lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Canada Cup

message: Idea: what about merging this with World Cup of Hockey?
:I would say no. Ccccccccccc 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it the same series I think a merger is appropriate. Nibios 23:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to say no, as thge Canada Cup is actually not the same as the World Series. The two are not actually run as one tournament. In addition, there is plenty of information on the Canada Cup which may be lossed if the two articles are merged.Savevp (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: merge?

message: Should this be called Canada Cup instead, as the most prominent Canada Cup, or Canada Cup (hockey) because it's Canada, and hockey is hockey, and requires ice. Ccccccccccc 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: name?

message: I have assessed this as a Stub, as it contains only the basic information on the topic, and of low importance, as it a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: A copy of one of the Canada Cup logos should appear on this page. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point me to an example of the logo and I should be able to make an SVG of it. Or is it pretty much just the sliced white maple leaf on red background similar to the trophy? Magu (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Canada Cup image itself is sufficient. A gallery of logos (even one, actually) would run afoul of WP:NFCC as they would be used for decoration only. Tournament logos should be limited to their specific articles. Resolute 04:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: rqImg

message: There is too much detail about the World Championships in the history section.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: World Championships

message: Was there a Canada Cup pre-1976? Our Dunfermline Vikings article says that they won it in 1946-7. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the Scottish League of the 1940s and 1950s had its own Canada Cup. Unrelated to this one. Resolute 14:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Canada Cup winners : 1946–47"
Talk:Ice hockey at the 1928 Winter Olympics

message: Why at final ranking table Austria placed at 5th place, France - at 6th, Czechoslovakia - at 7th? Due to different number of teams in group more correctly all of them would share 5th place. The same case are 8-10 places. Are there any official sources clarifying teams arrangement after 4th place? Nitobus (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there are, are there any sources confirming your ranking system?  The trouble with the IIHF is they disagree with themselves depending on where you look.18abruce (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Official Report agrees with the IOC database for this year, thankfully. No teams below 4th place were ranked. Even though there was a "point competition," based on the rankings of the top six finishers in each sport's events (similar to 1924), the organizers simply chose not to confer any rankings on teams that did not reach the final pool.Joel225sp (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final ranking 
Talk:Ice hockey at the 1988 Winter Olympics

message: It is unclear whether Poland should have 3 or 9 goals in the preliminary round, according to the IIHF.  They say that the 6 goals against France were nullified, however their official pool totals still give them 9.  Further compounding the issue is their official total for the tournament is listed as 310, but adding up the totals they list gives 316.18abruce (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  total goals
Talk:Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics

message: Anyone know if the As and C again member of one of the teams actually means anything or is this just meaning vandalism. If it means something please someone add a legend. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assistant Captians and Captians, of course. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input on this answer - but where on the page does this become obvious. As this arena is meant to be an educational aid, it would be nice to have a "key" somewhere to these code. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "A" actually stands for "Alternate", not "Assistant".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djob (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: why doesn't the article say in the very top where (which country) the games were held?!John wesley 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: In my opinion, using Bob Cole's final call of the 2002 tournament is relevant, as is the note that it was the highest-rated sports show in Canadian history.  Referring to the previous record (the '94 Finals) is vaguely relevant.  But adding Cole's final call of that is just going too far down that tangent.  If anybody cares about that information, they can click on the link to the 1994 Finals or Bob Cole.Djob (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody objected, I removed the tangent (again).Djob (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to 1994 Stanley Cup Finals 

message: As far as I am aware, the team captain of Canada's women's team was Cassie Campbell, and not Hayley Wickenheiser. Can somebody factcheck this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.250.133 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: it is true that Canada won their seventh title, but according to the IIHF (here) that did not tie them for first.  No source has been presented that makes any other claim other use of WP:OR.18abruce (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is plainly controversial, and the governing bodies themselves do not seem to agree, we need something definitive from a source that is discussing number of championships if we wish to make a definitive statement.18abruce (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of titles
Talk:2006 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships

message: For the preier competition, there should only be the top 3 in each group, not the top 4.  Kingjeff 18:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Playoff positions
Talk:Ice hockey equipment

message: This article could really use a history section- it'd be nice to document how ice hockey equipment basically evolved from sticks and blades to kevlar body armour and carbon-compound whips. --Wafulz 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: I want to know the name of the protective gear for the bums and hips.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.12.109 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  for the bums?
Talk:Atlantic Hockey

message: There is a discussion to clarify our policy/guideline on the use of sports team logos.  Please see Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos if you wish to participate in the discussion. Johntex\talk 16:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos

message: With this edit, each school's primary athletic conference was added to the list.  I'm not sure whether that's really necessary for the article.  Perhaps if I understood the reasoning?  Powers T 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now there's even more stuff in the table.  Is the founding date really relevant to an athletic conference?  Powers T 15:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Athletic conferences often form around schools with similar sizes, affiliations, and histories.  Putting this information in a table with the membership not only shows the differences among the members, but also shows how conferences are likely to change (like when teams moved from the Big East to the ACC, C-USA to the Big East, and the WAC to C-USA).  This information has long been on all-sport conference pages, and seemed reasonable to include on hockey conference pages.  As a caveat, there is talk from time to time about primary conferences sponsoring hockey themselves, and thus having the primary conference information in the table helps illustrate the impact such a move would have on conferences and the sport. Craig R. Nielsen 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the info.  I can see where it's all useful, but it seems very crowded.  And you removed the column for championship years, which seems useful (though the same information could be gleaned from the list of championship game results).   Powers T 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Conferences 

message: Why this edit?  Powers T 19:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PA 

message: A discussion on the Project College Football talk page has been created to discuss the proper format of the overview maps that are used for the US collegiate athletic conference pages.
If you're interested, please join the discussion here:  Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency. Mdak06 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences 
Talk:Central Collegiate Hockey Association

message: There is a discussion to clarify our policy/guideline on the use of sports team logos.  Please see Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos if you wish to participate in the discussion. Johntex\talk 16:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos

message: A discussion on the Project College Football talk page has been created to discuss the proper format of the overview maps that are used for the US collegiate athletic conference pages.
If you're interested, please join the discussion here:  Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency. Mdak06 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences 

message: The CCHA has revived its old website, and recently introduced a new logo. Someone should pull the new logo for use in this article (obviously falls under fair use). — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New logo
Talk:College Hockey America

message: There is a discussion to clarify our policy/guideline on the use of sports team logos.  Please see Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos if you wish to participate in the discussion. Johntex\talk 16:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos

message: A discussion on the Project College Football talk page has been created to discuss the proper format of the overview maps that are used for the US collegiate athletic conference pages.
If you're interested, please join the discussion here:  Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency. Mdak06 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences
Talk:Hobey Baker Award

message: Steven_Reinprecht  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlurpTheo (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of runners-up? 

message: i don't think that the Ryan Jones who was a finalist for the hobey baker is the same ryan jones that is the welsh rugby player.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanisntfunny (talk • contribs) 22:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryan Jones 
Talk:NCAA Division I independent schools (men's hockey)

message: Is RIT really that noteworthy?  If RIT belongs on here, then so do other teams that have moved up from DII/III in the past. Chris 06:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it depends on the criteria being used for notworthiness.  I can't really figure out what would make one program more noteworthy than the next, at least when it comes to this categorization.  Powers 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIT?
Talk:Western Collegiate Hockey Association

message: Ed, you are acting unilaterally in your interpretation of policy yet again.  There is no consensus in support of the actions you are taking. You are well aware of the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\talk 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo Removal

message: Sorry about the OSU men's add...wow, my brain went stupid...well, stupider.  Yikes, I'm disappointed in myself for f-ing that up. Sorry.-Colslax 17:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Brainfart

message: The membership timeline is going to need to be split into men's and women's; it'll be too confusing otherwise.  Note how the timeline already shows Ohio State (inexplicably) leaving the conference in 2013, as well as UMD and Minnesota and Wisconsin and North Dakota -- all of which will likely keep their women's teams in the conference.  Powers T 17:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: A discussion on the Project College Football talk page has been created to discuss the proper format of the overview maps that are used for the US collegiate athletic conference pages.
If you're interested, please join the discussion here:  Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency. Mdak06 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences
Talk:Goals against average

message: On how to calculate GAA, the first method was too far off and would be far from accurate. It's only be accurate if the goalie let in the same amount of goals in the same amount of mins. Ex: 2 GA x 60 divided by 180 = 2 GAA. Right way: Minutes: 3024 divided by 60 = 50.4 GA: 120 divided by 50.4 = 2.38. So does anyone agree with with me on this? Hasek is the best 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculation accuracy 

message: this article needs a lot more references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.217.7 (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Any contribution you can make is appreciated. Ryanjo (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs more references

message: This article completely fails to state whether higher numbers or lower numbers are better. I would assume lower numbers are better, since goals against are in the numerator, but the article is unclear about this. --JHP (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A strong need for a rewrite I agree. It should distinguish between the different sports in which the topic is applicable. Ice Hockey is best suited to be the default context but both international football (soccer in the USA) and lacrosse are also mentioned. The mathematical calculation method is too vague and would be improved by a specific reference calculation for a well known goal keeper, goalie, goal tender. The three different terms used frequently are all too often used interchangeably between the countries and sports so that confusion and misunderstanding prevail. As wikipedia is a common resource tool used across countries and cultural paradigms, a properly edited article enhancing the knowledge and applicability of same would be appreciated by all users. 65.129.128.169 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are higher or lower numbers better?
Talk:Plus/minus

message: Do goals count toward plus/minus statistics when scored by or against a team with six skaters and an empty net?
: Yes.  It's not a man-advantage situation; the EN team just decided they didn't want a goalie any more :>  RGTraynor 16:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals

message: I can't agree with the statement that plus/minus is better suited for evaluating defensive forwards and defenders than offensive forwards.  That may be how it is used but there is nothing inherent in how the statistic is calculated to support that statement.
It is also more accurate to say that the statistic is related to even-strength and shorthanded team performance for both offense and defense, not defensive performance.  
Defense, i.e. the ability to prevent goals, is measured by comparing goals against divided by opportunities.  Plus/minus may be used to evaluate defense but that is an interpretation of the statistic, not a description of how the statistic is constructed.  Perhaps the article should be divided into two:  a description of what the statistic is and a description of how it is interpreted, or at least, this should be better delineated than it is now.
Also, the use of the word statistician is incorrect.  Statisticians compile statistics like plus/minus.  Analysts make interpretations of statistics, like A has performed better than B. 
Mike (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation uses and article structure; statisticians
Talk:Point (ice hockey)

message: The point (ice hockey) covers part of this article, but that section is in slightly more detail.  However, Point is overall a better article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.15.204 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point and a point are 2 very different things in hockey. Makes zero sense to combine the two. Marcus1060 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge, I don't think this is a good faith request for merging. -- ISLANDERS27 16:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose The point and point are two different subjects. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[The point (ice hockey)]]
Talk:Shot on goal (ice hockey)

message: Should a "Chance" in Ice Hockey be defined here as a result of a shot on goal?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.200.193 (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no. It is not uncommon for a team to have a "Chance" but miss the net so it would not be a SOG. Eomund (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Johnson cult

message: The Bartholomew-Billings article indicates that the ridicule of the Johnson Cult was spread in part because the Aussie govt. didn't want to deal with the "Johnsonites'" political grievances.  Could be a worthy contribution to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJJ (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This article contains a lot of what seems like original research, and it has no cites. I removed some of the most egregious offenses (like the paragraph interpreting the events through Marxist historiography), but it needs more work.--Cúchullain t / c 07:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've clarified the nature of the "cult" based on the Bartholomew & Billings article, inserted a quote, added relevent categories, and removed the "cargo cult" category, since this clearly is not a cargo cult. Aridd (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research
Talk:Stoned

message: I typed Stoned into our search and got redirected to intoxication, which is a redirect to drunkenness, i.e. my request led to a redirect page. Being stoned does not anyway mean being drunk butunder the influence of cannabis. I rewrote the article, but it is a bit pathetic. Any ideas? --SqueakBox 22:57, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
:One can get stoned from anything intoxicating, not just alcohol. I just reverted the article back to it's orginal state (sorry) before I noticed these comments here. I feel a reworked Stoned article linking rather than redirecting to all the possible means of getting "stoned" would be more suitable than what we currently have. Anyone? -- Longhair | Talk 22:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Version by 216.194.63.83 is too limited in scope and unencyclopedic.Mikereichold 15:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert 

message: You know, the article seemed not for an encyclopedia, but a Dictionary... Hmmm? Wiktionary articles should be more like this, not that confusiing, mixed up mash  you see there. Crad0010 20:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be arranged. --71.36.251.182 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminds me of a dictionary 

message: Stoned is also the name of a song by The Rolling Stones,and a film about Brian Jones.
:I'm reworking the article back into stub form, as it was all original research and false claims anyways. I'll be sure to include the first one, as the rolling stones are well recognized.  I'd need more information about the film to include it myself. i kan reed 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song and Film
Talk:Ordinate

message: Okay, fair enough.  I find my understanding of math improved by this kind of concept, but I'm sure it could be stated better.  I also think that, uless you're interested in in-depth coverage of the topic, a redirect page or Wiktionary article would be more appropriate.--Joel 22:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. What if we redirect this to Cartesian coordinate system? There, the ordinate is mentioned. Oleg Alexandrov 23:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: metaphor

message: There is no logic to declare only y of the pair (x, y) an "ordinate".  Together they are co-ordinates.  Individually they are each ordinates.  This follows the same logic as "co-authors", "co-writers", et cetera.  
—DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then explain this!  -Psychlohexane (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''x'' and ''y'' are '''both''' ordinates
Talk:Reedham railway station (London)

message: Should this article now be moved to Reedham (London) railway station, as the article for Reedham (Norfolk) railway station now exists. The Reedham railway station can then be turned into a disambiguation page. All pages which link to the London station article would have to be changed to avoid the redirect. Any thoughts? (Our Phellap 22:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The NR Live Departure Board refers to the station as Reedham (Surrey), but the article says it can be called Reedham (London) or Reedham (GLC) as well - I'd prefer Reedham (London) as it's in a London Borough but maybe we should use the same name as the LDB? But vote yes to moving the page. edd 09:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best to call the article Reedham (Surrey) if that's what Network Rail call the station. Reedham (London) and Reedham (GLC) can be redirects if it is also known by those names. (Our Phellap 11:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to Reedham (Surrey) railway station. I've put in a redirect from Reedham (London), but dont see the need for one from Reedham GLC (unless that's what printed on tickets) as the GLC no longer exists... edd 14:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artcile name 

message: Not sure what happened between April and December, but what was agreed above certainly wasn't true by then. It looked as if someone had transposed the content of the Reedham (Surrey) railway station back to Reedham railway station, without using the move command (naughty) and not bothered to move this talk page as well, or discuss what they were doing here. I have reverted the changes, and fixed up the redirs. -- Chris j wood 17:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. This page should have been at Reedham railway station (London) in the first place. Other stations in London which need disambiguation also use this form: Victoria station (London). MRSC 08:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with that is that the station is actually called Reedham (Surrey) (see ). So Wikipedia article name disambiguation rules are essentially irrelevant; ATOC (or whoever disambiguates British station names these days) has already done the job. But, hey, I only got involved because I was trying to sort out a completely inappropriate disambiguation header on the article on the Norfolk village, so I'll bow to your views. -- Chris j wood 15:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Looking further, I see that the station referred to in the Wikipedia article Victoria station (London) is really called London Victoria (). So maybe the Wikipedia naming standard for London stations is we know better than the people who actually name the stations. :-( -- Chris j wood 15:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  December, 2005