lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Norfolk (disambiguation)

message: I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, though I know enough to know that any humble American who suggests something inclusive of America runs the risk of being accused of cultural imperialism.  (Not by the majority, mind you, but by a certain element.)  So please don't bite me for this suggestion; I mean it with the purest of intentions.  Norfolk, Virginia has a population of about 250,000 and most Americans (all ~300 million of us) think of it when we hear the word "Norfolk".  Yes, yes, "America is not the world", but isn't a disambiguation page the most inclusive thing to do?  It seems that that was the status quo until about a year ago when there was near-unilateral action to move Norfolk, England to Norfolk (see Talk:Norfolk) and no one has undone it.  About 1000-1500 links each point to both Norfolk and Norfolk, Virginia, and I guarantee you many of those "Norfolk" links are intended for Norfolk, Virginia as placed by misinformed countrymen of mine.  What are your thoughts? Raggaga 02:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norfolk, USA? 

message: My apologies, I should have checked the discussion page before making a change. I was searching for the reference to the phrase "Jockey of Norfolk, be not too bold//For Dickon thy master is bought and sold", and I was surprised to find that although the subject of the saying, John Howard, had an article in Wikipedia, my query sent me to the disambiguation page. so I added that reference. 
Now I see there has been a whole discussion about it, that moved every Duke of Norfolk out of the disambig page and into the Norfolk County page. I suspect this is a mistake by Americans who don't realise that peers often have no connection to the place their peerage is named after, any more than the Manhattan Project should be placed in the "History of New York" article, or the Omaha Beach landings placed in the "Nebraska" entry, or the USS Maine in the state of Maine. I'll leave it alone, but given that my searches for that famous phrase led me nowhere even though Wikipedia actually has the article on it, I think Richard I's Norfolk, at least, deserves a place here. — Del C 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''"Jockey of Norfolk, be not too bold..."''
Talk:History of Pakistan

message: If an editor has made changes you don't like remove them, don't disruptively mass revert articles and reintroduce errors and unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued mass reverting of the article  

message: What step took Muslim rules to resit British 119.73.114.122 (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: What step took Muslim rules to resit British 119.73.114.122 (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography
Talk:Northern Ireland

message: change 
The otter is the fourth largest land mammal in Northern Ireland you can find it along the river systems, although it is seldom seen and will avoid contact with humans.
to
The otter is the fourth largest land mammal in Northern Ireland. It can be found along the river systems, although it is seldom seen and will avoid contact with humans. Profmore (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023 

message: Have found a source for "English is a de facto official language". Official status of languages in the UK and Ireland Mac Sithigh D, Common Law World Review (2018) states the source for this as "Dunbar R (2007) Diversity in addressing diversity: Canadian and British legislative approaches 
to linguistic minorities and their international legal context. In: Williams C (ed) 
Language and Governance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, pp.104-158. " Page 112, although I cannot check this as I do not have access to the original. Brimsby (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been superseded by the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. Canterbury Tail talk 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2024 

message: The redirect Na Sé Contaethe has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  JuniperChill (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Na Sé Contaethe]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Protest song

message: Was marked as unreferenced. Have added more context to some of the artist statements, so have removed unreferenced tag. Suggesting that this section represents "An unbalanced or non-neutral section is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant."Template:POV section. 2A02:A463:C842:0:A1FC:88B1:3993:CF17 (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV on post apartheid South Africa section
Talk:Alexanderplatz

message: The pic Alex06.jpg from the commons shows a man instead of the place. But you can see the right pic if you view it directly in the commons. wtf? --217.83.74.93 18:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with pic

message: I changed the link to Rotes Rathaus so that it just shows the German name. The reason I think it is better to have the name in German is that the building is called that because it's made out of red brick, but in an article about the city center of the old East Berlin, it isn't clear that "Red City Hall"  has nothing to do with Communism. I could have changed it to "Rotes Rathaus, the 1869 "Red City Hall"", but I felt it would unbalance the very short lead.
Also, the photo of Pressecafe with the old "Marxist view of the press" murals says the murals were covered over by commercial advertising. I expected that meant Coca-Cola and McDonalds ads. I looked it up on Google Street View; the Pressecafe sign is intact and the site of the former murals is a sign for a restaurant. So I think a modern view would be interesting to include. Roches (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rotes Rathaus and Pressecafe
Talk:2002–03 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season

message: This and season Plymouth Argyle F.C. (2001/2002) are just experiments with getting some of the data off my football database and into Wikipedia. These will be prettified and Wikified when I have completed my parser. I should be in a position to do all English and Scots teams thereafter. user:sjc
:Starting tonight I shall be working to expand and improve this article. David J (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tables, statistics and references added. On to the next one. David J (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Frederick Augustus II of Saxony

message: "Friedrich August Albert Maria Clemens Joseph Vincenz Aloys Nepomuk Johann Baptista Nikolaus Raphael Peter Xaver Franz de Paula Veneantius"
Olessi 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full name 

message: Hey, Just a question, why are there almost no images of Frederick Augustus II of Saxony I mean he was king for a long time and you would think there would more paintings of him seems weird. Have a nice day! Orson12345 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image
Talk:Noether's theorem

message: Another editor made a Bold edit to the lead. I Reverted the edit. This section is created to Discuss the wording of the lead, in accordance with WP:BRD. 
I believe that the lead should include the year in which Noether first proved the theorem. IAmAnEditor (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there is a controversy about precedence or attribute of credit (of which is see no indication in the article), I would leave the proposed addition out of the lead.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed the mention of the Cosserat brothers' work from the lead for this reason (see also WP:PROPORTION and WP:LEAD). It might make sense to work it into the "Historical context" section, assuming sufficient support from secondary sources can be provided. --Duplode (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of lead 

message: The article lacks an explicó expression for the conserved quantity, like I on this video 181.118.72.29 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explicit expression for the conserved quantity 

message: The article should cleanly state the theorem as it was written by Noether (the original Noether's formulation of the theorem). And before starting to give several proofs it must state the original proof by Noether (the original proof). 86.38.215.220 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please state and prove originally the theorem 

message: The section "3.3 SPACE-TIME AND INVARIANTS" in 
provides a nice summary of invariants from Helmholtz through Noether. 
This material could go as history of Noether's theorem, or in Invariant (physics) or even in general relativity. @ReyHahn any opinion? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is better suited for the invariant article. Is that the question?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @ReyHahn yes thanks Johnjbarton (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I've added some explanation for why dL/dx doesn't contribute. It is a bit hand-wavy, but the goal of that section is to provide the intuition behind the reasoning, so I don't think the rigor would be too helpful there. L3erdnik (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for the history of invariants
Talk:Trigonometric tables

message: Moved from the article:
:To come
:* Buneman's recurrence algorithm for accurate FFTs (Proc. IEEE 75, 1434 (1987)), or some similarly improved scheme (see Tasche, below).
:* Calculating accurate approximations for trigonometric functions (CORDIC schemes, etcetera)
:* Arbitrary-precision arithmetic methods (quadratically convergent schemes based on arithmetic-geometric mean, related to fast methods for computing pi)
— Timwi 16:24, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: Early trig tables such as that developed by Ptolemy used (unsuprisingly) Ptolemy's theorem although it is debatable whether "Ptolemy's Theorem" may in fact pre-date it's name! A point that should be noted is that both angle addition and subtraction formulae (for sine & cosine) as well as Pythagoras' theorem are - in effect - corollaries to or applications of Ptolemy's Theorem. In essence the method used was to first determine chords of basic angles (30,45,60), then chords of golden ratio related angles (18,36,54,72). With 36 and 30 determined, application of the difference method would give a 6 degree chord and thence by halves to 3 degrees and 1.5 degrees. The halving algorithm was a separate geometrical construct. All of which is described in great detail in Book I of Copernicus's DROC. Neither the Greeks, nor Copernicus ever used the terms 'sine', 'cosine' or the like - they worked entirely with chords of circles but the Copernican table of half chords is exactly a table of sine values. 
Given which it is hard to understand why Ptolemy's Theorem seems to have more or less disappeared off the trigonometrical landscape. On the other hand Pythagoras theorem - a mere corollary (or "porism") thereof - appears in every last school Math text book. 
Neil Parker (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early History 

message: The half and double angle formulas are good, but should we point to citations or additional sources (in order to find out or explain where do the formulas come from?) 190.25.113.134 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Casa 2A02:2F01:B207:A300:CC6B:A7F5:1C92:50C1 (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casa 

message: The equation given in the last section (e^{i(\theta + \Delta)} = e^{i\theta} \times e^{i\Delta\theta}) contains an extraneous \theta on the right-hand side, I believe. It should instead read e^{i(\theta + \Delta)} = e^{i\theta} \times e^{i\Delta}. Agreed? Kepsır (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in equation
Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

message: I was asked to clean up the citations a bit. I didn't do the nicknames section. Except when I've had to find a source, I've done very little cite-source integrity checking, I just reformatted the existing information, and looked up a few minimal sources. 
I found a bit of an issue with his funeral, and removed some text pending a better citation:  but left it here if it can be put back in. 
I removed it because the citations given, Sinclair and Holmes  do not support the text.  Neither mentions the sarcophagus of luxulyanite. Sinclair just mentions the monument, which is away from the tomb, saying a point made by the Victoria and Albert Website.  I've deleted the Sinclair for now, and expanded the page number for Holmes to keep what is left: the burial in St. Pauls and the crowds.  Also, the point about being buried next to Nelson is not in Holmes. Holmes merely states that he was buried "with Nelson" (e.g., at St. Paul's). The tombs are adjacent in the crypt so I'm sure an actual source could be found. I think all of the above could be restored if an appropriate WP:RS source could be found. Wtfiv (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy editing comments

message: An IP keeps trying to change the image in the infobox without consensus. In my opinion, the portrait by Thomas Lawrence labelled "File:Sir Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.png" is the most suitable because it gives a close up perspective. Views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Lawrence portrait is (in my opinion) best suited for the infobox. Coridally, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Lawrence portrait is most suitable. Chariotsacha (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Lead/Infobox images should let us see what the subject looks like. The Lawrence portrait does that, the replacement image doesn't. (Hohum @) 22:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Main image in the infobox
Talk:Interpolation

message: Related to the above (but simpler and more relevant), there is no discussion of support on this page. In one-dimensional interpolation, the difference between interpolation and extrapolation is simple. However, in multivariate statistics what is "in" and what is "out" may not be clear naievely. For example, if you fit a plane to f(x,y) where all your (x,y) pairs fall in an ellipse close to y=x and all with (x,y)\in[0,1] it is easy to decide that f(2,2) is extrapolation, but it may be easy to overlook the fact that f(0.75, 0.25) is also extrapolation. It is clear if you look at a scatter plot with no coordinate system, or if you transform the problem with PCA, but naievely the fact that 0.75\in[0,1] and 0.25\in [0,1] throws people off. With that in mind, this page should mention this subtle corner case of when what looks like interpolation is actually extrapolation. In this case, the convex hull of the (x,y) points would define one version of support; something related to Mahalonobis distance would define another. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree, the idea is not clear in higher dimensions. I think interpolation is not the opposite to extrapolation, though. You can extrapolate with an interpolant! See my entry Talk:Interpolation#Doesn.27t_explicit_the_relation_to_the_given_data. Kakila (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: As I see it, main point of interpolation is to generate a function that goes exactly through the given data, i.e. opposite to Smoothing. Of course one will use the obtained function to evaluate outside of the range of the given data (yaiks, Extrapolation does the same!), but the point of interpolation is that we want to recover the given data exactly. Also in higher dimensions "within the range" doesn't have an unique meaning, except maybe in convex data sets. 
I have seen so much confusion emerging from this jargon that I decided to write a blog entry with a new term: "intrapolation". Kakila (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't explicit the relation to the given data 

message: I propose to split article into two sections:
* Estimation of the interpolation function
* Interpolation between set of numbers
Currently the article weirdly starts by discussing the first topic.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure article 

message: ?)Add video 183.82.163.191 (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A video that better idealize the heading
Talk:Ketchup

message: What happened to the picture of the sauce with the face in it? That was dead good, that. Bring back the face! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidSix (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The present article seems to get all of its history from Heinz, which makes it one-sided.  About the same time that Heinz started bottling ketchup, there was another large tomato ketchup manufacturer in the New Jersey suburbs of New York City, the E.C. Hazard Company, that won awards for their product in national and international competitions.  I don't have access to their production records to compare with Heinz's, but the engraving at https://monmouthtimeline.org/timeline/e-c-hazards-state-of-the-art-ketchup-factory-is-destroyed-by-fire/ shows the immensity of their factory in 1888.  In local histories, it is reported that at dawn each day in the summer, farmers would line up with their wagons full of tomatoes, drive them up a ramp, dump the tomatoes down a chute, and drive away, and this went on for hours - so we're not talking about a small mom & pop operation.  Unfortunately, 1888 was also the year that factory burned down.  The plant was immediately rebuilt, but the business later went bankrupt in the Panic of 1907, and only at that point did Heinz become the largest surviving company in the business.
Wikipedia has a biographical page on E.C. Hazard ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._C._Hazard_and_Company ), which contains the following quotation: "Hazard had a devotion to purity of his products and is credited with marketing the first pure and unadulterated ketchup."  How can this article be complete without mentioning him?
How obsessive was E.C.about purity?  The kettles in which he cooked his ketchup were lined with pure silver ( https://tworivertimes.com/the-ketchup-king-of-shrewsbury/ ).  No wonder that he won awards.  I'm not a historian, so I can't dig deeper into the history of his company, but I'm putting this out there so one of you ketchup experts can follow up on it if you're so inclined. 108.7.56.197 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing: The Ketchup King 

message: How the hell is pickling the tomatoes “not” a degradation of flavor? What person could not distinguish pickled vegetables from non-pickled ones? … It is very clear that the person that wrote this, has never cooked in her life, and exclusively eats hyper-processed fast “food”.
This kind of nonsense is exactly what could have been prevented, if the article was not locked down, in complete opposition to the whole point of Wikipedia.
As many have said before, I’ll say again: As long as Wikipedia is centralized, it’s a failed project (that hasn’t accepted its own failure yet).
— 2A0A:A546:4DFB:1:BD86:6B8C:9D84:4CE6 (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  False statement
Talk:Squalius cephalus

message: Take care not to put in pictures when you're not familiar with the fish. Not all files on commons are reliable, especially those from public aquaria (pike). It is also wise to compare a lot of pictures using google, before placing one.Viridiflavus 19:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed a picture of a grass carp

message: User:Northmetpit recently edited the article to change all of the occurrences where the word chubs was used for the plural of chub to simply chub. I offer these references (there are many, many others) that the inflected form chubs is generally found in the literature. . Similarly, within Wikipedia itself, I point to Mohave tui chub, Sea chub, Tui chub, and Leatherside chub (among many others) that use chubs for the derived form of the noun. Hence, and with regret, I will revert these good faith edits until further evidence that chub is the correct plural form for the word chub can be provided. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plural of "Chub"?
Talk:John Dillinger

message: Google maps gives 2053 Caroline Avenue as Dillenger birth home.  Article has same number (2053) but Cooper Street.  Also, the gravestone at Crown Hill is marked John H. Dillenger Jr.  His father was John Wilson Dillenger.  What is up with the "Jr."?  Also one thing that has me wondering over the years, was Dillinger pronounced with a hard 'G' or like the 'G' in 'finger"?  Henry Kissinger's name is often misprounounced. Jeb hhoh (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Place and gravestone 

message: I've seen this film several times and Dillinger is not referenced, it is Baby Face Nelson that is portrayed as an incidental character. Would someone concur? Joeythegimp (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Depictions section: ""O Brother, Where Art Thou?" (2000)" reference 

message: In 2018-2019 History Channel had the intention of making a documentary to prove that the body buried in the grave of John Dilllenger is not his. This attempt at exhumation and DNA testing has been stopped by an Indiana court and there was extremely strong pressure on the relatives and History Channel to give up their intentions. Dillinger and one of his mistresses framed an innocent man who was killed by FBI agents without offering any resistance, his only offense being that he was frightened and tried to run away, thinking he was about to be robbed. The medical examiner has flat out stated that this man has no signs of plastic surgery and is probably not John Dillenger, but after the FBI found out how Dillenger screwed them over and trick them to kill innocent man, J. Edgar Hoover issues an order to drop the case and hide the truth. Can we include this theory as a conspiracy in the main article?!
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/john-dillinger-family-wont-exhume-body-935691/ 
77.85.26.150 (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Dilllenger fake his death by the shooting at the Biograph Theater
Talk:Mandeville, Louisiana

message: Hello everyone, I deleted the "roadmap" from this page because it was very difficult to read, and therefore, was redundant because the it adds little in addition to the infobox map.  Let me know what you think.  AlphaEta 20:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roadmap

message: Hi, I really hope I'm doing this right; just wanted to add some discussion for this article.
I cleaned up the "Demographic" section a little bit, the "Mandeville Neighborhood Profile" area was really haphazard and hard to understand—it looks like someone just copied and pasted a bunch of information from somewhere and didn't keep the spacing integrity.
This information (from "Mandeville Neighborhood Profile" to the end of the "Demographics section) seems misplaced and awkward to the article as a whole. It could possibly be assimilated into the Mandeville statistics table at the top? Or maybe some of it can be labeled as superfluous and taken out altogether? (Ie: Is School Expenditures really a necessary statistic to have?)  さきこ (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics