lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Folk costume

message: The article is now very confusing. To me, there is way way way too much regular fashion in it. Just  because a certain design of a man's shoe, for example, has been manufactured and sold in, and spread from, a certain town, doesn't make that shoe any sort of "folk costuming" for use at certain cultural occasions and ceremonies. Some areas just don't have what normally would be called a folk costume. I think we should leave it at that and remove a lot of fashions from this article where we've tried to make up for such lack. Does anyone else egree? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Are local commercially created fashions really folk costumes?

message: The U.S. has many regional customs, which result in some sort of regional attire. But some are mainly fashion statements of some period (eg. knickerbockers) or even brands (Nantucket reds, in turn trademarked by Murray’s toggery shop, though worn as summer attire by people of Nantucket, cape cod, Martha's vineyard). See if you can help with editing that section.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhijbkbg099 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with the U.S. costumes 

message: This will take you food for customers to many parts of the world. 2001:44B8:27E:E400:8DB0:CF6D:5470:227F (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folk costume 

message: Just letting others know that I'm trying to add more citations to meet requirements. In so doing, I've had to correct and clarify some information (the Bhutan clothing law in the intro, for example). Additionally, I've added a lot of images to the gallery (especially the Americas and Oceania, which were really lacking).
This is why there have been so many edits in the past 24 hours! Medieval M'Lady (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just FYI -- I'm adding citations as suggested in the banner
Talk:Mary Stuart (Schiller play)

message: "Schiller’s Drama Mary Stuart" is an absurd title for this page. The capitalized "drama" seems to be incorrect, and the unusual apostrophe ( ’ instead of ' ) is the reason why "Schiller's Drama Mary Stuart" is not even recognized as the same title. I suggest Maria Stuart (play) with a redirect from Mary Stuart (play). <KF> 10:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title
Talk:Brighton & Hove LGBT Switchboard

message: Hi,
I am the webmaster for www.switchboard.org.uk/brighton.  There are no copyright infringments made here.  Please unlock this document, for clarification please email. brighton@switchboard.org.uk.
iain
:Thanks. I've restored it and rewritten it into the third person. —Whouk (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Name of Romania

message: * "ct" → "pt" 
* "an" → "âin"
These are correct (or quasi-correct), but they're not related to this article: in here' we're talking only about the word Romania/Romanian. They would be more appropriate in an article about phonetical changes from Latin to Romanian. bogdan 10:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Section 

message: Has a talk page linking here, so sb was too lazy about their page move.
In any case, this is an excellent page, but shifted redirect to Romania#Etymology to allow hatnote linking to both pages at the List of country-name etymologies for cross-referencing purposes. That's an improvement for keeping etymology edits consistent, since that section links here, but this page (sensibly) doesn't really point towards that mainspace area. Since this page is a better fit for normal pages discussing Romanian etymology, shifted links from the other two linked pages Neacsu's letter and History of the term Vlach to this page directly. — LlywelynII 23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of Romania Redirect

message: The section "Etymology of Romania (România)" says
:In English, the name of the country was originally borrowed from French "Roumania" (<"Roumanie"), then evolved into "Rumania", but was eventually replaced after World War II by the name used officially: "Romania".
Unfortunately this is not referenced. I recall that when I was growing up in the US in the 1960s we were taught "Rumania". I wonder if there is a good reference that can pin down the time of the change more specifically -- "after WWII" gives the impression of "right after WWII", and I wonder if it really was later than that. 
Also, the above passage refers to the name used officially. This needs to be clarified -- used officially by what government: US, UK, or Romania? Duoduoduo (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumania → Romania "after World War II" 
Talk:Heart of the Comet

message: Just a thanks to the people who corrected those little spelling and grammer bits and added things to make my first Wikipedia page better! --Acidsaturation 10:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: "The novel tells the story of an expedition beginning in the year 2061 to capture Halley's Comet into a short period orbit so that its resources can be mined."
What ? 
It's been a while that I read it but from memory that's absolutely not the purpose of the expedition.
They use the Halley Comet as a vehicle to reach the far outer solar system, not to mine it. 2001:910:802:1:0:0:0:1038 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot
Talk:Area of a circle

message: The single paragraph in the history section doesn't flow logically. First it is stated that Eudoxus of Cnidus proved the area is proportional to the square of the radius. However, it is later claimed that "Prior to Archimedes, Hippocrates of Chios was the first to show that the area of a disk is proportional to the square of its diameter". But, this raises the question why Eudoxus of Cnidus was mentioned first. Indeed, Hippocrates of Chios lived a century before Eudoxus of Cnidus, so what motivates the sequencing of the paragraph?
Another, more minor issue, is that proportional to the square of the radius, versus diameter, is trivially equivalent. But it wastes the reader's mental energy when these different ways of referring to the same thing are used, since it momentarily raises the question whether there is a difference. Ajrmmm (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: Please see this addition by User:Ebony Jackson on 7 January 2014:
: Special:Diff/589555823.
Is the page linked there (published at shreevatsa.wordpress.com) a reliable source? I'm afraid it counts as a primary source and as such it should be considered WP:OR. --CiaPan (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi CiaPan, you can remove the reference if you want.  But I would leave the fact (that there is no better approximation with denominator <16604) there.  The fact is routine to verify for anyone with computer literacy, so I would think it would fall under WP:CALC. Ebony Jackson (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this ref be considered valid?
Talk:Guy Henry (actor)

message: This article may be good, but it needs some wikifying, a birth date and a less enthusiastic, more neutral tone (get rid of the exclamation marks and sentences such as "His next role is eagerly anticipated!" in Guy_Henry (actor)#Other_work_during_and_since_2005). <KF> 11:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: His birthdate doesn't seem right... I thought it was on March 3rd. Afrikaner (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The October one is the one given him on the IMDB website. Neddyseagoon - talk 18:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: There is only one Guy Henry in the Birth Register born 1960 ±2 years, and he was born in Kensington, London. I have changed the birthplace accordingly. Iantnm (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace
Talk:Quantum operation

message: I've added a cleanup-rewrite template, since the article has severe problems and probably needs a complete rewrite. It's incomprehensible, unclear and written in a verbose, non-encylopedic style, mixing formalism with "general overview" and out of place remarks (e.g. sentences about quantum logic). It lacks clarity over all.
--Neworder1 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed up all of the issues; it should be pretty straight-forward and comprehensible now. The quantum-measurement section still has, cough, cough, "difficulties" in it, that need fixing, but its passable. User:Linas (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs rewriting 

message: The accuracy of following sentence in the article seems to be debatable:
:The quantum operation formalism emerged around 1983 from work of K. Kraus, who relied on the earlier mathematical work of M. D. Choi.
There is at least one paper(E. C. G. Sudarshan, et al, Phy Rev, 1961) that seems to have already contained the idea that quantum operations are CP maps. Mct mht 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. You may be right. Although Sudarshan now seems to be having second thoughts.--CSTAR 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The idea that quantum operations are CP maps is distinct from the idea of quantum operations in general.  I think Kraus was the first guy to lay out the quantum operations formalism in full, even if Sudarshan put forward the CP requirement. By the way, CSTAR is referring to "Who's Afraid of Completely Positive Maps?", a paper by Anil Shaji and E.C.G. Sudarshan which shows pretty convincingly that the CP requirement is misguided.  See my comment elsewhere on this page on CP maps. Njerseyguy (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical reference accurate? 

message: "Who's Afraid of not Completely Positive Maps?", a paper by Anil Shaji and E.C.G. Sudarshan, shows pretty convincingly that the Completely Positive (CP) requirement is misguided.  At best, most real-life quantum operations are only approximately CP, and the idea that CP is necessitated by physical reasoning is bunk.  I would change this wikipedia article, but Shaji and Sudarshan's paper hasn't really sunk in with the quantum info community.  (Most don't even know it exists).  So there really isn't a consensus yet. Njerseyguy (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify: under the assumption that a system and its environment are initially in a product state \rho_S \otimes \rho_E, the reduced dynamics of \rho_S are necessarily CP.  Further, there are some cases where the initial state of the supersystem (system+environment) is not a product state, but the reduced dynamics of \rho_S are nevertheless CP.  The problem is with claiming that CP is a physical requirement for all reduced dynamics, which is not true. Njerseyguy (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a really interesting paper. I just had a read of it and enjoyed it a lot. Added it to the page. Meznaric (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CP maps
Talk:Sandbox (locomotive)

message: The locomotive depicted in the steam sanders photo cannot be "LNER A4 Union of South Africa" as originally quoted - LNER A4s have much larger wheels with tighter spacing and partially hidden behind the streamlining. (See a genuine side shot of Union of South Africa here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:60009-STREAMLINE-FRAME.JPG)
I believe it's probably actually 75069, as it looks to be a BR Standard Class 4 (based on the size and spacing of the wheels) that's been cleared for mainline running (based on the modern tachometer), but the lack of visible nameplate (or mounting holes) seems to rule out 75029, and I can't find any evidence of 75014 having used that style of connecting rods.
However, I can't confirm that, so I've merely taken the liberty of re-captioning the photo.
- RagnarokEOTW (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steam Sanders
Talk:Proofs from THE BOOK

message: Should this page be marked as a stub? Do we have a "book stub" template like we do for "this computer science related article is a stub" etc. 
When was this book published?Patchouli 11:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

message: Shepard, Mary (1999). Read This! Review of Proofs from THE BOOK:
http://www.maa.org/reviews/thebook.html
gives: HTTP Error 404.0 - Not Found  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenorb (talk • contribs) 12:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing link 

message: Removed link to the book in the Internet Archive because I.A. says the book is not there.  I suspect the book was removed due to copyright issues, as the book is still being sold.  DWorley (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links
Talk:Average White Band

message: The article states "affectionately known as the Dundee Horns".
From my memory (admittedly vague) they were actually in a band called the Dundee Horns, that used to play Laing's Hotel on the Perth Road (Dundee).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.146.71 (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dundee Horns? 

message: I was reading the Wikipedia Article about the Average White Band and it doesn't match up with what Onnie himself said about how they got their name. Please watch the House of Blues Video with the Average White Band and you will hear/see what Onnie has to say about that. It has something to do with them going to places like Uganda and someone saying that it was too hot there for the average white man. 
at 14:23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLd7-MF-eYs  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4F1C:B00:8837:AD91:5F0C:E05A (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How The Average White Band got their Name 

message: Didn't AWB serve as Billy Connolly's backing band on Stainless Steel Wellies (AKA Govan 'Dunne' Blues)?
Nuttyskin (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billy Connolly
Talk:Nordic Exhibition of 1888

message: I have emailed the article creator User:Jespersnielsen as he hasn't edited for a few months. Tyrenius 07:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Is the title a little redundnat? Do we need 1888 two times? Thanx. 68.39.174.238 05:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: moved. RJFJR (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it just me or...? 

message: I think the headings are too long and wordy and should be shortened (but I 'm not sure what to change them to).  RJFJR (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings too long

message: Removed from article to talk RJFJR (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final words on the interaction between the individual and institutional level 
Talk:All Saints Anglican Church, Canberra

message: I have rolled back twice info about the congregation - I don't beleive it is neutrally expressed and I don't believe service times are encyclopaedic--A Y Arktos\talk 11:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit roll backs about service times 

message: is that notice hanging around for a reason ?
2c - i'd merge this one into that one, better naming, suburb state locality naming convention ? Dave Rave (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge talk ?
Talk:Bachelor Girl

message: Are they still active? I haven't heard hide nor hair of them in nearly 5 years now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.111.194 (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinkraynedropyeah Tania Doko played a few months ago (2006) at Luna Park in melbourne. She sounded great as usual. I love her she is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkraynedrop (talk • contribs) 08:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Graphium agamemnon

message: We got two more images, unfortunately both UN, both not spectacularly great.
* 'TS003_Graphium_agamemnon.jpg'===
Possible caption ? Camouflage? Hostplant? HOST Database url did not turn up Zizyphus jujuba - yeah eye NO sum plantz. See 4 urself :-
http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research-curation/projects/hostplants//index.dsml
* 'TS004_Graphium_agamemnon.jpg'===
Possible caption? Sipping at xxx plant. forwarding to f-in-law for plant id.
* DSF vs WSF? :( 
003 looks like WSF but snapped on 27 Mar 05 . 004 looks like DSF but snapped on 04 Apr 06.
Use them somehow, yaar. AshLin 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image placement
Category talk:People with bipolar disorder

message: I agree this is an important Category, but I advise caution in placing a person in it. To formally label someone as suffering from bipolar disorder in an encyclopedia is not something to be done casually, or, certainly not without a factual basis. A person can exhibit manic and/or depressive behaviors without having the formal diagnosis of bipolar. In short, just be sure your sources are objective, scientific and reliable. Michael David 11:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely. It would violate WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:BIO. Three strikes.Doczilla 08:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: But the very existence of "Bipolar" as an actual "objective, scientific and reliable" mental illness or "disease" is based on no science at all. So why is it given credence in Wikipedia? See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UDlH9sV0lHU Johnalexwood (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is widely recognised in the medical field, has a major effect, is diagnosed and treated. Jim Michael (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No science 

message: Didn't mean to start an edit war, but I believe that the of examples of "People with manic-seeming public personas but without documented diagnostic histories of bipolar disorder" is a BLP violation, and should be immediately removed. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  02:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - so I have removed the mentions as they are unsourced and not supported by the articles about those persons, per WP:BLP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks. On a side note, I think that final vandalism warning issued to IP's talk page was a little undeserved. This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and it's possible he didn't realize the defamatory nature. It took a while before it dawned on me. Maybe a less severe edit warring template would have been more appropriate. I know it wasn't you and not to slap the sack of the editor who did... idk, just a thought. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

text: ...and now he's been blocked. Oh well. He obviously wasn't getting the hint regardless. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  03:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of those who do not belong in this catagory 

message: I just rewrote the inclusion criteria for people from earlier periods of history to require that there be agreement among a preponderance of verifiable and credible sources, rather than mere speculation from one such source, which was a ridiculously low standard for inclusion. I discovered the problem when I noticed that Beethoven had been placed in the category on the basis of a single source speculating that he may have been bipolar (which I promptly removed). I suspect there are more than a few other articles that have been placed in the category on comparably shaky grounds. Cgingold (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion criteria
Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 3

message: I would like to see the opening paragraph improved.  At present there are two main issues I would like to see addressed:-
1. The references for evangelical.  I personally don't think they are needed, and that if references are needed then either the information doesn't belong in the opening paragraph or the references belong further in the article where the information is more fully understood. 
2. The apparent logic sequence from "investigative judgment" through to the Sabbath and the state of the dead.  The way it reads suggests that all subsequent doctrines are based on the first.
What do other people think? -Fermion 06:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the introduction could do with some major work. Most featured articles have about three paragraphs in their introduction. I see your point about placing references futher down the article, but they do need to be placed somewhere, as can be seen from the discussion above. The most recent article I have seen is by Kenneth Samples  which continues to identify Adventism as evangelical, despite classing part of it as cultic. You are also correct that the wording of the defining beliefs is sketchy. Be bold! and make the changes. MyNameIsNotBob 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would disagree that the reference given is any use.  Let us try for scholarly print publications rather than obscure internet references.  Further, can't we do something like extract the criteria for evangelical from that article and demonstrate that Seventh-day Adventism matches.  I struggle to understand why the evangelical status of Adventist theology needs to be defended.  Adventist theology is not orthodox or liberal, the label evangelical is used to indicate a theological position seperate from the above but still within the confines of Christendom. -Fermion 09:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The opening paragraph 

message: Those who watch this page may have noticed that I have just done a fairly large expansion to the Sabbath section under the Beliefs heading of the article. This expansion is a summary of the relevant paragraph in the publication Seventh-day Adventists Believe..., which is the closest thing the church has ever released to a doctrinal statement. My question is, is this expansion too large for the article? MyNameIsNotBob 10:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs sections
Talk:Tri-oval

message: : While an oval has four turns, a tri-oval has an "extra" fifth turn.
What does 'turn' mean in this sentence?  I don't see five of anything in the illustration; nor do I see four discrete 'turns' in an oval. —Tamfang (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsure about why 5, but I imagine if the curve is represented by straight segments and circle arc, a driver "turns" to the new curvature, so each "corner" would seem to be 2 turns "sharp turn" (small radius), holding, and then "turning" back straight again. So it makes sense an oval is "2 sharp turns" needing four transitions, while a tri0oval by logic would have 6 "turns", two on each corner. I imagine "5" might come because one of the "less sharp" corners is smooth enough that it feels like one movement, rather than 2 distinct motions? Tom Ruen (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like how a curve of constant width based on a scalene triangle  can have five segments, heh. —Tamfang (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of turns