lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Visual novels

message: I'm going to work on Studio e.go's page. I just noticed that it's got some pretty bad grammar issues.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Are you planning on working on any of their games' articles too? The few of them that have articles look like they are in pretty bad shape too. -- クラウド６６８ 18:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I'll work on them as I find time.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Notability may be an issue. I can't find good sources online or in Google Books for the studio or their games. Time to initiate an offline search.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Studio e.go!]] cleanup 

message: I've proposed a comprehensive cleanup of WP:VG's inactive task forces (which would include redirecting all task force talk pages, including this one), if you'll take a look czar ♔ 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect this talk page as part of task force cleanup 

message: This is a notice about :Category:Video games/Visual novels articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert attention 

message: I'm looking for sources for Kaitou Apricot—any suggestions? czar 10:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's really anything, but Famitsu gave the PS version 25/40, and Famitsu had a couple other articles about the PS2 and PSP versions, but seeing as how the publisher just got deleted, why not just prod/afd it?--十八 10:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Especially when the page is not new, "before" says that it's worth attempting to fix the article yourself before taking it straight to deletion. And it's hard to find sources when you don't know where to look (for VNs). But point taken—thanks czar 15:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it being nearly a decade old has anything to do with it. If it wasn't notable back then, then it's clearly not notable today.--十八 22:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaitou Apricot 

message: Any experts here? I'm looking to resolve the video games :Category:All articles needing expert attention queue and apparently Visual novel has been tagged for two years. Would anyone be willing to help resolve its  tag? czar 03:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical tag 

message: Hello I am working on a draft for this visual novel right now. It can be found here for anyone who is interested in helping. Sakura CarteletTalk 05:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nurse Love Addiction draft
Talk:Clare Hall, Cambridge

message: This is massively confusing. Much of this article is about Clare College when it was known as "Clare Hall". The rest of the article is about Clare Hall as founded in 1966. —Ashley Y 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are clear procedures for deleting an article on wikipedia. “not […] present[ing] a true and clear picture of the college or its history” is not usually a reason for deletion. On the other hand, college staff is invited to edit the article to clarify the picture of the college and its history, as long as neutrality is maintained. — Richie 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've requested ad cleanup for this page as a lot of it makes use of peacock terms. Also, while highly positive, it is also largely unsourced, using only a primary source (college's own website). I'll see what I can find on this. Seraphimblade 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad cleanup

message: It appears that others have tried to modify and/or delete this page. The Senior Tutor has given me a copy of the authorized text that should be written on this website. I've added also referencing, corrected and deleted a few inaccurate representations etc. Would others please stop modifying this page. Thank you —Coolcyber 9:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is a wiki, no one owns or may prohibit editing of a page. There are no "authorized versions", all articles on Wikipedia may be modified by any editor. Seraphimblade 10:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Authorized Rewrite
Talk:Endau-Rompin National Park

message: I'm going for a hiking trip at Endau Rompin and hope to post some pictures here. After the first week of May, if you haven't seen any photo yet, do yell at me! __earth (Talk) 06:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo
Talk:Lactarius

message: I just read there is a fish named lactarius. Amusingly, a species of the fish is named Lactaris nonfungus and a fungus is named Lactarus nonpiscis. If someone else knows more, please add this nice bit of trivia. DirkvdM 19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL, You're laughing is not it? I would be quite surprised if this is can be verified. Normally such things can be checked in the scientific literature, but I do not know which journals I have to look at (if they are available at my alma mater).  Annabel 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be correct (I like this kind of scientific humor!). I will have a look for good references. Annabel 07:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is best, to write a new article (does someone have enough literature on the genus lactarius in the family Lactariidae?). See Russulales news for a picture, description and literature of Lactarius nonpiscis. Annabel 07:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish 
Talk:Russula

message: How many species of Russula can be identified without resort to a microscope?
::Not sure - what a colossal headache...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say almost none of them can be identified with 100% confidence without a microscope, or even without DNA analysis - considering the regional variation and intricacy of Russula species complexes. de Bivort 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

message: Gymnomyces/Martellia are actually already accepted synonyms according to MycoBank. I created redirect pages. Macowanites (syn. Elasmomyces) and Cystangium are still in use. Tylototriton (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Synonymy

message: Can we create an article for Russula griseocarnosa, which is a popular culinary mushroom in Yunnan, China? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for ''[[Russula griseocarnosa]]'' needed
Talk:Lactarius torminosus

message: " The closely related L. torminosus is a dwarf version of L. torminosus, an arctic species associated " --Tallard (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence in similar species tautology
Talk:Lactarius turpis

message: An anonymous editor added this the other day:
"This species and L. helvus were formerly used (after boiling) as a spice in mushroom dishes in northern Europe, however, modern knowledge recognises these species as slighty carsinogenic (necatorine), and their use is not recommended by the officials."
I can't find any other sources of information that say that Lactarius turpis contains necatorine (carbon tetrachloride). 
Since mushrooms aren't known for producing halogenated organic solvents, I find this information to be very suspect.
Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 21:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See note 9 of the current article.  Necatorin is 7-hydroxycoumaro(5,6-c)cinnoline [sometimes written with the numbers (5,6,7) permuted], is mutagenic, and occurs in L. necator.  Necatorine is a name for carbon tetrachloride.  But I see that here the former is called Necatorine - this may be an error.  Strobilomyces 19:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon tet?!? 

message: JSYK...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit more and this could be a DYK 
Talk:Russula cyanoxantha

message: The gills are not free, have a look what Romagnesi said. http://www.cbs.knaw.nl/Russula --Thkgk (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gills free?
Talk:Russula emetica

message: Hi! Here in Russia it is considered a very edible mushroom and I myself eat it many times. It is calleed 'syroyezhka' ('raw-eater') here which means it can be eaten raw.--MathFacts (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says "it used to be widely eaten in Russia and eastern European countries" and perhaps it still is, and that information is inaccurate, but wikipedia shouldn't be changed without a source that meets its requirememts....  The first sentance has been changed.  It used to say the mushroom was called the "sickener" (as on the wikipedia main page) and now it says the "fisher."  Later on (Toxicity) it refers to it as the "sickener" again.  What's this about? 72.179.53.2 (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxic? 
Talk:Holocaust Memorial of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation

message: Is this section of the article wholly necessary? I can’t find any information on the reporter cited criticizing the decision to put Daniel Pearl in the memorial. I suppose what I mean to say here is this: just because some reporter asserted stated his opinion doesn’t make it automatically relevant, unless perhaps the reporter has the appropriate credentials needed to make his opinion significant enough to warrant its own section.
If there is no real controversy or debate concerning the decision, the section should be removed, if there is, and then there should be more information listed. 
Furthermore, there are no citations or footnotes in the article to back up the claims of the section.
This needs to be addressed. 
Thanks,
-Tyler B Crawford, FL
:The article is here (the person who added it did not link to it properly).  If this is indeed the only criticism (an opinion column in an Israeli newspaper), then I would agree that it certainly does not deserve a whole 'controversy' heading.  It does seem possible, though, that this may have elicited other comment, so it deserves further investigation.  In either case, discussion of the inclusion of Daniel Pearl's name should remain, as it is highly unusual for a Holocaust memorial to do something like this.  I think that the link to the Haaretz column, if retained, should be included only in a cursory manner, until it can be demonstrated that an actual controversy existed in Florida (which the columnist seems to actually say didn't exist).--Pharos 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel Pearl Controversy
Talk:Russula virescens

message: In the edibility section of Russula virescens, I think it's important to include the simple assertion that the quite poisonous Amanita phalloides is inedible, most notably because it is in the edibility section. Does anyone object to using the word 'inedible' in this instance? I'd very much like to keep it in the article as worded, with consensus; also, if in lieu of prose per the GA review. Thx.-- Rcej (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: calling A. phalloides inedible is an understatement to the point it is inaccurate, like calling travelling in Afghanistan as 'not entirely safe' - I'd say 'highly toxic' is a better describer to use.. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. If the main point of using the word 'inedible' was to describe Amanita phalloides, then I see what you mean; but in the particular sentence where its used, it is there just within the context of the sentence. Understating the obvious will often be used in a sentence that is meant to be understood in a direct, 'matter-of-fact' manner.-- Rcej (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion is stating that the poisonous fungus is inedible is unnecessary, needless and probably even misleading. Mushrooms which do not qualify as edible are all inedible, whether that be due to toxicity, inferior size and quality or irritating the senses, but "inedible" does not indicate the danger we want to associate A. phalloides with. Also, characterising a fungus as inedible has a certain degree of opinion associated with it, whereas "dangerously poisonous" means just what it is. Whoever consumes it is surely in danger. It's acceptable to include A. phalloides in a list of inedible (not edible) lookalikes where it is specified that consumption of this particular one poses a threat.--Paffka (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amanita phalloides 

message: He also says that it is commonly sold in markets in Spain (didn't add it as markets would be mentioned in two different spots). He also says that he's never paid much attention to Russulas as a genus but with this one he might have to study them more.....I'll check the other books. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carluccio 
Talk:Russula xerampelina

message: Some of the exterior links need sorting on this page.Luridiformis (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exterior links 

message: I have emailed the author of many published articles on this species, so be careful if an anon IP starts changing things around and correcting them. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: note
Talk:Stereum

message: What is a stereoid shape? -Craig Pemberton 03:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Undefined term

message: #S. basidios deleted (I think this was just a mistake)
#S. sanguineum deleted (I think this was a mistake for S. sanguinolentum)
#S. papyrinum, S. purpureum & S. taxodii have new names, often being classified very differently (see Index Fungorum)
#S. insignitum added
Strobilomyces 14:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on update to species list
Talk:British television science fiction

message: Yes, this page certainly needs to be cleaned up. It is a straight cut-and-paste from a very long section on the Science fiction on television article; it was even worse as a page section than as its own page. It's not high on my priority list, but if no one else gets to it, I will eventually. Avt tor 06:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to make the article read in a neutral way and removed 'fan' assertions which prevented it having a detached style. Some of the article may still read as original research, but those claims were retained which seem likely at some point to be backed up by reliable sources. I also cut some technical information which did not have a pressing need to be detailed here. Philip Cross (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup
Talk:QuesTec

message: The QuesTec system is no longer used by major league baseball. It was replaced in 2006 by "Zone Evaluation", which is mentioned in the article Strike Zone.
Marzolian (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs updating 

message: Even if the company is not in operation, but their apparent website is still up at the obvious .com address. I have not yet tried sending an email to anyone there, though. --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questec.com still online
Talk:Baseball Reliquary

message: And why's he in it? --AW 04:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Glad to hear it --AW (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Kenichi Zenimura? 

message: Website is returning 403 to both me and the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, the latter possibly for months. Is this organization still in operation? --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still in operation?
Talk:Retrosheet

message: I'm seeing Retrosheet popping up as a source reference in wikipedia articles. Since it is entirely possible for the same people to be editing both, I say it is not a valid wikipedia source, at least not by itself. What say y'all? Baseball Bugs 17:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to have better fact-checking than Wikipedia, but it's still a volunteer project. Unfortunately I have to conclude that it's not a good source for Wikipedia articles, unless Retrosheet's information can be confirmed from another source. Too bad, it's a really cool project. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where I specifically question it is where they use it to contradict official MLB statistics. If someone wants to say "according to the Retrosheet researchers..." that's one thing, but it should always be tempered, where possible, with "However, according to the official figures provided by MLB..." Baseball Bugs 18:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valid source?
Talk:Rafael (footballer, born 1980)

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rafael Pereira da Silva (footbaler born 1980). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rafael Pereira da Silva (footbaler born 1980)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Tomas Haake

message: I met Haake together with Dick Lövgren at a drum/bass clinic in November. He said that he regularly breaks around 10-15 cymbals each month playing drums, despite attempts in recent times to 'soften' his playing. Is this relevant to the article? Klumpfot 06:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. MavrikGandalf 05:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "This signature style has become one of the most recognized features in the music of Meshuggah. It was developed after a coversation with "Swish" about 1/1 time. " Source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.226.73.170 (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The majority of the Musical Career section appears to be an exact reproduction of the following article:
http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Tomas_Haake.html
I suggest this section either be enclosed in quotes with a citation, or it should be re-written and appropriately cited. In its current state, this section is plagiarized.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.91.168 (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical Career section plagiarized.  
Talk:Degree matrix

message: I'm wondering if the example on a degree matrix is correct. The text states
: For an undirected graph, the degree of a vertex is the number of edges incident to the vertex. This means that each loop is counted twice. This is because each edge has two endpoints and each endpoint adds to the degree.
Vertex 1 in the diagram has two non-loop edges and one loop edge. According to the text this should mean that the degree of vertex 1 is 4. However, in the degree matrix the top-left value is 3.
Am I misunderstanding the definition? -- 203.12.172.254 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone fixed the example. 67.100.217.179 (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is wrong. I fixed it. Alphama (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

message: I am wondering if the definition of the degree matrix itself is correct. It is stated that “it is a diagonal matrix which contains information about the degree of each vertex—that is, the number of edges attached to each vertex”, but I think it would be more correct to say that is contains information about the strength of each vertex (given by the sum of the weights of all edges attached to the vertex). Indeed in [1], the degree matrix of a weighted undirected matrix G is defined as a diagonal matrix whose entries are given by the sum of all neighboring link weights. I feel that this definition well generalizes to weighted and binary undirected matrices with positive weights. However, it probably does not generalise to directed matrices and matrices containing negative values. Am I saying something completely wrong?
 
 
[1] Ortega, Antonio, Graph Signal     Processing: Overview, Challenges, and Applications, Proceedings of the IEEE, 2018 Rigonii (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  degree matrix is not the sum of number of edges but the sum of edge-weights
Talk:ICCF national member federations

message: Why the ICCF national members are not here with their actual names?
E.g. why I see here ICCF Italy instead of the real name Asigc? Or, what is the relation between ICCF Italy and Asigc?
How can I find out whether ICCF England is BCCF (British Correspondence Chess Federation), BCCA (British Correspondence Chess Association), or any other association?
I propose something like:
Country: Italy, Member: ASIGC
Country: Spain, Member: AEAC
Mauropetrolo (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming
Talk:Lepiota

message: I found one of these mushrooms in my potted pepper plant. Should I throw the entire container away? Will it contaminate the peppers? 2601:14B:C380:A2D0:28B5:7869:EB5B:8AD3 (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found in Pepper Plant
Talk:Falls Creek Baptist Conference Center

message: Falls Creek is in Falls Creek, not Davis. While it is not far from Davis, it is nowhere near Davis. It is not directly accessed by neither Interstate 35 nor U.S. Route 77. Looking at maps there are several observations: 
* Falls Creek is not part of Davis. 
* Falls Creek is not annexed by Davis. 
* Falls Creek is completely outside of Davis, Oklahoma city limits. 
* Also, the village has its own block street system that clearly means that is its own separate village. 
* Falls Creek has its own post office. 
Falls Creek, Oklahoma is an Unincorporated Community.
In Correct (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Falls Creek Is In Falls Creek
Talk:Macrolepiota procera

message: "Other traditional uses include coating the cap in breadcrumbs (as if preparing a Wiener Schnitzel or a chicken-fried steak) and frying it in a pan or drying the cap in the sun and grinding it for later use as a form of mushroom spice."
Whose tradition is it?--Paffka (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other traditional uses 

message: summary is wrong. cap is not flat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: Paul Stamets posted a video on YouTube about this mushroom, stating the following in the description:
:"We inoculated a thatch ant mound with one gallon of pure cultured spawn by mixing the mycelium into their mound. The ants were initially disturbed but then quickly rebuilt their nest incorporating the Macrolepiota procera mycelium into its structure. The next year a few Parasol mushrooms sprouted. In the years subsequently, several hundred giant mushrooms  appeared. Attine ants started cultivating Parasol mushroom mycelium more than 25,000,000 years ago as part of their 'host defense' against disease. The Parasol mycelium pre-selects a bacterium (actually an actinomyces) which, in turn, produces an anti-fungal antibiotic that prevents fungal pathogens from infecting the ant colony."
Is there any literature that supports this?  At the very least, a passing reference could be made, with a wikilink to the article on ant-fungus mutualism.  Wingman4l7 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbiosis with ants 

message: I presume this is because of the risk of confusing this mushroom with other similar but poisonous ones: http://mushroom-collecting.com/mushroomparasol.html but if so could this be made explicit? Or is there some other reason it is not recommended?
:Yes, mainly to do with confusion with Chlorophyllum molybdites Agree about updating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 'Not Recommended' to eat?