lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Densely packed decimal

message: The proper way to parse this sentence isn't obvious to me. Could someone clarify?
"For example, 38=12×3+2 decimal digits can be encoded in 12×10+7=127 bits."
Sumguysr (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 12 sets of three decimal digits can be encoded using 12 sets of 10 binary bits.  The remaining two decimal digits can be encoded using 7 binary bits.  I'll add that to the article.  mfc (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptic Sentence 

message: Shouldn't the Chen-Ho encoding for 009 be 110 000 0001? --Wm243 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it should -- well spotted.  (Fixed.) mfc (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chen-Ho encoding 

message: The article should explain how the scheme actually works. Superm401 - Talk 15:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right.  Suggestions?  mfc 15:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, but what is it? 

message: I also just realized many parts are identical to the original paper (http://speleotrove.com/decimal/DPDecimal.html), which says it's copyrighted by IBM.  Superm401 - Talk 15:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the history of the page; I contributed the initial text for this page (on request), and I am also the author of the referenced paper and summary page and so it is my copyright.  It is quite likely I used similar or identical words in the two places.  IBM has the use of the text, too, as does Wikipedia, but not exclusively.  mfc 15:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: It's possible to have a similar system for other bases, for example storing 5 Ternary numeral system in a byte (3⁵=243 on 2⁸=256), as shown below:
000xxxxx — xxxxx
0010xxxx — xxxx2
0011xxxx — xxx2x
0100xxxx — xx2xx
0101xxxx — x2xxx
0110xxxx — 2xxxx
01110xxx — xxx22
01111xxx — xx2x2
10000xxx — xx22x
10001xxx — x2xx2
10010xxx — x2x2x
10011xxx — x22xx
10100xxx — 2xxx2
10101xxx — 2xx2x
10110xxx — 2x2xx
10111xxx — 22xxx
110000xx — xx222
110001xx — x2x22
110010xx — x22x2
110011xx — x222x
110100xx — 2xx22
110101xx — 2x2x2
110110xx — 2x22x
110111xx — 22xx2
111000xx — 22x2x
111001xx — 222xx
1110100x — x2222
1110101x — 2x222
1110110x — 22x22
1110111x — 222x2
1111000x — 2222x
11110010 — 22222
where x means 0 or 1. Uses are for example densely storing an uncompressed 3–color image. 202.79.134.100 (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other bases
Talk:Frederick F. Woerner Jr.

message: Anybody know why he was relieved of command? I have heard it was because he wasn't a supporter of invading Panama, but I can't find anything but conspiracy theory web sites to support this.--Nobunaga24 07:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, the administration thought he was a wimp who had gone native because his plan for evicting Noriega was incremental rather than overwhelming force. Also, as a new SECDEF, Cheney felt that canning a four-star was a good way to establish his reputation within the Pentagon. (And it did: Crowe decided to retire rather than stay on as CJCS in part because he was appalled at how casually the administration was willing to discard a four-star career.) The best account is Bob Woodward's The Commanders (perspectives from Cheney, Crowe, and Thurman), and also David Harris' Shooting the Moon: The True Story of a Manhunt Unlike Any Other, Ever (perspective from Woerner). The Harris book is available on limited preview through Google Books; do a search within the book on the word "woerner" and you'll pull up most of his side of the story, including how he got the job in the first place (p.96: SACEUR had a gaffe, CINCSO became SACEUR, they needed a new CINCSO, Woerner had just finished a four-year tour in Panama).--Morinao 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:List of Vietnamese culinary specialities

message: I suggest we trim this list to those entries that have either a current article or some other indication of notability such as citation or an article on another wiki. Valereee (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  trim
Talk:Global warming wager

message: I'm working to expand this article, but I'm short on sources, so I would admire your help. Ahm2307 23:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, this looks like a non-notable neologism, and much of the article is unsourced. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need help with this article 

message: Global warming has enough forks, this is over the top.  This kind of material was/is noted where relevant at GW controversy and I don't see why this in particular warrants its own article. Oren0 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. In fact, I even wonder if this is notable enough for inclusion at all - "Global warming wager" Pascal -wikipedia turns up 62 hits only, and results for "Global warming wager" alone nearly always refer to normal betting about global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a delete as well.  I just figured it'd be more civil to just merge any useful info from this page back into the GW controversy page. Oren0 (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[global warming controversy]] 

message: I think this page should be deleted but User:JalenFolf you said that a redirect page cannot be deleted so easily. The section that it used to point to doesn't exist anymore and the term "wager" doesn't appear on that page. Maybe we could redirect to climate change denial but also there the term "wager" does not appear. I don't want to spend too much time on this; I think it would be the tidiest solution to simply delete the page. EMsmile (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is an issue that needs to be brought to WP:RFD unless a completely different target can be found. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand why you think it needs a discussion? To me it's a speedy deletion, no need to waste time discussing. But if you think it needs to be discussed, can you do the WP:RFD thing as I am not sure what would be involved exactly. EMsmile (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this page
Template talk:Governorates of Iraq

message: Since Iraqi Kurdistan is a sub entity of Iraq and has a total of 4 article links, I think it would be merge the templates. -- Cat chi? 07:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Close discussion as keep. Template:Governorates of Iraqi Kurdistan has been expanded significantly (by a factor of 7) since the beginning of the nomination, and has evolved in another direction from Template:Governorates of Iraq. It also has been renamed to Template:Iraqi Kurdistan, in accordance with the diverging evelopment of this template. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion (Template:Governorates of Iraqi Kurdistan  -> Template:Governorates of Iraq)
Talk:Zilveren Nipkowschijf

message: My concerns with the context of the article:
* I know it's an award, but an award for what?
* What kind of critics award this?
* Who even gets the award?
Anyone with sufficient knowledge of the subject should add in whatever they can. I can't figure this out for the life of me. --clpo13(talk) 07:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:List of Grand Strand Attractions

message: I'm trying to keep the definition of attraction limited to something that draws people to Myrtle Beach, or something that they would go out of their way to visit. The Pavilion, for example, is/was an attraction. Tanger Outlet, however, is probably not -- it is a chain mall and despite having a large draw, people generally don't travel to Myrtle Beach to indulge in the commercial light that is a chain mall. 
This is obviously open to debate, as Coastal Grand Mall would probably fall under the classification of being an attraction, but only because it is unique, in the sense that it is the largest mall in South Carolina and that there are no other Coastal Grands in the world (not accounting parallel universes or knock-off malls in tiny towns meant to confuse tourists without maps).
When considering restaurants or any other location, the same question comes up -- what constitutes an attraction? Is this an attraction or just another commercial business?
I think an attraction can be loosely defined, for this article, as:
# A place unique to the Grand Strand area and serving to draw people to the area
# A single place and not a series of places (constitutes a chain and not an attraction)
# A location with a large number of visitors per year. A small shop off of 17 might constitute "unique", but only have a few tourists hit it each year, and thus is not an attraction.
# General notability. This is last as to exclude something like, say, a bypass or a beach access, something that a lot of people may use and something that is unique to the area, but is generally not recognized as an attraction or recognized at all (e.g. Carolina Bays Parkway).
I'm open to every and all input as I try and move the list of attractions from the main article to this one. I'm also curious as to if a list of notable restaurants in Myrtle Beach might be a good thing, too (imo, restaurants, even the busiest ones, tend not to fall under the category of an "attraction")
Thanks all!
Carson 07:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of an Attraction
Talk:Recognition-primed decision

message: The text above is intended to provide a temporary reservoir of material to compare with the text of this article. It is duplicative, but there may be something worth preserving. We should also attend to the linked articles: Gary A. Klein and Naturalistic decision making. DCDuring 03:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: The text above is also for convenience of someone wishing to see and compare the two previous articles. DCDuring 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Text for convenient comparisons
Talk:The Good University Guide

message: The League Table shows Cambridge University as the number 1 university in the UK, and so does the 'reference link'. However, the 'external link' shows Oxford as the number 1 university in the country. Is there any confusion? I think that the reference link shows the site which is not Times Good University Guide, but which is simply Good University Guide - there is no a single mention about Times on that webpage. However, the external link displays the official Times website with the official Times rankings. I guess something should be done about this.
Zone 07:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Rankings? 

message: I think that this belongs in the league tables page, since it already has a section on The Good University Guide, and it is essentially a league table. It might even warrant a deletion, since listing the currently published table is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia... a link should be sufficient.  CameronHarris 17:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The Good University Guide and The Complete University Guide are NOT the same thing. They are two entirely separate guides, each with their own sets of university rankings. An argument could be made the The Complete University Guide should have its own page. But merging it with a page about an entirely different guide makes no sense at all. 128.86.155.38 (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't Merge
Talk:Firesail

message: You don't necessarily have to "hack" these three things, but simply shut them down... changing it. Palludan 07:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

message: I don't think this has to be deleted because this is just a word that is explained. Removing the deletion thing. Palludan 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion
Talk:Perfect set property

message: Hi, the link doesn't work, please correct it. Thanks. Miaoku 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link

message: The word "countable" in mathematics — at least in English-speaking countries — almost always means "of cardinality equal to aleph0."
Sometimes it means "of cardinality either finite or aleph0."
That is a very old usage, not at all current.
But it is a very bad idea to use it in the latter sense when that is NOT the prevailing sense in which the word is used today. 
Unfortunately, that is how this article uses the word. 2601:200:C000:1A0:DD5F:A996:6B34:D43C (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, you're simply incorrect.  The most common usage includes finite sets. --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A pathetically bad idea
Talk:Separation of protection and security

message: I suggest we delete this article.  It appears no one can explain what this means.  John (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.138.50 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "I don't understand it" is not a reason for deletion. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but "nobody can understand it" might be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.138.50 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of this Article? 

message: This article needs to acknowledge the limitations of expecting trusted application-level enforcement of certain policies (e.g. those modeled by partially-ordered lattices) with mechanisms that ensure only separation.
John 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations 

message: Many sentences are vague, but starting with the first sentence: 
It is not clear how or if architectures adopt distinctions.  
"Usually means" is very ad-hoc qualifier, can we articulate what this means with precision? 
 
(Some or all) protection (from what?) is provided by fault tolerance...  Does this refer to protection from faults?  
 
Both fault tolerance mechanisms and security policies can be implemented or enforced with OS or HW. 
Is the intended distinction clear enough?  
Some of the things cited subsequently as policies are not obviously policies.  
If we can't make this article say something, we need to consider deleting it.  
John (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: If cows can be used to explain communism and capitalism, why not separation of protection and security? Anyway, I think that some clarifying examples are in order. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source explaining the concept with cows? - SummerPhDv2.0 01:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: More importanally, can cows be used to explain cows, preferably to the cows themselves? Now there's a mindbender.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.78.24 (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this stuff be illustrated with examples, like with cows?
Talk:A-normal form

message: The link to the article in the one and only reference leads to an error page that says that document doesn't exist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.224.65 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad reference link? 

message: The article was recently moved from administrative normal form to A-normal form, with the following edit summary: ‘The "A" is inspired by Curry's "Axiom Set A" and "Administrative" is incorrect.’ I don't know the original source for the term ‘administrative normal form’ (and it does not appear in the original paper ‘The Essence of Compiling with Continuations’ by Flanagan et al.) but I have seen it used in papers and online discussions for quite some time. One way or the other, could somebody provide a source for the term ‘ANF’ and what it is supposed to expand to? — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Appel calls it Administrative Normal Form in "SSA is functional programming". I couldn't find anything in the (indexes) of Compiling with Continuations and Modern Compiler Implementation. (I don't think the move per se was a bad idea, but this certainly deserves a mention in the lead.) On a side note, this article was created under the name "Administrative Normal Form" by Matt Might. —Ruud 10:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I didn't know that Appel had called it that.  I understand if you think it would be better to undo the change.  Unfortunately the only source I have is personal communication - I'm taking a class from one of the authors of the original paper, Matthias Felleisen, and he said yesterday that the "A" doesn't stand for "administrative" and that the only inspiration for using "A" was that Curry & Feys in Combinatory Logic had labeled a set of axioms Aβ. — Erik (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there any way you could convince him to write this up somewhere? It would certainly be an interesting bit of trivia. —Ruud 13:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

text:  For what it's worth, I for one would prefer to keep the article under its current title ‘A-normal form’. I don't think that would violate the WP:COMMONNAME policy even though the term ‘administrative normal form’ appears to be widely used. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does the 'A' in ANF stand for? 

message: ...evaluation of each argument must halt immediately sounds unclear to me. I didn't meet this wording before. Either it is topic specific or standard phrase, I think it deserves clarification. The exposition gives a hint about the meaning of halting immediately, it suggests zero or constant time evaluation, however variable lookup may or may not be constant time depending on the implementation.
--Kalmankeri (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear wording?
Talk:Bigram

message: I suspect there is an error in the bigram frequencies listed in the table. The expected occurrence for a random bigram is 0.15%, yet some of the most occurring bigrams in the table are already less than that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.242.3 (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigram frequencies wrong 

message: >A bigram or digram is every sequence of two adjacent elements in a string of tokens ...
That wording is confusingly ambiguous; the "every" suggests that a bigram/digram is the set of all such sequences in the string.
Wouldn't "A bigram or digram is a sequence of two adjacent elements in a string of tokens ..." be a lot less ambiguous?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.229.4.2 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so I modified the first sentence of this article as you suggested. Please continue to make further improvements. --DavidCary (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First-sentence ambiguity 

message: I just read the intro section and have no idea what it says.  Please read Wikipedia guidelines for the lead section.  Hypertexting jargon is not a license to use it, particularly in the lead section, which is supposed to be self contained, and  especially designed for the lay reader.  ( Lazy  hypertexting is always sloppy writing! ) I also suggest giving some common examples.  Also be aware that a list of true statements is not an explanation—nor even a description.  
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:C1DD:ED7B:6321:F50D (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not meet Wikipedia standards 

message: Section "Bigram frequency in the English language" shows a table with results "in a small English corpus" (40000 words), and later references a site that has performed the same analysis over nearly a trillion words.  Why not just show that analysis instead?  The one shown here seems to be very inaccurate (e.g. "ch" isn't listed, despite of it having a frequency of 0.60%).  —Cousteau (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigram frequency on a small corpus
Talk:Definite clause grammar

message: I want to add a page about "Discounted Cumulative Gain", a popular measure for evaluating Web search and related applications, related to information retrieval in computer science.
I would like to make the current DCG page a disambiguation page. Please advise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmadskills (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate meanings of DCG 

message: I guess there is no mention of push back in this article. Push back
is found in many Prolog systems DCG implementations. It has the 
following syntax:
   NT, PH_1 --> PH_2
The meaning is that after parsing the phrase PH_2, the phrase PH_2
is pushed back on the difference list. This allos for checking 
termimals without consuming them. 
For example:
   starts_with_digit, [X] --> [X], {digit(X)}.
Janburse (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Push Back 

message: The article does also not mention negation in DCG or conditionals
in DCG. Many Prolog system DCG implementations nowadays provide 
these constructs.
Nagation has the following translation:
   p --> \+ q.
Is translated to:
   p(X,Y) :- \+ q(X,_), X=Y.
So again the difference list is not consumed. But this time a
condition is evaluated, and when it fails parsing proceeds.
Janburse (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negation 
Talk:Deterministic context-free grammar

message: I'm considering fleshing out this stub. I'm planning on adding a formal definition, more background, and a few more examples. 
Also, the history and current use of deterministic context-free grammars would be nice. Any comments or ideas? Stratsve (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind seeing an example of a grammar that is context-free but not deterministic-context-free.  --Doradus (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking the page 

message: See recent discussion  at the CS stack exchange.
 PhS (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has serious correctness issues 
Talk:Greibach normal form

message: There is a problem, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chomsky_normal_form#Terminology_.2F_Meta-Variable_Confusion
Janburse (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology / Meta-Variable Confusion 

message: Anyone mind if I clarify the statment "Observe that the grammar must be without left recursions."? This means that the Greibach normal form results in a grammar with no left recursions, correct? As opposed to meaning that the initial grammar must be without left recursions in order for it to be converted to Greibach normal form?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.215.198 (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As the leftmost symbol of a production in GNF is always a terminal, it would seem that left recursion can not occur in a GNF grammar. 5.186.55.135 (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left Recursion Confusion
Talk:Kuroda normal form

message: There is a problem, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chomsky_normal_form#Terminology_.2F_Meta-Variable_Confusion
Janburse (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology / Meta-Variable Confusion 

message: Is A → B needed in the Kuroda normal form for context-sensitive languages? Mateescu and Salomaa don't give it... In the unrestricted case it's obviously redundant once you add A → ε, but I don't see right away how it's redundant in the context-sensitive case... JMP EAX (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''A &rarr; B'' needed? 

message: Mateescu and Salomaa (p. 190) appear to say they came up with it (actually only with one-side version for the unrestricted grammars, their Theorem 2.4), but it's not terribly clear. The unrestricted version is not in Kuroda's 1964 paper cited on this page (and the one-sided version for unrestricted is not in Penttonen). I suppose Meduna just thought it was better to generalize the form (without changing its name) and then presented the original(s) as a special case. JMP EAX (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of unrestricted version(s) 

message: The same spelling mistake in a book of Meduna . I guess copyeditors don't really exist in academic publishing, do they... JMP EAX (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  14 years later...