lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Kendall rank correlation coefficient

message: I found the current formulation and explanation to be wrong and misleading. I've prepared the following change:
"Kendall tau coefficient is defined
: \tau = \frac{n_c-n_d}{\frac{1}{2}{n(n-1)}}
where n_c is the number of concordant pairs, and n_d is the number of discordant pairs in the data set.
The denominator in the definition of \tau can be interpreted as the total number of pairs of items. So, a high value in the numerator means that most pairs are concordant, indicating that the two rankings are consistent. Note that a tied pair is not regarded as concordant or discordant. If there is a large number of ties, the total number of  pairs (in the denominator of the expression of \tau) should be adjusted accordingly."
This is from http://www.statsdirect.com/help/nonparametric_methods/kend.htm and I've confirmed it to be correct. Understanding it simply requires understanding concordant pairs, for which there is already a rather good entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeakywaffle (talk • contribs) 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Replace the current formulation with the following...?

message: According to http://www.rsscse.org.uk/TS/bts/noether/text.html and my experiments, I think the equation should be 1 - 4P/n(n-1) NOT 4P/n(n-1) - 1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.2.89 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in equation?

message: shouldn't the example be
P = 5 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 22.
instead of
P = 5 + 4 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 22?
Sboehringer 17:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: Article needs some discussion of how to generate p-values in order for hypothesis testing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.138.197 (talk) 17:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC) 
: I agree.  Cazort (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance tests

message: The definition section says: "They are said to be discordant, if xi > xj and yi < yj or if xi < xj and yi > yj."
Shouldn't this be stated more generally: "They are said to be discordant, if xi > xj and yi ≤ yj or if xi < xj and yi ≥ yj."?
Alopdahl (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.  Any evidence?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete definition?

message: What is given in the section of the definition appears to me more like the estimator of Kendall's tau for a given sample.
The probabilistic definition should probably more look like:
 \tau = \operatorname{E}[ \operatorname{sign} ( ( X_1 - X_1') ( X_2 - X_2' ) ) ]  
where (X_1', X_2') is an independent copy of (X_1', X_2').
77.56.29.47 (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empirical estimation vs formal definition 

message: The definition asssumes the uniqueness of the values xi, yet makes a statement about the case xi=xj(?) 82.75.155.228 (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition
Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of South Africa

message: No offence to the originator and editors of this article, but is it really necessary?  There are other, older, pages on SA orders, decorations and medals, some with illustrations, which seem to make this one superfluous.
See Evolution of the South African honours system and pages linked to it, e.g. South African military decorations, South African civil honours.
If this page is to stay, it needs a fair amount of editing, e.g. some names are incorrect, the list is by no means complete.
Arthur R (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: There are currently four articles dealing with the hnours, orders, decorations, and medals of South Africa. This seems to be overly complex and since these pages mostly duplicate content it might be a good idea to merge them all. --NJR_ZA (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Arthur R - I would rather delete this page - South African Military Decorations already covers most of the info on this page and it looks better Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 
Talk:Order of Ikhamanga

message: There should clearly be a reference for recipients of this award - this one  appears to be official, though it may be out of date, since the latest year given is 2011. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: As you can see in this list there are more recipients of the order. As this list is also incomplete (gaps in previous years), you may also refer to the list in de:Order of Ikhamanga that should include all recipients. --Vanellus (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incompleteness
Talk:South African Police decorations

message: I'm currently redrawing the illustrations used in this article to place them in a vector (SVG) format per WP:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#South African police decorations. In addition to making the illustrations appear sharp and smooth at all display sizes, I'm working on reformatting the text so that items aren't abbreviated. Can someone reply on my talk page to a simple question before I finish my work? I need to know if the ribbons are all the same width. They appear to be, but a few of the crosses for bravery were drawn wider. If someone can point me to any other ribbons that exist that aren't illustrated, I'll add them to the drawings, or create an additional drawing as needed. Thanks! Imzadi 1979 →  13:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike that, there are different widths... I'll get this project done yet. Imzadi 1979 →  16:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics
Talk:Lindon v. First National Bank

message: Is there an on-line source for this case? --Gerry Ashton 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not able to find one that wasn't a mirror of Wikipedia and my reply is 11 years later. I don't assume this article to be false, but it would be vulnerable to a deletion nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: On line source
Talk:J. Robbins

message: what is his real name????? 67.105.187.10 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Nadeem (Pakistani actor)

message: I dont see this article having any neutrality issues?--Yazid97 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence might not be very neutral: "Nadeem's Aina is the most successful movie ever made in Pakistan."  Until a reference is added I'm going to change the wording in that. DaffyBridge (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality issues

message: This article is written like an advertisement, someone has to edit it.. so I am going to edit it soon..... :)--Plutonics (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement or article

message: The first reference is after his name and it links to an article about a 3D theater opening. He has one quote in it but it is entirely irrelevant to the article and is placed in a strange place. I am going to remove it. If someone knows a better place to put it, they can. This is the link: http://tribune.com.pk/story/96079/karachis-first-3d-digital-cinema-opens-its-doors/ The Tribune.  DaffyBridge (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Can anybody upload this person's picture?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.249.168 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you do? 

message: Why is his filmography deleted? He is a very popular film actor in Pakistan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.14.128 (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 

message: Jawani Phir Nahi Ani is directed by another Nadeem Baig according to an editor there, and IMDB (nm7397878) seems to agree. Search results indicate that the director of Jawani Phir Nahi Ani also directed Pyarey Afzal, which links to the subject of this article in the film's article here and IMDB, but Pyarey Afzal is not mentioned here. Are these the same or two different people? If two people, are any other films listed on the IMDB page for the subject of this article (nm3221054) credited to the wrong person there? Peter James (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Director
Talk:Star of Military Valour

message: Private Jess Randall Larochelle received this medal as of October 12, 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.224.226 (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador really the next higher honour? Shadesofgrey (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; and Wikig's logic is somewhat flawed in that the Canadian order of precedence also includes British honours, meaning the list is not limited strictly to federal Canadian honours. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Precedence

message: http://freedomremembered.com/index.php/cpo-seal-thomas-a-ratzlaff/
I don't know when he recieved the award though. Ancholm (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial Soldier was killed August 6th, 2011
Talk:Canadian Forces' Decoration

message: Does anyone see any addition to this article by having the picture of the Governor General in this article? The medal is already depicted in an above image, so does the GG picture add anything? If there is no response here within a week, I will remove the photo.JMesh (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In accordance with the above statement, and having received no response, I have deleted the picture. JMesh (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Governor General 

message: I do not know why, however, I have noticing that there are several images of the ribbon of the CD using the shield of the Arms of Canada instead of the Rossettes. I will begin to correct the error. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of the ribbon of the Canadian Forces decoration 

message: There is a bunch of it on the page, but I am too lazy to fix it.  I thought I might point it out for someone to fix, however. Glandrid (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're too lazy to fix it, yet had the energy to type out an explanation of how you're too lazy to fix it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism
Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal

message: There is something here I terribly don't understand: HOW do you check if somebody has really had say THAT medal (the Canadian version in my example); I checked all the listed references on the page (and more) for that essential information and it does not seem to be available anywhere on the Internet or even in book form. Are the lists of recipients of medals a well-kept secret? Therefore what would be the purpose of such medals, if you cannot learn who has gotten them? Am I missing something here? Please help if you know the answer, I'm really scratching my head with this! --70.80.207.43 (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally perplexed 
Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070423080925/http://medals.nzdf.mil.nz:80/category/j/j3.html to http://medals.nzdf.mil.nz/category/j/j3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 Thank you. André Kritzinger (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified
Talk:Kinnelon, New Jersey

message: Can it be confirmed that Missy Elliot actually has a home in Kinnelon?--Capeccjt 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

message: I can't find anywhere that says he lived or lives here, although MCR did play a gig in Kinnelon in 2002.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.13.157 (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milkey Way 
Talk:Milliken Park railway station

message: I have two sources telling me two different opinions on the opening date of the newer Milliken Park station: Butt's Station Directory says 15 May 1989, while the Ayrshire and Renfewshire Lost Railways book tells me 16 May 1990! Anyone know which one it is? I've gone with the Butt directory date for now since it has a better track record than the Stansfield book, but its not perfect either! --Dreamer84 00:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New station opening date
Talk:Christopher Bigsby

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography
Talk:125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal

message: The article mentions the medal was "struck" by the Ottawa mint, is there proof of this?  This medal was most definitely NOT struck (coined), it was cast by a sub contractor (lowest bidder), poorly filed then double and sometimes even triple plated to hide the flaws.  Could the author of the lead in please confirm his writing...  The Royal Canadian Mint would NEVER put out such a shabby product, even if they tried really hard. Fdutil (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Medal manufacturing
Talk:Big Bang/Archive 3

message: I have massively overhauled this page, mercilessly editting out commentary that was either irrelevant, unrelated, or tangential. I don't think any of the stuff should be included here, but someone might be able to work it into another article. The obvious choice would be non-standard cosmology, which is an article that is itself in a shambles The major stuff I took out I post here Joshuaschroeder 00:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive overhaul 

message: ...and should thus be removed. Topics already covered in text clearly need not be repeated, and related topics are handled by the category system. Fredrik | talk 01:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" section is redundant...
Talk:Original Stories from Real Life

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Blake Wollstonecraft sketch2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 8, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 21:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Blake Wollstonecraft sketch2.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: The most common usage of [sic] is to show the direct quotation of a spelling or grammatical error in the original text. If this is the case the [sic] following 'to-day' should be considered for removal. While the hyphenated form of 'today' would be considered an error now, the OED has examples of it being used in publications until 1819, with the non-hyphenated version appearing as early as 897 (with a different spelling.) The two versions happily coexisted in the language for nearly a thousand years. As the hyphenated version was quite correct in Shelly's time it seems judgmental to highlight it as an error by today's standards, or to-day's [sic] standards. I just noticed that both to-morrow and to-day are italicized. It the to-morrow is also being sic-ed, the OED gives examples of the hyphenated tomorrow being used in publications until 1897.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.150.60 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed optional, but as many people would see the quotation and think it in error, we have decided to include it. Most people are not as familiar with the OED and the history of English as you! Wadewitz (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the [sic] necessary? 

message: This very old FA (2007) contains uncited text and original research, and does not meet current WP:WIAFA standards.  Unless someone is able to correct this, the article should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  03:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sandy's assessment above, and I think this will need some fixing up in order to meet the FA criteria. Is anyone interested in working on this? If not, I will nominate this to FAR in a couple weeks. Z1720 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review needed 

message: Gg 27.111.75.74 (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sad motivation stories
Talk:Big Bang/Archive 4

message: First, let me say that this is a fine article and my comments may well be nitpickish, but - I think the introduction is too technical in style. Cosmology is difficult to understand. However, the fundamental concept of the theory of a non-static universe, specifically, an expansion of space itself, should be described explicitly, because that is one of the aspects that many might understand more easily than the rest of he theory. I have tried to rewrite the introduction, but upon some more consideration it looks like my command of the English language is insufficient to improve the style. Please could somebody give it a try? Kosebamse 10:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the introduction 

message: I am not at my computer right now, and cannot login, but I removed some edits:
*evolution is not a dirty word and will be used in the article as that is the word used by scientists.
*Gap creationism may be interesting, but says nothing about the Big Bang per se. We aren't just talking about what people do to accomodate the Big Bang in their religious traditions but what the implications of the Big Bang ARE on said traditions.
*Space is not "created" in the Big Bang. It's just rulers streching.
161.97.202.103 20:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material 

message: I'm having trouble with the following paragraph:
"Measurements of primordial abundances for all four isotopes are consistent with a unique value of that parameter, and the fact that the measured abundances are in the same range as the predicted ones is considered strong evidence for the Big Bang.  There is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the universe should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He."
Since a previous guess I made was wrong, here's my suggested rewrite:
"The measured abundances are in the same ranges as the predicted ones.  This in itself is considered strong evidence for the Big Bang, as without it the Big Bang there is no obvious reason that, for example, the universe should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He.  As further evidence, measured primordial abundances of all four isotopes are consistent with a unique value of the baryon-to-photon ratio."
:I agree, it is kind of obtuse as written. I like your revision, but I can't understand what the last sentence adds. How about: 
::The measured abundances all agree with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio.  This is considered strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known method that explains the relative abundances of light elements.
:::Okay, I'm about to use that, a little more concise ("the only known explanation for"), and I'm going to try to keep the point that other methods don't even get the orders of magnitude right, which I think is what the original author was saying.  —JerryFriedman 15:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. All that. --Joke137 21:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it.  —JerryFriedman 15:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused about nucleosynthesis
Talk:Alexandre Jacovleff

message: After it's off the main page, it should be moved to Alexander Yevgenievich Yakovlev per WP:RUS - crz crztalk 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was how I intended to name the article from the very beginning. BUT the guy lived five years in Boston and 10 more in France. He obviously had an established English name. And the name seems to be Jacovleff, the only mentioning of Yakovlev I could find are translations form Russian. If we have an established English name we should use it per both WP:RUS and WP:UE Alex Bakharev 05:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:KLAR

message: Per the WP:Disambig page, "If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary." Since the radio station call letters are the primary identification and the ICAO code reference to an airport is a secondary identification, a hat note is sufficient and requires no more steps than would a disambiguation page for people seeking the airport. It's not about which subject is more famous, just that the radio station is primarily identified by this name while the airport is primarily identified by its full name with the ICAO code only a secondary reference to that airport. - Dravecky (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for deletion of disambiguation page
Talk:Order of British Columbia

message: The current list is in rough alphabetic order, with some exceptions according to how the list has been expanded. My thought here is that the list should be by order of award year, by alphabetic. Also the 2006 awards should be expanded to all 13 awardees, with the redlink names referenced instead. (In fact, sources for all the awards would be best, either here or in their parent articles) Any thoughts? Franamax (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recipents list 

message: Should come and visit north wales xxx 86.170.95.89 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales
Talk:Order of Manitoba

message: I've just become aware of this award, and it seems odd that "OM" would have been chosen as the postnominal, given that OM is already used for the Order of Merit.  It's certainly possible that a Canadian person could be given both awards, and they'd be, e.g. Bill Smith OM OM.  I appreciate that "Order of Manitoba" virtually demands OM, but what about the pre-existing postnominal?  Did this problem not occur to anyone when they were deciding on the most appropriate postnominal?   The other issue is that, someone seeing say "Neil Young OM" (as I did, which led me to this page), is liable to believe they're a member of the Order of Merit, when they're not.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Postnominal OM

message: Can someone find and upload a picture of the medal?  This would be a nice touch. SuperX9 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, found it in commons. EricSerge (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a terrible picture, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic 
Talk:Justiciability

message: This article is currently a very brief discussion of the term 'justiciability' as used in the jurisprudence of the United States.  If other countries use the term, or if this would be an appropriate translation of a term used in another country, we should simply break the article into sections for each country. Matthew K 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled