lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Lepidodendron

message: Hey - I just checked out the page for an undergraduate paleo class, and it appears to be half missing.  I don't really know how to fix what isn't there - so I thought I'd post a little message here.  I found old info in a previous edit, thanks.
:That doesn't appear to be a problem at this end.  It could be your browser or your internet connection.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with page loading

message: The page for Stigmaria, the fossilized roots of Lepidodendron and Sigillaria is basically a one sentence stub with some nice pics. I've suggested on that page that this information should be copied and pasted into both this page and Sigillaria and that page should be deleted as it would take much much work to transform it into anything but a stub (something that I find extremely unlikely). Considering in my quick scan of this page I didn't see anything on Stigmaria, something probably needs to be added either way. Please comment as you see fit. Ckruschke (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combine info from stub Stigmaria?
Talk:Lycopodiella

message: ==== Content ====
# The material that is there is organized, but because there is two sections.
# Presentation is understandable, but rewording could be beneficial to the flow.
# This article only briefly covers the topic. It is missing sections like description, range, and habitat.
# There's no evidence anywhere on the page.
# There were no references, and it seems like someones background knowledge.
# The intro paragraph could use some rewording, and it needs references.
==== Quality ====
# There's an intro, but but it's short and lacks references.
# Intro's understandable - short and simple. It could use a sentence for a brief description and some rewording.
# There's only an intro and a list of species. It needs sections like description, range, and habitat.
# Missing information like a more in-depth description, range, and habitat.
# There are a two pictures appropriately placed. Both are of the same species, so there could be an addition of another species.
# The info is unbiased.
# The only fact emphasized is the common name b/c it's in bold and there is not much other info.
# There are no references.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly989 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  <big>Evaluation</big> 

message: # There's an intro, but but it's short and lacks references.
# Intro's understandable - short and simple. It could use a sentence for a brief description and some rewording.
# There's only an intro and a list of species. It needs sections like description, range, and habitat.
# Missing information like a more in-depth description, range, and habitat.
# There are a two pictures appropriately placed. Both are of the same species, so there could be an addition of another species.
# The info is unbiased.
# The only fact emphasized is the common name b/c it's in bold and there is not much other info.
# There are no references.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly989 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality
Talk:Drepanophycus

message: I copied relevant material from an article on Drepanophycus spinaeformis, which was then a stub, and left it as a redirect. (There are no other species articles.)
* For extinct plants, we generally only have a genus article with brief discussions of the species.
* There is rarely enough material which is relevant to Wikipedia for a species article on an extinct plant (specialists will read the original literature); this was true of the Drepanophycus spinaeformis article which was labelled a stub.
The article needs more work, e.g. on the phylogeny of the genus and on at least some of the other species.
(There are also issues over the Drepanophycaceae article, which (a) has little material (b) describes a rather out of date taxonomic situation.) Peter coxhead (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger
Talk:Drepanophycaceae

message: The only authority for the family treated by this article (as distinct from the characteristics of the genera of which it is composed) is some anonymous archived web page. This can't be classed as a reliable source.
The 13th edition of Engler's Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien, Part 3 published in 2009, is a respected secondary or tertiary source (depending on your interpretation) of information on plant families. According to this (p. 290) the family includes Asteroxylon and the Asteroxylaceae, so all the article content about having vascularized microphylls goes out the window.
The reality is that there is little agreement about these early plant families and perhaps it is better not to have a page on them, but redirect up to the next higher rank. MisterCDE (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that although the family is used in the literature, definitions vary. For example, Kenrick and Crane (1997) in their cladistic study place Asteroxylon in the clade Drepanophycaceae., p. 213 Taylor, Taylor &  Krings (2009) don't use the family at all, only the order Drepanophycales, and say that Asteroxylon is sometimes included in the Drepanophycales., p. 270 The most recent paper I've found that uses the taxon Drepanophycaceae just uses it to classify a new species of Baragwanathia, but doesn't indicate the circumscription of the family. So I think there's a good case for up-merging this article into Drepanophycales, at the least. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have updated the article on Drepanophycales so that it is more or less ready to take over, if you wish to make that change. At the time I created the Drepanophycales article back in 2006, the attribution (taken from The Fossil Record) was to Pichi-Sermolli. However, that was a nomen nudum which is no longer acceptable, and IFPNI now credits Novák with the name. I also took the liberty of cutting and pasting from your remarks above into the Drepanophycales section on families, hope you don't mind! I wouldn't be surprised if there are more changes in future, since Asteroxylaceae has priority over Drepanophycaceae, and priority still applies to family names. MisterCDE (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Drepanophycaceae
Talk:Botrychium

message: Is the separation of the grapeferns tenable? I think the latest word is "certainly not"... in any case species need to be reviewed and Botrypus is one hell of a mess. Dysmorodrepanis 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the consensus at the Plant project is that it is at least reasonable to have a page for every genus level, though not necessarily for every species levels. I'm doing an undergraduate research project on Botrychiums this year so I'll try to get some more sources added when I come across their journal articles. Ataylor18 (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

text: FWIW, my take is that it looks like B. virginianum, too. The apices of the divisions of the trophophore seem much too acute to be a B. lunarioides. Choess (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the thumbnail.Ataylor18 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: This needs a complete revision
Talk:Botrypus

message: What genus is this even in? I'm relatively new to wikipedia and I'm not really sure what database or reference is used in a taxonomic clash.  I'm keeping the genus as its been listed as botrypus and have added that to the family page and removed the redirrect to from botrypus to botrychium.  If I am wrong feel free to undo those edits. Wasp32 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genera 

message: I'm reading the article and it refers to the genus Botrypus and the species Botrychium virginianum. This is like looking at an article about someone named Sarah Johnson and then, with no further context, seeing her referred to by the surname Blake throughout the article.
There is only one genus name. There may be synonyms when a plant is named and then renamed, but one should be the superior or correct synonym over the other, and be used throughout the article. The other name should be clearly labeled a synonym, and not used to refer to the plant in the article text. 
This is an issue. This article is the top search result for "Botrychium virginianum" for me, and likely countless others. Please resolve. 2604:2D80:E594:3800:9029:94D4:187D:B7FD (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the first sentence. As the Taxonomy and genetics section explains, recent research suggests that the species formerly known as Botrychium virginianum is best place in a genus of its own, so it's now the only species in the genus Botrypus. Not all sources have yet caught up. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genus name/article title conflict
Talk:Rose Scott

message: This page was vandalized March 7th by 220.239.46.57.  I believe I've successfully reverted the page back to its pre-vandalism state, but prior editors may want to review their changes to make sure.  I'm not sure, yet, how to revert multiple edits at once. FeralDruid 08:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you got it all. See Help:Reverting for advice on how to overwrite revisions.--cj | talk 09:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism
Talk:Matt Allwright

message: Place of education altered to correct school. --Milton25 08:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: School

message: I think the description 'arrogant' is a bit too subjective for Wikipedia. He's not actually not that bad.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.59.40 (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrogant?
Category talk:Entropy and information

message: Removing the PROD deletion template as is my right because I "otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason".
The Deletion request claimed this category should go because it represents a:
:miscategorization due to a basic misunderstanding of what entropy is
Linas, I think I have a reasonable idea of what entropy is, and how thermodynamic entropy relates to information entropy.   See for example Information_entropy#Relationship_to_thermodynamic_entropy which I hope you would agree is a reasonable summary.   My own views indeed would be close to the E.T. Jaynes camp, Maximum entropy thermodynamics which regards thermodynamic entropy as simply an application of information theoretical entropy. (Even if some chemists appear to persistently disagree, and decry the mention of any connection between the two).
But the point of Wikipedia categories is to group articles which are close in subject.  There is a clear split to be made, betweeen articles on entropy which can make sense outside a thermodynamic context; and articles on entropy which only relate to a thermodynamic context.  Generally, when browsing the categories people will either be looking for one or the other.  It is a distraction and a confusion for people looking for articles related to entropy in the context of signal processing to lump those in together with say the Sackur-Tetrode equation.  If you look at at what falls into each category, they really do fall into two distinct sets of articles.  Creating the spearate sub-categories makes it much easier to see how complete these categories are.  And it's helpful, to give a first compass-indication on what each article might be about.
So even though we actually probably agree with each other on the close connections between "entropy and information" and "entropy in thermodynamics", and maybe the category pages should acknowledge this connection more, perhaps with a reference to the Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory article, nevertheless IMO it is still extremely useful and informative to make the concentration of the articles into two distinct sub-categories, rather than muddling them all together.   Jheald 08:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD removed
Talk:Plebeian council

message: 'The well of the Comitia' is mentioned in this article as the place where the Plebian Council met. What was this place? I have seen it referenced in several books but cannot find out anything about it. Specifically, was it merely a flat pavement area in the vicinity between the Rostra and the Curia Hostilia, or was it actually an excavated pit or a large opening of some kind lined with seating levels? Or what? Answers very much appreciated, this has been bothering me for many years!
69.124.22.139 08:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Curia Hostilia

message: I have just completed some major modifications to this article. RomanHistorian (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to article

message: "To end this movement, a plebeian dictator (Quintus Hortensius) was appointed, who ultimately passed a law called the "Hortensian Law" (lex Hortensia). The most significant component of this law was its termination of the requirement that auctoritas patrum be obtained before any bill could be considered by the Plebeian Council.[8] In this way the law removed from the patrician senators their final check over the Plebeian Council.[9] The lex Hortensia, however, should not be viewed as the final triumph of democracy over aristocracy.[9] Close relations between the plebeian tribunes and the senate meant that the senate could still exercise a great degree of control over the Plebeian Council. Thus, the ultimate significance of this law was that it robbed the patricians of their final weapon over the plebeians.[9] This ended the Conflict of the Orders, and brought the plebeians to a level of full political equality with the patricians."
This portion, especially the bold sentences, is confusing.  Did the law do what was intended or didn't it?  Did it empower the plebs or were they still subject to control by the Patricians?  Could someone who has more knowledge help?InformationvsInjustice (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lex Hortensia confusion
Talk:Buddhism in Indonesia

message: Other than the Chinese, who else practices Buddhism in Indonesia? Le Anh-Huy (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly Javanese. 134.176.155.4 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Who follows?
Talk:Florence R. Sabin

message: (i'm too shy and uninformed to edit myself but) i'm unsure why this line says "In 1924, Sabin’s work on the origins of blood vessels earned her membership in the National Academy of Science" because the NAS website http://www.nasonline.org/member-directory/deceased-members/20001678.html says she was admitted in 1925.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.162.249.185 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAS date
Talk:Richard Parker (economist)

message: Note: These are (I think) two different human beings: 
*https://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/richard-parker <-- This is the page for the subject of this article
*http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10648/Parker
KConWiki (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Two diff Richard Parkers at Harvard
Talk:General Public

message: Here is a reliable source: http://www.schriel.nl/tunes/G.htm. 83.83.119.239 (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dishwasher on Dutch Avondspits 
Talk:Paige

message: In the last week alone there have been a number of nonsensical vandalism attacks on this pretty inconspicuous page, so if an admin feels it warrants protection, I'd strongly encourage it. The whole deal is starting to get out of hand, but its on my watchlist. My "Final Edit" edit pieced together the best parts of what the article was in its heyday, and further edits should be built off it unless someone really wants to come up with something special. Gerolsteiner 08:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection from Vandalism
Talk:Leonhart Fuchs

message: I added Leonhard to the first sentence as an alternative to Leonhart. Google shows about a 2:1 preference for Leonhart.Fuchs over Leonhard.Fuchs. Even though Leonhard could be considered "wrong," it is quite commonly spelled that way, at least in English sources (I cited an encyclopedia as a source), so I think it's worth mentioning in the article (though maybe less prominently than the first sentence). The alternate spelling may aid searches (although Leonhard Fuchs is already a redirect here), and it may help readers who want to search for more information about him, so they'll know to look for both spellings of his name. I assume Leonhard is just an anglicization, but I don't know for sure, and can't find a source for that. If someone can source it, perhaps the sentence could read "sometimes anglicized as Leonhard Fuchs" rather than just "sometimes Leonhard Fuchs." -Agyle 09:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of adding Leonhard in addition to Leonhart
Talk:Matthew Ridge

message: Current overly hagiographic content is completly from http://stats.allblacks.com/Profile.asp?ABID=733 - which in turn says it's "...courtesy Ponsonby District Rugby Football Club". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snori (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied text

message: Ridge has a very colourful background which is totally missing. There is nothing about him being convicted of murder when young. There were some very unusual circumstances around the murder, which resulted in a strange sentence even for NZ.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.136.12 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, it seems Ridge has some minor convictions for traffic offences, and may have been ejected from a bar on one occasion. Unless you have a reliable source, I'm assuming you're pulling our collective leg. Muzilon (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing back ground 
Talk:Mrs. John L. Strong

message: sounds like a promotion of the company, so I added a NPOV tag GB 08:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

message: Dear Mr. Graham, While I understand your possible objection to an advertisement, this stub is in fact a legitimate commerical history, and is similar (and in fact more objective) than many online right now, including Chanel, Christian Dior, Tiffany and Company, Smythson, Coach, and others.  Might you suggest a phrase that offended you that could be removed so as to eliminate your POV objection?  Many thanks 205.231.28.61 15:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: POV dispute
Talk:Kathryn Harrison

message: Unflattering pictures of article subjects are usually considered as being covered under WP:BLP, IIRC. The subject has complained about the image. I will attempt to have her submit a better image if possible. In the interim, please respect the subjects wishes about the Shankbone image. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2007 image has been replaced by the [hopefully better] 2010 image. --David Shankbone 05:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Shankbone image

message: Is this vandalism? The term is puzzling, and not explained.
:Yes; obvious vandalism. Anaxial (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheeseburger seduction?
Talk:Roman theatre of Philippopolis

message: Added page due to lack of information about the Plovdiv amphitheatre
Koal4e 09:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Work–family conflict

message: I would like to make revisions to this page. These revisions would concern formatting and construct clarification. I would like to add a section about the different types of work-family spill-over that can occur, such as "positive work-family spill-over."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babaker137 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions

message: There are more than just a few revisions to be made on this article. 
* For starters, only one of the citations out of the many listed actually works when you click on it. The rest didn't even give you an option to click on them to be brought to the article that was cited. I don't know if that means they were deleted or just weren't legitimate.
* Each fact in the article is references but all the references do not seem to be reliable. Like I said before, only one of the citations allows you to click on it. 
* I think the article does a good job staying neutral throughout the whole piece so we need to make sure that we keep up with that as well. 
* Lastly, I feel like a lot of the sections could be revised and added to greatly. Workaholism, forms of conflict, and reducing conflict would be talked about more in depth because they are all relatively short. The article itself is relatively short and I think we need to work on making it longer with in depth explanations and facts.
* I think the article would benefit from adding other sections as well. At this time I'm not sure what other sections should be added but after conversing as a group I am confident that we would be able to come up with a few that would really benefit the article. 
ErinToporski (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erin Toporski Revisions 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ys5220 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU23 - Sect 200 - Thu

message: — Assignment last updated by Atmadnan (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Financial Planning II

message: I think this paper would benefit from an abstract or executive summary, which is now absent.
This section will provide a brief overview of the issue, summarize the main results, and suggest directions for further study.   Atmadnan (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding an Abstract/Executive Summary section 

message: Since the vast majority of working adults report that their jobs prevent them from fulfilling their family responsibilities, this article will devote some space to exploring the societal implications of this growing problem.   Atmadnan (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rising social relevance of work-family conflicts  

message: In addition to Boundary and Border theory, this discussion will explore many different theoretical viewpoints in order to get a comprehensive understanding of work-family conflict. such as 
Role Theory and 
Conservation of resource theory Atmadnan (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of Theoretical Background
Talk:Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences

message: There are no citations, and I'm not sure of the factuality of the page. Anyone think they can clear anything up here?
76.89.191.134 (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like some parts of the page are simple copies of one of the external sites. I first tried to add proper link to these passages before realizing that they were about the University of Jundishapur and not the University of medical science. I will suppress it for now and if someone knows more about it, it can be undone with proper explanations. 
Candhrim (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and Factuality
Talk:Accountancy in Hong Kong

message: I moved this out of the  Accountant article as the Hong Kong material covered most of that article. m.e. 09:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move
Category talk:Jewish American sportspeople

message: Team owners, agents, coaches are all included in this section, why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.70.239 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm ... it does seem that Jewish Halls of Fame, for example, include them, so I guess it is not unreasonable.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this be for competitors only?
Talk:Miss Colombia

message: Yolanda Pulecio, mother of Ingrid Betancourt was Miss Colombia in the 1950s can someone verify in what year specifically? this article doesn't list her either.. --Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 02:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yolanda Pulecio
Talk:Kentsū Yabu

message: Done. I confirmed his kanji name by jawp. --Nightshadow28 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese script 