lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Category talk:Entertainment

message: Hmmmm, I would never have thought to look under "Games" for "Sports".  I can see that they're related in that they both have rules, but if I hadn't started at Sports and gone up with surprised curiosity, I wouldn't have started at Games.  So I'm putting Sports here, also.  Elf | Talk 03:54, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Subcategory structure

message: Whats with the free advertising on this page? Some Irish magazine? C'mon people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.253.175 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean the free advertising? I see none... *Cremepuff222* 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too promotional?
Talk:Mount Adams (New Hampshire)

message: I also don't know that we should be including information about the Aetherians' holy scriptures, even with the preface "Rumor has it," unless that rumor is mentioned in some verifiable source. Is there a book or magazine article that mentions the rumor? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points about the "Adams family" and the Aetherians.  I put a "fact" tag on the first claim and commented out the second for the time being.--Ken Gallager (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.aetherius.org/index.cfm?app=content&SectionID=79&PageID=35 lists Mt. Adams as one of the Holy Mountains of the World. This should be included in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.149.46 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adams family/Aetherians 
Talk:Lagrangian mechanics

message: Would it be wise to include examples where Lagrangian Mechanics are useful compared to Newtonian Mechanics? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! We can discuss them here first, if you want. Which ones did you have in mind?  Ponor (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

text: with all due respect, I don't think your addition belongs to this article. Shouldn't this rather be an example of optimization problems or calculus of variations? The whole new section reads like an advertisement, and to an uninitiated doesn't really mean much. In the paper you cited (are you one of the authors? careful with that, wiki prefers secondary sources, not original research!), what would even be the F=ma equation, what's the recipe (I am asking because you're saying Lagrange is easier than Newton)? What are T and -V in the Lagrangian? How does one generalize to other similar optimization problems? Ponor (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of Use (Applications to CS and Engineering) 

message: Would it not be more standard / look better to uses a curly \mathcal{L} for the Lagrangian rather than a regular capital L?
Blitzer99 (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This is a convention I've usually seen followed, especially because in a lot of places people use L for angular momentum as well, which may lead to confusion. It ought to be changed. EffyJohn (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curly L? 

message: In the introduction of this page the term  \delta \mathcal{S}:[t_0,t_1] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}  is defined and called the ″variation″, which is possibly erroneous (although  \delta \mathcal{S} is indeed a Gateaux derivative).
Comparing  \delta \mathcal{S}  with the definition of ″variation″ (of x_0) in the Wikipedia page virtual displacement, one finds instead that a variation is a function as well of the parameter ε.
In other words, the "variation" is not equal to the "Gateaux derivative".
However, it might be that the term "variation" is defined in some other way (which is then inconsistent with the definition in virtual displacement).
Doubledipp (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some discrepancy between math and physics in how the term "variation" is used. In math, \delta {\cal S} could have been (and is in some sources) called infinitesimal variation. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error in the introduction using the terms ″variation″ 

message: I've rewritten the lead section per MOS:INTRO to get rid of the equations and the more complicated mathematical language.  All of that stuff appears later in the article, and the lead needs to provide a less technical overview of the topic.PianoDan (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section rewritten
Talk:Juan Velasco Alvarado

message: I'm assuming the POV issues here are obvious, but if anyone needs me to, I will elaborate. -- Jmabel 04:49, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
: Seems to have been dealt with since I wrote that. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
I think its obvious velasco was a dictator, why isn't that in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.51.254 (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Mount Terror (Antarctica)

message: The article said it was the second largest of three volcanoes on the island, but the articles on Ross Island said there are four.   Looking at a map there appears to be four (one between Erebrus and Terror, those two and one to the north).  I updated the article...Aapold (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Ardagh Hoard

message: Any way to get this image of the Ardagh Chalice into Wikipedia? Wetman 04:59, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a citation needed tag on the Cauldron bit, but I honestly think it should be deleted. Flowerpotman 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Older posts
Talk:Valentina Tereshkova

message: Can you verify that at least the diffs between these revisions are good? Might want to look back even further. There has been substantial, sustained semi-subtle vandalism aimed at this article. Kees08 (Talk) 15:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism cleanup 

message: Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert 81.2.252.231 (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Here's the diff. HoneycrispApples (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021 

message: Do we really need to highlight that he was a tractor driver? Seems a little irrelevant and almost belittles the fact that he was a sergeant (and died doing so). JordanK195 (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vladimir Tereskov (Father)
Talk:Panacea (medicine)

message: Doesn't the word panacea imply universality? PlatypeanArchcow 04:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant? 

message: Is the claim about Vader canonical? JoshuaZ 06:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vader 

message: Does the Star Wars stuff really belong here? I'm sure there are many, many fictional links that we could drop in here. 
For example:
The Stimpacks in the computer game Doom are a type of panacea, as they heal chemical and heat burns, as well as bullet wounds and rocket trauma.
This isn't the first unnecessary Star Wars stuff I've seen on a non-Star-Wars page. Is there a "Put in Star Wars Trivia" task force on Wikipedia?
kibibu 06:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Wars
Talk:Battle of Stoke Field

message: First they are said to be Flemish but later German and Swiss.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.125.178 (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercenaries 

message: A discussion has opened on Talk:Battle of Bosworth Field about whether the name "Battle of Bosworth Field" is tautologous, incorrect, or inappropriate, and whether the article should be moved to Battle of Bosworth (with "Bosworth Field", but not "Battle of Bosworth Field", as alternatives). Some of the same arguments apply here. If anyone wishes to comment, I suggest that – in the first instance, at least – we have a single discussion on the Bosworth talk page. GrindtXX (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What ever you opinions on the name of the battle do not move this articles without presenting evidence of usage in reliable sources to justify the move using the WP:RM process on this page as any move is controversial given that the name "Battle of Stoke Field" is used even if it turns out not to be the most common name used in reliable sources.  -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of battle 

message: The info box lists 'Lambert Simnel as Edward (Imposter)'. I wonder if Edward is a bit vague and it might say as Edward, Earl of Warwick (Imposter), or as Edward VI, as Simnel had been crowned in Ireland and was claimed by his supporters as King Edward VI. The downside is the latter would cause confusion with the later (genuine) Tudor King. Dunarc (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Box 

message: Towards the end of the "Battle" section the article mentions  the fate of Lord Lovell noting that he "disappeared after the battle and was never seen again". It goes on to say "In the 18th century a body was found inside a secret room at his house, Minster Lovell Hall in Minster Lovell, Oxfordshire, leading to conjecture that it was his."  However I wonder if this is worth including as the main article on Viscount Lovell notes that others have pointed out that it is unlikely to be true, as "Lovell had hardly spent any time at Minster Lovell, and would not have had a faithful servant there who would hide him for years" and at the time Minster Lovell  had been "granted to Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, Henry Tudor's uncle" and so was "hardly an appropriate hiding place for Francis Lovell". It also suggests alternate possibilities. Given this, I wonder if the Minister Lovell story should either be removed or noted as being conjecture that other have disputed and other theories exist as to Lovell's fate after the battle? Dunarc (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate of Lord Lovell
Talk:Nordisk familjebok

message: In order to make reference to Nordisk familjebok in a Wikipedia article, insert  at the end of the text. Doing so will produce the following result:
-- Mic 07:15, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nordisk familjebok as a reference 

message: Does it mean "Nordic family book"? --Error 03:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Fred-Chess 05:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning

message: Currently the article appears to rely solely on various pages of a single website. One reference is just a catalog page and another is a scanned page of the encyclopedia (WP:NOR). The remaining two links appear to contain substantially the same information in two languages, at least according to online translation services. Both appear to focus more on Project Runeberg and the scanning process than on the encylopedia itself. If there are any good sources on this subject, their addition would be much appreciated. Shells-shells (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  More citations needed
Talk:Berserk (manga)

message: Author of Berserk, Kentaro Miura, said hat when he called Griffith's band "Taka no Dan", he had Millenium Falcon (from Star Wars) in mind. "Taka" meaning hawk and falcon interchangeably in Japanese. Falllant (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article uses the name given by the official English language publisher of the series. - Xexerss (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not involved in this, but I am going to say that you don't need to be too hard on yourself. You made a mistake, which every user on this website has many times. Anyway, if you want to continue editing, your contributions will be welcomed. Link20XX (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm very aware that Miura called it the "Band of the Falcon" after the Millennium Falcon. However, most reliable websites refer to the group by the name used by the official English translation of Dark Horse, and we prioritize the official translation before anything else, that was the main reason why it was kept as it is. But nevermind, as Link20XX said, you don't need to be too hard on yourself. It's clear that it was a good faith edit, without malice. - Xexerss (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Band of the Falcon, not Band of the Hawk 

message: “Guts escapes after saving Farnese from specters, returning to an ailing Godo while leaving that Casca wandered off.” It says “leaving” should say “learning”. 2600:4040:A908:8600:38B6:906D:F899:5209 (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling mistake
Talk:Peel (tool)

message: I severely burned a loaf of bread while obsessing over writing this article. Mike Simpson 07:58, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I

message: This section should be deleted for its irrelevance, idiocy, and triviality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.36.74 (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural references 

message: I think this needs to be edited out.  The peel is flat with no edges, while shovels are curved and have beveled edges.  There is a slight resemblance, but not nearly enough to mention it a few times.Pizzamancer (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to make this same comment, and see it here more than 10 years old and never fixed.  A peel is not shovel-like at except it carries something from one place to another.  A shovel does not have a flat blade at all, as it is a scoop.  A spade has a flat blade, but as it is for diffing, a peel is not like that either.  If it has to be compared to some other tool, perhaps maybe a spatula. LowKey (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to a shovel in the intro 

message: * φτυάρι φούρνου, μακροσπάτουλα, μακρυσπάτουλα  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8450:8A00:D52B:9765:E45B:4A51 (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek translations
Talk:Soar (cognitive architecture)

message: Hello. I started adding some text to the SOAR entry, but I am sure it needs a lot of improvement. Feel free to change everything. AnandaLima 08:11, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I had a hard time finding this article.  I've gone ahead and make a disambiguaion page under Soar, which helped, but I'm wondering if it would make more sense to redirect SOAR there and rename this page to something like Soar (cognitive architecture) or Soar (artificial intelligence).  It seems like nowadays "Soar" is more common than "SOAR" to refer to the cognitive architecture.  What do people think?  --Ferris37 19:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Rename
Talk:Centered square number

message: I don't inderstand what is meant by represents a square with a dot in the center and all other dots surrounding the center dot equidistantly.
I picture like what is shown in figurate numbers would be useful.
--- User:Karl Palmen 16 June 2004
:Those are more like ASCII art than pictures. I'm fooling around with Adobe Illustrator to try to create some nice, professional-looking diagrams. In the meantime, here is some ASCII art to illustrate the concept. And if you come up with a better word description please edit the article accordingly. PrimeFan 21:03, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the word description. As for the diagrams, I can't figure out how to make them in Adobe Illustrator. I do have to admit that in the case of centered square numbers, ASCII art is slightly more satisfactory than it is in the case of other figurate numbers. PrimeFan 22:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Enthalpy of fusion/Archive 1

message: How do the molecules absorb this extra energy? doesnt the temperature increase take account of the kinetic energy increase? does it break intermolecular bonds? help
----
There is another article - Latent heat of fusion - with more or less the same content. It might be a good idea to unify the two. --Peterlin 09:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsorted text

message: In response to the edit by User 141.224.143.192: This segment is written down as part of the 
Wikipedia:Chemistry Collaboration of the Month: Solubility. The topic  can be found in many physical chemistry textbooks and I think it is relevant. See also Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Hope this answer helps. V8rik 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solubility prediction
Talk:A Time for Choosing

message: This belongs in Wikisource. KirbyMeister 09:53, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Out of seven real votes1, there were five votes on the lines of "move to wikisource" and one for outright delete. And the lone dissenter voted keep or redirect. That's a pretty clear consensus; why is this article still here? Securiger 10:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: 1. Plus a blatant sock puppet.Securiger 10:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this article is noteworthy enough. Invmog (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article says "To this day, this speech is considered one of the most effective ever made on behalf of a candidate. Nevertheless, Barry Goldwater only won by a slight margin."
As far as I know Goldwater lost by a huge margin. Clearly that speech was not that effective. Aesma (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Goldwater victory
Category talk:Member states of the European Union

message: (The following discussion was at Category talk:EU countries, a category which has since been deleted. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: The European Union is independent of the Council of Europe and membership in one isn't contingent on membership in the other. (I'm not even sure that the point about membership contingency is relevant. Even if there were a contingency, it would still be circumstantial: the organizations could repeal such a rule at will.) If, as it says at the latter article, "No country has ever joined the EU without first belonging to the Council of Europe", that's de facto and still doesn't imply that the EU is subsumed under the Council. In view of those circumstances, why is this category a subcategory of :Category:Member states of the Council of Europe?
For what it's worth, what led me here was seeing that User:Buidhe has just removed countries from the parent category, which I presume is because they're in the subcategory. (I'm not sure that that action was correct anyway, if that was the reason for it, because this category isn't a diffusing subcategory of the other one. Largoplazo (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The requirement of membership in the CoE to join the EU is sufficient to categorize the latter countries as a subset of the former. It is also doubtful that Council of Europe membership is defining for EU member states due to the low profile of the organization. I've checked, and most articles of EU countries only mention Council of Europe membership in one sentence in the body, which indicates it is not defining for them. (Arguably, the CoE membership is more important for states that are not EU members like Russia, Turkey, or Azerbaijan). (t · c) buidhe 18:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: The European Union and the Council of Europe
Talk:Gay bathhouse/Archive 3

message: *Wikiquette
*Wikipedia:Civility
The technique of driving off criticism thru usage of ad hominem attacks is all to common on "sexuality" topics. Probably due to quality editors being too squeemish to bother with them. As I said I'll consider a final attempt, and then I'm off. Logic always defeats rhetoric in theory, but in practice things all too often boil down to an ad baculum test of nerves and endurance. Some of you seem to feel your only "stick" is incivility. Sad that.  Sam [Spade] 00:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: a review of  might also benefit. Sam [Spade] 01:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one of the links you provided is about gay bathhouses specifically - and even then it's not about bathhouses in general, but about one specific scandal at one specific bathhouse. -Sean Curtin 04:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
Talk:Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary

message: This is the text of the Litany.  But does anybody have any info about its history, background, etc etc ??  JackofOz 11:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: "Historical criticism posits it to have been composed during the early years of the 16th century or the closing years of the 15th."
There is no citation for this, and it's unclear how historical criticism differs from the theories earlier in that paragraph. More generally, what exactly is historical criticism, as opposed to, say, history?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.221.57.236 (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historical criticism"
Talk:Mannerheim Line

message: "The weakness of the line is illustrated by the fact that the amount of concrete used in the whole Mannerheim Line"
This sentence is a harsh mistake. The flexible defense-lines (Mannerheim, Árpád-line, BarLev-Line) are not based on dense lines of concrete bunkers (as the Maginot system do). The main method to close potential traffic barriers (anti-tank ditches, hedgehogs), these are followed by a complex system of ditches and barbed wire obstacles, which protects the barrier against the sappers/bridge-layer tanks and engineer teams. Therefore the enemy is forced to attack trenches (as in World War I) at the cost of terrible losses. It's "flexible defense" because our soldiers are not locked into bunkers, but the defenders could be regrouped between field fortifications (Wood-earth maden firing posts, dugouts and pillboxes), also they can carry out a counter attack optionally. All soldiers and weapons have multiple firing position in order to make difficult to keep them under fire. Concrete bunkers usualy only shelters, just a few had crenel. Conrete made MG and Gun pillboxes are side-firing in order to deffend anti-tank obstacles. Magiont-like bunkers have lot of weaknesses e.g: lot of destructible air intlets and firing holes, they are too big (camoflage and costs), and they are easily overruned by small sapper teams (at sedan a few german soldier destrolyed a lot of firing port with pre-fabricated bombs) or could be blinded by small concentrated smoke screens. The flexible befense lines are amost immune to a few sapper or small smoke sreens.
I hope someone will improve this arcicle.
Source: Szabó, J. János: The Árpád-line. ISBN: 9789639614093, 332 p.
 User:Gabor vasarus 2017. 04. 07.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor vasarus (talk • contribs) 13:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: New talk
Talk:Austrian Empire

message: Shouldn't there be maps for the years of 1812,1859, and 1867? If that is so could someone edit those maps on. 198.236.185.1 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other time period maps? 

message: The North German Confederation did not detach or annex any territories from the Austrian Empire, how did it succeed it? Sandjaar (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor being the North German Confederation
Talk:USCGC Taney

message: In the bottom it states that the ship is cared for by Baltimore Maritime Museum, this has now been transferred under Historic Ships in Baltimore, Pier One/301 East Pratt Str. Balimore MD 21202.....I am Dan Sutton:Chief of Ships, Facilities and Collection Care @ Historic Ships  elided Dcsutton (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the update! DMacks (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I hid your contact info to prevent spam. Anyone who really wants it would still be able to find it. DMacks (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Dcsutton|Dcsutton]] ([[User talk:Dcsutton|talk]]) 02:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC) USCGC Taney is now run by Historic Ships in Baltimore 

message: This has been added  and reverted twice now, so let's discuss.
Aside from the lack of sourcing, this seems to be a very trivial set of details about the Hoga which is only tangentially related to WHEC-37. A sentence about the last two vessels afloat from Pearl Harbor meeting each other in San Francisco Bay could be suitable if reliable sources treating it as a significant event can be found, but even that is a stretch. The other details certainly do not belong as readers can find them at :Hoga (YT-146). –dlthewave ☎ 23:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Hoga