lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of colleges in Alberta

message: Grant MacEwan College has dropped the word "college" from their name, since they now offer full four-year undergrad degrees.  I'm putting them on here.Kevlar67 02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacEwan 

message: A list of four isn't worth having a list at all, we should broaden the scope to indlude colleges, etc. Kevlar67 (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go nuts. GreenJoe 00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did! Kevlar67 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved up the Uni's as they weren't easy to find, and likely that's the first thing people look for. (If not they should have been right under the public colleges, which they weren't.) Also, seeing as this is a list, I removed an large section below "Other" that stuck out as original research. GreenJoe 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ... unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.
The facts were published by the Alberta Government, a reliable source, and they advance no argument, simnply state the number of private colleges, for example.  That is the basis of what a list should do. Kevlar67 (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repurpose 

message: That's what the news story I read in the Macewan student paper said.  The article doesn't seem to reflect that. Intercamp, "MacEwan and MRC could add University to name". --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macewan and Mont Royal could become "universities" (but they aren't yet) 

message: The Government of Alberta legal defines what is a college and what is a university.  I have reverted several changes that deviated from the government source.  For a breakdown of Alberta's entire post-secondary system by the government, please see Advanced Education and Technology > Post-Secondary System.
--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to match Gov't source
Talk:University of Victoria

message: Hey all!
I'm wondering if the following passage in Residence Halls (currently subsection 5.3) is verifiable or if it should be deleted per removal of unsourced material guidelines, having been marked CN since September 2019:
From a quick dig through the edit history, it was added in February 2017 but the revisions seem to have been subject to WP:REVDEL. I was unable to find any supporting evidence for the claim, but wanted to avoid deleting without consensus.
Thanks! // Wren of Theseus (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means! While it's encouraged to seek out a consensus on the talk page, if you're confident that an unsourced claim should be removed, then WP:BEBOLD and take the initiative to remove it. If you're interested in improving the article further, I would suggest giving WP:UNIGUIDE a quick look-through for some suggestions and tips on how to improve the article. Happy editing! Leventio (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for unsourced material removal
Talk:University of Manitoba

message: If you are a student at, or a graduate of, the University of Manitoba and would like to show it. You can use a userbox by putting  in your user page. It would look like this:
Gadig 22:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: University of Manitoba Userbox

message: This article needs a complete fresh proofread and editing.  The single most glaring problem is the dozens (or 100's?) of times that words are run together with no space between them.  But there are also many grammatical, punctuation, and missing capitalization problems.  (BTW, I am a graduate with 2 degrees from this university.) HWSager (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major proofreading and editing needed 

message: Do we really need that big table in this section? All universities have vice presidents or similar that do those executive functions. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[University_of_Manitoba#Vice_presidents_and_provosts]]
Talk:Brandon University

message: Some mention of the 3 month long strikes by the professors in 2008(?) and 2011 would be nice. They were notable for their length and for occurring during the school year.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.83.212 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strikes 

message: points to U Manitoba  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.178.73 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  coordinates are wrong 

message: Neil Roberstson who became a world famous mathematician and one of best known grpah theorists of the the last 50yrs is a graduate of Brandon Univeristy (College). I have added his name to the list of notable alumni.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.13.22.194 (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neil Robertson - World Famous mathematican 
Talk:List of colleges in Prince Edward Island

message: :The title of this page should be "List of universities and colleges in Prince Edward Island". In keeping a standard with the other provinces of canada pages, the polital division is used, i.e. PEI is a province. The geographical use of the island to describe PEI should not be used as no other province has a page divided by a geographial term. Tolivero (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's improper grammar. If you want it moved again, use the official method of WP:MOVE. GreenJoe 02:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would argue they are both correct. Universities on the island or universities in the province; the province and the island, of course, share the name. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they both are correct, but this page uses PEI as the political subdivison, referring to the province, not the geographical use as the island. Jpollock (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Title shouls use "in", as its the province. The first line of the article clearly state they are universities in PEI. Meganfox (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose, improper grammar. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:List of universities in Ontario

message: Algoma is not a university, but a college, no matter what they call themselves.  They're not a degree granting institution.
:Algoma is an affiliated college of Laurentian, it does indeed grant degrees.  Right now of course, they are Laurentian degrees, once Algoma gets independince it will grant Algoma degrees.  So, saying Algoma does not grant degrees is simply incorrect, oh, and sign your posts...  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: as of 4 pm today Algoma is a university. I cannot get the hang of the table editing thing, so could someone add the info please?Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy to update their info, but I require proof of royal assent first. GreenJoe 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Algoma became a University in 2008, while it opened its doors as an affiliate of Laurentian in 1964.  Recently UOIT was listed in the lede as the newest University.  The table lists Nipissing as being founded in 1992.  Indeed this is when Nipissing became a University, before that it was an affiliate of LU.  So, what shall we list?  It strikes me, that we ought to go with when a school actually becomes a University, not when it opens its doors.  What do others think?  Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Algoma

message: See the discussion at Template talk:Ont Uni. GreenJoe 15:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guelph-Humber

message: This article seems to be the scene of battles over its scope. As currently defined, this is a list of "universities" (broadly defined) in Ontario. There are no defined criteria that justify the exclusion (and repeated removal) of certain institutions that call themselves "university."  Unless the article is rewritten to provide some sort of restrictive definition of scope (e.g., based on legal definitions), it seems to me that all institutions that call themselves "university" need to be listed. --Orlady (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a "university"?

message: I removed a large number of institutions, because they do not award their own degrees, they are "affiliated" with another school. This list is for top level Universities. GreenJoe 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: Added this list page to related WikiProject as per the implied scope of WikiProject Universities (e.g., Featured Lists). Adhe536ontario2008 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion in WikiProject Universities
Talk:Yukon University

message: I removed the name of the chancellor. This is an encylopedia not a forum to advertise one's job. Articles should deal with facts not with job positions which change.
:It's standard to have those names in and not an advert. An ad would be a link to the persons own website. If you want to change the standard then go to the porject's talk page and discuss it there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Finite topology

message: Hello all,
I've found several papers that use the term finite topology in reference to manifolds/topological surfaces. For example, "Embedded minimal surfaces of finite topology" (Hoffman and Meeks), "Complete minimal surfaces of finite topology in the doubled Schwarzchild 3-manifold" (Jaigyoung et al), "Conformal structure of minimal surfaces with finite topology" (Bernstein and Breiner), and many more.
However, I've been unable to find any original sources that actually define this term. I suspect that it is shorthand for surface of finite topological type, but I've yet to find a source corroborating this, or even a source actually defining the term topological type.
Can someone with more expertise in manifolds/topological surfaces and more familiarity with the literature help me here? 64.106.111.99 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the above refers to surfaces, it would seem to me that the definition in the section "on manifolds" in this article applies: A "finite topology" is a "compact Riemann surface with a finite number of points removed." At least, that would be my guess. You'd have to read the papers to see if this is what they seem to be talking about. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference request for definition of "surface of finite topology" 

message: — Assignment last updated by Angerbodha (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes all look plausible to me. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies
Talk:List of statues on Charles Bridge

message: This page need some serious work. I'd say start off with just catagorizing the satues themselves, but then we need to clarify the information on each one and get reliable resources. NeoChrono Ryu 19:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Nothing to do wuith the romans!!!!!!!!!!!
Do we want to begin each paragraph on an article with a level 4 heading or just a bullet? It currently starts with one and then uses the other.  I'd make it consistent but I don't know which one to use. RJFJR 13:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in the process of creating stubs for each of the statues, which means details about individual works can be moved from this list to their respective articles. Ideally, this list would be a sortable, formatted table with images, dates, artists, and a brief description of each statue, leaving more in-depth coverage for the articles about specific statues. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Update: There are now stubs for each of the statues. I also created a navigation box to link all of the articles together. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: Just to note-the offense taken at the placement of the Hebrew phrase around the crucifix is not "misconstrued." The letters were added to the statue with the explicit purpose of offending, and they continue thus to offend. Just a note.140.180.24.8 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content

message: Good link on the bottom, but this page needs more references.  For institute, I find it slightly suspicious the statue of St. Wenceslas was commissioned by the Prague Institute for the Blind.--ScottieB (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The change made on 1 July 2011 00:44 regarding the origins of the Hebrew letters on the Crucifix and Cavalry appears to be nothing but vandalism. diff of the change.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.48.137 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism
Talk:Dimitry Pospielovsky

message: Copyright notice, just in case: I am the author of this small article, and I added it both here and into OrthodoxWiki. mikka (t) 19:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Trundle bed

message: A photo of trundle bed might be nice to add, if anybody has one.  --User:71.131.46.86
:There you go! — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is kinda small; I can't really tell it's a trundle bed from this angle. C Teng [talk] 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Hartogs' lemma

message: The page claims:
: More precisely, on Cn for n ≥ 2, any analytic function F defined on the complement of a compact set K extends (necessarily uniquely) to an analytic function on Cn. 
Suppose we take F(z)=1/z, defined on C\{0}, and let K={0}, which is certainly compact. Then F doesn't extend to an analytic function on C, unless the meaning of "analytic" is somehow extended beyond what I'm used to. --Trovatore 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed the condition n≥2. --Trovatore 19:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this stated correctly?
Talk:ASE

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.visualnetworksystems.com/ASE. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Gidoca (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:General order

message: An off-color parody of these guard duty rules:
:I will walk my post from flank to flank
:And take no shit from any rank
(referring to the concept that unauthorized personnel are not permitted to pass - even if they outrank the guard) Uncle Ed 20:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Does the G.O. pertain to Civil Service employee even if they work for Military, also if the employee is a DOD Police or a Security Guard?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.197.26 (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. a merger is in the best interest of user-friendliness. Jhfireboy Talk 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The merger propsoal has now been up for three months, so it is safe to assume that further comments are unlikely. I have gone ahead and merged the articles.  Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Chestnut (color)

message: Just because Crayola does it... I've never heard chestnut being applied to anything other than maroon - give or take a little red. 
This should be changed to Indian Red in my opinion.
:I agree; the article should be titled Indian Red, not Chestnut.  Also, am I wrong, or did Crayola already have a colour called Chestnut?  Maybe not a crayon, but a colored pencil?  I believe it was a dark brown.  If this is the case, isn't it possible that the crayon labeled Chestnut is not a renamed Indian Red, but rather a substitution?  --Tellybelly 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

message: this is clearly plain old indian red... chestnut is a much richer, browner colour. KINDA LIKE CHESTNUTS.
if i knew the first thing about wikipedia i'd change this in a trice. 86.160.197.51 (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  wtf 

message: An entry in List of colors: A–F contained a link to this page.
The entry is :
* Dark chestnut
I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries
If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible removal from list
Talk:Riederalp

message: --Not quite sure if this is a correct format, please advise if changes are needed!  --Jum4 20:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Script

message: Are there really cases when "script" refers to specifically  "cursive" style of handwriting? Perhaps, it is a general word for style of handwriting?--Imz 20:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This remark no longer applies. However, cursive is itself a term for handwriting in general. Rp (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Cursive entry valid? 

message: Re: User talk:Rp#Rollback is valid
User:Checkingfax, User:Rp we do use redirects on dabs per WP:MOSDAB - see WP:DABREDIR  . The following use satisfies that in spirit (if not letter)
* Script (computer programming), a computer program written in a scripting language Widefox; talk 12:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the diligence ... but I'm afraid I can't figure out why you're bringing this up. There was a problem with some of the links originally, and as far as I know, it was fixed. Rp (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scripting language 

message: In my opinion, unless any other uses can be added to the 'Other uses' section of this article, said section should be deleted as it is pointless in my opinion to have an empty section within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Other uses' tab should be removed 

message: Hi all! 
I think we should clarify what we mean by script as "style of writing".
For example, what's the relationship between Latin "script" and Gothic "script"?
I believe that Gothic "script" is a style of writing the Latin "script". Is this what is meant here? If so, I don't think "script (style of writing)" should redirect to "calligraphy", as these seem to be completely different topics. 
It would also be useful to clarify what exactly is meant by a "writing system". Is the Arabic "script" as used for writing the Arabic language the same "writing system" when it is used to write other languages, such as Persian or Turkish?
Or a more familiar example: is the "writing system" used in the UK the same as the "writing system" used in America, despite the differences in spelling of various words? JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need clarification
Talk:The Student Prince

message: Please do not add an infobox to this article.  The use of infoboxes in WP articles is optional.  The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." See also WP:DISINFOBOX. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles, as here, do not. Here are some reasons why I disagree with including an infobox in this article: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids, and all the facts it presents are stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) The most important points about the article are discussed in the Lead, so the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a lot of code near the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is a very good summary. I-Bs are very useful to the reader for many articles where life statistics or positions can be summarised (sportspeople, politicians, military, etc), but add nothing useful in the arts biographies. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: (cur | prev) 21:50, 22 June 2017‎  (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,556 bytes) (-131)‎ . . (Rv unreferenced addition. Please add a citation to a reliable source that verifies this information and explains why it is significant. See WP:V for more information.) (undo | thank)
:Fortunate that I happened to revisit the article after you deleted the new Mauceri recording. Edit summaries such as the above don't get seen by editors. It requires a ping. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such policy or guideline as the one you mention.  However, WP:V is a key policy at Wikipedia.  I have no idea if the 2012 German recording is noteworthy, but if you wish to list it, at a minimum you must include a reference including the necessary bibliographic details. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks!  Actually, I see that the US Army moved out of Heidelberg from 2012 to 2015, and this NYT article indicates that most of the US soldiers left in or by 2013.  Still, that's about 40 years of performances! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Talking via edit summaries; [[WP:V]]
Talk:Copyright Act (Canada)

message: Whoops..Wikipedia says in the article: The Act was first enacted in 1921 and much of the text was taken from the British Copyright Act of 1911. (This previously unsigned comment was written by 24.215.124.23 in 2006.)
* And? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

message: I would think it would be better if a "history section was created on the canadian copyright page and this moved over there (as this page is so short) either completely, or as such that a subsection is created on that page that has the 'see main article' thing that redirects it to here.
Noian (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The Copyright Act is a specific piece of legislation. Canadian copyright law also includes case law and copyright-related legislation which does not amend the Copyright Act itself. I would be okay with moving around specific sections, but I believe that each topic should have its' own separate article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal