lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Stud poker

message: Since stud poker is defined as a form of poker where a mixture of cards are dealt face-up AND face-down, how can 'blind stud' be considered a form of stud poker? There's either something wrong with the description of stud poker or the categorisation of 'blind stud'. The question is: which one?Erdles 22:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blind Stud 

message: Seeking outside opinions from Wikipedia project poker on whether or not the self-published playwinningpoker links should be included. I do not wish to engage in an edit war with User:2005 and I think User:2005 should cease editing the article until opinions from other editors can be obtained. DegenFarang (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do to the lack of response I have also added this to Project Gambling, Project Software and Project Computing (the last two because of my inclusion of a request for assistance on SNG Wizard DegenFarang (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Added to Wikipedia Project Poker

message: No poker books or sites I've read mentions a three-card straight. I've stripped this from the article. --Full steam (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sökö/ Scandinavian poker
Talk:Community card poker

message: Wikipedia has a policy against original research: Wikipedia:No original research. Basically, don't make stuff up. Any new variants you add must have verifiable references. Without a verifiable reference (e.g., link to a specific web page, book/pg nbr), another editor will come along and revert the entry as "unreferenced or original research". Please don't add games made up by your friends - the article should only include well known games that are widely played.--Toms2866 18:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prohibition against original research

message: Zepter, if you have any other purpose than serving as an alias/personal ally  for User:Mike Church, you may be interested to note there is a very clear Wikipedia:No original research policy which these personal "variants" are; there is no significant establishment, these are the only places that these rules are posted, etc..  If you would like to take issue, lets resolve this in Wikipedia:Peer review.  Thanks.PilotPrecise (a troll) 22:25, 11 March 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Older discussion

message: The article states that pineapple is generally played as a split game, but I'm not sure that's true. However, I don't have enough experience with it to say anything conclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.174.102 (talk • contribs) 
I agree, I've never seen this game played hi-lo split.  Not that it couldn't be, but I think it's played high-only more often than not.  I wouldn't mind seeing an expanded section on Pineapple and Crazy Pineapple, but I'm not sure where to begin.  Aic_aks (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've almost never seen it played high only.  The game was played for years in Tahoe before catching on anywhere else, and is now played in LA more than anywhere, and that's all hi lo. 2005 (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I've only played it high-low split, but the game I have played is usually described as "Crazy Pineapple", so I presume that there was at some point in history a "sane" version that was probably high-only.  --LDC (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pineapple
Talk:Five-card draw

message: Note: Many of the poker pages were originally placed in the public domain, so their presence on other web sites, etc. does not necessarily indicate a copyright violation. See Talk:List_of_miscellaneous_poker_variants for discussion.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that the "sample deal" section could be clearer--but let's rewrite it, not remove it.  --LDC 07:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening comment 

message: I think that some more examples of 5 Card Draw should be placed on here, I've only recently learned how to play this game and I'm still a tad confused
:Trusport:
:I agree. Why are there so many uneducated people out there that don't know how to write basic rules! History, origin and variation can all come later! Just tell us how the fxxk this game is played!!!!!!!Unless you don't know yourself!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.57.67 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More examples 

message: Pretty dumb how it says you need social skills..
Actually, 5 card draw requires much more in the way of skills than Texas Hold 'em. This, and the inflated instance of high-ranking hands, which adds entertainment value to the unsophisticated, are what make the latter a more popular game with the general public.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.228.219.228 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skills Required 

message: I went to this page to look at the history of this game, particularly which area(s) it originated in and at what time frame (historically, poker games tend to be very geographic-specific). This page seems lacking. Does anyone know? 12.24.60.12 (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Regardless of accuracy, this article has ZERO citations. If it is not fully cited fairly quickly, it should be marked for deletion.
As well, readability by those unfamiliar with poker jargon is very poor. No links to other wiki pages explaining terms are given either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.37.146 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations? 

message: In the "about the draw" section, it says "...playing a pair of aces as if it were a straight, touch, or full house".  What is a "touch" - should this be flush?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I changed it.  Correct me if I was wrong.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  touch?
Wikipedia talk:Most-edited talk pages

message: Query to generate:
select concat( '# Talk:', old_title, ': '), count(*) as count
  from old
  where old_namespace=1
  group by old_namespace,old_title
  order by count desc
  limit 500;
----
Aside from a few weird ones that crept in, this really does read like a list of some of the most controversial subjects in the last couple years, minus a few like the War on Drugs, where I think most Wikipedians agree.  I thought it would be more bizarre. Tuf-Kat
----
BTW, when you do update this list, maybe you should set the limit a bit higher, at least 300, I think. In fact, I'll just go a ahead and set the limit on the query above to 500, edit it down, if that is too much of a strain on the hardware. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 21:36, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
-----
My God! One of the dozen or so talk archives of New Imperialism is #2 - behind only the main page! I'm speechless! 172 10:07, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: Why doesn't this page get updated?? 66.32.98.190 00:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why November 11, 2003?? 

message: This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in accordance with the deletion policy on February 10.  The result of this nomination was keep. Please see this page's entry for archive of the debate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for deletion results
Talk:Hanno (elephant)

message: Is this the origin of the term "white elephant"?  Supposedly, someone was given a valuable white elephant which proved too expensive to keep but couldn't be gotten rid of, politically.  -- Zoe
:According to our white elephant page, the term started in India, before Hanno, but the exclusiveness is probably part of the reason Hanno was considered a nice gift.  The Pope, apparently, was able to handle the expense nicely.<G>  -_ Someone else 01:09 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
::This is a really nice article. One of the joys of Wikipedia is finding an article like this. Mintguy
:::I agree this is a nice article!--Marie | Talk 07:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, cutest article on wikipedia :) Gareth E Kegg 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Onion

message: this reads like a history of financial transactions - and frankly, mostly glossing over the colossal amounts of money they set on fire.  feels like an editor should restructure this whole article.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.85.29 (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  apologies from general idiot who wants to give feedback 

message: Add to box. Drsruli (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Leaning
Talk:Battle of the River Plate

message: While noting 128.125.252.127's point that Rio de la Plata is more accurately translated as "Silver River", I'm reverting much of his recent edits as the accepted name in English is River Plate -- most particularly it is not acceptable to rename the movie and magazine article which are definitely entitled "Battle of the River Plate". Arwel 07:01, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  River name 

message: Which campaign or theatre does this battle belong in?  Battle of the Atlantic? Oberiko 15:37, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which campaign? 

message: I'm changing Duncharris' description of Graf Spee as a 'battleship' to simply 'ship' in the text, as technically, although pocket battleship was the term used in English at the time to describe them, the Panzerschiffe would more accurately be described as heavy cruisers, or  perhaps as battlecruisers, as they lacked the heavy armour of true battleships (which indeed eventually proved fatal to Graf Spee). -- Arwel 14:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship classification 

message: @Roger 8 Roger, regarding your latest edit summary:
What policy says that's not how it's done? Yes, WP:consensus says:
But on the other hand, WP:BRD says:
I believe I've brought up valid reasons to include the Spanish name so I'm trying to move things forward. But of course, your revert does demonstrate that you still care even if you haven't replied.
Maybe I should put my point another way: What harm is there in including the Spanish name? If I understand what you're saying, at worst it's noise, but it's only five words in a parenthetical, so what's the harm in that?
— W.andrea (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The harm is it's trivia and clutter that adds nothing notable to this article about the battle. There is no need to clarify anything that an averagely educated person doesn't understand. Why not add the German name of the battle? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm baffled by the notion that including the Spanish name of the river is objectionable. I think this may be an example of a strict, mechanistic approach to concepts like "notability" leading to excluding things that are useful to the reader. Nobody will ever seriously propose adding the German name. The reason the Spanish name was added, rather than the German name, is self-evident. I say, go ahead and add it! Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2023
Talk:Burr (novel)

message: Shouldn't this page be moved to Burr (novel)?  The "A Novel" isn't really part of the title--it's just a description that happens to appear on the cover--and anyway, Burr is what it's commonly referred to anyway.Kurt Weber 20:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Burr (novel) 

message: Hello, are these novels considered to be "revisionist" in any way, or, historically accurate? 76.254.84.27 (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was 100% historically accurate, the book probably would not be considered a novel. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical revisionism 

message: It seems to me that the use of the term "iconography" cannot possibly be correct, as iconography refers specifically to the portrayal of Christian saints in icons or pictures; or perhaps more broadly, religious figures in general. To use this term only subtly supports the historical revisionism that this novel is a part of, which is clearly not NPOV. GrimmC (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, you did not read the same lives of the saints founding fathers as I did in elementary school--"iconography" seems spot on to me. Do you have a specific suggestion for recasting the sentence? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hagiography." 71.161.98.142 (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iconography
Talk:Apple Records/Archive 1

message: __TOC__
There's a lack of consistency between this article and The Beatles as to which albums were released on which labels, particularly Apple and EMI.  Someone who feels knowledgeable could probably do a separate Beatles discography which would shorten the main Beatles article and also lend some clarity.  Don't forget Capitol records and VeeJay for the US.  Ortolan88
----
At one point, Apple Records sued Apple Computer for trademark infringement because the computer company broke their earlier agreement not to add sound to its computers.  The case was settled out of court.  Apple computers ever since have included a sound labelled sosumi ("So, sue me").
:The above paragraph contradicts internal Apple Computer sources which attribute the sound labelled 'sosumi' as a response to a complaint by Microsoft that it resembled a sound they used too closely.  The sound previously had a different name. -- 64.171.185.104
"ringo" is the japanese word for "Apple".
Yoko Ono is japanese.
Maybe that's where the label got its name from?
clem
I've often thought the same thing about the origin of the name.  Does anyone know why they called it Apple?
----
Third paragraph down contradicts itself. -Litefantastic 22:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

message: The article said that the above was an Apple artist. I'd never heard that, and I used to collect Apple Records. I figured that maybe, like David Peel, his records weren't released by Apple in the UK. However, a Google search reveals nothing, excluding Wikipedia mirrors. The Jimmy Cliff article has no mention of Apple or the Beatles. I conclude that entry is a mistake or a hoax. If you know different please reinstate it with a source and/or a catalogue number. --kingboyk 04:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jimmy Cliff]]
Talk:Akagi

message: I was partially reverted and I don't see how any of the information put back helps the reader find the correct article (except the Prefecture information - I'll grant you those - I made a mistake there).  Who cares that the ships were named for the volcano?  That information doesn't help you find the right ship.  As for the volcano, there's no page for it, so it should be redlink, or the entry removed entirely.  Eliminating the redlink doesn't help the reader find the intended article.  And why does the link to basketball help?  Or the fact that those characters are siblings?  I don't get it.  Tedernst | talk 23:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the ships being named after the volcano and about the basketball link, but I disagree about the volcano. It could be a redlink perhaps, but should certainly not be removed entirely. As for the siblings, it takes up little space and is not at all irrelevent older≠wiser 02:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reverts
Talk:Great White

message: Someone needs to add a Footnotes section and take the direct external page links and change them into reference links.  If I get the time, I'll do it later--Bamadude 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add references section

message: Is there a reason why Michael Lardie & Audie Desbrow
don't have their own biographies? 
When you click on their names it just redirects back to the Great White page.
:This is usually the case throughout Wikipedia when a member of a band has virtually nothing significant outside their involvement in the band; e.g., no popular solo albums, no personal problems, no newsworthy info, etc.  I don't know if that's the case with these two, but that's why that sort of thing happens.  They may also have already had an article which was folded into and redirected back to the main article.--Bamadude 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Lardie & Audie Desbrow

message: I think the lineup should be reformatted to match the one in AC/DC here (from :Template:AC/DC timeline). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead and do it. Might be a bit tricky with the two bands co-existing now, but maybe there is a way to do it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lineup 

message: Support split - Members section takes up close to half of the page, and should be split to a new article entitled List of Great White band members. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Great White band members 
Talk:Telegraph key

message: Suggested external link: http://www.ae4rv.com/tn/education/bug.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.55.132 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

message: I've broken fist out into its own section, because it's interesting.  But I have to admit, maybe it doesn't really belong here, except as a passing mention.  Fist is more to do with the operator than with the equipment (although the equipment is a factor).  Can anyone suggest a better place to put it?  I don't think it deserves its own article, but I'm not sure where it does belong either.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant, as types of keys influence one's "fist", but not as a separate section. I have arranged the format in terms of intro, then key classifications. - LuckyLouie 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The overall article's purpose seems to be about the telegraph key, however there is space for appropriate copy regarding "fist." With due respect LuckyLouie, it seems the cited source is discussing how fist can be a result of the key, so I edited it back down into its own section with a focus on how the key affects one's personal characteristics. - Davandron | Talk 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff, I like what you did. -- LuckyLouie 04:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fist 

message: I've removed the section on fist, as was a very thinly-modified copy-and-paste copyvio from the referenced source (http://www.zerobeat.net/tasrt/c09a.htm). Copying, then adding a pointer to the original, is still copying. Tlesher (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section on "fist"
Talk:Human scale

message: Since when are kilograms or Netwons considered more natural "human-scale" units? I don't think there are any "official" units for force or weight that are more natural, but the force of a punch or some other human activity and the average weight of a human come to mind as rough replacements. At any rate, I think we can do better than just plain Netwons and kg, which don't seem particularly human-scale IMHO. At least "tens of Newtons" or similar would be much better. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do kilogram & newton belong? 

message: This 'graph: 
: The term "human scale" is also used to refer to the Small Is Beautiful school of philospophy associated with Leopold Kohr, E. F. Schumacher, John Papworth and Kirkpatrick Sale, among others.Human Scale by Kirkpatrick Sale. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1980. 
is about a topic distinct from that stated in the lead, and (w/ rare exceptions like Nigger and Fuck) a WP article is about the concept the title names, not the titling word as a term. If the article on Small Is Beautiful is enhanced, by adding a section with encyclopedic discussion of that sense of "human scale", a HatNote Dab along the lines of
: 
can be added to the accompanying article, using Human scale (Small Is Beautiful) as a Rdr to Small Is Beautiful#Human scale.    I am not going to do the research to determine whether any specific "human scales" for development projects or organizations have been enunciated by SiB advocates, but i note that even if there is diversity of opinion among the as to the numbers, info about the numbers or numerical ranges would IMO be appropriate to the accompanying article.--Jerzy•t 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A disambiguation clause at the top of the article would be better than the wholesale removal of this passage. "Human scale" is a well established term used in that context, and so requires disambiguation precisely for the reasons that Jerzy states. Will someone with the technical knowledge assist with this? User1756 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small is Beautiful 

message: Perhaps distinct from Small is Beautiful, i recall that anthropologists believe there is an inherent human parameter, around 150, that represents the maximum size of a community in which "everybody knows everbody" is likely to be essentially true, rather than either hyperbole, a platitude, or an assumption that in practice doesn't get tested. If documented, it would IMO belong in the article. --Jerzy•t 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are referring to the Dunbar number I believe. User1756 (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community size 

message: Sorry, I've wasted everyone's time here. I misread the "diffs" of Archon 2488's edits. I was exploring the diff functionality and misread the changes from "100-foot (30-meter)" to "" and from "30 mph (13 m/s or 44 ft/s)" to "" as total metrifications. I didn't realise then that the "{{convert..." command was an automatic converter. Apologies to all concerned. ProProbly (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry, I was mistaken