lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Tea

message: Propose change:
:Ireland, as of 2016, was the second-biggest per capita consumer of tea in the world.
to:
:Ireland, as of 2016, was the second-biggest per capita consumer of tea in the world, after Turkey.
per referenced source.
It's always unsatisfying to read that someone or something is in second place without being told who is first. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:8CA2:14F8:CF7B:BA58 (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: – while this is mentioned in a couple places near that sentence I see no reason it shouldn't be mentioned directly in that sentence. Tollens (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2023 

message: Is there a source for this fact? Almost every other site says tea originated in China. 2001:FB1:96:5B03:D036:ED49:3F19:DC50 (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source that tea originated in the Irrawaddy river? 

message: Theere is an incorrect thing is written in a tea in russia paragraph. The tea is not made or brewed in samovar, but made with it. The samovar is a water container while the tea itself brewed in a certain teapot. 109.195.90.24 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tea in Russia 

message: This article, while quite well-written and in most places well-cited, has two major defects. The 'Origin and history' chapter has 'main' links to History of tea and History of tea in China (not quite sure one can have 2 main links, surely the second one is a subset of the first, too); while the 'Tea culture' chapter has a 'main' link called Tea culture. 
In both cases, the correct result per policy is for the chapter to summarize the article at the other end of the 'main' link briefly, in a paragraph or two, citing the major sources of the 'main' article. What is not supposed to happen is for the chapter to extend for hundreds of words (almost 2000 words for the History, over 800 for Tea culture), overlapping widely with the 'main' article. 
We should accordingly cut down both sections to comply with policy, allowing the focus of the article to be on Tea itself, with modest main-linked sections on History and Culture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major overlaps with 'Main' articles
Talk:Tom Waits

message: Brennan is only notable as the wife and collaborator of Tom Waits - she has done nothing notable on her own, and the only sources are mentions in articles about or interviews with Tom Waits. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, we don't have articles on people because "She once worked with someone famous". However, as she became a significant part of Waits' life and work, it is appropriate and helpful to mention her in Tom Waits, and it is useful to have a redirect to Tom Waits for anyone searching for "Kathleen Brennan". SilkTork (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tidied the Kathleen Brennan article, and removed the merge tag. While it duplicates much of the information in this article, it does serve as a brief and handy overview of who she is, and why she matters to Tom Waits. SilkTork (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Kathleen Brennan]] to [[Tom Waits]]

message: There seem to be quite a few formatting issues with this album, regarding sections/categories of the article, which, at least for myself and a few others I know who've read the article, just don't appear aside from a few albums/years.
Not sure if I'm missing something with this, if it's just a localised bug or there's some sort of vandalism. Also, the talk page and edit history button seem to have disappeared from the bottom of the page.
I'm not very good at article editing, so I hope someone with a bit more experience than me might come along and help sort this out Blazethefox1 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: One addition, this may just be the natural case but I can't see anything in the talk page aside from the Kathleen Brennan merge request and the standard wiki at the top. I do seem to remember there being more in here than just that Blazethefox1 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything looks fine here. The talk page was archived four edits ago, so that'll explain some missing stuff.   signed, Willondon (talk)  01:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Why is the image chosen a photo that is almost 50 years old? 84.64.251.154 (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo
Talk:Temple in Jerusalem

message: @Zhomron: If we're going to include translated names, especially in non-Latin scripts, we'll need to see reliable secondary sources which precisely document their spelling and orthography, or we will end up with disputes over which version is correct which cannot be resolved effectively by those of us who don't write Hebrew or Akkadian. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Zhomron: you dismissively told me to "try scrolling down" to the citation; the article body has script which is un-pointed, cites an unreliable source, which does not list any Hebrew-script translations. Elizium23 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

text: No term in the Akkadian language is mentioned in the Article, Wikipedia has an entire convention system for transliteration of Hebrew, and the cited "spellings" are in the sources of the article. Here's a tip: if you don't speak the language, don't weigh in on whether or not the translation is correct. There's only one word for "house", "the", "second", and "holy" in Hebrew, just like in every other language, and we don't have a dictionary citation for every English language word in an article because it is redundant and stupid. Zhomron (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to reference WP:RS Elizium23 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to obtain a basic understanding of the Hebrew language. Zhomron (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA Elizium23 (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see a personal attack in stating the fact that you understand neither the language nor the procedure in how this website handles these matters. For God's sake, did you even check the Hebrew or Arabic Wikipedia counterpart articles for citations of the primary sources of the spellings in their native languages? Zhomron (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to observe WP:V, and respect your readership. Elizium23 (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Latin scripts and translations require reliable sources
Talk:Taxation in the United States

message: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99021,00.html
CarlWesolowski (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Dead link|broken link]] 

message: English 2600:1700:3041:2AF0:1053:A8B4:D755:DEAA (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Boston tea party 

message: is America in Texas the same thing 2603:8081:3C0B:2F86:2096:A882:259:AC3C (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  is America and Texas the same thing? 

message: I added graph here:
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taxation_in_the_United_States&oldid=1222315492#Policy_issues
Making History: U.S. Billionaires Paid Lower Tax Rate Than Working Class. October 10, 2019. On FAIR360.com. Sources listed on graph: Emmanual Saez and Gabriel Zucman.
--Timeshifter (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph
Talk:Thirty Years' War

message: Is it supposed to be BL-class? I'm pretty sure the article isn't a list. Is it B or C or BL? Thanks. FredModulars (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military history assessment 

message: Some sources show that the death toll could possibly be as high as 12 Million. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death toll could possibly be higher 

message: The split-screen photos that you see for the infoboxes of the Napoleonic Wars, American Revolution, WWI and WWII, basically. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  May I suggest the split-screen photo for the infobox (if someone can do it) 

message: Though the largest engagement of this war was the Siege of Nuremberg 1632. Over 95,000 combatants, counting both sides. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article states Alte Veste to be the largest battle? 

message: This Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conflicts_in_1618 should include a listing of this source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
Thanks Bw Schulz 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia listing for Thirty Years War
Talk:Justification (epistemology)

message: Truth 158.62.52.163 (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Science and philosophy 

message: Saying that warrant is justification is false. Justification is actually a kind of warrant, as is entitlement (Wright), and, perhaps, epistemic desiderata (Alston, et al.). This needs to be edited. JLSchwartz (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warrant as Justification 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jskalski (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Fall 2023
Talk:Telephone number

message: I can't believe the laziness that led someone to chop out a whole load of stuff and dump it in  Telephone numbering plan while just sticking the link randomly at the end of a paragraph. Was that supposed to be an improvement? It's sloppy. Sure it may have been a good idea to split the article, but a tiny bit of consideration for readers would not have permitted this to happen. 82.35.17.203 19:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut paste from other article lazy? An improvement?
Talk:Tourism

message: It true people travel within their country is a domestic tourism? 41.114.136.19 (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism 

message: — Assignment last updated by JQJQrush (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing Fall 2022 E1

message: All information about feudal tourism 2400:1A00:BC10:FAD9:FC12:6658:46DF:D636 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feudal tourism  

message: natural attraction 
Man made attraction 
Mixed attraction 41.122.6.56 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  You have a types of attraction
Talk:Thích Nhất Hạnh

message: After conducting a brief evaluation on this article titled "Thích Nhât Hanh" I have concluded that this information provided is up to date, preceded with an extensive list of references. Although I have concluded that some articles referenced are moderately biased, there are plenty of references that seemingly come from a reliable source. As for the layout and content of this Wikipage, it is well written with a common layout that most biographies have which start with an "early life" section while ending with "death". The content is also detailed and includes a multitude of internal Wikilinks to further support the given information. To my knowledge, all referenced main external links are fully functional except the following: (The following external links result in a "404 error not found" or access denied indicating the webpage has been removed from the databases server. The "archived" external link for the following are accessible.) 
Ben, Stocking (22 September 2006). "Tensions rise as police question monk's followers"
"Nomination Process"
Knibbe, Guido (2020). "Meeting Life in Plum Village – Engaging With Precarity and Progress in a Meditation Center"
Duerr, Maia (26 March 2010). "An Introduction to Engaged Buddhism".
Many users have also left suggestions and edits that has contributed to the version history, making it an unbiased Wikipage with purely factual evidence. I would suggest an edit be to made to remove the external links from the Wikipage or be replaced with a existing & functional website. Pattycakekwan888 (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evalutation of Article - Feedback
Talk:Tennis

message: jpllease replace : Synthetic gut cheap
by: synthetic gut is cheap
There is a verb missing inn that sentence. 173.176.235.175 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022 

message: Novak Djokovic AwareAllure (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2023 

message: Rafael Nadal AwareAllure (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2023 (2) 

message: So I'm a bit confused as what makes it "modern".
The French aristocracy invented the game, the racket, and even the term tennis.
The British then played it on a lawn, and popularized it; and this somehow means they invented modern tennis?
It sounds a bit flimsy. Or maybe there was a part that was deleted? Maybe about inventing new rules or inventing anything? Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I’m misunderstanding but I believe “modern tennis” is to differentiate from Real tennis which was played many centuries ago Knows everything about everything (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern tennis invention? 

message: there seems to be a thing where players don't have their nickname(s) in their infobox. is there a reason for this I'm missing? Electricmaster (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You would want to ask that at the Wikiproject Tennis talk page, not here, as it's not about this article. oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: However, nicknames wouldn't be the norm for infoboxes. Heck they aren't the norm for the lead section either. That would be minor stuff left to the personal section unless it's the main name a player goes by. It's different for wrestlers or boxers whose personas sometimes revolve around a nickname. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  nicknames...
Talk:Tragedy of the commons

message: While the edit by user Novern Linguae means to get to the heart of the matter at once, which is usually desirable, in this case it really is quite important not to telescope two quite different entities.  The Tragedy of the Commons is not, and never was, a concept: it is just one modern label (arguably, even a glib label) for a concept (or, more accurately) a range of concepts, imperfectly defined, that have been debated since Aristotle.  The lead section got into a mess in the past -- see above, Lead is a tragedy in itself -- for failure to stress this philosophical distinction. Ttocserp 11:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think before I made my edit, the Google Knowledge Panel was saying , without saying what the concept is. That's one of my motivations for the change. I'm not particularly invested in that edit though. Up to y'all. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Label, and the thing it denotes. 

message: This article is an uncritical presentation of a viewpoint regarded by most economists as having been refuted decades ago. The criticism section is buried so far down that no one will see it, and the Ostrom's who demolished Hardin, are quoted as if they endorse him. I've started trying to get some kind of balance JQ (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Not sure how to edit, but the main info points to the wrong Paul erlich. Should be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich 2603:8080:7400:E6C:A532:D2D5:6442:B8B8 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , on the balance of probabilities based on their respective academic fields. Without access to Nature Sustainability, I can't verify. Thank you for pointing it out. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Paul erlich in paragraph  5
Talk:Taoism

message: — Assignment last updated by KawhiKawayi (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

message: This article currently has 546 occurrences of words beginning 'Tao' and 362 beginning 'Dao', which is inconsistent to put it mildly. Having read the discussion above re pronunciation, shouldn't they all be Dao, apart from a few specific cases? Masato.harada (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the consensus in this article has been "Tao". There are some inconsistencies, but some instances of "Dao" may be in quotes, which shouldn't be changed. Remsense留 02:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure they're interchangeable. 76.145.181.225 (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They are, but consistency within an article is important. Remsense留 03:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent spelling throughout 

message: As I've just said in the GAR, tens of hours of work would be required to get this article back to what I would see as GA status. However, I think it may be far easier to start with a mass revert to the state of the article a year ago. Unfortunately, this would undo a lot of the worthwhile work by Javierfv1212 in particular, which would need to be reintegrated as appropriate. If this is agreed, I would be happy to do this work myself. I don't like suggesting this, but I wouldn't if I didn't think it wasn't the easiest and fastest way to save this article. Remsense留 15:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: After further GAR input, I think a considered partial revert followed by measured reintroduction of material is the best way to go: I'll be going through section by section. Remsense留 20:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Compare these Ngrams:
* English (2019)
* American English (2019)
* British English (2019)
Why does English (2019) differ from the American and British component corpora? Other regional accents of English? ~~~~ Keahapana (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. "Taoism" would include reprints of older titles, which would create duplication, but that doesn't answer your question why Taoism scores higher. Since "English" includes publications in any country, not just Great Britain and America, is it possible that including other countries gives a different result? We're dealing with awfully small numbers here, so they could be easily thrown off by a small change in the sample represented in Google Books.ch (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Sorry, what small numbers? According to Google Books, the American corpus has 155 billion words and the British 34 billion. Keahapana (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tick-tock
Talk:Chicken or the egg

message: * 
* press release in 12 July 2010 https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/1706-1.174049
Simplest explanation: it can be that "ovocleidin-17" protein was part of egg from "bird that was not a chicken" (or from "proto chicken") but "ovocleidin-17" has been produced after mutation.
We can only speculate in either direction (mutation or not).
So, "Egg came first" is not defeated by "ovocleidin-17" arguments. 
"ovocleidin-17" can simplify what we understand as "chicken". D1gggg (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think that finding in 2010 was incorrectly worded 

message: Apparently it was expressed in Life and Habit, ch. 8 (1877) w:wikiquote:Samuel Butler (novelist)
I have troubles to find exact quote from Richard Dawkins bibliography or w:wikiquote:Richard Dawkins
For example: "This is of course the old 'a chicken is just an egg's way to breed a new egg' line of thinking, dressed up in fancy hi-tech. It is equally possible to give an account of genetics and evolution from the point of view of the organism ..."  D1gggg (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The chicken is only an egg's way of making another egg" 

message: Apparently. But this is still usable, right? Kailash29792 (talk)  05:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solved 

message: While Darwin’s Evolution is cited as a literal answer, it should be pointed out that it is a theory; thus, citing it as a “literal” answer is not actually accurate. 24.112.135.216 (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal answers?
Talk:Tropical year

message: : 365.242 189 669 8-6.153 59\times 10^{-6}T-7.29\times 10^{-10}T^2 + 2.64\times 10^{-10}T^3
Some values for the equation cited (in article);
T   	Year  AD BC	Length             	Diff to T = 0, days   	Diff to T = 0,  seconds
-100	-8000      	365.242 533 738 800	000.000 344 069 T =000	29.727562
-60 	-4000      	365.242 499 236 800	000.000 309 567 000   	26.746589
-50 	-3000      	365.242 462 526 800	000.000 272 857 000   	23.574845
-40 	-2000      	365.242 417 751 000	000.000 228 081 200   	19.706216
-30 	-1000      	365.242 366 493 400	000.000 176 823 600   	15.277559
-20 	0          	365.242 310 338 000	000.000 120 668 200   	10.425732
-10 	1000       	365.242 250 868 800	000.000 061 199 000   	5.287594
0   	2000       	365.242 189 669 800	000.000 000 000 000   	0.000000
1   	2100       	365.242 183 515 745	-000.000 006 154 055  	-0.531710
10  	3000       	365.242 128 325 000	-000.000 061 344 800  	-5.300191
20  	4000       	365.242 068 418 400	-000.000 121 251 400  	-10.476121
30  	5000       	365.242 011 534 000	-000.000 178 135 800  	-15.390933
40  	6000       	365.241 959 255 800	-000.000 230 414 000  	-19.907770
50  	7000       	365.241 913 167 800	-000.000 276 502 000  	-23.889773
60  	8000       	365.241 874 854 000	-000.000 314 815 800  	-27.200085
70  	9000       	365.241 845 898 400	-000.000 343 771 400  	-29.701849
80  	10000      	365.241 827 885 000	-000.000 361 784 800  	-31.258207
90  	11000      	365.241 822 397 800	-000.000 367 272 000  	-31.732301
100 	12000      	365.241 831 020 800	-000.000 358 649 000  	-30.987274
MBG02 (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mean tropical year