lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Sunday Times Rich List

message: "The Rich List is not limited to British citizens and it includes individuals and families born overseas but who predominantly work and/or live in Britain. This excludes..."
If it is not limited to the British, why would it exclude some British 'inividuals' all of a sudden?
I mean it's not logical.
Bruno  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bblontrock (talk • contribs) 04:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include/exclude 

message: Could this article use Template:Infobox magazine or some similar? PPEMES (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: In case nobody noticed, the entire section "Lists by year" is completely empty on mobile. That's because it uses a badly functioning template called Navbox which simply doesn't display anything on mobile - not even a message that it is uncapable of handling mobile. It's probably a bad idea to use that template in such a central place in this article. I believe it would be better to have a simple list instead. Navbox can be used for less important information, but not for central information like this in the middle of an article.
Note that mobile is the most important medium for Wikipedia (most page views), so the current choice cuts off most of the audience. Jhertel (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section Lists by year is completely empty on mobile
Talk:Mimeogram

message: What is the basis for merging most articles on surrealist techniques into one article?  It can't be that the techniques in question are of minor importance, as even techniques of central importance, such as automatic poetry, have been merged there.  The fundamental ignorance of the movement by many of those involved in Wikipedia can be characterised by the fact that automatic  writing has had its significance in surrealism equated with chocolate coulage, and it has been described as a "surrealist game."  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:48, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Talk:Salami slicing tactics

message: Both articles cover the same topic. Merging them into one article will make them more comprehensive. Separate articles not needed here as now considering the limited content. DTM (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see, the Washington Post article uses salami tactics interchangeably with salami slicing. It defines salami tactics using the word 'slices' — "A state gradually grabs small slices until others realize that the entire sausage is gone." DTM (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Support; similar concepts; if Salami tactics refers only to politics then it will fit very nicely into the currently-rather-bare Salami slicing#In politics. Klbrain (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Salami tactics]] into [[Salami slicing]] 

message: According to the article, salami slicing tactics involve encroaching influence and ownership over a thing. All of the examples in the frauds section are instead about penny-shaving. There is no creeping possession of a whole, they're just taking tiny bits over time. As such, I think the whole Financial Frauds section should be removed. It's not bad information for what it is but it's not relevant to the subject of the article. I'm left to wonder how they got there in the first place, and how they managed to remain for so long.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHarris (talk • contribs) 23:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the Financial Frauds section in here? 

message: Remove the financial frauds. Coins are shaped like salami slices but that has nothing to do with tactics. 2600:6C64:7B7F:8400:CD7B:ACE1:E61D:6F11 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial frauds section does not fit this article.
Talk:Elagabalus

message: The gender identity of Elagabalus is a contentious topic and has been raised here before. The most radical claim — that Elagabalus claimed to be a woman and wanted confirming surgery — came from a historian who was also a public official, and answered to the same people who condemned Elagabalus's memory. This article follows the prevailing approach of scholarship by regarding those claims skeptically and thus uses masculine pronouns.
Before requesting a change related to this topic, please review the talk page archives. These are available through the header at the top of this page, which is visible only on large-screen devices. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please read this before requesting a change regarding gender identity 

message: Please add the following template:
 98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to ask the editors at the ancient Egypt wikiproject to weigh-in. The emperors of Rome from Augustus onwards, aka the Roman pharaohs, had pharaohnic titulary and many depicted themselves as pharaohs of Egypt (Caracalla, Hadrian and Trajan immediately come to mind). They are also listed within the template as pharaohs. This period of Egyptian history, however, is outside my wheelhouse. The majority of my Egyptological sources omit the Roman emperors from their lists, ending it with the Hellenic period, though the Oxford History of ancient Egypt (2004) includes all of the ones whose titulary is known. Elagabalus and Severus Alexander are not among them. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've raised the question at the wikiproject. This request needs some discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented at the talk page of the template; i really don't think it adds value to all the emperors' pages. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 20:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Thank you User:Mr rnddude, for elucidating this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a note on the Wikiproject to centralise discussion to the template's talk page. I think it's the most relevant page, especially if the Roman period is removed from the template as being beyond the usually understood scope. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2024 

message: Add Aurelius Zoticus to list of spouses. 2601:1C2:5100:3F30:66A1:66E:7819:E2B0 (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 10:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2024
Talk:The Human Stain

message: "As Roth wrote in the novel, Silk chose 'to take the future into his own hands rather than to leave it to an unenlightened society to determine his fate'"[2] - Or so runs our text.  Well,  it is standard to attribute opinions and such uttered by characters to the character and not to the author.    In the case of this book, our article starts out by saying that the book is written from the point of view of one character.  So, it would seem, we could perhaps say, "As [Roth's character] Nathan Zuckerman says ..."  Even more egregious is that the footnote (2a) takes us to a discussion  in the of the work in the NYT which starts with "to take..." with an implicit indication  (i.e., the quotation marks) that it comes from the book, but not indicating who (Zuckerman or Silk) beyond the earlier explanation that the story at large was Zuckerman's telling.  If we're going to use a quotation from the book (to give us an idea of the subject), why not use it from the book?  If we want to express Kakutani's (he's the author of the NYT article) view of Silk (or issues emanating from Silk's actions etc.), then we should say that's what we're doing. Kdammers (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor source and probably falsely attributed 

message: This section is pretty slippery. Nobody can be a greater expert on what inspired the author than the author. How could there possibly be a reliable source on the source of someone else's inspiration? Mindreading?
The writing in the opening sentence seems aimed to defend Wikipedia's role in the issue. "Connected" is a slippery word. It is then followed by "the same suggestion." What suggestion? No suggestion was made. The suggestion of a connection?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyondallmeaning (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the information of the editors working on this article, user Beyondallmeaning was a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user and has also been indefinitely blocked . They should not have made any edits at all so all their comments may be disregarded.Smeat75 (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatole Broyard controversy 

message: Pacific Standard: A hardened corps of volunteer editors is the only force protecting Wikipedia. They might also be killing it.
In a notorious case, Philip Roth petitioned Wikipedia to correct a description of the origin of his novel The Human Stain, only to be told by a Wikipedia administrator, “I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work, but we require secondary sources.”
New Yorker article: An Open Letter to Wikipedia BY PHILIP ROTH
Who was this administrator, and was he demoted? Letstrythisagain2 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think they were.  Factual correction: Roth did not himself communicate with the volunteer. The person the volunteer did communicate with was in a perfect position to produce a secondary source; he ultimately chose not to and Roth produced a usable primary source instead. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Killed Wikipedia?
Talk:Welfarism

message: It does not explain what is welfarism. It just goes around the subject.
Welfarism is not a form of consequentialism.  It is an axiological theory.  Roughly speaking, welfarism + consequentialism = utilitarianism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.30.91 (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad definition 

message: The Penal welfarism article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own.  It should be merged into this article. Neelix (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Penal welfarism]]
Talk:Subliminal stimuli

message: I excised this paragraph from the section "Self-help audio recordings" as it talked about the placebo effect more than subliminal stimuli. I have left it here for posterity to be either reworked or used in Placebo effect.
I have also removed the subsection "Associative advertising" as it was not cited. Feel free to bring it back if there are reliable sources to use there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyeditor passing by
Talk:Islet

message: What is this "MCBH" in the photo caption? --Menchi 22:25, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)
:I was wondering if I should use that or the full name.  I can link instead to its page; otherwise substitute for the acronym.-Marshman 23:30, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the full title in; otherwise it is confusing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo caption 

message: I recently saw someone change Munkholmen from an island to an islet.
Munkholmen is 13.000 square meters according to the Norwegian Wikipedia; it's about 150 metres across. Should that be considered a big islet or a smal island? --Alvestrand 08:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How small? 

message: There aughta be a disambiguation to the thing that produces insulin. Somegeek 23:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that. I actually came to this page to read about the pancreatic islet. Dkechag 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pancreas? 

message: Why does this article exist? All it says is that an islet is a small island which is a dictionary entry not an encyclopedia article. Abtract 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionary?

message: I renamed the section and rep'd this rambling sentence:
: As with many of these terms, the actual size limits of islets are subjective, and vary.
If there are regional variations or occupational variations, give some examples. To say "subjective" conveys no information. We could use some examples of  particularly small named islets, and descriptions of relatively large things that have been verifiably been called "an islet" without geographers calling the usage "surprising" or "bizarre".
BTW, the top of that image is always above, but if the reader's window is narrow enuf (or the lead secn grows), there's nothing to the right.
I don't think i know enuf to rewrite
: Likewise, any emergent land on an atoll (a type of island) is also called an islet.
("On an atoll? Would you call almost touching it "on" it? Isn't any land actually touching an atoll part of the atoll? Actually, i think atolls usually have multiple islands.  Does this just imply being on the rim of the same former volcano, and bordering the same lagoon?)--Jerzy•t 19:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Types
Talk:High-definition television

message: There are two tables shown, with the main distinction between them being the "Native resolution" and "Screen resolution". This appears to be OR and doesn't adequately explain what the difference is. The latter table actually contains the "clean aperture" size, which is not a resolution format. It just tells the hardware engineer (and possibly a doting video producer) which parts of the image should be guaranteed from signal noise, i.e. it is a technical implementation detail of little interest to anyone who isn't a TV manufacturer. It is undue weight to treat these as "common" resolutions as there is no actual display that has or uses this "screen resolution". Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display resolutions - misleading table separation 

message: I request an examination of the following excerpt from section Formats:
I believe broadcasts have largely evolved toward 1080p recording and transmission, as was the original intention of the HDTV transition, begun before consumer devices supported their current capacity. Equally, streaming broadcasts widely available, even of amateur creation, seem to be appearing at or beyond this resolution.
The analysis given in the article may be dated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epl (talk • contribs) 15:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly obsolete claims about broadcast and streaming formats
Talk:Constitution of East Germany

message: I'm wondering if this article would be better at Constitution of East Germany?  It makes it easier to search for if someone is looking for "East Germany".
Also, was the DDR really created in 1989? RickK 03:06, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  In fact, I'll move it immediately. --Robert Merkel 03:16, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Reading the section on the 1968 constitution, there are a number of phrases placed inside quotation marks - an example being "public debate". What is the intent here? The implication is that there was a debate which was, nominally at least, open and free but was in fact not so, due to the prevailing social and political climate in the DDR at that time. I think this should be expanded. I am quite prepared to believe that debate was not free by modern liberal democratic standards, but merely putting the phrase in quotes is at best ambiguous and at worst NPOV. I'm not qualified to edit this, as I have no specialised knowledge of the DDR, so take this as a comment only. Rob Burbidge (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate and the 1968 constitution: NPOV? 
Talk:Peter Nichols (playwright)

message: I think you may have gone a little overboard on adding links. DJ Clayworth 03:18, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Overboard

message: According to what I've seen The Hooded Terror was televised before it was produced as a play. I'm unclear about whether he wrote it as a play but adapted for television, or wrote it for television and adapted it for the stage. DJ Clayworth 16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hooded Terror

message: Did he not also write a piece called Lingua Franca; if so should this not be mentioned on the main page--TimothyJacobson (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lingua Franca

message: The following is a version of the page that has lots of information, but has problem with both formatting and citations.  I've moved it here so we can grab and improve the good stuff!  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution that needs some work 
Talk:Anxiety disorder

message: — Assignment last updated by Am12058 (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

message: — Assignment last updated by Isabelsteffes (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research

message: — Assignment last updated by Nrjohns1 (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse

message: Not sure that the current image choice of The Scream, 1893 by Edvard Munch is appropriate. I wonder if there is a better / more suitable image that could be used? Or if the image should just be removed. Would love people's thoughts. Givebackday (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image choice
Talk:Doctor Eggman

message: I’m pretty sure that an unused voice line for Omochao in Sonic Adventure 2 claimed that Eggman’s mustache is fake. 2601:646:C980:4C20:4449:DE84:2C60:EB4A (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake Mustache 

message: that is all  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skcin7 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article disagrees with you.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not "Doctor", it's "Dr.".     It's not "Eggman", it's "Robotnik".   The name of this page should be "Dr. Robotnik". 

message: Terms like Overlander, Kintobor that doesn't apply to the videogames nor other media only should be kept inside the Comic section. 2001:8A0:65B6:D800:98:FCF1:DFFC:6908 (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic Terminology 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :You know what they say, the more the merrier! and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#You know what they say, the more the merrier! until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 18:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "You know what they say, the more the merrier!" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: In the Appearances section, for the Sonic Frontiers game, it says (emphasis mine):
 In Sonic Frontiers, Eggman has resurfaced, engaging Amy Rose in a battle mech, with Sonic and Tails arriving to help her out. After destroying the mech and driving Eggman off, the trio realize it was to keep them distracted to his true goal, having learned of a mysterious new archipelago known as Starfall Islands, home to immensely advanced technologies created by the Ancients, the ancestors to the Mobians who settled on Mobius in distant past and the creators of the Chaos Emeralds. [...]
I've just finished the game and unless I'm mistaken, that scene is nowhere to be found in either the game or the trailers. In fact, the game starts with Dr. Eggman getting sucked into Cyber Space, and the team already on their way to the Starfall Islands.
So where is this scene from, then? Is there some additional promo material I've missed that showcases this? Linkyu (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the source! It's from the prologue comic that was posted on the official sonic twitter: https://twitter.com/sonic_hedgehog/status/1582370960354660352 and https://twitter.com/sonic_hedgehog/status/1584911709021798401 Linkyu (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frontiers mech battle? 

message: The redirect Dr. R has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  MSMST1543 (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Dr. R]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Death Eater

message: Copying here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Eater:
*"Death Eaters and Dark Wizards: Terror and Counterterror" in The Politics of Harry Potter, pp 95-115: "Could there be a more archetypal terrorist1 organization than the Death Eaters? Their masks, their love of theatrics, their choice of targets and tactics with powerful emotional impact, and their ability to hide in plain sight— in many ways they are the quintessential 'terrorist group' as it has been constructed in the popular collective consciousness, and they similarly bedevil the “legitimate” power of the Ministry to stop them."
*"Crime : "Or dear Bellatrix, who likes to play with her food before she eats it" : why we need Death Eaters" in The sociology of Harry Potter : 22 enchanting essays on the wizarding world
*"Death Eaters and Discrimination" in Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy : Hogwarts for Muggles
*"Voldemort, Death Eaters, dementors, and the dark arts : a contemporary theology of spiritual perversion in the Harry Potter stories" in The lure of the dark side : Satan and western demonology in popular culture
*A Wizard of Their Age: Critical Essays from the Harry Potter Generation index has Death Eaters on pages 77–78, 103, 110, 203, 230-232 (the multi-page ones are more likely significant coverage)
*Reading Harry Potter Again: New Critical Essays index has Death Eaters on pages 2, 18-19, 79-80, 86, 143-145, 149-50, 153-54 (multi-page items likely have significant coverage)
Also found the following:
*Was Voldemort a Nazi? : Death Eater ideology and National Socialism in Harry Potter and History
*Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter – index shows 96, 130–1
Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to use
Talk:Number sign

message: Hello. Perhaps this qualifies as a mention or something on the main page - the multiple uses of this symbol were a primary feature of today's NY Times crossword puzzle! They included: 1) number, 2) space, 3) sharp, and 4) pound. The puzzle also included 2 names for the symbol: hash tag and octo thorpe. Would more info be useful or anything, for any editors interested? I'm still very much in learning mode, so don't feel up to tackling that addition myself. Regards, ClarityKTMpls (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured in NY Times Crossword Puzzle on 7/26/18 

message: I recall some data processing people whom I knew in the 1970s pronounced it "box" when reading it aloud in a string of characters. It was one of just two (along with "@") non-letter non-numerals that was permitted in computer program and file names in the IBM-360 era. WHPratt (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Name 

message: ¨Occasionally used in the UK (e.g. sometimes in BT publications and automatic messages) – especially during the Prestel era, when the symbol was a page address delimiter.¨  This is not a sentence.  Is it supposed to mean ¨Ït is occasionally used...¨?
: Ancient history now but the missing verb is 'was' and belongs in front of 'occasionally'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fragment 

message: One Stephen “Luigi” Mullen, who me history in the closing overs of the 1970s, used it as shorthand for “versus”.  Was this commonplace thing or just something he made up?  I've certainly not encountered it anywhere else. Mr Larrington (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Uses