lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rena Silverman

message: i'm confused why this would be deleted. please SPECIFY how we can make it better. we have major evidence and references and are having trouble with the formats as in how to include them. please get back to us. Bfineman2 18:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs to be sourced, using multiple, non-trivial reliable sources that show the subject can meet biography guidelines. Right now, it is sourced by blogs and what appears to be a site using user-submitted information, none of which are reliable sources. Please take a look at the biography guidelines and determine whether Ms. Silverman meets them at this time, and if you still feel that she does, provide reliable references to verify that claim. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Charles "Chuck" Harrison

message: It seems like the right thing to do. The name is "Charles Harrison" in numerous publications and citations. Leoniana (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Chuck Harrison]] with this article 
Talk:Bushland

message: The things you find!  I think this needs to be carefully redirected or diambiguated. It is a better name for australian articles than The Bush. Easier to link and more descriptive, I needed it to describe where australian children play. Or delete.  Fred ☻  19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect? 

message: I've just stumbled upon this page and have serious problems with it, for a number of reasons.  The most serious issue is the assumption that bushland is synonymous with "sparse" flora and fauna.  Australian landscapes may seem lacking in flora and fauna to European eyes (used to seeing conifer forests and herds of deer?) but this is not the biological reality.  Bushland is not necessarily open country either - the impenetrable rainforests of SE Qld are just as much "bushland" as the drier interior.  That said, Macquarie's Concise Dictionary has a number of definitions which encompass the definition of bushland (under the entry "bush") without actually defining it.  What is one to do?  Any ideas?  BoundaryRider (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the??? 

message: The article says that bushland preservation "has become the focus of some conservation efforts", right after it notes legislation aimed specifically at bushland preservation that spans 1/8th of the continent. This is hardly "some conservation effort".
It then goes into considerable detail about one tiny project in one city on one continent, including listing the numbers of a single mammal species. I can't quite see why this is in any way notable. It's certainly less notable than the efforts that went into the production of the native vegetation preservation legislation that operates in ever state and territory on the same continent, or the ongoing work to monitor and regulate within that legislative framework. It's not even on the same scale as the ongoing efforts to preserve the Amazon rainforest or the Tarkine which, by the definition given, is also bushland.
I'm struggling to see why this tiny project meets Wikipedia notability requirements within the scope of this article.Mark Marathon (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't focusing on one project.  It is just an one example of an established bushland preservation program and an explanation of its significant which has been covered by reliable sources.  There is no need to include every preservation effort or bush care group.  It provides an example of what local government is doing to preserve bushland and why its important.  Three sentences can hardly be considered considerable detail.  I think it is perfectly legitimate to include a few examples of similar activities. Unless other editors agree with you and there is a consensus to remove it, can you just let it go? - Shiftchange (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peculiar focus on one project
Talk:Civil forfeiture

message: I changed the redirect here to point to Asset forfeiture instead of Search and seizure.
The S&S article has a grand total of one sentence dealing with forfeiture.  It's just a digression there.  Asset forfeiture is a much better destination. Terry Carroll 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed redirect from [[Search and seizure]] to [[Asset forfeiture]]
Talk:Forfeiture

message: I changed the redirect here to point to Asset forfeiture instead of Search and seizure.
The S&S article has a grand total of one sentence dealing with forfeiture.  It's just a digression there.  Asset forfeiture is a much better destination. I also made an equivalent change on the Civil forfeiture redirect page. Terry Carroll 19:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed redirect from [[Search and seizure]] to [[Asset forfeiture]]
Template talk:External media

message: I have added a tracking category for unknown parameters, linked from the documentation. It appears that most of the errors stem from the erroneous presence of  in the documentation for some time. It should generally be replaced with  where it is found. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracking category for unknown parameters added 

message: Can the external video title be changed to external videos to reflect the inclusion of multiple videos. Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External media 

message: Template:External media/sandbox
Template:External media/testcases
 What do you think?
I do believe it's better to have an align parameter instead of float, because for the casual Wikipedian who knows nothing about HTML, the word "align" sounds more logical and familiar than the word "float".
I think we have two options here. 1) Alter all transclusions of  that have float, and change that to align; 2) Turn align and float into aliases, except for |align=none, because it's impossible for something not to be aligned. In /sandbox, I've done the latter. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal
Category talk:Nuclear power by country

message: Okay, the "Nuclear energy in..." is a blatant overlap with "Nuclear Technology in..."  We need to delete that.  Sure, we have a category for the power plants, but then there's the companies, the technology, the fuel cycle facilities, maybe even the anti-nuclear groups, oh, PLUS the research organizations and the regulatory bodies.  But these have been going in the Nuclear Technology categories, not the Nuclear energy ones. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, well if we're changing it that's fine, but we need clear tasks of what needs to be done.  Also, since "Nuclear power in (country)" is the main article of "Category:Nuclear energy in (country)", how do we denote that?  Should it be sorted with "Category:Nuclear energy in (country)|*"? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion (2007)

message: This page has a subpage at /Template. Linking here so not orphaned from its parent.  — Scott • talk 21:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template
Talk:John D. Bates

message: Is this the judge in the Plame civil case? Kingturtle 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.196.46 (talk)  20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plame case

message: Editing note: please don't refer to him as Judge Bates when discussing periods before he bacame a judge. RJFJR (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References to "Judge" prior to appointment

message: I think the list format is quite appropriate for controversial decisions. Such decisions are, by nature, relatively unconnected events.  Non-list prose might be suitable for a discussion of a Judge's general history and tendencies in controversial decisions, but that's another matter.djlewis  —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List format for controversial decisions

message: A subpage at John D. Bates/fjc was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/-donald-forum-user-gets-6-years-prison-battling-officers-capitol-riot-rcna104656
notable due to sentencing violent insurrectionist well below sentencing guidelines, and less than half of what prosecutors requested. 71.209.106.54 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting addition to notable cases
Talk:Joffre's bat

message: This bat species has been transferred to the newly erected genus Mirostrellus; see Görföl et al. (2020). I have tried to make the transfer myself but haven't been able to, errors kept popping up. Hopefully someone more expert than me can do it. El monty (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transferred to Mirostrellus
Talk:Vengeance Engine

message: How do we have any information regarding this? No citation is made. How do we know the features listed in the article for VE3? And how do we know it's being used for a new XCOM project? So far as I know, Irrational Games has never made such a statement. 72.49.194.69 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vengeance Engine 3
Talk:Deep borehole disposal

message: Ah ha!  I think this is the method they proposed for Horonobe, Hokkaido.  Seems to be the better and cheaper solution if you have solid plans for reprocessing in place. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Red Sox-Yankees Brawl (2004)

message: The first sentence mentions late-inning heroics.  If these heroics are important to the article, please include them.  Otherwise, the mention is unnecessary and confusing.  Further, the first sentence and section before the 'prelude' may not even be needed.  Possible expansion could include a quick mention of the rivalry, if it is to stay in the article. GCD1 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late inning heroics?
Talk:Douglas Arant

message: --Counterpart0 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/W. B. Yeats in popular culture

message: Moved from article talk to preserve if deleted. Ceoil 19:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good, then let's delete them. They are for the most part garbage dumps of unencyclopedic information that exist only becuse instead of deleting them out of the main article some editor slagged it off. Otto4711 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: **yes, yes, you know that won't work. I don't see the harm, WP's not paper. Merge what you can, remove the worst bits and let the rest hang around unobtrusively. dab (𒁳) 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It works just fine if editors take responsibility for it and delete it instead of dumping it off. I see in the AFD that the person who created the article did so because the information was deemed unacceptable in the main article. If it's unacceptable in the main article, chances are it's unacceptable as a spin-off article. But as long as people spin garbage off instead of getting rid of it, we'll continue to have waste dump "...in popular culture" articles. The harm is that it gives people a green light to create ever more of these dump heaps. As for WP:NOT#PAPER, it is not in any possible way an excuse for an article that fails other aspects of policy. Otto4711 04:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found in the past that simply removing the section can lead to a protracted edit war. If the list is short, its best just to remove, but if it has grown and people have put obviuos effort into it, I normally just spin. Ceoil 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: dab makes an excellent point.  These things really do make a difference in showcasing the enormous potential of Wikipedia to accomplish what paper encyclopedias don't or can't.  Sadly, removing this kind of information only ends up turning readers away from Wikipedia and alienates editors who spend many hours working on them.  The popular culture articles are among the more intriguing ones that make me want to continue visiting Wikipedia actually.  They do a great job showing the influence of various subjects.--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, that sounds like a good article. But this isn't it. This is a list of fictional media in which Yeats' name is mentioned or one of his works is quoted. There's no context or actual discussion. Propaniac 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia can't be an anarchy. Rules, guidelines and policies need to be in place, otherwise it would be full of cluttered nonsense that hardly anyone cares about. Articles should appeal to a general audience, not just a select few. RobJ1981 13:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hm, that's completely mistaken. Wikipedia is full of articles that appeal just to a select few. There's nothing wrong with that at all. What counts is notability respective to some particular field. The problem of these "pop culture" articles is that they are not aimed at a "select few", but consist of the flotsam of random additions which aren't pertinent to any particular field. dab (𒁳) 07:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Chilean myotis

message: : The colour of their fur varies with latitude, from pale ochraceous in the north to coffee-brown in the south.
:...
:Because of their small size and low metabolic rate, the bats often enter a daily period of torpor during which their body temperature falls to just 0.5 °C above ambient.
With no references or previous knowledge of this species or specialist knowledge of bats, I would nevertheless bet that variation is to improve their absorption of heat from sunlight, which is more vital the further you get from the equator. Although, hmm, that's kind of hard to associate with this:
:They emerge at dusk, and feed for about three hours before returning home to roost; unlike most other bats they do not feed again later in the night.
Puzzled, Thnidu (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color
Talk:Frederick Maurice (military historian)

message: The German version of Wikipedia quotes an article of Sir Frederick Barton Maurice in the Daily News of November 12 1918 as one of the bases of Dolchstoßlegende, especiallly via a subsequent article in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung of December 17, 1918. Could anybody verify what Maurice actually wrote and/or said? Robert Schediwy (Vienna) 86.33.220.91 (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frederick Barton Maurice and the [[Dolchstoßlegende]]
Talk:Pond bat

message: Why, oh, why people writing these articles never mention DISTRIBUTION? Isn't it a fundamental aspect??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.179.155 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not always is tat information available. But please, be bold and add it, but don't forget to cite verifiable and reliable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Distribution
Talk:Keen's myotis

message: I think this post would benefit from having a picture of the bat in question. It helps with identification and it is the right thing to do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7C0B:8100:6554:3747:BB68:8258 (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a photo
Talk:Antecedent (logic)

message: The definition in this article should probably be clarified since, I'm assuming, in the statement "A unless B", A is not called the antecedent even though it comes first, because logically, the statement is equivalent to "if not B then A". Thus A is actually the consequent. Right? - dcljr (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: True, referring to "first" and "second" is not a good definition (one also occasionally says "B if A"). Regarding unless, doesn't the statement mean "(not A) if and only if B"?  AmirOnWiki (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unless 

message: I can't figure out why the author of this paragraph (copied and pasted below) changed alphabets.  If there is some meaning conveyed by switching from the Latin P and Q to the Greek φ and ψ, then that should be clarified.  If not, I think it would be better to select one set of symbols and stick with it.
:This is a nonlogical formulation of a hypothetical proposition. In this case, the antecedent is P, and the consequent is Q. In an implication, if φ implies ψ then φ is called the antecedent and ψ is called the consequent.[1]
(HypatiaGrace (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols 

message: I have deleted "It is also known for a person's principles to a possible or hypothetical issue." from the first line. 86.132.216.74 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out-of-place text deleted 

message: In the intro, this doesn't seem to make much sense:
: In an implication, if \phi implies \psi then \phi is called the antecedent and \psi is called the consequent.
Is it supposed to mean:
:  In the implication "\phi implies \psi", \phi is called the antecedent ...
BMJ-pdx (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous example
Talk:Automath

message: this is said to be a Autodidact in the article Autodidacticism perhaps a disambiguation page is in order? --Pete Iriarte (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation page?

message: Part of an Automath Statement featured in the graphic design of Len Deighton's Billion-Dollar Brain book, on the endpapers. Something about calculating curves for armature loads. --Auric talk 22:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billion-Dollar Brain
Talk:Eastern long-eared bat

message: , forgive the pings, but I'm stomping around your patch. There is something wary between the range map and the sources I have opened on this, just noting that I placed in a comment out until I work out what happening here. cygnis insignis 16:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: all your input is certainly welcome! There's so many bats, so little time, I'm only one person, etc. etc. The Commons file is pretty similar in appearance to the IUCN map on which it's based. If you want to make a better map by combining sources or using a more updated source, of course you should feel free to do so. It probably wouldn't be wrong to have the old range map and just caption it accordingly—"range of N. bifax according to Hutson et al. 2008." Enwebb (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely should be retained, in fact I ought to have just moved it down. I'll find the reason is probably a split when I stand back and look at the current treatment, but wanted to flag this so one of us remembers. They look good otherwise, clear and a nice color balance. cygnis insignis 20:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range map
Talk:DN-1

message: The significance of the DN-1 is not that it was first, but in the utter failure of the project and the effect it had on USN airship development. It could be the poster child for dense aerospace procurement failure. On exception was that the contractor took a haircut instead of the taxpayer as is the norm in the 21st century. That is why I expanded the article and added citations.
Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Significance of DN-1 

message: Though the DN-1 was constructed with 2 engines, in that configuration it was too heavy to fly. To remedy that defect one engine was removed. In it's single engine configuration it could, just barely, fly. Thus I have changed the specification.
Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications: Engine(s) 

message: The speed given in the article, 35 mph, is patently absurd. The original specification was for 35 mph. The optimistic pre-flight article in Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering (Aviation Week) gave it's estimated speed as 25-30 mph. One engine had to be removed halving it's available horse power. I have not been able to turn up the test reports and could not use them as they would be "source material" which is curiously (to a trained historian) forbidden by Wikipedia. Still Shock made it clear that failure to achieve the needed speed was one of many deficiencies reported. The only speed reported (shock) was 35 mph and that was in a dive which would not qualify as a true maximum speed which is normally determined in level flight.
Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The airspeed of the DN-1
Talk:B-class blimp

message: Shock, James R., U.S. Navy Airships 1915-1962, 2001, Atlantis Productions, Edgewater Florida, , page 15, describes the engine of the B-type Airship as either a Curtiss OX-5 or Hall Scott. Mr. Shock gives the horse power of the B Class engine as 100 hp. Several credible sources such as http://www.enginehistory.org/Curtiss%20OX5 http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/ox5.htm http://stcroix.50webs.com/pages/artricle_ox5.html and .pdf and http://ox5.org/ox5-engine/  all give 90 hp as as the horse power of the OX-5. I cannot recall ever seeing anything than 90 hp given for the OX-5. The Naval History and Heritage Command http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history.html has pdf files showing the original Aircraft History Cards for the B Class Airships at http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/aircraft-history-cards/aircraft-history-card-listing-a-52-through-a-999/bureau-numbers-a-201-to-a-299.html The B Class Bureau Numbers were A-235 through A-250. With the exception of A-249  (B-15) and A-250 (B-16) which were built by the Connecticut Air Corp. the engine listed is the Curtiss OXX (A-249 & A-250 were delivered with Hall Scott engines). The horse power of both the OXX and Hall Scott is given as 100 hp. The OX-5, one of the OX series is listed as a 90 h.p. The Curtiss OXX was one of the Navy's most common engines being used on the standard trainer, the N-9, and the Curtiss F flying boat. Given that the Aircraft Record Cards are a primary source I have chosen to treat them as being more likely correct than Mr. Shock's history. Mr. Shock does not even agree with himself as he specifies the B Class engine as a "Curtiss OX-f 100 horsepower on the Goodyear/Goodrich Airships".
I have chosen to change the engine listed for the B Class from OX-5 to OXX.
Mark Lincoln Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in Engine From OX-5 to OXX 

message: The arrival of the B-Class was more than the introduction of a new aircraft. It was the advent of an entirely new weapons system. The Navy had to invent the command institutions, operating bases, training system and operational doctrine for it's airships. This I feel justifies a new section dealing with those factors.
Mark Lincoln Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section
Talk:E-class blimp

message: Shock's U.S. Navy Airships 1915-1962 on page 33 shows two photos, one above the other. The top is E-1 and the bottom is F-1. The two cars are clearly different, the "F" car being substantially shorter with a very different nose.
Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  E & F Class control cars