lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Catepanate of Italy

message: For consideration...An additional but relevant dimension that might be added to this article, besides the existing political one, would be to have a separate section on the religious / cultural aspect of this province of the Byzantine Empire. This could include a discussion of Italo-Greek Monasticism. The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages has an entry for this term, including the following definition:
::"The term "Italo-Greek monasticism" refers to the implantation and history of Byzantine monasticism in Sicily and southern Italy. By the mid 9th c. Sicily was already reputed to be the home of numerous Greek hermits and small gatherings of monks famed for their ascetic experience. Substantial documentary evidence for the presence of Byzantine monks in southern Italy first appears in the 9th and 10th cc. and consists primarily in the lives of the great ascetic saints of this region..."
::* Robert E. Sinkewicz. "Italo-Greek". In: Richard Barrie Dobson. Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 2 (K-Z). Eds.: André Vauchez, Michael Lapidge. Transl: Adrian Walford. Routledge, 2000. p.974.
One prominent Byzantine Saint from this region for example, was Saint Luke of Sicily (Leoluca) (†ca. 915); another is Saint Nilus of Rossano (†1005); although there may be others as well. And while Wikipedia does have an article on "Basilian monk", that article does not really describe in any detail the implantation of Byzantine Rite Orthodoxy is Southern Italy and Sicily - which apparently slightly predates the monastic establishment on Mount Athos. One extensive series of articles on this subject that could be consulted is as follows:
::* K. Lake. "The Greek Monasteries in South Italy I." J Theol Studies (1903) os-IV(15): 345-368 doi:10.1093/jts/os-IV.15.345.
::* K. Lake. "The Greek Monasteries in South Italy II." J Theol Studies (1903) os-IV(16): 517-542 doi:10.1093/jts/os-IV.16.517.
::* K. Lake. "The Greek Monasteries in South Italy III." J Theol Studies (1903) os-V(17): 22-41 doi:10.1093/jts/os-V.17.22.
::* K. Lake. "The Greek Monasteries in South Italy IV." J Theol Studies (1904) os-V(18): 189-202 doi:10.1093/jts/os-V.18.189.
Also:
::* David Paul Hester. Monasticism and Spirituality of the Italo-Greeks. Volume 55 of Analekta Vlatadōn. Patriarachal Institute for Patristic Studies [Patriarchikon Hidryma Paterikon Meleton], 1992.
At any rate, just wanted to raise the idea, and identify the sources above (although it may be that this should be covered in a separate article, just as the article on the Griko language is covered separately, and it might require a subject matter expert). Cheers, ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of Scope?

message: I've noticed that the map in this page is wrong.The Byzantins didn't control Naples neither Amalfi that time.Also,the borders were not so north of Bari.In 1040s, Georgios Maniakis liberated several towns in Eastern Sicilly.Could anyone depict the latter on the map?.--DCGT888 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map
Talk:The Hidden Ivies

message: The list of schools in the (presumably) 30-school group contains 36 schools. DMacks (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I reverted the list back to the ones listed when this was discussed and fixed in fall 2006. DMacks (talk)
This page is not updated to show the addition of 13 more schools that were just added in the third publication of Hidden Ivies that came out recently. Jconnor817 (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which schools? 

message: Why did you delete nearly all of the information about the first and second editions of this book to make this article only about the third edition? ElKevbo (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted info from first and second editions?
Talk:Blackhorse Road station

message: I don't know how to fix the image. It's supposed to be in the Artwork section, but it's currently stuck in References. Someone please save me.GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because of the rules for floating objects. The template  is a floating object, and its upper edge is constrained by the lower edge of the infobox (also a floating object), which means that any subsequent floating object - such as the :File:Tile design at Blackhorse Road underground station - geograph.org.uk - 1767778.jpg image - cannot have its top edge any higher than that point. Notice how in my demo, the upper edge of the third image is no higher than the upper edge of the second. In the article, you could move the  to some point in the page that is after the image. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halp with Image please
Talk:Bloor–Yonge station

message: Why do we need two entries for the tunnel to upper Bay and Lower Bay?  They both go from the same station to the same station, with the same distance and travel time.  I don't see the need for this, and it only clutters things up.  Also, what is the reference for the distances and times?  All the times seem reasonable to me, but some of the distances seem odd - they seem to be measured from the street intersections, and not the stations. Nfitz 16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The times, I believe, are from an official TTC chart. The distances, at least the ones I posted, are approximated from maps, hence the ‘approximate’ sign. David Arthur 00:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  'approximate' sign??  All I see is a little box - □  Are you thinking there should be something like ~ or ≈? Nfitz 01:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunnel to Bay 

message: This article has been edited to conform with a standard scheme for subsections in TTC station Wiki pages proposed here: Talk:Toronto_subway_and_RT#Individual_Station_articles_-_a_standard_scheme_for_subsections. -A.Roz (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 29 June 2009 edits

message: With the new addition of the 1, 2 and 3 numbers beside the station name on each article, it would be useful to also put a Wi-Fi symbol there too. Can anyone create a template for this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpgenius (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Impose? I don't think so. Martin Morin (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impose a wifi template for each station headline
Talk:60th Street Tunnel Connection

message: I can't find any sources for this name. --NE2 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "60TH ST. TUNNEL CONN." -- New York City Transit Authority, Rapid Transit Construction Program, Map, File No. 72, Dwg. No. 699, dated June 14, 1954. -- Cecropia 06:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I'll cite that in the article. Here's another that calls it the "Sixtieth Street rapid transit tunnel connection", and a few in . --NE2 08:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Guhan

message: I originally tagged the vandalized version of this article for speedy deletion as patent nonsense, but removed the tag after reviewing the history. Please disregard it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The actual name is Guha, not Guhan. The suffix -an is a system peculiar to Tamil language. Since this is a sanskrit word, originally found in the Ramayana, the article's name needs to be modified appropriately. Thanks ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming necessary
Talk:BMT Brighton Line

message: ;1a
*1920-: local, Stillwell-57th via tunnel (all times but weekday and Saturday evenings; by 1931 to Queensboro Plaza in rush hours and middays)
;1b
*1920-: local, Stillwell-57th via bridge (weekday and Saturday evenings; also Sundays by mid-1930s)
;1c
*1920-: express, Brighton Beach-42nd via bridge (weekday and Saturday rush hours and Saturday afternoons; later also middays)
;1d
*Prospect Park (later Kings Highway)-Queensboro Plaza via tunnel (weekday middays); eliminated by 1931
The above is incomplete. --NE2 03:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Service history

message: There should be a note about the 2009 station reconstructions. I would add it, but I have other tasks to complete. Tinlinkin (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 reconstruction 

message: The article indicates that the Brooklyn, Flatbush and Coney Island Railway was established on July 2, 1878. Are you sure it's not August 7, 1876, as per the discussion here? ---------User:DanTD (talk)  05:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2, 1878, or August 7, 1876?
Talk:BMT Brooklyn Loops

message: dabing Culver Line to "IND Culver Line" is an anachronism. The Nassau Loop opened in 1931 and provided subway service to the BMT Culver Line. IND Culver Line service never accessed the Nassau Loop, and whether or not you believe that the current Culver Line south of Ditmas Avenue is IND or BMT, it certainly wasn't IND for nearly a quarter-century after the BMT Culver subway service began. -- Cecropia (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culver Line 

message: Subj.
Vcohen (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure does, and I'm going to tag it for maps. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  22:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This series of articles actually lacks maps
Talk:BMT Nassau Street Line

message: ;1 → QJ
*mid-1930s-1967: Broad via bridge (morning rush hours only)
*1967-1973: through with J
;2 → RR → RJ → RR
*mid-1930s-1967: Broad via bridge (morning rush hours only)
*1967-1968: through with J (rush hours only)
*1968-1980s: Chambers (rush hours only)
;3 → TT
*1931-1967: CW loop (rush hours only; later daytime only)
;5
*1931-1959?: Chambers via tunnel (CCW loop rush hours)
;10 → M
*1914-1968: Chambers (daytime only)
*1968-1973: Broad (daytime only)
*1973-1995: through with B (daytime only; cut back to Chambers middays 1995-2001 and 2004-present)
;14 → JJ/RJ
*1913-?: Chambers (Canal am rush hours)
*?-1967: Canal (daytime only)
*1967-1968: JJ Broad (daytime only; rush hours to Canal), RJ through with R (rush hours only)
;15 → QJ → J/Z
*1913-1931: Chambers
*1931-1967: Broad
*1967-1973: through with Q
*1973-present: Broad (cut back to Chambers weekends in 1990s)
;1924-25
*10 Chambers (daytime only)
*14 Chambers (Canal am rush hours)
*15 Chambers
;1931-39
*1 special Broad via bridge (morning rush hours only): added between 1931 and 1937
*2 special Broad via bridge (morning rush hours only): added between 1931 and 1937
*3b CW loop (rush hours only)
*5a Chambers via tunnel (CCW loop rush hours)
*10 Chambers (daytime only)
*14 Canal (daytime only)
*15 Broad
It appears that the Manhattan Bridge south tracks were unused until 1931, unless they were used in the early days but then all trains were taken off. --NE2 03:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on service history
Talk:Bojeong station

message: Would anyone mind if I removed the Bundang template from this article?  Bojeong Station is not in Bundang.  It is in Yongin. JPBarrass 16:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bundang

message: Is it even true that the station will be rebuilt underground?? 66.27.215.103 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Underground station in the future
Talk:Innovia APM 100

message: As of 29 January, 2021 Bombardier Transportation has been aqcuired by Alstom. Press release is here. How does this affect the future of this APM? AsimovtheCat (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Bombardier
Talk:Bonaventure station

message: I don't think this statement is true. Guy and Peel metro stations both had elevators servicing office buildings above ever since 1966.
69.17.232.171 (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputing: "formerly the only elevator in the system" 

message: What about the future connection to the Réseau express métropolitain? Peter Horn User talk 20:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection
Talk:Out of the Blue (2006 film)

message: The plot summary was removed per WP:CP (see edit summary).  See also this essay. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of plot summary 
Talk:Barysaŭski trakt

message: Is the "Belarusian National Technical University" the same as Belarusian State Technological University? --Amir E. Aharoni 08:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Belarusian National Technical University = former Belarusian State Politechnical Academy = former Belarusian Politechnical Institute. Unomano 08:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belarusian National Technical University 

message: Borisovsky Trakt is inside of the Minsk ring road, not beyond. Unomano 15:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond 

message: The station is spelled Barysaŭski Trakt in Latin characters, see the Minsk metro map. --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please change the article name
Talk:Bounds Green tube station

message: It seems to me that these two sentences: "When the damage was repaired the platform walls were not retiled. In 1994 the station was renovated and the missing tiles were replaced." - add up to "so there is nothing to see there." It *used* to be relevant, before 94, which is why it's mentioned in older history books, but now there is the plaque, as noted in this article, but nothing else. I suggest that both sentences should be removed. What do you think? 82.45.248.177 01:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree --IsarSteve 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retiled = irrelevant? 

message: I like many of the recent changes but I absolutely don't get this new paragraph under "history":
"The station was planned by the Great Northern and Strand Railway (GN&SR), which had received parliamentary approval for a route from Wood Green station (now Alexandra Palace) to Strand in 1899.[7] After the GN&SR was taken over by the Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway (B&PCR) in September 1901, the two companies came under the control of Charles Yerkes' Metropolitan District Electric Traction Company before being transferred to his new holding company, the Underground Electric Railways Company of London (UERL) in June 1902.[8] The companies were formally merged as the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway following parliamentary approval in November 1902.[9][10][11]"
This doesn't seem to relate to BG station. The GN&SR sounds way too early for when these extensions  happened, and the route is wrong - they may have got that approval but even if they'd built it BG would not be on a route between Ally Pally (any of them!) and Strand. Am I just being thick here? Soneone please explain. Thanks DBaK (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The content was added by , it has all the appearance of being copypasted from another page - but from which one, I don't know; and since there is no attribution, that is a violation of WP:CWW. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Looks a bit like it's from Holborn tube station or nearby. I think I might remove it. I honestly do not believe it is correct here. Thanks and best wishes  DBaK (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly not correct: the GN&S / GNP&B went no further north than Finsbury Park. The northwards extension from FP was the final fling of the UERL, with the last bit (Oakwood-Cockfosters) being opened in the first weeks of the LPTB. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Just asking but what is the difference between copy paste and copy edit?Vincent60030 (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy paste is where you copy from one page and paste it into another. Copy edit is where you carefully read through text, making corrections for spelling, punctuation, grammar and so on. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned by whom?
Talk:Bow Road tube station

message: Is the pretty box about an imaginary station worth the extra scrolling it requires?--SilasW (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soap  

message: Official LU documents including scale drawings for signalling equipment show that Bow Bank is no steeper than 1 in 38, not 1 in 28.  Can we find a suitable bit of verification in the public domain that corroborates either version? 31.53.52.3 (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gradient at Bow Bank
Talk:Bowling Green station

message: I'm hoping no one minds (I apologize if they do), but I have merged the content from Bowling Green IRT Control House into this article.  I do not think we need a separate article on a piece of a subway station; though I do understand that it is historic.  (BTW, its photo "1" on nycsubay.org; it looks like they did the Bowling Green station first and the entry was the first thing they came to) Jason McHuff (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good move. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think we should remove the GA nomination template for now. I'm still finding plenty of unsourced content, which would be a quick fail. epicgenius (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's reasonable. Thank you a lot for finding the sources. These are very helpful, and I think the page is ready for GA now. I raised the issue because, in my recent experience, my most recent GAs were reviewed relatively quickly, within a month or two of me nominating them. Thanks again for the additions, and stay healthy. epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: Can the "Image gallery" section be removed if the images are scattered or even reduced in number? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I have now done this. epicgenius (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery
Talk:Bras Basah MRT station

message: some better ones than the two currently displayed in this article.  The station the subject of this article was named the World Transport Building of the Year in 2009.  It therefore deserves some really top class photos.  A good idea of the sorts of photos required can be gleaned from the webside of WOHA, the architects of the station.  There must be a Singapore based Wikieditor who could take some similar photos and upload them.  Bahnfrend (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos required
Talk:Federal District Metro (Brazil)

message: This is unidiomatic and has a promotional tone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The big news is a great place to be built

message: More bad English.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  To travel on the metro, tickets are unitary, which contains a single trip, or the magnetic card, which are inserted into the travel claims.

message: The article needs to be moved to the correct metro name that is Federal District Metro (Brazil). 177.12.84.10 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Specdens (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the article
Talk:Newark Broad Street station

message: Older version of the SEPTA Broad Street Line article have a hatnote mentioning the Broad Street Line (Newark). Was this former trolley line connected to this station? ----DanTD (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably was a reference to the Broad Street Line of the Newark Light Rail.oknazevad (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link was previously known as the Broad Street Line. Mystache (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Other way around. The Broad Street Line was originally planned as phase one of the Newark-Elizabeth link, which has since been scrubbed.oknazevad (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Evidently User:NE2 created that template, and he insists that it's a bus line that was a former streetcar line. Maybe that history should be added to a separate chapter in the Newark Light Rail article. ----DanTD (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouodnt surprise me if there were such a former trolley route, but if that's the case, then the history belongs with the appropriate bus route, not NLR, as there's no continuity of operations linking the. A short mention might be a good idea, but not a whole section. oknazevad (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, a whole chapter for the NLR Broad Steet Line that mentions the old BSL is just what I had in mind. ----DanTD (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the Newark Broad Street Trolley here too? 

message: CNJ had a Broad Street station (at other times(?) called Lafayette Street terminal) in Newark as well (the western terminus of the Communipaw-Kearny-Newark line, formerly Newark and New York Railroad), where the Prudential Center is now. For people not from the area who look at old schedules, this might be confusing and should maybe be mentioned in the article? --Thogo 05:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The other Newark Broad Street Station
Talk:Broadview station

message: Someone has hit several articles indicating that the majority of the stations of the Danforth Ave. Stations were in both East York and Toronto (Former City). Please consult a map of the old city boundries before editing such content. the dividing line as indicated on several maps (such as this one: ) is clearly North of Danforth. This therefore means the station was ONLY located in the former city of Toronto. 
Eja2k (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Station location within former municipality
Talk:National Palace of Culture

message: According to urban legends, NDK was built using much more concrete than necessary, and its base can survive bombing. The underground part is very large, and its original purpose is unclear. It would be interesting to find a source. --Cameltrader 07:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just rumours 

message: This article is almost entirely lacking verification. Also much of the content reads like an advertising/PR resumé, going even further in this than the content of the subject's official website. Please take note that, after a respectful interval, I intend to return and remove a large quantity of unencyclopedic and unverified content. Bjenks (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified content 

message: One of the awards listed is by the Europe Business Assembly which has been identified as a vanity award, that is, bought and paid for by the National Palace. These awards are scams and is a strong signal that other awards listed may also be fraudulent in nature. -- GreenC 15:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vanity award]]s 