lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Where is Kate?#Requested move 21 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Where is Kate?#Requested move 21 March 2024]] 

message: An article relevant to this Wikiproject is being considered for FA status (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha/archive1). Any comments would be appreciated. Llewee (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mark Phillips#Requested move 27 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Mark Phillips#Requested move 27 March 2024]] 

message: A discussion is going on at the Commons concerning the copyright status of several coats of arms that are in use on pages related to British royalty. Please feel free to share your comments and input at :commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Coat of arms of Queen Camilla.svg. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 18:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coats of arms and copyright
Talk:Boeing New Large Airplane

message: I cannot find any information that backs up this article. AdmRiley (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothan to Backup

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egreenfield01 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
Talk:Sobieski Stuarts

message: A recent edit gives Glamorgan 1795 and 1797 birth details for the brothers, but the ODNB (2004 edition) says "Mystery surrounds the places and dates of their births..." and "There is no reliable account of the youth and education of the brothers...". Does anyone know more about this? I also wonder about the reference to a sister named Matilda. The ODNB calls her Catherine, and names their mother as Katherine Matilda. It also says Charles' son was Charles Edward Lewis Casimir Stuart (1824–1882). --HJMG 14:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth dates? Glamorgan? 

message: We're eliding the fact that their claim to be lost grandsons of Bonnie Prince Charlie was even more controversial than the Vestiarium Scoticum; our article on the latter covers this better than our article on the Sobieski Stuarts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia article makes reference to my contribution to the subject at anthonyjcamp.com/page19.htm but includes little if any of the referenced material there. Perhaps someone should look at that! AnthonyCamp (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing controversy 

message: The piece by Hugh Trevor-Roper really needs to be mined for more detail. It's quite in-depth on the "Sobieski Stuarts", from p. 31 onward.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under-utilised source
Talk:Ælfweard of Wessex

message: Marked as a possible hoax - but there is probably simply confusion about spelling.
Springnuts 10:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoax ?

message: The ASC Ms C for 924 says 
The trusty Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England says (under Æthelstan) 
Presumably it should be moved to Ælfweard. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 10:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Is there a source for the 904 birthdate? The infobox says his birth year is unknown; LC does not have a heading for him in the authority file.--FeanorStar7 21:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate
Talk:Eadred

message: The DNB article (see edit earlier today) is not plagiarism: it is not used in the article and it is credited. It may be copyright violation, or there may be a fair use defence. If anything from it was used in the article, it would be credited, in just the same way as any other external source. Stikko (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record. In order to credit something, you need to specify your source, but all you did was a simple copypaste. No doubt you did that in good faith and we're only talking talk page space here, so I'm sorry if the edit summary came off a little too strong. You're right to point out that the real concerns are to do with copyright or fair use. For editors who'd like to use the article but don't have access to the (new) Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the diff is here (or contact me). Cavila (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Author's name was credited at the bottom.  The phrase "All the World's a Stage" can be credited to WS without naming the play. Stikko (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNB 

message: As the succession box stands, it may imply that Eadred was undisputed king of all the English from 946. I propose to amend it as follows: -
Alekksandr (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My reason for referring to him as 'King of Northumbria (as King of the English)' was that (AFAIK) he used the title 'King of the English' throughout his reign and never used the title 'King of Northumbria'.  And the first king whom wiki calls 'King of England' is William the Conqueror. I will therefore make the amendment suggested above. Alekksandr (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah man, I agree with you mostly, but just to correct you (wikepedia really) England included Northumbria as part of it for about 100 years before the Norman conquest. So technically William was not the first King of (all) England. In fact Æthelstan was the first King of England as he was the first to have possesion of all the seven former Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, that was before Eadred.12:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Northumbria
Talk:Harold Harefoot

message: It would be great if everything added here was clearly cited. Sometimes things have been added or changed in such a way that the existing citations no longer correspond to the information they are supposed to be citing. So, I mean, feel free to switch cites, or add new ones, but at least be mindful of it. Everyking 05:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:29th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom)

message: was there a 29th brigade serving in the First World war? I would have thought so; does anyone know? Can anyone add details?Xyl 54 12:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, I will take a quick look at a website I hopefully still have bookmarked. But I won't be able to do more then confirm/deny participation in WWI.--Caranorn 13:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, that website and our own 10th (Irish) Division (United Kingdom) gave me enough material to expand the article directly.--Caranorn 13:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World War I
Talk:John Stevens (scholar)

message: This page needs references to publications by Stevens. (hope I get around to that soon) --Philippe 12:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Great Falls (Potomac River)

message: Does any of this section belong in the article? DeSales 23:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting There Section

message: I added this removed paragraph back:  It was roughly 35,000 years ago that the Potomac River first began carving out the Great Falls of the Potomac. The waters of the river gather speed as they are forced through the narrow Mather Gorge and cascade over a series of several 20-foot (6-meter) falls. In all, the water falls a total of 76 feet (23 meters) in elevation over a distance of less than a mile (1.6 km), making the Great Falls of the Potomac the steepest and most spectacular fall line rapids of any river in the eastern United States. --- This useful paragraph was previously deleted by user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ibn_Battuta ... The reference is http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16620   This is a NASA/Government source. It is public domain. Feel free to paraphrase, but reproduction is permissible under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain_resources#US_Government  see also the press release http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2004/2004072217332.html want to cite the press release, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_press_release  so don't edit recklessly and remove this again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold or take a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR  Wxidea (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 18:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit 

message: I corrected the broken external link to the park's website, which apparently had changed, but the link to the visitor center is still broken.  Not sure what this pointed to, maybe the page doesn't exist any more.  I presume it's different from the external webpage for the Great Falls *Tavern* Visitor Center. Mcswell (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Unlike as labeled in some of the photos, there is not such place as the "Great Falls National Park", and that should be as plain as day. The "Great Falls Park" is a much smaller and more minor place that any National Park, such as Yosemite National Park.24.156.78.205 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlike as labeled in some of the photos
Talk:West Cornwall Railway

message: The links under the locomotives section are wrong (e.g. Zebra actually goes to the animal page) unless it was meant to be that way? Mammal4 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, ther isn't much value in linking to articles like Zebra. I'd recommend we remove the links (e.g. change Zebra to Zebra) unless one or more of the locos gets their own article. Gwernol 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The convention in locomotive articles is that a locomotive should not have its own article, but that a class or grpup of similar locomotives should. The names then link to other articles expalining where the name comes from. Okay, so I know what a zebra is, because I speak English as my first language, but does everyone know what Mounts Bay is? Geof Sheppard 07:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect links

message: This article doesn't include much about the history of the line and its topography. I'll have a shot a that, with a home-made map, and remove the comment critcising the article. This might take a couple of iterations, so please bear with me if the half-way stage looks incomplete. Afterbrunel (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Improved history

message: This source (referred to under references) seems to have gone missing. Anyone know where we can retrive it? We'd better delete the link if it has gone without a trace. Pity though. Afterbrunel (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hayle Railway Realignments
Talk:The Gas We Pass

message: "The book also discusses other animals..." I beg your pardon? Since when is man an animal? I suspect Darwinist propaganda here! 93.219.179.137 (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  other animals...? 
Template talk:Afterlife

message: Is there some policy somewhere that determines what Wikipedia refers to as a religion vs. what it calls a mythology?  Given that some view labeling a religion as a mythology pejorative it seems like either all or none on this list should labeled as such. Sxoa (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion vs. Mythology

message: Can someone please add happy hunting ground? Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.110.227.98 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Happy Hunting Grounds

message: I'm just curious about the order of this template. It seems odd that Christianity is first (surely Judaism should be placed before?). I would suggest we employ a chronological system, or a chronological system with monotheistic/Abrahamic and polytheistic groupings. Afterall, Christianity developed out of Judaism, it only seems sensible to put them in some kind of order of development. --Oldak Quill 13:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. When I first created the template (or after some edits), the first row was 'Judeo-Christian', but someone deleted that reference altogether. Pictureuploader 16:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order

message: Where's the New Jerusalem on this template?  I'd add it myself, but I'm afraid I'd mess up the template. Ecto 06:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure it existed, but maybe it was removed. I concur to add it. Pictureuploader 07:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...looking at the history, a user deleted the link because the New Jerusalem "isn't heaven".  I don't know about that.  It's pretty much Heaven on Earth--literally.  We should include it in the template because, even though it's not Heaven strictly speaking, it's close enough, and at least closer than a lot of the other articles linked to by the template, especially the ones listed under "other cultures".  It's a bit much to lump all these ideas together under the title heaven, because Heaven is uniquely Christian, and imposing that name on such different concepts not only pushes a Christian frame on other religions, but it also takes something away from Christianity.  I mean, these are not just different words for the same conception of an ideal afterlife, nor should heaven be used as a general term for all conceptions of an ideal afterlife.  Anyway, I'll see what I can do about including the New Jerusalem. Ecto 19:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The generic conept of Heaven is not only Christian, and you will often find Golden Age, Arcadia etc mentioned next to the concept of Heaven. Pictureuploader 21:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Jerusalem

message: The link in this template for Germanic points to a disambiguation page.  Would someone be so kind to find the more appropriate page to which to wikilink.  Thx.  -- billinghurst (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate ''Germanic mythology'' 

message: What about this? 71.236.253.188 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, what about purgatory? 71.236.253.188 (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Rainbow Bridge
Talk:Victor Turner

message: This article appears to have content copiend without permission from a book: Imagining Frontiers, Contesting Identities
Steven G. Ellis,Lud'a Klusáková. 2001:708:110:202:B1EC:9012:68AB:7F90 (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but it looks like this goes the other way around. :) See above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy paste
Talk:Lipid hypothesis

message: In 2019, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) stated that clinical trials and human Mendelian randomization studies have demonstrated the role of LDL-C and LDL-CApoB-containing lipoproteins in atherosclerotic plaque formation and cardiovascular events. LDL-C is causally related to ASCVD. This is no longer a hypothesis but considered as fact:
This is supported by another recent textbook overview
The article should be updated with the recent guidelines position. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The article title should change, too. There is also a category named "Lipid hypothesis" which would also need changes. What name would you suggest for both? CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be too early days to change the title of the article right now, but lipid theory would probably be more accurate in the future. I know that many papers still refer to it as the "lipid hypothesis" but mainstream health organizations no longer really view it as just a hypothesis. Interestingly in the 1980s, the lipid hypothesis was referred to in books and papers as the "lipid theory of arteriosclerosis". I think lipid theory is correct but we should wait until more medical textbooks update the language. I think this will be happening in the next 2 years. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: No longer a hypothesis

message: This section contained primary sources that fail WP:MEDRS . Aseem Malhotra is a noted conspiracy theorist, not a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Contrarian view section
Talk:List of statistical software

message: Any thoughts on a good treatment for things that are "add-ons" rather than stand-alone, things. For example would it be good to have grouped lists of add-ons for R and Excel, rather than having them in the main lists? I guess the same question arises in the "comparison" article. Melcombe (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add-ons 

message: *Wikipedia:Merging
I propose that List of statistical packages be merged into Comparison of statistical packages. The content of the List article is mostly already listed within the Comparison article's tables. Any missing information could be easily transferred from the List, staying well within the context of the Comparison. To be thorough, all that primarily needs to be added to Comparison from List is a new column for a synopsis of each package. And adding any packages not already in the Comparison, of course. JimsMaher (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:List of fishes of Great Britain

message: I can't claim to be an expert, but I wonder about the classification here.  Specifically, among flatfish we seem to have at least three categories, with a sole in each (a foot in each camp? - sorry!) megrim, lemon sole and dover sole.  Are they not all flatfish, along with plaice and flounder?--King Hildebrand 13:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you're right, It's a bit higgledy pickle. I'll just attempt a more logical version. Totnesmartin 16:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I decided against including the hagfish, as its status as a fish is debated. However if anyone wishes to be bold, then go ahead. Totnesmartin 20:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagfish 

message: While I love red grouse and have seen a few over the years in the mountains, I have never seen one swimming in our rivers, lochs or seas.
Perhaps someone can find a photograph of an actual fish? 2A00:23C8:858D:7D01:55DB:1094:25FE:B1BF (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main photo for article
Talk:Dolbeault cohomology

message: The article has no biographical reference to Dolbeault.  Can anyone help? DFH 20:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was Dolbeault ? 

message: What is the Dolbeault-Grothendieck lemma ? DFH 20:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a paragraph on the Dolbeault_cohomology#Dolbeault-Grothendieck_lemma here. Is it better to create a new article on the topic and just link it here? The proofs are quite long, but the Dolbeault cohomology and the Dolbeault-Grothendieck lemma are strictly related; what's more without this paragraph the article seemed really poor. --Ale.rossi91 (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dolbeault-Grothendieck lemma ?
Talk:List of computer magazines

message: * other resources:
** http://www.netvalley.com/top100mag.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard nyc (talk • contribs) 17:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ??? has anyone extracted this list ???

message: Does anyone know whether the item PCC - The Peoples Computer Company was a separate newsletter/magazine distinctive from DDJ ? I thought PCC was the company that originally published DDJ. --Wernher 02:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: PCC / DDJ

message: Does the IEEE Computer journal really belong on this list? These are general-interest specific magazines. Template:Computer Magazines lists them as PC-specific magazines. IEEE Computer is a journal, and not very interesting to people outside of the industry (even computer owners), and is not PC-specific. Was another magazine intended to be referenced by this template and this article? -- Mikeblas 13:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm i see your point.. although it is a magazine about computers, regardless of who reads it. I was considering adding a section on this article called industry magazines to cover these as there are a few others too. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IEEE Journal? 

message: I've raised questions about the purpose of Template:Computer Magazines (closely related to this article) at Template_talk:Computer_Magazines. Fourohfour 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister Template 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Fourohfour 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Computer Magazines}} 

message: *Not a single ISSN is listed on this page. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to untag this page and tag the individual pages on publications that could have an ISSN listed but do not? Keesiewonder talk 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and removed. -Tobogganoggin talk 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISSNs 
Talk:Lochlann of Galloway

message: Al the references I have ever seen call this fellow Roland. Where has he acquired 'Lochlann' from? Can we have some book references please. David Lauder 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Lochlann had led William's armies north into Moireabh"  
If Roland led William's armies into Moray it would be better to state that. If the sources only provided an obcure place name then it would make some sense to render it in the Gaelic form used in the sources, but it is perverse to use the  modern Gaelie form when the modern name of  Moray is recognisable to all;  it is not helpful to the general reader to render it otherwise.    
If the decision is part of a campaign  to reclaim Scottish toponymy  for the Gaelic language and somehow render it more authentic, I suggest that a historical article on Wikipedia is not the place to further that aim, especially in a random and inconsistent fashion.
JF42 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moireabh