lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Sri Digambar Jain Lal Mandir

message: Note:  Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under :Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag  TALK2ME 04:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Delhi Addition 

message: I've changed the year of establishment from 1658 to 1656, as per Balbhadra Jain's Hindi book, which is cited in the article. The Lonely Planet travel guide mentions the year of establishment as 1658, but is a less authoritative source. The year 1656 is also mentioned by several other books Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage's Delhi (2005), so I'm going to stick with that.
Balbhadra Jain states that one of the idols in the temple dates to 1491. The Wikipedia article currently states that the idol was acquired by Agrwal Jains at a later stage, but doesn't cite a source. An article in RSS' Organiser Volume 26, titled Timur the Second (p. 41) apparently claims that the temple existed before the Mughals, based on the dates on this idol ("apparently", because I can see only snippets on Google Books). The article states that the "temple existed long before the invasion of India by the Mughal Army under Babur. This fact is revealed by the Samvat engraved under the idol of Lord Parasnath". It adds, "Shri Bashir Uddin Ahmad, in his book, Waqayat Darul Hukumat, Delhi on page 206, says that it was in 1656 that the Jain temple was constructed over the idol which some Jain soldier of the Imperial Army had kept with him in his tent. [...] In Samvat 1935 (1878 A D.) a marble temple was added to the old temple. Recently some more additions were made."
Thus, the Organiser article suggests that the original source for the '1656' bit is Bashiruddin Ahmed Dehlvi's Waqiaat-e-Darul Hukumat Delhi. But I can't find a more reliable source for this. If anyone has a better source, please update the article accordingly. utcursch | talk 18:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of establishment
Talk:Qubit field theory

message: The best way to solve this problem is to ignore WP:NOT PAPERS, since I do not think ordinary people would be interested or have the need to read this article, and this article is ONLY IMPORTANT to quantum physicists. Also, a perfect article should be easy to understand to ordinary audience and very useful to professional researchers and teachers, and stubs are useless to progessional audience. If we can not ignore WP:PAPER, then the article would have little possibility to be expanded (see my guideline-to-be obscure topics as well). --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Well, to solve the stub problem......

message: This article was mentioned by Jimbo Wales in early 2004 in a discussion on what is now called WP:N. As of today, Google finds "About 37,900 results". Better luck next time, Jimbo. :D Paradoctor (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remark
Talk:Sudhagad

message: Sudhagad Fort should be merged with Sudhagad (or vice versa). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. GDibyendu (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I chose to merge it into Sudhagad and not Sudhagad Fort as the former is more commonly used. Sudhagad Fort has a redirect to Sudhagad now.  --Belasd (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I kept this as it was part of the original article but I dont think it has place in an encyclopedia. It is clearly travel information. I think it should be deleted --Belasd (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trekking information
Talk:Valley Forge General Hospital

message: I was a patient at VFGH for 19 months in 1968 and 1969.  We, the patient population, claimed that VFGH stood for "Very Few Go Home"  Although we received excellent care and very few patients died at VFGH -- if you made it to the states you would most likely live.  TWW  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.24.80 (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Talk:Car–Parrinello method

message: This article gives the following description of the BO approximation:
:In contrast to Born-Oppenheimer molecular dynamics wherein the nuclear (ions) degree of freedom are propagated using ionic forces which are calculated at each iteration by approximately solving the electronic problem with conventional matrix diagonalization methods [...]
Could this not be formulated more clearly? I (one of the main authors of Born-Oppenheimer approximation) do not understand this sentence. Presumably there are more readers who don't.--P.wormer 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BO approximation 

message: I will admit, I'm not yet an expert on this, but isn't the Car-Parrinello method the plane wave basis + pseudopotential form for DFT, while Car-Parrinello molecular dynamics is what is described here (and also at Car–Parrinello Molecular Dynamics)? --Earin (t) 01:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPMD vs Car-Parrinello Method 

message: Car-Parrinello_method and Car-Parrinello_Molecular_Dynamics describe the same thing. This is mentioned by another user above. The only difference might be that Car-Parrinello_Molecular_Dynamics mentions the software package CPMD, but then goes on to describe the method. In my opinion, the "molecular dynamics" is a better name, because Parrinello himself refers to it as Carr-Parrinello molecular dynamics (see http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v98/i6/e066401 )
LikeFunYouAre (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'd second that. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Spider-Man: Battle for New York

message: This game is said to be a sequal to the Ultimate Spider-Man game, but the character profiles on IGN seem to be about the 616 versions. Does this mean the game is set in 616 continuity? UnDeRsCoRe 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Character Profiles

message: This page would be awesome for the StrategyWiki website, not so for plain old Wikipedia. Too much detail. Lots42 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy Wiki
Talk:Taragarh Fort, Ajmer

message: Note:  Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article  falls under :Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article --  TinuCherian     (Wanna Talk?)   - 09:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition 

message: There seems to be two forts named Taragarh in Rajasthan, one in Ajmer, the other in Bundi. It is unclear which fort this article is about since it makes mention of the two cities, but I suspect it's the one in Ajmer since the description does not quite fit that of Bundi's. I'll request a rename of the article. Tinss (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! I've also turned the Taragarh Fort page into a disambiguation page. Tinss (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this fort in Ajmer or Bundi? 

message: The article indicates that the fort was built 1354, yet also mention a governor that died there in 1210. Tinss (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction date 

message: available document  for taragarh chauhan royal family , and support the old dacument. Dhirajsinh (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  well & correct information fill from taragarh fort
Talk:Visvesvaraya Industrial and Technological Museum

message: I have updated the Images on this page into a test [Sandbox] page.
Is it fine to make these changes in the main Pages?
If there are any concerns regarding images(Like JJ Thompson's), please advise. — Amandeep Singh (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Image galleries on this article 

message: There are too many images in the gallery. Many of them are duplicated or simply not very informative. I have trimmed it down and added captions based on the file names. I'm sure that the captions could be improved if someone has more information on these items. Leschnei (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image galler
Talk:Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model

message: Anyone understand this? :D  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.168.144 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is well-taken. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, explaining concepts for the average person with reliable references. With a subject this technical, it's a tall order to achieve this ideal, yet the reader with a degree in maths or physics isn't well-served either. At the time of writing, the article gives NO explanation for ANY of the concepts. The reader is sent on a game of chase the Wiki-links in the (faint) hope that something may be better-explained in another article. It needs a complete re-write. Just having Wiki-links without explanation is circular. Puzl bustr (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

message: I cleaned up the two refs given in the article. But it could do with more refs, and re-writing to be more NPOV, e.g. remove the "Let's start with". I'm definitely NOT an expert on this, just interested in the subject. Puzl bustr (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Made references standard inline
Talk:World Heritage sites in India

message: The list need to be made alphabetical for easy readability. Can some one write a line or two about what the year in the bracket is for.
This might be helpful
--Siddhant 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The date refers to the year they were declared WH sites by UNESCO, so the list is in chronological order (see below - the other article has them in alphabetical order but is otherwise almost exactly the same!). Enaidmawr 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetical. 

message: This page is almost identical to List of World Heritage Sites in India. It's pointless having the two pages so I suggest merging and making one page a re-direct. Enaidmawr 00:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged Merge on both pages. I have no preference which article stays or goes, but the word "sites" in the title here should have a capital "S". Enaidmawr 00:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs merging
Talk:Time-dependent density functional theory

message: Dave 22:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

message: What does mean \chi(\mathbf{r}_1t_1,\mathbf{r}_2t_2) in Linear response TDDFT ? - Could improve comprehension of this part.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.33.1.56 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Seiberg duality

message: I don't think it's clear what the statement, "The mesons and baryons are preserved by the duality," means.  In particular, baryons in one theory are made of a different number of quarks than in the other theory.  Does the statement just mean something like "both theories have mesons and baryons"?  What is being preserved?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.128.206.157 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over baryons
Talk:Anomalous scaling dimension

message: I believe the article on the anomalous scaling dimension should have a much easier introduction. 
I think it represents the way in which a system (exponentially) diverges from what we would expect. For instance, if we believe something to be proportional to r^2 but it is in fact proportional to r^{2+\alpha}, then this \alpha is exactly the anomaly, or the "anomalous scaling dimension". Please correct me if this not true.
--131.174.17.91 (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easier Introduction?? 

message: Perhaps someone can expand on the unelaborated statement "Anomalous scaling appears also in classical physics." The first paragraph of the article currently seems to imply the opposite by saying that "the anomalous scaling dimension of an operator is the contribution of quantum mechanics to the classical scaling dimension of that operator." Googling seems to turn up some references to turbulence? 74.103.51.39 (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anomalous scaling in classical physics
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ombudsman

message: User:Ombudsman
Category talk:	2
Category:	6
Image:	9
Mainspace	3440
Talk:	352
Template:	16
User talk:	1008
User:	111
Wikipedia talk:	22
Wikipedia:	429
avg edits per article	2.59
earliest	00:25, 26 February 2005
number of unique articles	2085
total	5395
Ombudsman's editcount summary stats as of 18:55, October 27 2006, using wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Maylandia lombardoi

message: Moved from "Kenyi Cichlid" to Maylandia lombardoi, although the naming convention for fauna suggests the use of the common name. Kenyi is not universal, its never used in Australia, and as such I think Maylandia lombardoi is a more useful article title. MidgleyDJ 19:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Is it possible Kenyis can change sex?? Check mine out! It looks like a male not a female!
100px
click for a larger view. ^_^ 
--Mitternacht90 05:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not to my knowledge. Though males sometimes pretend to be females (and vica versa) MidgleyDJ 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really now? Thanks for telling me, its very odd. --Mitternacht90 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So the males were males from when they were born?  I mean could an adult male have been a female before he showed he was a male (became adult)?  Could they have been born female and then become male later on because of whatever?  Or are they born male or female?  These are very popular Malawi cichlids in South Korea.  Auratus, Labidochromis caeruleus, Red Zebra Chichlid and some kind of white cichlid (I guess Pseudotropheus socolofi "Albino" but I kind of doubt that, I will try to find out what they are in the future) are just as popular as the Kenyis in South Korea.  In South Korea people call them Blue Zebra Cichlid.    
Happy1892 (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex change? 
Talk:Systematic bias

message: Quote:
: Once detected, systematic effects are easier to take into account than random effects: in the example just given, one knows that the thermometer always reads three degrees below the correct value. Thus one can simply make a systematic correction by adding three degrees to all readings. In contrast, there is no equally simple correction for random error.
In some cases that may be correct, in other cases it is the other way round. Some systematic errors, while we know they are probably there, cannot be quantified. A very simple correction for random errors may be to repeat the experiment 10 times and calculate an average. Am I right? If so, how do we best fix this?--Niels Ø 19:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this correct?

message: Oppose -- Systemic bias has been merged into Systematic bias. Now, someone added merge tags suggesting to merge Systematic bias and Systematic error. One well-written article covering all the ground could be OK, but it is important not to confuse matters. Certainly, not all systematic errors are due to systemic bias (where as systemic bias always causes systematic errors).--Noe (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who added the tags. If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that people might confuse systemic bias and systematic error? Btyner (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Noe (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Noe, could you please give an example of systematic error which is not produced by systemic or systematic bias? (I guesss you are using the two expressions systemic bias and systematic bias as synonyms; that's ok for me). Paolo.dL (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge
Talk:Sigma model

message: I am setting this to high, given that it is the basis for many theories, including ST. 201.8.27.5 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else set it to low. I set it to mid. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: maths rating

message: Wouldnt quantum mechanics be a sigma model from the real line to the complex plane? Or have i missunderstood something?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.244.222 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: you may well have.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: complex plane

message: Wouldn't be good to mention in what notation is the Lagrangian written? It is not the usual field theory notation. Paranoidhuman (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Lagrangian notation

message: I expanded this article last month, but never finished saying what I wanted to say. This includes:
* Articulating the general case for symmetric spaces, e.g. cleanly tracking the vector and axial vector components for the chiral model.
* The above ties together the Cartan involution, the Killing fields, etc. etc. 
* Commentary about anomalies
* Commentary about Dan Freed results
* More supergravity results, e.g. oxidation
Above in rough order of priority...
67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  TODO List
Talk:Joinville (disambiguation)

message: (pronunciation: ZHWEN-veel)
Firstly, shouldn't pronuncitation be in IPA? I can't pronnounce that ZHWEN... And no matter how hard I try, it doesn't look any close to Joinville brazilian city name as it is pronouced here (in Goiás, dunno if regional accents would affect too much an prnunciation, also, I have friends from there that speaks with southern accent that doesn't say ZHWEN also)... At least here we pronounce somehow like Join (from join, joint, etc, but with a somehow different J)  vile (more like as in silly). 200.230.213.152 19:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Valley Forge National Historical Park

message: Let's discuss here...  I don't know who owns the train stations (there's another near Betzwood).  
Actually the Chapel is more than a spiritual destination.  The bottom of the Carillon tower houses a list of (all?) the patriots from the American Revolution.  I'm thinking a park visitor perspective is needed on what needs to be mentioned in the Park article, i.e. someone with an interest in the Revolutionary war period.  And the interaction of the park trail and the Chapel walkway would have equal ties to both articles.  I'm inclined to add back exactly what I had about the carillon and trail/walkway.  I was planning on adding the scrolls, after a bit of research, but the text had magically disappeared.  --J Clear 03:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapel Section 

message: This is a source for good photos and information:
*http://www.nps.gov/archive/vafo/structures/
If possible, we should upload more of the photos to :Commons:Category:Valley Forge, like what was done with :Image:Washington Memorial Chapel.jpg. --evrik 15:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Here's an excellent resource on the park:  -- VALLEY FORGE:Making and Remaking a National Symbol 
http://www.nps.gov/archive/vafo/treese/treeset.htm  Alphageekpa 23:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use carefully as it is not PD, NPS is using it with permission. --J Clear 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resource

message: It is worthwhile having all these mini-subsections on the contents of the park (Visitor Center, et al)? They're all very short and it may be difficult to significantly expand all of them (if it's necessary; the important ones have their own main articles). Perhaps a more narrative description lumping it all together would be better. Or would it? Thoughts? --Midnightdreary 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These numerous maintenance tags detract from the article's readability and have been there far too long, without any significant expansion. Better to have this on the Talk page as a link here.  JGHowes   talk 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents of park 

message: Greetings and felicitations.  The infobox states that the area is "3,466 acres", while the second paragraph of the introductory section states "3,500 acres"; neither is sourced.  Which is it? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size?
Talk:Ultraviolet fixed point

message: I disagree with the sentence:
:"it means that such a theory is not an effective field theory because it is well-defined at arbitrarily small distance scales."
If an effective field theory is approximated to low energies, it may well be possible for the remaining theory to have a UV fixed point. When adding higher correction for higher energy, of course, the theory will most probably not be renormalizable any longer, so that speaking of a UV fixed point becomes pointless. IMHO the difference between an effective field theory and a full theory is not it being "well-defined" at arbitrarily small distance scales, but it being "correct". David  15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

message: I suggest this article be renamed to Ultraviolet fixed point ratther than UV fixed point. 70.250.199.40 (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename
Talk:Dhaka District

message: Why is the history section of this page a copy of the corresponding section of Dhaka? The district is much larger than the city, and the city history is not really the district history. In the past, Dhaka District was much larger, and included many other nearby areas (currently which have become separate districts). I suggest that, instead of cut-pasting the city history, we start fresh with a para on city, and the rest on the district itself. --Ragib 01:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Bhaia for the suggestion. I copied the city history with an intension to further enhance it with information on history of other upzilas. But we have to amid more than 90% of important historical events of Dhaka district should be related to the city itself - and of course "something is better than nothing" for the time being.-Arman Aziz 01:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Sonargaon isn't in Dhaka city, but was historically part of the Dhaka District. Note that, the District is an official designation, probably by the British, from the late 18th century, so it has a clear history separate from the city. We should look into Banglapedia. I recently found out that Google Books has pdf versions of many 19th century British reports on the whole of Bengal, including district-wise statistics. That might come very handy. (Do an advanced search for 19th century books with "Dacca").--Ragib 03:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again Ragib bhai for your suggestions. I'll try to improve this section. Just as a small correction - Sonargaon falls under Narayanganj district.-Arman Aziz 03:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is only recently ... Narayanganj was separated from Dhaka District only in 1984. --Ragib 03:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 