lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Statistical mechanics

message: :"Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics". -- David L. Goodman "States of Matter"
It is a little weird to start an article with a quotation, like that. — Miguel 07:33, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
I know, but it is such a great quote from a standard reference, I thought it was worth including. Michael L. Kaufman 22:29, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
It is pretty interesting, maybe inclusion at the end of the article.
Edsanville 05:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out-of-place quotation ? 

message: I'd like to make some more contributions to the Stat. Mech. subject, so I was
trying to figure out the present structure. I've made up the following "summary"
and I suppose it ought to go on the Stat. Mech. page, but I don't know where. 
Any suggestions or modifications? Paul Reiser 21:32, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of statistical mechanics articles 

message: Cross-blue-links. Stat mech has two discussion sections, Ema--or (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-links

message: The article's lead claims statistical mechanics "does not assume or postulate any natural laws"!!!! No? Conservation of momentum? Conservation of Energy? Continuity? I don't understand how such a preposterous claim could be inserted in what should be a science-based article. Here's a hint: any study of ensembles of "microscopic entities" (Really?? "entities"??? more rubbish!) must differentiate the "entities" from "non-entities". That is, by definition, an assumption, as is their continued existence. That is, the subject's subject must be assumed to exist. 98.21.215.110 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the second sentence since it was a summary of any article content. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd!
Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Archive 1

message: Someone put this after an entry, which seems a proposed policy rather than discussion of one article, so I moved it here:
"NEVER list stubs for redirection or deletion if they have the potential to be unstubbed."
At present I disagree with that. I suspect that the vast majority of stubs have the potential to be expanded. Left on their own, however, many won't be for long lengths of time. The stubs or sub-stubs that get listed on Cleanup tend to be of the particularly poor type; for example those of less than one complete sentance, often with less data on the subject than the article they were linked from. IMO such non-articles can be of less actual use than a red link or a redirect. If no one has shown any inclination to improve or clean them up after some time, in some cases deletion or redirection may be for the best. -- Infrogmation 11:38, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  "NEVER list stubs for redirection or deletion"? 

message: I started using this term to refer to the minimal articles of less than one full sentance (usually newbie contributed), for example Leap the full text of which at writing is "Named after a leap that O'Donovan made while fleeing English soldiers" -- not a full sentance, no wikilinks, raises more questions than it answers (where is it? Is it a town, city, river, or what? Who was O'Donovan?). Resently I've seen some other people list things as "sub-stub" when they have several sentances, but the article is still quite poor. Perhaps if were going to be using the term, we should have a general agreement as to what we mean by it. -- Infrogmation 11:47, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sub-Stub" 

message: There are quite a few big images (either wrong format bmp, png, or huge resolutions). Rather than list all of them here, like I was starting to do :), should these be cleaned up (i.e. resized/converted -> reuploaded -> deleted)? Perhaps we should have a Wikipedia:Upload Cleanup page? Dori 18:43, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
:Subpages are allowed in the Wikipedia namespace so Wikipedia:Cleanup/images would seem best. Angela 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a page would be quite handy for people with image-editing software (myself included) to focus their efforts on.  Additionally, we could conceivably have a Wikipedia:Cleanup/audio page, though audio files seem to be even more rare than images. -Smack 18:47, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Cleanup
Wikipedia talk:Cleanup/Archive 2

message: ANCIENT LISTINGS and VERY OLD should be moved either to VfD or to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. thanks! Kingturtle 02:44, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: What's the difference between these two pages? -Smack 17:45, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention]]?

message: How do items get removed from cleanup? I can think of several easy cases where it seems clear that a page should be remmoved:
*If the page in question is deleted
*If the page in question is redirected
Some less clear cases:
*When the issue has been resolved. For example, if a page is in need of Wikification, and someone Wikifies it.
**Issue: How is it determined that the issue is resolved?
*If the page is added to another, more "definitive" action list, e.g. VfD or one of its subpages.
**How do we decide when that should happen?
And, then there's the troublesome:
* When the page has languished here long enough without the issue being resolved.
I have a suggestion for resolving this issue: Create a section at the bottom of the page -- call it "Proposed Removals" or some such. If anyone thinks that a page should be removed, they list it in this section (without removing it from its original placement). The entry in Proposed Removals should include a signature with a date/time stamp. They should also include a brief reason for removal. If, after several days (5?) no one objects to the removal, the page is removed from this list. Anyone can "object" by simply removing the page name from the Proposed Removals section.
Comments?
:Anthropos 16:15, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, though not strongly. My feeling is that the page is already very large, and having a compulsory waiting section for fixed articles adds to that. Can't people just be trusted to remove things that really are fixed? Angela. 05:22, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I've gone for a rather more aggressive approach - I've removed a load of entries that appear to me to be fixed. For anyone who distrusts my judgement, each removal is reproduced in the edit comment together with my reason for removal. I think that's all the process we really need - don't remove anything without saying why unless it unquestionably needs no further cleanup (e.g. article has been deleted). Onebyone 06:01, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing items from Cleanup
Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15

message: This page is ridiculously long. Ridiculously. 2607:FEA8:3240:6BD0:C068:4F7F:82CB:817B (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the article could be split to reduce its length.  The "Operational history" section could probably be split into Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 operational history. - ZLEA T\C 03:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

text: It's not all that long at just under 100,000 bytes, the recommended length for Wikipedia articles. I'd wait until it's least 120,000 bytes before splitting anything. That's not to say that it shouldn't be trimmed of any superfluous fluff. I'd also remove the unsourced immediately information outright, starting with the mostly unsourced "Surviving aircraft" section. BilCat (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Im looking at the MiG 15 varients and i am curious about the varient listed as Mig 15U. I have been looking for this vehicle and cant even find anything proving its existence. Im simply curious about this aircraft and would like to learn about the weapon swiveling device or (Ustanovka) as listed. If i could talk to the writer of this wiki or perhaps someone who knows about this vehicle that would be great. Gamuru10 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently reworked the Variants section of this article using various sources I found at my university's library.  The info on the MiG-15U came from the book MiG-15 in action by Hans-Heiri Stapfer.  I do not know how to contact Stapfer, but there is an article on him in the German Wikipedia at de:Hans-Heiri Stapfer. - ZLEA T\C 21:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your help, have a good day. Gamuru10 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mig variants  

message: The redirect Lim1 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 14:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Lim1]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21

message: The article makes heavy use of claimed kill numbers without seeming to verify or put them in context. Claimed shootdowns historically wildly overestimate the number of aircraft downed and should be put into context. 153.90.167.151 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding verified kill numbers is all but impossible as verifying kill numbers is usually very low on a warring military's list of priorities.  If you have a reliable source that calls into question any of the claimed kill numbers, then we may be able to add the relevant information to the article.  A general "but claimed kill numbers are often inflated" from a source that has nothing to do with any of the specific claimed kills in this article would likely be considered WP:SYNTH. - ZLEA T\C 03:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed Kill Numbers
Talk:HMS Triumph

message: Wikipedia seems to have missed the first ship named Triumph. Perhaps it is because she was built before 1660, which was before the designation HMS was used. How do I create an appropriate entry for this ship without a HMS designation, but which probably should be included in the list of Triumph ships?  Here is the information on the first Trumph:
The first Triumph of record was a 60-gun English galleon built about 1580. With a burden of 1000 or 1100 tons, she was the largest ship built in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Triumph served effectively as the flagship of Vice-Admiral Martin Frobisher during the battle of the Spanish Armada in 1588. She was a square-rigged galleon of four masts, including two lateen-rigged mizzenmasts. [ http://kentishknock.com/greatshi.shtml]
Wiki's article on Martin Frobisher mentions that he was knighted for his services on Triumph.Tvbanfield 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The First Triumph

message: The disambig and article give conflicting and various counts for the number of guns on the Triumph 1562. Which is correct? Jason Quinn (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of guns of Triumph 1562?
Talk:Geography of Belize

message: the link highest point: Victoria Peak 1,160 m
links to Hong Kong,
as if Belize's highest place is in Asia :-)
that  should be corrected ...
may-be disambiguation?
: I'll change the link here to "Victoria Peak, Belize" for now. I'm not sure of the relative fame of the two Victoria Peaks, or if there are others; when we have something on the one in Belize there should at least be a link there from the "Victoria Peak" article if not changing that article into a disambiguation. -- Infrogmation 20:51, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A controversy has erupted over the choice of map for this article. The two candidates are shown here, along with any others that other Wikipedians may choose to enter. Feel free to make any comments. The lower map may also appear in the corresponding Geography article for this country. Kelisi 02:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Want to hear it clearly 190.197.121.59 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bealizean studies
Talk:Trimeter

message: But what's an anapaestic trimeter? (see William Shenstone#Critical appraisal). Cutler 10:21, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
:See Anapaest.  Each line goes short-short-long, short-short-long, short-short-long. -- the GREAT Gavini 18:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk:David Carson (graphic designer)

message: copy vio from here http://www.fontshop.de/typo98/enhanced/sprecher/e_carson.html
probably delete page? rewrite npov? He does sound mildly noteworthy although the contention that he was only the second american ever to give a talk in Yugoslavia sounds unlikely in the extreme. Its also well out of date Monk Bretton 12:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with above. he's a very influential designer. i'm removing the vanity template, and putting in a cleanup template. --Quiddity 23:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Older discussion

message: 'Carson is almost universally acknowledged as the greatest and certainly the most influential graphic designer of the nineties' By who? Joeking wp 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greatest

message: I'm just wondering if someone has the time to go through this and clean up some of the typography, replace hyphens with en dashes in numbers, and so on. Also, I'm kinda wondering if we shouldn't write (for example) 1992–94 instead of 1992–1994? What's the English standard way of doing this? Optrirominiluikus (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See MOS:DATE and WP:MOSDASH for details (go for it, and we always use full years). -- Quiddity (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fo sho. When I have the time ^_^ Optrirominiluikus (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up?

message: — Assignment last updated by Fallencj18 (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Modern Design
Talk:Platonic epistemology

message: appears to be total nonsense, or at any rate off topic. m.e. 12:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me you're being ironic.  Uriah923 05:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I added quite a bit of content to the site and think it's worthy of removing the sub designation now.  Uriah923 05:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be enough to remove the stub status.  I think the next step should be quoting/citing specific references to the Meno and other dialouges.  I can put that on my to do list, but I won't get to it for a while.  I wouldn't object to someone else doing it.Dayleyj 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing stub 

message: as I recall, and i'm no expert, plato's epistemology more or less just is his doctrine of recollection, so I don't see why the articles shouldn't be merged Killtacular 03:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it could be kept.  Maybe it could be renamed or at least redirected from/to "Plato's Doctrine of Recollection."Dayleyj 20:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the Timaeus.--MWAK (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  plato's doctrine of recollection 

message: While I am neither an expert nor terribly familiar with the works of Plato overall, the information presented in the article seems quite sound and well phrased. For confirmation, though, I recommend someone look to Plato's complete works as presented at classics.MIT.edu 99.65.212.249 (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: A book reviewing Platonic epistemology:  --Signimu (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good source
Talk:1973 Chilean coup d'état

message: The opening line:
"The 1973 Chilean coup d'état was a military overthrow of the Popular Unity government in Chile led by the democratic socialist Salvador Allende as president of Chile." Andrew whicker (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's proper English, the government is what was led by Allende. XeCyranium (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a coup led AGAINST Allende, not BY Allende, correct?
Talk:Heel

message: Can we put all this at separate articles called Heel (foot), Heel (shoe), and Heel, Netherlands?? 66.32.102.16 14:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We could if we wanted, but none of the meanings of heel is that long yet, so nobody's bothered.  If you created an account, you would gain access to the "Move Page" function, and could do it yourself, if you'd like.  It's free and completely anonymous. Hope that helps. Meelar 14:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Sempervivum

message: Hello Sempervivum-interests,
I began to set this article. Did you add more relevant informations? Do you have informations and hints for me?
Thank you in advice,
Manuel Werner, Germany
----
Moved from main article:
:Copyright (c) 2004 Manuel Werner, Germany
:Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
:A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
----
How about moving the species list out of the taxobox? Brya 08:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on which format gives the most compact page (least page scrolling); here, with a lot of text, placing the list in the box makes the page more compact - MPF 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

message: This is an article about the genus Sempervivum. In the moment in this english Wikipedia you separate the genus Jovibarba from the genus Semperivum (this is contraversial, the other possibility is to integrate the Jovibarba as subgenus into the genus sempervivum like in the german Wikipedia, so that Jovibarba globifera subsp. hirta then is called Sempervivum globiferum subsp. hirtum - it is the same species).
In the moment the genera or subgenera are separated here as genera, so it is not useful in the moment, to show in the Taxo-Box a Jovibarba, better would be then a picture like this:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Sempervirum_tectorum1.jpg 
The Sempervivum tectorum-photo aktualy in the article shows Sempervivum with big etiolement and is therefore not optimal ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.237.196 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos and classification/Taxonomy 

message: Why no species list?
Older version of the article had it, why take it out? There is a brief mention of cultivars, but no basic species... 2001:1970:4000:D4:C906:45C2:74D:80BD (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species list
Talk:The Bund

message: Wasn't the Bund one of the remaining refuges for Art Deco or Art Nouveau architecture?
:There are a few art deco/art nouveau buildings, but most of the older bank buildings, esp the most famous, HSBC building, are in classical/neo-classical styles.--Sumple 23:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Art Deco or Art Nouveau

message: Palmer and Turner built most of the famous buildings on the Bund: the HSBC Building, the Peace Hotel, the Yokohama Specie Bank, the Bank of China Building, etc. Yet there isn't a page on them. Does anyone know anything about this firm and what became of them? --Sumple (Talk) 10:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  P & T Architects (Palmer & Turner) 

message: The article says the Bund has "Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque" architecture... other than being clearly false this is just historically impossible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ospeand (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated based on the descriptions of the individual buildings to the relevant revival styles, it seems that most of the buildings are described as "Eclecticist", though a few are clearly art deco. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architectural styles 

message: Article mentions almost no construction dates, not even in the list of buildings. - Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction dates 

message: Hello editors. I'm assuming some of you live near The Bund. We really need a pic of The Bund Finance Center. Thanks!!!!  Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bund Finance Center 

message: I guess this is an improvement over The Bund (Shanghai) but it's the Bund, not The Bund, "The Bund", or The Bund. There's no reason for an article there. See also Big Apple, Sun, Moon, , etc. (I mean, there is The Buddha but that's just a silly mistake too. No one there is actually writing his name that way in the running text. They just overcompensated trying to move it from things like Siddhartha Gautama to the .)
If people don't think this is the  for Bund itself, then Bund (Shanghai) is still where this should go according to . The Bund is a TV show or German newspaper. This isn't either. — LlywelynII 17:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Move
Talk:Auguste Kerckhoffs

message: I had hoped someone would unearth Kerckhoffs unearthly full name. Congratulations, Matt! ww 14:37, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what his parents were thinking...also, I have my text justified, and his full name does horrible things to the layout! — Matt 14:39, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  His full name 

message: Came across this:
:"Just for the record, the only verifiable/reliable on-line reference I found on biographical details on Kerckhoffs is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Kerckhoffs." — 
Good work!
— Matt 00:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More gloating 

message: When it comes to the foreign name, especially French name, I sometimes hesitate to pronounce  it. Can I read his name as Curk-hof? Is there anyone who can read his name correctly? I appreciate any input.  — stegano —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cairk-hofs. Känsterle 14:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The German version of this article has his given names without hyphens (separated by spaces instead).  The Dutch article only gives one name, not the whole string.  Then again, both give his family name as "Kerckhoffs von Nieuwenhoff".  Worth a check.  On the given names: Dutch usage separates them by spaces, just as English does.  Unlike the US, the number of given names varies; one to three is common, four less so; seven is quite rare but not completely unheard of, and probably wasn't quite so strange in the 19th century. Paul Koning (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another place to check would be the Volapuk version of the article, which is much longer than the others. Paul Koning (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation
Talk:Tanga, Tanzania

message: :I moved the following here because it seems unsourced and somewhat incoherent; can anyone fix it up? — Matt Crypto 23:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighborhoods 

message: This book is a first-hand eyewitness account of some of what happened there in WW1. 89.242.103.68 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marching On Tanga by Frances Brett Young
Talk:Juicing (professional wrestling)

message: This sounds very risky.  I very much hope that everyone involved has at the very least had hepatitis shots up-to-date, and gets regular HIV tests? -- The Anome 15:25, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

message: This sentence doesn't read well. How about "Blading is not as prevalent as it once was."?
Anyway, I would tend to disagree!
138.243.228.52 15:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blading is not as prevalent as certain times in history."