lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Gesta Hungarorum

message: I might have found a contradiction. We have the text he arbitrarily counted among the Hungarians' opponents(...) the Vlachs which, according to these authors, suggest that his choices reflect the ethnic and political realities of the 12th century on one hand, and on the opther hand László Makkai, a supporter of the Origin of the Romanians#Immigrationist theory, affirms that "there is no historical, archaeological, or toponymic evidence to indicate that Romanians lived in Transylvania before the early 13th century". If Vlachs came in Hungary in the 1200s, how could they have been a part of "the ethnic and political realities" from 12th century? Partiee (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymus created enemies for the Hungarians based on the late 12th-century or early 11th-century political situation. Among the neighbors of Hungary, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Vlach-Bulgarian Second Bulgarian Empire, the Cumans and the Bohemian Kingdom were the most powerful polities. Consequently, Anonymus wrote of Romans in Transdanubia, of Greeks fighting against the Hungarians near Belgrade, of the Vlach-Bulgarian-Cuman warriors of Glad, of the Vlach Gelou, and of the Czech Zobor. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vlachs 

message: @OrionNimrod, you completely misquoted Deletant in your edit
What Deletant said on page 85, as per linked source: To conclude, then, the cases for and against the existence of Gelou and the Vlachs simply cannot be proven
What you wrote: "Dennis Deletant joins the opinion that it is a debatable chronicle, and the existence of Gelou and the Vlachs simply cannot be proven."
You dropped the words "for and against", thus completely changing the meaning. Be more careful next time. Azure94 (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dennis Deletant
Talk:Killing of David Morley

message: This article could use a bit more context and explanation. Tfine80 18:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done what I can for now Mentality 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: Not wanting to detract from the fact this was a horrible crime, should the references to his "murder" be changed to "manslaughter" as that was the verdict of the trial?
:I think this is now the case throughout the article, but I thought it worth mentioning that they were actually being brought up on charges of murder, but the jury decided it wasn't. Mentality 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just deleted all the murder related cats.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Murder/Manslaughter

message: I've changed this article's status to B-class, I figure it's worthy of that now, although if anyone thinks it should still be Start class please feel free to correct. Mentality 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: B-Class

message: The article was assessed C-class, for lack of sufficient in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Death Assessment Commentary
Talk:List of islands of New Zealand

message: I have to wonder whether the Chathams count as part of the Main New Zealand chain - the fact that they are populated is, to my mind, the only difference between them and the likes of the Campbells and Snares, geographically speaking. Perhaps they'd be better off in the Outlying islands group? Grutness 11:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Done. Nurg 04:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Chathams

message: Confused by the first sentence which does not even mention Stewart Island, & treats it as one of "many very small islands".  It is not "very small", it is 1,746 square kilometres.
The second confusion is the fact that it is not even mentioned in the list of "very small islands".  You can't have it both ways - either it is mentioned as one of the 3 major islands, or it is listed as a small island. --GrahamBould 11:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stewart Island is clearly mentioned as the largest of the remaining islands at the beginning of the fourth sentence in the first paragraph. Mind you, you're right - it wasn't mentioned as a main chain island - even more oddly, neither were the North and South Islands - that's now been fixed. Grutness...wha? 11:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stewart Island

message: The Open sea and harbour section of the list is getting pretty unwieldy - is it worth splitting it into "North Island and surrounding islands" and "South Island and surrounding islands"? Grutness...wha? 23:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me, although I'd be tempted to split out "Rakiura/Stewart Island and surrounding islands" as well. -- Avenue (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the list? 

message: Source for name: http://www.ngaitahu.iwi.nz/About-Ngai-Tahu/Settlement/Settlement-Offer/Aoraki.php
Koro Neil (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Te Waka o Aoraki (another Māori name of the South Island) 

message: The table of islands by size has been tagged for a year as needing sources for the sizes. Without reliable sourcing, not only the sizes but also the ranking is in question. It would be a shame if the list by size was deleted because it lacked sources. Can anyone find a source? Nurg (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing for the size of islands
Talk:Sampling (statistics)

message: What is sampling 2409:4071:2414:433E:0:0:18B1:28B1 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article! Favonian (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Since the merge discussion was held on Talk:Sample (statistics)#Merger proposal, just a brief pointer here that there was additional content on complete samples there that failed verification. Should anyone wish to source it appropriately and retrieve it, they can consult the history at the redirect Sample (statistics). Felix QW (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete sample 

message: The word 'sample' has a specific meaning in statistics; the term is frequently misused by laypeople when discussing statistics and it had long been useful to be able to refer people to what the word is used to mean within the subject of statistics. The old article "Sample_(statistics)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sample_(statistics)&oldid=1060080564) which was merged into this article had a reasonable definition in its opening sentence, "In statistics and quantitative research methodology, a sample is a set of individuals or objects collected or selected from a statistical population by a defined procedure", which clearly distinguishes it from 'observation'. 
The 'merged' article does not seem to contain such a definition of just the word 'sample' like that, when it should come before it starts using the term. There are one or two definitions of more specific terms, but before such "<something>-sample" terms are used, the word "sample" itself should be explained. The current structure of the article doesn't permit a new section to be placed before the word gets used as if its meaning was clear. I believe such a definition belongs in the opening paragraph. In particular, I'd suggest that the opening sentence needs to be recast into two sentences so the more basic term *sample* can be explained explicitly as it previously had been. I further think the use of the term "statistical sample" in the opening sentence is too technical for a lay audience; opening sentences should be *simple*. That modified term should have a specific definition further down. The opening is presently more technical than it should be and for someone looking to understand what a sample is, less useful than the previously available article that was merged into this.
Glenbarnett (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The very serious loss of a simple definition of the word 'sample'
Talk:William Redfern

message: I'm not sure that William Redfern would want to be called a physician. In the English tradition, there was a social and training difference between physicians (upper class) and surgeons (almost tradesmen - associated with barbers).  Thortful 11:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not going to be a perfect match, because our categories refer to terms as they are understood today, not as they were understood two centuries ago. It would be super-confusing to have two different "surgeon" categories for instance, one based on a meaning that has generally passed out of the language. Stan 16:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled
Talk:Boxer (dog breed)

message: I recently edited the second sentence below to clarify that the crossbreeding mentioned in the second sentence Is referencing the Bullenbeisser (not the Boxer).  Do we even need the second sentence?  Seems like a lot of talk about a different breed in the summary of the article.  Maybe it should be discussed in the history section instead?
From Boxer article summary:
The Boxer was bred from the Old English Bulldog and the now extinct Bullenbeisser which became extinct by crossbreeding rather than by a decadence of the breed. The purpose of crossbreeding the Bullenbeisser was to increase the white color of the breed, and the necessity of producing thousands of dogs for one of the most popular breeds in the world. Maxmaximus22 (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much  Bullenbeisser in the Boxer summary? 

message: The size of the dog is listed as the United Kingdom Kennel Club target range for a show dog. 
It isn't reflective of the actual size of Boxers and undershoots even the American Kennel Club breed standards by around 15% by weight. I don't think the purpose of the article is to provide the British show dog judging criteria, so maybe it would make sense to edit the section to reflect the actual size of the dogs. The source of the 66-70lb weight range even specifies that it isn't indicative of the actual size of the breed, but their "ideal" dog.  
I'd be glad to do some more research to get a more accurate range. 
I was just looking for some input before I edit the page for accuracy's sake. 
Perhaps if someone is keen on putting in the work, they can create a specific section for the different breed standards by region and/or organization. 
I just think the information would be more useful if it gave people who are unfamiliar with the breed a better idea of what the dog is like. I imagine there are more people interested in reading the article in terms of finding a pet than there are people looking to enter dog shows. 24.116.97.236 (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Traits"  

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved to ___ (dog breed). Clear consensus against moving to ___ dog, but all but one !vote supported or did not oppose the move to ___ (dog breed). It also seems to be the best option for disambiguation. (non-admin closure) JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 March 2024
Talk:Survey sampling

message: The article claims:
:In public opinion polling by private companies or organizations unable to require response, the resulting sample is self-selected rather than random. Volunteering for the sample may be determined by characteristics such as submissiveness or availability. The samples in such surveys are therefore non-probability samples of the population, and the validity of estimates of parameters based on them is unknown. They are, however, unquestionably random samples of that sizeable subset of the population which volunteers for opinion surveys.
(Emphasis added.)
Are they really "unquestionably random samples"? What about the portion of the population that would volunteer for an opinion poll if they were included in the set of potential pollees, but for whatever reason they aren't? Someone might not be included in the set of possible polling candidates for a wide variety of reasons -- for a telephone poll, for example, indidividuals who only have a mobile phone are not polled. Neilc 12:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Random sampling

message: I linked Convenience Samples in the non-probability sampling section to for further reading on Convenience Sampling. Lukasmar (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convenience Samples 

message: The inline citation to Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys has a broken link to the PDF document due to the current updating of the whitehouse.gov website. Mw011235 (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to PDF Temporarily Broken 

message: There are not enough contents or guidelines on Non-probability sampling. I hope we should have more contents on it which will be really helpful. Armanaljahan (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Probability sampling

message: I think it will be easier to understand what survey sampling is If there are more details or examples of specific sampling methods.--XinmingLin (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More details or examples
Category talk:Wikipedia statistics

message: Given that we want Wikipedia to be as valuable as possible for users, it would be valuable to have statistics on number of frequent searches. especially important are statistics on most frequent search misses and most frequently searched for stubs. Probably, many of the writers and editors want to prioritize those articles that will be read often. If such statistics articles were stored, and linked to from the community portal, contributors would have a way of knowing where they should concentrate their efforts if they wanted to be of most help to people searching for information. This way we might be able to quickly reduce the number of searches that do not result in an article found. We might also quickly reduce the portion of searches that find a stub rather than a good article. Etxrge 12:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for search statistics
Talk:Passenger transport executive

message: Would there be a way to merge this with Transit District?  They seem to have the same scope.  We need to find a common terminology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightdaemon (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should someone write about similar organisations in other countries? Passenger Transport Executive is strictly about the UK, and Transit District for the US. Should we have global view? If we write about :de:Verkehrsverbund (traffic organisations) and Swedish :sv:Länstrafikbolag (county traffic company) and others on English WP, should that be in this article or one per country? --BIL (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar to Transit Districts/Authorities 

message: I believe the correct term is Passenger Transport Executive not Passenger Transport Authority G-Man 13:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for move back to Passenger Transport Executive 

message: I've cleaned up the article to improve readability - I have moved the Local Government Act 2008 section to a new location for an easier chronilogical read (it got a bit confusing between the renaming of PTAs --> ITAs). I have also re-introducted the capitalisation for Passenger Transport Authority / Integrated / Passenger Transport Executives as these are all Proper nouns and require capitilsation. (See above request for moving this page back to its original format) BNC85 (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is no more a proper noun than "county councils" or "police forces". Only the individual organisations' names are proper nouns. 157.203.42.104 (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: NSB or The Norwegian railways has changed name, to VY. Someone has to check the Wikipedia-link ‘NSB’, to change the text.
Thanks! RobDanDev (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSB or The Norwegian railways has changed name.
Talk:Algonquin

message: My attempt to disambiguate the various terms as applied to Native American peoples and languages is based on comments made on Talk:Algonquian and on User talk:QuartierLatin1968.  I'm not sure that I got it right. JamesMLane 13:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks right to me, as far as I know. - Mustafaa 14:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: JML, your arrangement's technically perfect, I'd say. I'm just going to switch around Algonquian languages and Algonquian peoples -- it's not whether a people is Algonquian that determines their language; it's the language that defines whether a people is Algonquian. Otherwise, this looks great. QuartierLatin1968 21:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship of Native American articles 

message: Wasn't the "Algonkian" a geological period on the scale of the Earth's ages? --BjKa (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth Age 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :List of algonquin terms and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#List of algonquin terms until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 17:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "List of algonquin terms" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Gaafar Nimeiry

message: some raw numbers on google hits for various transliterations of this name:
* 4 sudan an-Nimeiry
* 61 sudan an-Numayri
* 444 sudan Numayri
* 625 sudan Nimeiry
--babbage 13:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of name

message: I have rated the article as start. Needs a photo for improvement; amount and type of info is good though. GDon4t0 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating
Talk:Deutschland IV (liner)

message: Rewrite article at: Deutschland IV (liner)/Temp
Attention!
The content of this page has been removed, due to suspicion of copyright infringement.
Text that was previously posted here appears to infringe on the copyright of the text from the source below:
http://home.t-online.de/home/peter-meier/history/USA/1929_Deutschland(4)/deu_1929.htm#englisch and http://www.fortunecity.com/littleitaly/amalfi/13/shipdf.htm; the text is from an e-mail by Michael Palmer, who thus holds the copyright
Please do not edit this page for the moment, even if you are rewriting it (follow the instructions below).
This page is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our license or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please indicate so on this page's talk page.
If there was no permission to use this text, then please either write at least a good stub on this temporary subpage, or leave this page to be deleted. (Please do not copy a copyright violation to the subpage and edit it; if it is not a copyright violation the original will be restored, and if it is the temp page will just be deleted too.) If you make this temporary page, please make a note of it on the talk page for this article (available by clicking the "discussion" link).
Unless a stub is written on a temporary subpage, deletion will occur after one week from the time this page title was placed on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page.
The original posting is still accessible for viewing through the "history" link on this page.
It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does not have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our policy. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily suspended from editing pages. But even if this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.
Thanks.
Lupo 11:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Mumbles Mile

message: Mumbles Mile was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS so I used my initative and merged with Mumbles. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 23:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Sung-Hi Lee

message: Hey! Is she Sung Hi-Lee or Lee Sung Hi from the Korean name? Please reply in User:Chan Han Xiang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.16 (talk)  15:02, 4 November 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean name

message: Was she a Playboy Bunny? If so, what month/year?--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 03:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was she a Playboy Bunny?

message: She is Sung Hi Lee.  She wasn't a Playmate,  she was a top Special Editions model, never a bunny.   She was featured in the Regular magazine as well,  but appeared many times in different Special Editions.   She also appeared as Sandra Kim in the Pacific USA calendar and in Penthouse Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denver11 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Playmate

message: I'm pretty sure she only has 2 breasts...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.55.50 (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, only two breasts.:P   They are not natural though,  she has small implants.  B cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denver11 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural breasts: 3 

message: Is Sung-Hi Lee the same person as Lee Seong-hye?  She won Miss Korea 2011.
OsamaBinLogin (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: She was posing for Playboy circa 1996, when Lee Seong-hye was eight years old, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say "no." TJRC (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lee Seong-hye]]
Talk:River Thames

message: Have you rembered to note the speciality of the sand in the mouths of the Thames? Murray Fairview (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not obvious what you are saying here. Care to explain more? thanks Geopersona (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouth of the Thames. 

message: A recent edit in River Thames#Brittonic origin split 'tamesis' and stated that the Oxford River name came from '...esis'. This is plausible but it needs verification with a reference. The trouble with plausible statements is they are believed even if false (and the false belief hangs around long after they're refuted) so a [citation needed] tag is not sufficient. Rather than delete it out of hand, I have commented out the edit so that it can be reinstated if a reference is found. OrewaTel (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology - Brittonic origin 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved.  Favonian (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: River Thames →  – Shorter title and consistency; see the articles on the Nile, Ganges, Danube, etc. None of those have "river" in the title. Mast303 (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 January 2023