-another-user 09:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done thanks--Alf melmac 21:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There is also a film by the same name
Talk:Bernese Highlands

message: The former article with the name Bernese Oberland has been moved regularily to Bernese Alps (at my request). -- j. 'mach' wust ˈtʰɔ̝ːk͡x 22:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: The Bernese Oberland is probably the most interesting region in the canton of Berne, but I wonder if it is really necessary to have a separated article. I think a section Bernese Oberland in the canton article would be better and more interesting to the reader and both article are already short. Also many other cantons have different geographic regions, but don't have different articles (Swiss Plateau and Swiss Alps cover the subject in general). The actual article could redirect directly on the specific section. Zacharie Grossen (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: no importance. Zacharie Grossen (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernese Oberland and Canton of Berne 

message: The title of this article, and of the area named, "Bernese Oberland", mixed by English and German words, is not an official naming, but misused by tourist organizations. So either it is correctly translated as "Bernese Highlands", or then by its original naming "Berner Oberland". IMHO it seems too cheap to mix it. But this kind of unconsidered usage is protoypical for the (cheap) mass tourism. ... Just an opinion. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange combination of English and German 
Talk:Military of the Grand Duchy of Finland

message: Should jäger link on this page really link to Finnish Jäger Troops, that article consentrating on the history of Jäger Battalion 27? Jägers of 1917 didn't have anything to do with the Jäger battalions of 1812, except for the name. Jäger (Jääkäri) is and has been a very common term in Finnish unit names, in fact all infantry soldiers today are called jägers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.137.10 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 21 June 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Link corrected. The article needs still some attention. Scoo 19:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Stereopathetic Soulmanure

message: Stereopathic Soul Manure → Stereopathic Soulmanure
Support It's the real name of the album. It's rediculous that it's not at that page. R'son-W 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Allmusic.com gave the album 3/5 not 2.5/5. Why would ye lie like that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.75.9.216 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMG rating 

message: What's the deal with the 8-6-85 songs that sound like a squirrel "sings" them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.189.244.137 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the deal...? 

message: Anyone notice how its like Meddle, Floyd doesnt seem to be an influence at all, but I see comparisons between him and Syd Barrett......  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.115 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover 

message: "Waitin' for a Train" is by Jimmie Rodgers. I've edited the page to show this.Iasp91 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All songs by Beck 

message: What is meant by "locked" in the context:
    "Bonus Noise" (unlisted) – 16:40
        * This is included on most discs, but not all. This track is also "locked".
This should be explained on this page or linked to a page that explains what it means.
Could it possibly refer to this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked_groove#Locked_grooves
Sakibomb222 (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked? 

message: The infobox says 1992-93 but the lead says 1988-93 ??? --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording dates
Category talk:Languages

message: The categorization of actual languages here is a complete mess.  Some languages are categorized with their family, while others are only categorized in the category for their own language.  It should be added that some languages are categorized in a broader language category, and others in narrower ones (such as West Germanic vs. Germanic).  The whole thing is a complete mess. john k 19:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The categorization of actual languages here is a complete mess. 

message: I am posting this here, because I am not sure where else to, but would it be a good idea to have the bable text sample for each language on their page?
Conglacio 09:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babel Text 

message: see bugzilla:000745#c4. Best regards ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 22:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  category for languages written in [[right-to-left]] scripta
Talk:9th millennium BC

message: This seems a bit far fetched to me - Trans-Atlantic trade in the 9th millennium BC?  Is there a source for this?
: There are some theories- Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact#Transatlantic_contact_during_the_Ice_Age. --Brunnock 20:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
: From evidence of what appears to be tobacco leaves or residue found in ancient Egyption tombs. Of course this would push the earliest date of trade to about 3000 BC, not 8000 BC as stated in this article. In either case it's all highly speculative. --Jquarry 22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trans-Atlantic contact

message: In this article it is stated that Maglemosians were seen already from c. 8750 BC. However in the article about Maglemosian culture, it is stated that they dwelled about 7500-6000 BC. This is not good, as it means a difference of ~ 1200 years. Who is right? -andy 92.227.80.165 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. 177.105.94.73 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maglemosian peoples - huge discrepancy!! 

message: All sources I've ever found say that dogs were domesticated up to 100,000 years ago. At any rate, it is well known that they were domesticated before the 9th millennium BC.Punkrockrunner (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well known by whom? Do you have a source? 74.132.249.206 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog Domestication 

message: I'm not a Christian, and 'BC' refers to something that is only belived by Christians. It is wrong that wikipedia should use BC. 'BCE' is the recognised universal terminology. this page name should be changed.
Colt .55 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting your arbitrary era change. The use of BCE/CE vs BC/AD has been a contentious issue on Wikipedia for years. No consensus was reached so the present guideline at WP:ERA is "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used ... It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a a substantive reason; the Monual of Style fovors neither system over the other." If you wish to revive the discussion, please do so on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Some archived discussions of this debate are in Wikipedia talk:Eras, Wikipedia talk:Eras/Compromise proposal, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. At least one editor was banned from making any era change, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2, in his case from BCE/CE to BC/AD thousands of times. I agree that in some articles, such as those on Judaism, that BCE/CE is preferred, which I stated on Talk:Hebrew calendar/BCE vs BC. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Please, my friend, don't say too much about this. 177.105.94.73 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  About BC
Talk:Satyendra Prasanna Sinha, 1st Baron Sinha

message: Should the stuff about his son's claim to the title perhaps be moved to a Baron Sinha article? john k 19:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely.  I'll move it. --Jfruh (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi editors, in reference to a question asked on Twitter, I want to check if the historical names like "Orissa" should be preserved or not for these article. Additionally, Orissa in British India was geographically larger than present day Odisha. There should be a separate entry for that. Isn't it? tagging  for more help. --Psubhashish (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Orissa" or "Odisha"
Talk:Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries

message: See Talk:Pseudo-Isidore where planning for the merge is starting. --FourthAve 12:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We could cut and paste the three articles, leaving them just as they presently are, to Edit/Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, and put a header at each article "This article is being merged with two others at Edit/Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries. Don't edit here: come and help instead." Then keeping changes minimal we could select the best topic sentences and build paragraphs from the three texts till we had incorporated everything. First we need to give everyone who has these pages on their Watchlists some time to speak up against any merging. When all is squared away, an administator could move the page histories and all that... erm, jazz. --Wetman 00:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Talk:History of FIFA

message: I quote: "...in 1974 ... João Havelange took over. ... Under his diplomacy, North and South Korea sent a joint team to the 1991 Youth Championship in Portugal, and Israel began competing Internationally."
Well, in 1970 Israel participated in the World Cup. This needs explaining.
* I believe Israel began competing AGAIN - they couldn't qualify for the World Cup because they weren't in Europe and Arab countries wouldn't allow them in their qualifying pools. Or something like that.  But, yes, it needs explaining. This whole article does.Zafiroblue05 23:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel what? 

message: England didn't get the world cup.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.75.239 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boo Hoo 

message: Why no mention of his controversial time as leader? His support for the apartheid regime in South Africa, and his attitudes towards the Asian and African confederations. His controversial leadership is what has lead to Sepp Blatter's strength within FIFA, and the tensions between the English FA and FIFA. MarshallMolasses (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir Stanley Rous Controversy
Talk:Doak Campbell Stadium

message: See FSU's webpage, that begins it's history with "The Florida State University, one of the largest and oldest of the ten institutions of higher learning in the State University System of Florida, had its beginning as early as 1823 when the Territorial Legislature began to plan a higher education system."  as well as "The year 1947 saw many changes. Demand by returning World War II veterans had brought men back to the campus in 1946 with the establishment of the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida, and on May 15, 1947, the Governor signed an act of the Legislature returning Florida State College for Women to coeducational status and naming it The Florida State University.  The Florida Legislature named it "The Florida State University", I would think that the law making body of the state pretty much determined the "legal name" there. http://www.fsu.edu/about/history.html AriGold 12:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "The" Florida State University and Clevelandguy's claim that it's not in the "legal name"

message: This article was rated as quality class B by WP College Football. That rating is too high for an article with absolutely no references. I have given it a rating of "Start" for WP Florida; the College Football WP might want to reassess this article. Horologium t-c 04:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality rating
Talk:Molefi Kete Asante

message: Who is Al Christie (clearly we don't mean the filmmaker who died in 1951), and what's the significance of this meeting?  Dvyost 19:59, 21 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: What does it mean that his 1998 book "generated afrocentrism"?  This seems strange. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  generated afrocentrism 

message: I suggested that Afrocentricity (book) be merged to this article because the book doesn't appear to be notable on its own. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: The statement "Asante holds extreme views about the right of white professors to teach black American history." is uncited editorial content in the cited Telegraph article.  Direct quotes (again uncited) of Asante, merely show that Asante sees *most* white professors as not having the proper orientation to adequately teach African American studies, and that the white teachers *tend* to be off on either orientation, facts, pedagogical skill, or humility.  In short, the citation does not support the article's current claim. Satyadasa (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  white professors: rewording 
Talk:Chinese box

message: ------
The original contents of this article were moved to Chinese box (torture) when creating the disambiguation page. --Tabor 20:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And now the original contents are gone ?  The link is red. -- 199.71.174.100 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese box (torture). --PFHLai 12:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

message: The chinese room argument is not, to my knowledge, ever known as the "Chinese Box" argument, so I have removed this from the intro. The confusion comes from two sources:
#Some people just accidentally call it the "chinese box argument". This is a mistake
#Larry Hauser wrote a paper called "Searle's Chinese Box: Debunking the Chinese Room Argument," which is a kind of play on words, connecting the "chinese box" metaphor with the the "chinese room" argument.
If you Googol "chinese box" Searle I don't believe you will get anything substantial except Hauser's paper, citations of Hauser's paper, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong. ----CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: v. Chinese Room
Talk:Dr. Otto Scratchansniff

message: Do we really need a seperate page for obscure cartoon characters? This could probably be trimmed down and put in the page about the actual cartoon.
:Animaniacs had a large cast of characters. Either each character's description would have to be pared down severely or the main article would increase vastly in size. Maybe creation of a page ("Characters from Animaniacs" or something of that sort) would be best if these articles really bother you that much. -DynSkeet (talk) 20:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
::"Characters from Animaniacs" might not be a bad idea, all things considered.  Most of the cast of characters other than the Warners and Pinky and the Brain simply don't have enough significant biographical information to rate more than a stub.  Then again, "Characters from Animaniacs" would be a huge article in its own right, which isn't really solving the problem any more than would stuffing all the info into the already substantial main article on Animaniacs, but it's still worth considering. -- Pennyforth 00:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)