lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Génesis (band)

message: Article requested for over two years. Created basic stub from information I could find. (I am not a fluent Spanish speaker, only having a fairly limited understanding, so I was limited in finding sources and information.) It would be wonderful if someone could help expand this article. The band is clearly notable in Columbian culture and modern history. Vassyana 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Marc Engelhardt

message: For Engelhardt's performances,  search google.com for "Marc Engelhardt" bassoon and  search google.de for "Marc Engelhardt" fagott. - Pointillist (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography 
Talk:Chlamydophila

message: * Moving this to the talk page pending reformating in Wp style...
::Chlamydophila (Chla.my.do' phil.a. Gr. fem. n. chlamys, chlamydis a cloak; L. fem. n. phila dear, beloved; M.L. fem. n. Chlamydophila dear to the cloak). The type species for the genus Chlamydophila is Chlamydophila psittaci.
: -- MarcoTolo 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronounciation

message: I see people have talked about this in 2013, but now in 2018 more can be said on the issue. The cutting edge DNA techniques of 1999 aren't so hip now. 1. The study only looked at relatively small portions of the genome, instead of full genome analysis. 2. Diversity of newly discovered species since then complicate the picture, at the time of this study, there were only 6 species known. 3. Recognising Chlamydophila leaves Chlamydia no longer parsimonious, Chlamydia muridarum would need to be removed (leaving it with 2 species (as of 2018)). 4. Few have accepted this classification: the many new species described since then (2013, 2014, 2017, 2018) have been classified as Chlamydia, nothing has been described recently as Chlamydophila, to my knowledge.
Leo     86.83.56.115 (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance
Talk:A-frame building

message: There is a link to a copyrightvio. I have redone this article but I got it from a third source although I do not think it is copyrigh please contact me if you feel it is so I can correct this.Bronayur 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrightvio rewrite

message: Seems reasonable to have a List of A-frame houses, List of A-frame houses and buildings, and/or List of A-frame buildings. User:MB, author of Prow house, what do you think?  I created :Category:A-frame houses and buildings which is so far not much populated. --Doncram (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , no comment. I am not a fan of lists and never much use them. I don't see how a prow house is related to an A-frame either. MB 01:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Thanks MB for responding.  I didn't mean that prow houses were the same as A-frames, they are just different types of houses or buildings.  Right, you were interested to create the basic article on the type of thing ("prow house"), not a list-article of examples.  I do like making lists myself (in part because I think lists of examples really illuminate and expand understanding of the basic topic, like a gallery of photos can do) and will split them out from a basic article when they get long enough. --Doncram (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of A-frame buildings 

message: Mention e.g.,
 Although some may vary, the typical A-frame has a roofline that connects at a sixty-degree angle to create an equilateral triangle. Jidanni (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention how many degrees of angle of roof on an A Frame
Talk:Unsere Zeit

message: :    I just examined Google's 10-per-page previews of the first 100 hits for the G-srch input >> site:www.nintendo.com nintendo <<, and "Nintendo" appeared in nearly all of them, with that casing (and downcased only in URLs and e-mail addresses). "unsere zeit" does not parallel that guidance, bcz "nintendo" is made up by fanboys whenever they feel like it, while the "u... z..." variant was made up by the holder of the trademark in a systematic and sustained fashion. In fact the evidence at hand suggests that the intent of the trademark holder is that "Unsere Zeit" is the name of the publishing company and "unsere zeit" the name of the publication; they are either closely related variants of a single trademark or two closely related trademarks, but in either case, applied in respectively appropriate contexts. If you want to write an article primarily about how the paper's production is financed and managed, you should name it Unsere Zeit (or  probably Unsere Zeit (company)).      It also seems relevant that "unsere zeit" is ein Doppellstoss im Gesicht des Herrn Prof. Dudens, not only omitting upcasing of the first word but even down-casing a noun (which, if you don't know, is something that is supposed to never happen in German without a preceding noun being jammed right up against it, let alone in a phrase that is the proper name of something).    Did you cherry-pick from the MoS? Or is it just that the MoS is silent on names where the trademark-holder's MoS calls for downcasing in some situations that don't correspond to the common-sense approach to "vanilla" situations that you want to apply well outside vanilla.   In fact, i expect that iPhone is the "death by chocolate" situation, where AFAIK the trademark holder never upcases the first letter. I've tested the vanilla case for you; will you muster a more plausibly relevant argument by examining some cases that aren't so far from what could be considered a borderline case, and tell us whether the guideline addresses any meta-vanilla cases, or just documents our putting our foot down solidly in the cases where there is no explanation for the down-casing but slacker or grunge nose-thumbing at received wisdom.   The reductio ad absurdem is that the evidence you just presented would suggest that we have IPad as the article and iPad ...[something] only for redirects. 
--Jerzy•t 05:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casing (was part of "[[#Bold rename|Bold rename]]") 

message: :    Do whatever you want with the harmless subpage, and don't delude yourself that i own it. My intent was simply to avoid my obscuring, any more than necessary, the summary that made the argument that i was taking exception to. My commentary on that intent is that the software gods rightly focused on preserving the attribution of the new content, and attribution of the new arrangements of old content, but that's not always all that matters. My role in that "case" was already closed.--Jerzy•t 05:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk-subpage scratch-pad (was part of "[[#Bold rename|Bold rename]]")
Talk:Pullback

message: Shouldn't this page be merged with Pullback (category theory)? The idea that a pullback is just precomposition is just an example of a pullback in the correct category.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParanoidLepton (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page merge? 

message: Algebraic topology is full of pullbacks in cohomology theories, but I haven't been able to find a good reference on wikipedia. Can someone help? Geometry guy 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JP May, "A concise course in algebraic topology" although that book can be (very) hard to read if you don't already know algebraic topology. Its written at the genius-level, designed to wash-out first-year students. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, Novikov, "Topology I General Survey" is extremely pleasant to read, it defines Pullback (cohomology) on page 48 (without actually giving it that name) so if Hom(C(K),G) are the homomorphisms from a chain complex C(K) to an abelian group G, and if f a map from C(K) to C(K') then f^* is the pullback f^*:Hom(C(K'),G)\to Hom(C(K),G)  The standard notation for Hom(C(K),G) is C(K;G) and for the boundary operator \partial:C_n(K)\to C_{n-1}(K) one has the pullback \partial^*:C_{n-1}(K;G)\to C_n(K;G) and so from there one trivially defines the cohomology groups just like the homology groups. The above 2-sentence summary could be a foundation for the article Pullback (cohomology) as a stub, but I don't have the authority to create such an article from that red-link. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I'm a registered Wikipedia editor, I took a liberty of starting a stub. I admit its exposition is not optimal but is a good start, I think. -- Taku (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cohomology
Talk:Glimmingehus

message: this is a report i did for a class
Sir Jen Holgersen Ulfstand started construction on this castle for himself and his family in the year 1499.  Glimmingehus was the property of Denmark at the time of its construction.  Sir Jen was a knight, a councilor, a noble man, and an admiral.  There were many treasures that Jen owned that were expensive and, as far as historians can tell, while Jen owned it, it was home to the most valuable things it ever would hold.  At Jen’s death in the year 1520 it was home to more ordinary items.
Many consider Glimmingehus the best-preserved medieval castle.  It is located in the country of skǻne, which is south of Sweden.  It is unique because it not only is a comfortable living place; it also has very high-tech security for its time, including many horrible death traps for the unwary and uninvited.
I thought this was really nice, although I had to change it a little to Wikify it. Because I have a feeling that contributors like Alynn2 carries the promise that another generation of Wikipedians are getting ready to carry the project into the future, I wanted to celebrate him/her and the nice report created for class by saving the original text here. 71.107.5.112 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original text by [[User: Alynn2|Alynn]]
Talk:Vatican Mythographers

message: It would be helpful if more information could be provided on the dates of the three mythographers. Haiduc 07:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only dates of the manuscripts can be assessed, giving the very broad termini in the article. "Nevio Zorzetti places the original text of the First Vatican Mythographer between the last quarter of the ninth century and the third quarter of the eleventh." --Wetman 09:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That still leaves me wondering about the second and the third mythographer. Do you also get the sense that the materials are in the Vatican library but are not accessible? Haiduc 00:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Second" and "Third" Mythographers are ghostly personalities, deductions drawn from the existence of additional material in mss. other than the one inspected by Mai. The Vatican? Any further material possibly lurking in the Vatican Library will have been bound in a hitherto unrecognized miscellany that has been catalogued under its first, major text— one that is otherwise well represented in numerous mss and so not very interesting and therefore has often not been looked at in decades. Or it will be in an unrecognized palimpsest that has been scraped so clean that only modern techniques will make it evident that an earlier text is actually there at all. Or it will have been chopped about and used to stiffen a binding. Slender chances. But stuff does turn up. I'd focus my hopes on a papyrus fragment of an Alexandrian copy of the missing last volume of Bibliotheke. After all we got a new poem by Sappho in 2005. Or retrieving the "missing" Latin library in unexplored parts of  Villa of the Papyri: was Calpurnius Piso such a snob he just didn't have any Latin books? --Wetman 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That excavation has been blocked for years, and not for lack of funds. I have a strong suspicion that after 2000 years of successful censorship, the last thing the Vatican wants is an ancient library unearthed. Haiduc 12:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology? 

message: I think the article has a general problem, in that it focuses on the *authors* -- about whom little is known -- rather than the texts, which are at least solid things.  I've rewritten quite a bit of it with this in mind, but more could probably be done.  The real difficulty I am finding is getting any solid up-to-date information.  That Elliot article just plunges into the middle of things. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General problem
Talk:Alien 4 (album)

message: The sleeve of the Area S4 EP (4 tracks from this album) says "All tracks produced by Brock, Davey & Cosmos" not "Hawkwind". Anyone know which is correct? (and who is "Cosmos"?) --kingboyk 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production  
Talk:The Salomon Lab at Scripps

message: This is the Wikipage for a real laboratory doing medical research
:: There are plenty of labs doing that at universities, but why is this one notable? Please read WP:RS for an idea of how to provide sources for the article, WP:N to see if the lab fits our policies of inclusion, and WP:V for what we consider verifiable in an article. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

message: Principal Investigator: Daniel R. Salomon
Administrative Assistant:
Cathy Perez
Staff Scientists:
Sunil Kurian
Stephanie Cherqui
Graduate Students:
Katie Marcucci
Yevgeniy Gregoriyev
Technicians:
Dave Valente
Frank Harrison''
This sort of personnel listing is not really appropiate to describe the lab, but can be worked into the article. I have removed the speedy deletion request, so you should have some time to continue. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed content
Talk:Saltern

message: Please do not suggest this merger again.  the topics are separate and article editing has been performed to make that clear. Concensus   was against any merger of this article. Anlace 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with evaporation pond defeated

message: Saltworks redirects here.  Is this the major use of saltworks?  Aren't there any currentl source of salt that are still termed saltworks? RJFJR (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say this redirect is inconsistent with the fact that Salt works redirects to Salt evaporation pond. Btyner (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Saltworks
Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction

message: Would there be a problem with moving this page and it's archives to subpages of WP:AN? It'll make it a lot easier to search (with the other AN pages), and as it isn't active I can't conceive of any harm. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From a technical standpoint, an admin should do the move so that all subpages can be moved in a single action. MBisanz talk 14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved, including talk, all archives and subpages (21 pages total) and about 20 double redirects fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Where are the archives for this noticeboard?  I can't find a link to them anywhere.  Powers T 14:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive1, 2 etc. Guettarda (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: Please remove the interwiki link. It is handled by Wikidata.--GZWDer (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Graham87 14:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: Replace  with . Thank you for your time. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 16 November 2021 

message: Please change  to . Since this is the project page for community sanctions, it would make more sense to have sanctions archive list directly from this page rather than having to go through Prefix search. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, however please note this page hasn't been used for a looong time. — xaosflux Talk 19:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 3 June 2022
Talk:Forward operating site

message: Anyone have a complete list of FOSs around the world? I keep finding one here, another listed there in various news articles. --Petercorless 00:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete list of FOSs?

message: How is this different from a Forward operating base?  Should these articles be merged?  00:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference from FOB?
Talk:Maranatha! Music

message: I added another Maranatha Singers album release 20 Years of Hope: 1971-1991 from 1991 that was missing, which I have in my collection. But I'm unsure of where the listing should be, so I placed in on the bottom. Feel free to move it if it's wrong. Solbu (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maranatha! Singers discography
Talk:Ole Bull

message: Just noticed that the date on the picture of Ole Bull performing states a date of 1896, but the page also states that Ole lived from 1810 - 1880. Cruise332 (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo date
Talk:Core, San Diego

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alta Vista, San Diego, California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 06:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Germany–Russia relations

message: So outdated as to clearly be illegal as it serves as promotion for this sanctioned nation supposedly called Russia. Mods have for many times now had the opportunity to allow edits to update Russian listings but have repeatedly overturned them and can only be held to account for the content for this.--148.252.146.215 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't even read it (legally) 

message: So how much bad blood is in Russia regarding Germany's two invasions? Similarly, how much bad blood is in Germany regarding Russia's occupation of the east? Do these issues color political relations at all, or are they swept under the rug? I think these historical backdrops are not well-addressed. Brutannica (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that East Germany was somehow more occupied than West Germany? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad blood? 

message: This is really needed.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title is not correct English usage, should be changed to "German-Russian relations"

message: Does such (unsourced) information belong here? Shall I understand it that Germany and Russia have common enemies?Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russians believe their main enemies in the world are 

message: #Germany delivers arms to Ukraine, but procrastinates.
#Germany has illehally delivered military technology since 2014.
#Russian lobbists - politicians Schreoeder, Swesieg with her foundation. Journalistst Krone-Scjmaltz.
Xx236 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of many informations 

message: "The pipeline" is Druzhba pipeline, not NS or NS2. Xx236 (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pipeline made up a significant portion of Germany's petroleum imports from Russia
Talk:Nanzih District

message: It didn't quite make sense to me that a district was located inside a city. I have edited this to reflect that the district is inside the county. If this is incorrect, I apologize, and please revert. (I've also done a copy edit and removed a POV assertion.) Accounting4Taste 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is inside the Kaohsiung City.--Jerrypp772000 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up, and again, my apologies. Accounting4Taste 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Category talk:Rockefeller family

message: This category is downright bizarre. Most of these things are only tangentially related to the Rockefellers. Frederick Law Olmsted, for example, was the landscape architect for the Rockefeller estate. That is the only connection to the Rockefellers that I can find. A number of these companies are tenants at Rockefeller Center. Putting them in a category called "Rockefeller family" is misleading. I also wonder if there's some POV here. Is someone trying to suggest that the Rockefellers run the world? This isn't the place for that. Finally, a number of articles have duplicate categories - Rockefeller family and also something like Rockefeller foundation. I'm taking out everyone except members of the Rockefeller family. Other groups of articles that need to be categorized as Rockefeller-related can be moved to separate categories as appropriate. GabrielF 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: I've reduced this category by more than half and moved some entries into two subcategories, :Category:Institutions founded by the Rockefeller family and :Category:Buildings associated with the Rockefeller family, which I created. GabrielF 04:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter was deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 31#Buildings by family. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bartholomaeus Anglicus

message: I've moved this article from Bartholomeus de Glanvilla, as they are two different Franciscan monks who lived a century apart. The mix-up was common earlier, but it has been proven beyond doubt that one joined the order around 1225, while the other died in 1360; obviously there is no possibility that this could be one and the same person. See for instance http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02313b.htm and http://bestiary.ca/prisources/psdetail1611.htm. Cnyborg 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: I have reclassified this article as a start following its expansion.Capitalistroadster 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Start classification

message: See Alhacen listed as author of the Perspectiva (auctor perspective) in De Proprietabus Rerum III.17 pp. 39-45. of R. James Long (1979), ed. Bartholomeus Anglicus,  De Proprietabus Rerum Books 3-4, as cited in Smith 2001 vol I, p.xx, footnote 32, p.cxxiii 
Perspectiva is another title for De Aspectibus. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 03:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot locate Longs work but according to Smith Long suggests Alhacen as the author. Every one called their book Perseptivia. None of the translations (that i've checked so far) cite ibn al-Hayytham by name (any of his names). Long is still quoted in the article. J8079s (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is so: that Alhacen was identified as Ibn al-Haytham, by scholarship in the 19th c. That is one of the reasons that Smith produced his translation from Latin even though Sabra had already translated Kitab al-Manazir (1038) from Arabic. Smith asserts it is a very different book from De Aspectibus or (Perspectiva, c 1200). When the scribes wrote the Latin and credited the author, Alhacen is listed as 'auctor perspective' in Long's entry, cited in Smith 2001 (via JSTOR). But note the 'suggests' you picked up on is the date of first publication in Bartholomeus Anglicus' encyclopedia, De Proprietabus Rerum (1230-1250), in Europe. Long suggests 1230-1250 for the date of publication. Not the 'Alhacen' name, which is not in dispute.  --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 22:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are correct Smith cites Long with out reservation. I still wish I had access to his work. This source would also be very useful   I can see enough to support Long's but it would help in other areas as well. J8079s (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Link to a more complete translation  J8079s (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alhacen is listed as author of the Perspectiva in ''De Proprietabus Rerum'' by R. James Long (1979) as cited by Smith (2001)