lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Algeria

message: ~~HDI in algeria is 0.790
: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Skitash (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024 

message: 41.109.9.48 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The most recent UN report clearly states that Algeria's HDI is 0.745. Liu1126 (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2024 

message: Human development index score of Algeria is 0.790 41.109.9.48 (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hdi in algeria 

message: I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already brought this up, but shouldn't Algeria be considered a dominant-party system since its politics is dominated by the National Liberation Front party, even if there are some shenanigans to give the system a semblance of multi-party competition? Gorgedweller (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Most countries have a dominant party to give the system a semblance of multi-party competition, so I see no reason why Algeria should be singled-out. M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I gues for the same reason Angola and Tanzania are currently presented as such on their respective pages because no, these are no typical situations. Since 1990s a large chunk of African nations have become genuine (even if flawed) democracies with ruling parties regularly losing elections. Gorgedweller (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you seem to be referring to the "dominant-party" in the literal sense, then your comparison is baseless as no single party managed to win a majority in the last Algerian parliamentary election (or the one before it). So the answer to your question is much simpler: no it shouldn't because it isn't. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A dominant-party system 

message: , would you like to explain why you removed the well-sourced section on etymology from the article? Mathglot (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed in error during a computer glitch — I since reinstated it.  Zurkhardo (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the Etymology section removed? 

message: Change Didouche Mourad to Mourad Didouche. The current hyperlink links to a province in Algeria rather than the person in the photo. EarthGamerTheFirst (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks! Jip Orlando (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024
Talk:Archaeology

message: This article used to be a good article. Let's make it like that again. Who's In?
𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Make Archaeology Good Again

message: Greetings, The Votive site article lacks references since it was created in 2004. Asking for help here as I'm not familiar with the topic. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: - Thank you User:Joe Roe for redirecting to Votive offering article. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Votive site]] article 

message: — Assignment last updated by Michaelmccalla (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Slavery in Latin America

message: While we don't want the article (in particular, the historical part) to be too long, shouldn't we include the work of Napoleon's savants, like Denon? Kdammers (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptology
Talk:American football

message: On March 28, 2023, NFL owners approved the use of the number zero for all non-linemen beginning in the 2023-2024 NFL season.
The article currently States that the NFL only allows the use of numbers 1-99. This needs to be changed to 0-99
https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-owners-approve-proposal-to-allow-players-to-wear-no-0 Ploobus (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorized player numbers now include the number 0 

message: Reference 160 is not a relevant reference for the said article but purely a backlink attempt. Nothing about the reference provides value to the article. Should be removed as it purely for advertisement purposes. Alphape1 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: If you are talking about this reference, then I think it's pretty relevant here and I don't see any good reason to remove it. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2024 

message: In the field and equipment section I see a TON of fractions that make it a bit harsh on the eyes. I know in general Wiki prefers to use of decimals to fractions and I'm think that this is a section that would benefit from that change. Lindsey40186 (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules define them by fractions, not decimals, and since American units don't really use decimals it's the most natural way to use them, imo. AFAIK, only SI units are supposed to 100% use decimals here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough :) Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decimals over fractions? 

message: BennettDT (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Myrealnamm-alt (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2024
Talk:Acronym/Archive 3

message: As clarified on Wikipedia:Village pump:
#I never claimed "initialism" is a neologism. Indeed, the OED says it's an older word than acronym, and has quotations to prove it. I only claimed that it's a rarely-used word, and I think that is borne out by the evidence. .
#At least one major dictionary supports my view of the definition of "acronym": Merriam-Webster. Part of its definition of "acronym" says "an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters : INITIALISM", and its definition of "initialism" says, in entirety, "an acronym formed from initial letters". The dictionary clearly makes the case here that initialisms are a subset of acronyms. 
#There is substantial evidence, delineated on Talk:Acronym, that the meaning of acronym that includes abbreviations like FBI, is in substantial use, not only online, but in published books. Published books are vetted not only by their authors, but by editors and publishers, and because so many examples of the word being used this way have crept their way into published books, it seems disingenuous to claim that this meaning of the word is only used by ignorants and the uneducated.
#My opponents have continually claimed that I am attempting to "obscure" the distinction between initialisms and acronyms or that I believe that the distinction is not worth keeping. This is false. My claim is that initialisms are a subset of acronyms, as Merriam-Webster explains; not that they are the same set. 
#My opponents have claimed that I am trying to insist that my definition is the only correct definition. This too is false. Every version of Acronym that I have supported has included the information that some people and some dictionary definitions support the view that initialisms that aren't pronounced as words aren't acronyms. My only aim is that the article on acronyms treat the two definitions equally and not assert that one or the other is correct. This is what I have attempted on Acronym/temp. There are two competing definitions of "acronym". Both are supported by dictionary definitions. Both are supported by usage in published books and on the web, and I don't see any valid reason why both shouldn't be treated equally on Acronym.
Nohat 18:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nohat's ''actual'' view
Talk:A Clockwork Orange (novel)

message: Surely the design of the 1972 paperback, by David Pelham, is worthy of mention? it was the subject of an episode of BBC Four's The Beauty of Books. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pelham's Paperback cover 

message: There was also a theatre version by Frank Castorf, see the German wikipedia on him. 176.5.132.86 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Castorf
Talk:Alphabet

message: Perhaps we should change the name of this article to Alphabets; or something along those lines? The article talks about the history, use, and changes of multiple alphabets, not just one singular alphabet. Just a suggestion more than anything else.  SomeoneOK (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia usually uses the singular form in article titles, even when there are lots of items: Tree rather than Trees. Certes (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Alright. That makes sense. Just thought it might be confusing about how hearing Alphabet would sort of specify, at least on this Wikipedia, the Latin alphabet. SomeoneOK (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change Suggestion 

message: I've gone through and cited most of the article. I would really like for this Article to become a Good Article again after 16 years. Can anyone see any nitpicks that may lead it to be rejected? Only thing I might think of is perhaps source reliability, haven't been around too much to know what is and isn't good in terms of essentially everything.  SomeoneOK (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential GAN? 

message: It seems out of place; it got stated in the earlier review, and a random section into the sizes of scripts I don't think is particularly needed. It's just four paragraphs, albeit on topic about size. It is not with the article. I wanted to discuss this before taking action this large. SomeoneOK (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting/Moving the Size Section. 

message: — Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

message: A somewhat new study found that the alphabetical writings found at the archaeological site of Umm el-Marra could be the oldest in the world. I'm kinda shocked that this article doesn't mention them.
https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/07/13/alphabetic-writing-500-years-earlier-glenn-schwartz/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2274831-the-alphabet-may-have-been-invented-500-years-earlier-than-we-thought/ 
"However, correspondences between the symbols on the cylinders and Early Alphabetic Semitic characters can be noted. It might therefore be hypothesized that the Umm el-Marra cylinders represent a very early manifestation of alphabetic writing."
It is not 100% confirmed yet that these writings were alphabetical. 
George Washington University scholarChristopher Rollston, concluded that they were indeed alphabetical writings.
https://www.academia.edu/46910208/Tell_Umm_el_Marra_Syria_and_Early_Alphabetic_in_the_Third_Millennium_Four_Inscribed_Clay_Cylinders_as_a_Potential_Game_Changer
I believe these writings should be included in the article.  Whatsupkarren (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm Al Marra
Talk:Agma

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Agma article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 10:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Agma|Link suggestions]]
Talk:Aal

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aal article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 00:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Aal|Link suggestions]]
Talk:Aalborg Municipality

message: Hello Denmark!
Warm greetings from India 🇮🇳🇮🇳  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.35.116 (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aalborg article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 00:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: - I'm game. Rich Farmbrough, 07:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Aalborg|Link suggestions]]
Talk:Abacus

message: The Neurological analysis section was written by a nonnative speaker and contains spelling and grammar errors. Moreover, their interpretations of studies and use of scientific terms are suspect. This section would greatly benefit from review by someone with a familiarity with neuroscience.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:101:2A40:7443:EBEB:3D20:16C3 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Needed 

message: It would be useful, if one can be found (or created), to add an animated example of a calculation with the abacus. Pol098 (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated example? 

message: It might be useful to add an explained example of use for a simple calculation. Pol098 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of use 

message: What kind of abacus would the first person to write the word down in 1387 England have recognized? Would it just have been a Roman or Greek abacus? How long did Europe (and post-Columbian America) use abacuses? I don't think I remember seeing them in movies from a hundred years ago; were they already gone before modern, inexpensive calculators? The only abacus in the article not associated with a specific culture is the one for schoolchildren, and as a child I remember being told those were simplified from the real thing. Similarly, I believe the abacus was for a long time very important to the Middle East, and according to the lede is still in use in Africa. If anyone has info (and sources) to fill some of these gaps, it'd help the article greatly! Also, quick side note while I'm here, the article on algorist has a different version of the picture at the head of the article, maybe one would be preferable to the other?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.227.125 (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Abacus
Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man

message: * Lee and Conway are credited together on #116-118. The text implies Lee's last credit was for #110.
* Bill Mantlo wrote #181 with Sal Buscema and Mike Esposito credited as artists.
* Marv Wolfman's last issue was #204. Three is quite a mess from #205 to #223:
** David Michelinie wrote #205 with Keith Pollard/Jim Mooney doing pencils/inks.
** Roger Stern wrote #206 with John Byrne & Gene Day as artists.
** Dennis O'Neil took the reins as writer for #207-218 with various art teams:
*** For #207 Mooney/Pablo Marcos doing pencils/inks.
*** For #208 John Romita Jr. did the layouts with Al Milgrom/Brett Breeding finishing the art (Jim Shooter and Mark Gruenwald were given thanks for plotting).
*** For #209 Alan Weiss did pencils with Klaus Janson/Bob McLeod/Joe Rubinstein/ Bob Wiacek/Milgrom doing inks.
*** For #210 Romita Jr. and Joe Sinnott did art.
*** Some stability was reached for #211-217 with Romita Jr./Mooney credited for art. On #218 Romita Jr. is credited for pencils and Mooney/Milgrom for inks.
*** On #219 Luke McDonnell did pencils and Mooney continued doing inks.
** Michael L. Fleisher wrote #220 and McLeod did the art. 
** O'Neil returned for #221 with Alan Kupperberg/Mooney on pencils/inks.
** Mantlo wrote #222 with Bob Hall/Mooney on pencils/inks. 
** O'Neil returned again to plot #223 with J.M. DeMatteis doing the script and the art is by Romita Jr./Milgrom as penciler/inker. 
* Stern took over writing at #224.
--Muhandes (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some missing facts
Talk:Automorphism

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Automorphism article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 01:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the links that made sense. Edward 07:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Automorphism|Link suggestions]] 

message: It talks of "if G is centerless" in the examples, but isn't G a group, and so contains the identity, which is commutative by definition, and hence all centers contain the identity? so doesn't this put the talk of a centerless group as impossible? -- Moxmalin
:By definition, a group is centerless if its center consists of only the identity. See center of a group. -- Fropuff 00:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Centerless?

message: Currently the article states that R has no non-trivial order-preserving field-automorphisms, which is true, but potentially misleading since in fact R has no non-trivial field-automorphisms at all (since the order can be recovered from the field operations, as the positive elements are precisely the nonzero squares). I'm changing it. Algebraist 17:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automorphisms of '''R''' 

message: The following examples were removed:
* In puzzles, automorphism exists when elements of the puzzle have a type of symmetry among the elements and their positions, such as an automorphic Sudoku.
* An example of an automorphism is a similarity transform, which leaves the geometrical form of a figure unchanged.<ref  Klaus Maintzer: Local activity principle: The cause of complexity and symmetry breaking, Chapter 12 (pages 146–159). In:   ref>
This article refers to a certain class of self-mappings of a mathematical object. The Sudoku section corresponds in title but not content to this article. The Similarity redlink and Maintzer ref are inappropriate for this article. — Rgdboer (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Not maps

message: The linear algebra example states: "When the vector space is finite-dimensional, the automorphism group of V is the same as the general linear group, GL(V)."
This suggests that this is not the case for infinite-dimensional vector spaces. However, the article on the General linear group states that GL(V) = Aut(V) in general: "V is a vector space over the field F, the general linear group of V, written GL(V) or Aut(V), is the group of all automorphisms of V, [...]. If V has finite dimension n, then GL(V) and GL(n, F) are isomorphic."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.82.115 (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies with [[General linear group]]
Talk:Anglican Communion

message: Just a question: Should the recent "suspension" of the Episcopal Church in the United States be a section on this article under the topic controversies? JustTryintobeJust (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspension of the Episcopal Church? 

message: This article should make it clearer that the Scottish Episcopal Church is not an offshoot of the Church of England. Also after the USA's separatist rebellion was successful, the English church cut off the Episcopal Church there and it was through the efforts of Scottish Episcopalians that it got back on its feet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.162.96 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Scottish Episcopal Church 

message: I find the map puzzling. What are "autonomous churches" in distinction to the other provinces?? I do not find that in the article. Is it supposed to mean something like "national provinces" differentiated from "supernational" ones? Kipala (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map ?? 

message: why was my edit reverted? 89.139.53.155 (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert
Talk:Alpha particle

message: I rewrote the name section to give the origin of the name "alpha particle" and the connection to doubly ionized He atoms. 
The previous section had no references and it has several claims about common usage (which probably cannot be verified unless some authority chose to say such). I suspect that when ever radioactivity is the source, the result is called "alpha particle" until the particle picks up two electrons and acts like a gas molecule, Helium. I doubt anyone calls the radiation product "doubly ionized Helium". On the other hand, if we start with Helium and ionize it, then yes we call it "doubly ionized Helium"; then it's not an alpha particle. The fact that these two products, from very different origins, have the same nucleons would not change the name used. I'll be on the look out for a reference to this effect. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of the Name section.
Talk:Ada Lovelace

message: It should simply be "The programming language Ada is named after her." and should be linked to this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)
The 'Ada Lovelace' currently linked to in that sentence is actually a piece of hardware, a particular graphics procesing unit built by nVidia, which is completely different from a programming language.
You could split the current last sentence into two sentences, one linking to the programming language, and a second that links to the hardware. 74.76.179.46 (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out! The GPU is covered in Commemoration. Schazjmd (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last sentence of the opening section is incorrect. 

message: The sections I have added under 'Computing and STEMM' and 'Other' should be merged with Commemoration.   I may do this in due course, but will not be offended if someone else does it (or starts it) first.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Section merge
Talk:Anno Domini

message: :To resolve an obvious omission at Date of birth of Jesus, I have copied the text of Anno Domini#History to that article. So formally, 
: --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material copied to another article 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Anno reparatae salutis humanae and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 27#Anno reparatae salutis humanae until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  MB 05:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anno reparatae salutis humanae" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: In the History section, it mentions that "The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus" however, later on it says "The last year of the old table, Diocletian Anno Martyrium 247, was immediately followed by the first year of his table, Anno Domini 532." This seems confusing -- was he labeling the year now known as A.D. 525 as A.D. 532? Or was the first mention of the A.D. system only published after 532? If the latter, in what sense did Dionysius Exiguus devise it in 525? The section flips back and forth between 525 and 532, so it's really hard to figure out what the dates actually are. 2600:1702:24B0:AED0:D825:D002:59F3:161D (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Papal functionaries were aware that the last year in the Easter table in use in the early 500s had a last year that we would now call 531. They asked Dionysius Exiguus to prepare a new table that would continue where the table in use left off. That is, the new table should have 532 as its first year. Dionysius finished his task in 525. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  525 or 532?