lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:The devil is in the details

message: In my understanding the expression "God is in the details" in architecture was "created" by Mies van der Rohe as a "paradoxal overthrowing" (I apologize for my approximative english) of the German popular expression "The devil is in the details", which seems to exist before. "The devil..." is probably the origin; "God..." is Mies's architecture-specific "overthrowing" of the original expression, in "support" of his attention to detail. As a matter of fact, it is more likely to see shared popular culture generating a field-specific (in this case architecture) answer, rather than a field-specifc expression generating a shared popular culture answer (which would be more like the tail wagging the dog, don't you think?). 213.174.127.3 (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Who came first?

message: Teryl Rothery of Stargate SG1 fame is starring in this episode and plans to "cross over", because "Daniel" is waiting there. The name (Daniel) could be pure coincidence or an inside reference to Stargate SG1's Daniel Jackson
K.satirli 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stargate SG1

message: "God is in the Detail" should be an article about the popular english idiom and not a redirect to a tv episode named after the phrase...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a well known phrase 

message: Regarding the expression the devil is in the details, I've noticed that the expression has been applied to secret societies in order to express the idea that secret societies are in fact diabolical, precisely because they like to hide in the details, trying to infiltrate social institutions through secretive means.  ADM (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Secret societies

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved   (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The devil is in the detail →  – Ngrams shows that the plural form is much more common. (Note that "the" had to be omitted in the query because Ngrams doesn't allow more than 5 words per term.) It is also the form the article itself uses most frequently. Rublov (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 June 2021
Category talk:Traditional board games

message: The criteria of this category seems to be a bit on the POV side of things.  What determines whether a game is "traditional" or not? User:Chunky Rice
:Almost every game tagged in this category (as of now) is already called a "traditional" game in its own WP article — that's how I found them in the first place. In the few cases where the article was unclear (such as Ko Shoji, which is around 300 years old but may have actually been invented by an individual) I included a "remove this tag if this isn't considered a traditional game by those in the know" note in my edit summary (5 of 24 games).
:For a related problem, traditional music, which apparently is more something than folk music, but as a fiddler myself I can tell you there's a lot of traditional music that sounds might new-fangled to me.
:The terminology available might be a bit inexact but the best I think we can do is link to provide some helpful links. Other suggestions? --Eitch 20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Games that are old enough to be in the public domain everywhere. It also has to have a tradition as opposed to being played by only a few individuals and/or for a very short period of time. If the rules of the game are lost then it should be listed under the History of board games category. --Countakeshi (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria
Talk:Clachan Bridge

message: Why does "Bridge over the Atlantic" redirect to this page? 138.227.189.10 (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an alternative name by which the bridge is probably much better known. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Why is it called that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayowolf (talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming you mean "Bridge over the Atlantic", as it says in the article the bridge links the west coast of the Scottish mainland with the island of Seil and thus the tidal salt waters it spans are an arm of the Atlantic Ocean - albeit a small one. Ben MacDui 14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge over the Atlantic
Talk:KCCV

message: It has been proposed that all station specific articles for Bott Radio Network stations be merged into KCCV-FM. Stations which provide no local programming or other content and carry nothing but network provided programming lack sufficient notability to warrant an article. However, any station that does provide sufficient local programming or has a history (such as ownership changes) which warrants coverage, should not be merged. See WP:WPRS for more information. Any opinions, additional information on these stations or suggestions would be appreciated.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge proposal 
Talk:Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America

message: It would seem to me that this church group is as notable or unnotable as most of the other church groups wikipedia pages. Is there any reason to think this one is less notable than othe Lutheran church groups? Smith03 22:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the speedy delete template b/c this article isn't a candidate. If someone wants to delete the article, it will have to go through an AfD.--Alabamaboy 23:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to get an understanding of the notability issue. The question is not how this group compares to other groups (which may or may not meet the notability standards), but whether or not this group meets the Wikipedia standard of notability. Can you find some reliable, independent sources that have non-trivial coverage of this group? If so, please add them! It will make for a better encyclopedia article, and other editors will stop adding notability, prod, and speedy deletion requests. Hope that helps! --Fabrictramp 15:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Apart from the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, the article should really consider verifying whether groups such as the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Personal Ordinariate

message: I found only one non-related source that mentions this group and that was a space.com article that read more like a PR statement. There are a lot of deadlinks that would be salvageable pointed to their website. It appears it is from an older website this group had. I'm not motivated to update this page since most sources are not independently verifiable. The "journal" reads more like a monthly church bulletin or newsletter than a journal or even a magazine, regardless what they call it. Thoughts on how to proceed. They do appear to have 28 congregations in multiple states. --P37307 (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:KCLA (Arkansas)

message: The FCC canceled KCLA's license on May 2, 2011; ten other radio stations also lost their licenses that same day.  These eleven stations (KZEY, KPBQ-FM, KZYP, KOTN, KCLA, KRKD, KZYQ, WRKG, WDTL-FM, WZYQ, and WDSK) were all owned by Jerry Russell, and, according to Russell himself in a letter that probably led to the cancellations (PDF), have been dark for several years due in part to his health problems.  (Two other Russell stations, KOFY and KWRD, are not impacted by this, though a sale of KWRD has been pending FCC approval for a few years now but (as he indicates in the letter as well) is otherwise still on-track.)  A side effect is that he was unable to determine how long his own stations have been off-the-air; he estimates 2006–2007 (and best as I can gather 2007 seems closest; however, reportedly KCLA briefly resurfaced a few months ago, still with an all-sports format, but had again left the air by the time of the license cancellation), and the apparent end of a local marketing agreement involving KCLA and nine other stations (an arrangement mentioned in the article in a way that implies that it's still in place) ties in to this somehow.  Not being anywhere near the eleven stations' coverage areas that's all I can say here.  Obviously an update is warranted, but more information is needed too… and so I put this out there.  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed — KCLA deleted 

message: On February 11, I was made aware by  of potential issues with defunct disambiguators while nominating KXBR (defunct) for DYK. I opened an RfC to gauge interest in changes, initially neutral but changing to favor the position as I learned more and discovered some particularly different disambiguators. Notably, I failed to advertise the RfC to relevant projects. The editors from outside the topic area supported the change, the RfC was closed, and I proceeded to open four RMs based on the type of article (radio and TV) and the type of disambiguation needed. (One, at Talk:WLQR (AM), relates to two specific stations and is being left open.) The RMs attracted topic area editors, more used to (defunct) being used in broadcasting, who had different opinions from those expressed in the RfC, and they also fragmented discussion. Three of the RMs have now been closed. This request is an attempt to unify discussion into one place and one RM.
I am also pinging all editors and other involved parties from the various discussions and would like to hear from all of you: . Raymie (t • c) 03:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Procedural history
Talk:Reg Stockill

message: Stockill wasn't the youngest to score in a Football league match. That was Ronnie Dix, who was 15 years 180 days old: Bristol Rovers v Norwich City in the Third Division South on 3 March 1928. Sources abound!
Cris Freddi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.5.1 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Template talk:WikiProject Macau

message: WP:WikiProject Macau is inactive, change the template to inactive like Template:WikiProject Panama. 2804:14C:55:87C7:F511:9516:6186:8498 (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Living Concrete (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2021
Talk:Ian McLauchlan

message: What does "His scrummaging and loose play were both from the top drawer." mean!?
Also whasnt he the guy who played on with a broken leg? im trying to find a source but if anyone alse could that would be a great help. Ta
:I don't know, but it's a very old school way of talking about rugby!!! My big problem is this article only talks about his Lions career. The man played more games for Scotland than he did for them, and that should be reflected in the article.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Temecula Valley AVA

message: This article seems to be lacking any references for the  many many many "factual" statements in it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.137.43 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual statements

message: Does anyone happen to have any photographs of the Temecula Valley AVA? Some photos of wineries/vineyards in the AVA would enhance the article greatly. Basuraeuropea (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographic Representation
Talk:Drill purpose rifle

message: Kudos to the wiseguy who decided to say these are used as drilling devices. But seriously, why bother?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reproba (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Drill rifles are not Drills!
Talk:Sideways bike

message: The article should not be deleted for three reasons. Firstly, it is not about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or about web content. Furthermore, the sideways bike has been hailed as the "the first major development in bicycle design for 150 years" ([]). Finally, the article is a stub. I was going about finding more information about the bike to write a longer article, and then suddenly its up for speedy deletion. I know it's meant to be speedy, but comeon, give me a chance to actually write an article! 
Keep up the good work. - 20:15, 13 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaquimds (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for the "hailed as the first major development in bicycle design for 150 years" is unsourced.  Yes, it is on the BBC site, but it is in the Magazine section which takes a look at quirky issues.  The claim is not attributed to anybody and the only person quoted in the article is the bike's inventor which means that the claim is likely to have come from the inventor himself.  An invention is just that - an invention.  There is no evidence in the article or anywhere else that the inventor has managed to sell the bike to any manufacturer.  It remains, therefore, not notable.  B1atv 21:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I find the article interesting and clearly notable, as (very obviously) do the BBC. The sideways bike is relevant to bicycle dynamics & control theory, which are where I found this article from. The aggressive approach to deletion & B1atv's grumpy attitude, are unnecessary and disappointing.
TWhitmore.nz 2nd July 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I don't see the POV that Bjakt (talk) is refering to, so I suggest the tag be removed. -AndrewDressel 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag
Talk:The N Crowd

message: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed.  Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Edits made on 9/12/07 by anonymous user using IP 69.249.118.217 have been reverted.
72.81.119.167 20:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You

message: What was the top position reached on the various charts?  Newwhist (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Charting
Talk:Anger (song)

message: , can you help with sources to show it meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability tag 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Anger (Marvin Gaye song) →  – There is no other song with that name which has an article on Wikipedia.
HDORS (talk | contribs) 15:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 January 2021 

message: Text and references copied from "Anger to Here My Dear, See former article's history for a list of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution
File talk:Hunminjeongeumhaerye.jpg

message: Is this an original copy? It looks remarkably clean and clear (especially compared to the scans I have seen) for something of that age. If it is, it is a truly remarkable and beautiful work. --Taejo|대조 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original is not allowed to be shown to the public AFAIK. Probably a facsimile? --Kjoonlee 23:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk:The Jewish Peril

message: *These messages have been moved here from Talk:The Jewish Peril (version 2), which was moved from Talk:The Jewish Peril to let Talk:Jewish Peril be moved here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Messages moved from Talk:The Jewish Peril (version 2)

message: "#" "REDIRECT" "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
-----
In the United States this title never caught on.
:So I think it would be better to keep a/the brief article with advice to klick on Protocols of Zion.
:Anyway, may we open a discussion on it?
:For the time being, I'm reverting - I hope you don't object?
:Ludvikus 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seperate articles aren't created just because a book is known by a different name in another country. Just create a redirect under the alternative title to the original title. As the English edition of the book is already covered in much greater detail in the main article I have now redirected this there. Crazysuit 22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets Discuss It

message: -----
The above does seem like me. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Jewish Peril, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion]]

message: :I think the following Wikipedia whatsyamacallit will solve concerns of editors who were/are thinking of #REDIRECT:
:
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Article vs. REDIRECT
Talk:Amphisbaena caeca

message: Hi,
I've seen many times the photo of this article, and everytime I feel that it should be removed!!! The animal in the photo is probably an Scolecophidian (thread snakes), which are totally different to amphisbaenians. An amphisbaenian should look like this: http://www.kingsnake.com/westindian/amphisbaenacaeca3.JPG.
Hope this helps to improve this article.
Best regards!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.16.4 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG PHOTO
Talk:You Can Leave, but It's Going to Cost You

message: Not familiar with the song or even the genre, so will leave it to someone else, however the prose needs work. Main thing that sticks out is that the word "discusses" is used about 4 times in the one paragraph, doesn't sound all too good. Thanks in advance, NeilHynes - TalkEdits 17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose
Talk:International Mass Spectrometry Foundation

message: * please delete :Category:Thompson Medal recipients, I have manually replaced by :Category:Thomson Medal recipients (just discovered this page now, silly me). Reason C2A obvious typographic mistake Thomson and not Thompson. Ileresolu (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: * There is this one - Institute of Physics Joseph Thomson Medal and Prize - as well (same Thomson). Oculi (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for Thomson Medallists
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/JForget 2

message: Category talk:	42
Category:	26
Image:	162
Mainspace	17726
Portal talk:	2
Portal:	51
Talk:	1284
Template talk:	6
Template:	76
User talk:	2546
User:	510
Wikipedia talk:	88
Wikipedia:	1732
avg edits per page	 2.41
earliest	02:00, 11 March 2006
number of unique pages	10081
total	24251
2006/3	201	
2006/4	18	
2006/5	0	
2006/6	218	
2006/7	621	
2006/8	691	
2006/9	1601	
2006/10	1415	
2006/11	2394	
2006/12	1229	
2007/1	1661	
2007/2	740	
2007/3	1938	
2007/4	1232	
2007/5	2453	
2007/6	2212	
2007/7	1911	
2007/8	1750	
2007/9	1966	
Run at  20:24:44 Thu Sep 13 2007 UTC using Interiot's wannabe Kate tool. WjBscribe 20:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit stats
Talk:King/Drew Magnet High School of Medicine and Science

message: http://www.pgcps.org/~erhs/silverschools2008.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.248.24.164 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Drew High School ranked by U.S. News & World Report  
Talk:Weems–Botts Museum

message: This article reads like a visitor's brochure, bordering on an advertisement.  140.147.160.34 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs work? 

message: I doubt Weems bought the house in 1898 if he died in 1825.
KevinAndrewLipscomb (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous date?
Talk:Brazilian mythology

message: It's actually a morphological archaism, still found in some places as a variant form, just as "polaco" (instead of "polonês"), "boêmio" (instaead of "tcheco") and "finês" (instead of "finlandês").
jggouvea (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alemoa" is not wrong 

message: It's basically a dictionary definition of mythology, followed by a list of Brazilian mythological persons, places and things.  We already have an article for List of mythological places, List of mythological objects, and a multitude of articles List of <place name> mythological figures, for example List of Greek mythological figures.  Most of the items in the list are of persons or beings, so maybe this article should be retitled, List of Brazilian mythological figures, since such an article title does not already exist. The only other structure I can envision for this article is a set of Aesop's Fables like tales, possibly one tale per article(?).  That'd be literally flooding the encyclopedia with dozens to maybe a hundred or more articles that ought to be in a book of childrens fables, not in scholarly encyclopedia articles.Sbalfour (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's this article about?
Talk:M116 howitzer

message: model number on the cannon nameplate says M1A by Hannifin Mfg Co, 1942 (not M1A1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.220.9.5 (talk • contribs) 
:Weird. The standard format of WWII-era US weapon designations is M<number>A<number>, not M<number>A. As for this specific howitzer, all sources I know refer to it as M1A1, from Technical Manual TM 9-319, which is definitely called 75mm Pack Howitzer M1A1 and Carriage M8 to Hunnicutt's books on US armored vehicles.Bukvoed (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed back to M1A1. Bukvoed (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: M1A1 / M1A

message: I think the titles should specify the calibers, e.g. "75 mm Howizter M116." I am not making a formal move proposal, because I am not sure how best to do this, and because the same issues apply to several other artillery pieces.
Reason 1: People may be looking for the "75 mm pack howitzer," or the "75 mm howitzer M1." Including the caliber makes it easier to find from lists such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_artillery_of_the_United_States,
Reason 2: It was introduced as the M1, so the M116 isn't a great identifier. It was 75 mm the whole time, so it's a better, if not specific, identifier. 173.66.5.216 (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the titles specify the calibers? 

message: Any talk of of this portable howitzer being sent to assist the Ukrainian Army 192.63.146.237 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pack howitzer in Ukraine
Talk:Fort Montgomery (Lake Champlain)

message: This article was created by splitting off part of Fort Montgomery article, since moved to Fort Montgomery (Hudson River).  History of edits appears in that article. doncram 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Fort Montgomery was placed about 3/4 of a mile from the US-Canada border. That caused a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olan1778 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The measure 

message: If it werent for the measurement, The invasion of Canada during the War of 1812 couldve gone smoother — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olan1778 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem? 

message: He led a failed invasion into canada to try and prop up his name, he is nothing but a war criminal stop Americanizing history and tell it like it is please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.233.61 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you please stop referring to General Montgomery as a war HERO?