lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Giant-impact hypothesis

message: Could we rewrite "...currently the favored hypothesis for lunar formation among the astronomy crowd." into a less informal style?
Andypreston (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Language 

message: While true that we don’t have this, it’s immaterial. The earth is a dynamic planet. Nothing but a few specks of zircon remain from any Hadean crust. Earth likely could’ve had a magma ocean, but ongoing tectonics and convection homogenized it. Plus you aren’t going to get things like a global plagioclase flotation crust on earth because it isn’t less dense than hydrous magma. 
So I don’t think the lack of evidence for one is relevant, at all, to the validity of the theory. We have no reason to expect direct evidence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewValeriInMixedStates (talk • contribs) 14:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence for a magma ocean on earth  

message: While Immanuel Velikovsky is hardly the flavour of the month, his 1950 book Worlds in Collision was one of the earlier giant-impact theories, and is still in print. Carl Sagan and many others have seen fit to evaluate it.
So, shouldn't it get a mention in this article, even if regarded as discredited? Andrewa (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immanuel Velikovsky 

message: The article mentions the hypothesized "...collision between the early Earth and a Mars-sized dwarf planet". The quick summary for dwarf planet defines a dwarf planet as "...small planetary-mass object that is in direct orbit of the Sun, smaller than any of the eight classical planets but still a world in its own right."
How would a Mars-sized planet be classified as a dwarf planet, when dwarf planets need to be smaller than any of the eight classical planets, which include Mars, and Mercury, which is even smaller than Mars? Should this segment be edited to "...Mars-sized planet"? 97.125.148.239 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mars-sized dwarf planet? 

message: In the HISTORY section, this sentence contradicts itself with reversed chronology, placing 1969 after 1974 due to sentence structure or date error:
"Little attention was paid to Professor Daly's challenge until a conference on satellites in 1974, during which the idea was reintroduced and later published and discussed in Icarus in 1969 by William K. Hartmann and Donald R. Davis." Isa.Alsup (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversed chronology in statetment
Talk:Padre Island National Seashore

message: needs a LocMap - Bevo 22:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 3

message: : Err... yes it is pedantric, but let's vote rather than argue. Arno 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh - that last suggestion was certainly Canutelike. Arno 07:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlude 

message: Since I'm in the poll, I should summarise my reasons.
Short version:
# The shorter title is at least as common as the longer title.
# Shorter titles, when disambiguous, are a Good Thing.
# Titles should be restrained in their implicit claims.
Long version:
# The attacks were definitely terrorist.
# However, calling them terrorist without attribution is POV.
# However, mav is right that article standards of POV can't apply to titles.
# This is why we fix arbitrary naming conventions, although they are of little help here.
## The default naming convention is common usage.
## However, common usage in this case can't make the decision.
### Someday we may have a fixed, standardised name (like St. Valentine's Day Massacre), but we don't have that now.
### While Google indicated a preference, the difference was below any threshold of trusthing Google to report general usage.
## We have no specialised naming convention for this situation.
# But there are some good naming principles that we can apply.
## Shorter names will almost always be used more often than longer names.
## NPOV can apply in a lesser sense, in calling for titles to be moderate.
# These principles, while not universal, can help us decide to remove "terrorist".
My position is explained more fully on the wikiEN-L thread.
-- Toby Bartels 01:02, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for one pollee's vote 

message: I don't care who you attribute the word "terrorist" to but it must be linked on this page.--Jiang 20:46, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking on the page
Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 5

message: It is not inaccurate or misleading in any way to characterize the FBI's hypothesis as to what occured during the World Trade Center demolition as "conspiarcy theory". If you object to the term "conspiracy theory," I can only assume this is because you perceive that characterizing something as "conspiracy theory" casts it in a tainted light. Is this the case? Was not the World Trade Center demolition a conspiracy? Does not the FBI offer a theory about the World Trade Center demolition? Is this conspiracy theory offered by the FBI verified or falsified by observable evdience? Granted, calling it a theory is overstating the case, since they have no evidence. Until they find some evidence to support their absurd notions, they should actulaly be called conspiracy "hypotheses". -Plautus satire 17:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "conspiracy theory" casts it in a tainted light. (Yes, IHBT, IHL.) Anthony DiPierro 17:44, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: FBI's conspiracy theory
Talk:Anne Stine Ingstad

message: I've added "dr." in front of Anne Stine Ingstad. She was a Dr. Philos., University of Oslo, 1978, on the L'Anse aux Meadows excavations. In addition, both Anne Stine and Helge Ingstad held several honorary doctorates. 
I'm also OK with dropping both "dr." titles. What's the custom on Wikipedia?
: Would it not be an idea to put academic (and other) titles under a separate heading? Also, please sign your edits --
Grumpy444grumpy 10:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I heard Helge Ingstad speak on several occasions and he always laughed when someone in the audience addressed him as "Dr. Ingstad," protesting that he had earned only a law degree, and that the only "Dr. Ingstad" in his home was his wife. When it came to academic archaeology, he thought of himself only as an experienced amateur. --Michael K. Smith 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctorates 

message: Stine's page says discovery was 1960. So does L'Anse aux Meadows. Ingstad's says '61. Which is it?  Trekphiler (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Just dating
Talk:Military history of the United States

message: Has the War on Terror shifted to a new focus in recent years? Enough maybe to warrant a new section? Notable battles and reasons why need to be added to almost each conflict un War on Terror. What do the current situations in each of these countries look like as a result of US intervention? CarricoHayden08 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  War on Terror
Talk:Category of magmas

message: What is the precise relationship between a magma and a groupoid? Is magma just a synonym for groupoid, or is there some difference between the two? Revolver 01:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A magma is a set with a binary operation defined on the set.  The operation need not have identity, inverse, or be associative.  A groupoid is a set for which there is no operation defined on the whole set.  There is a product only between certain privileged pairs of elements.  When that product does make sense, the operation has identity, inverse, and is associative.  Thus, a magma and a groupoid are about as different as they can be, although some people call magmas groupoids, which may have been the source of your confusion.   I don't think I can describe succinctly the precise relationship between a groupoid and a magma; neither is a special case or generalization of the other.  I'm having trouble even thinking of some superstructure that they are both special cases of.  A groupoid can be defined as a special kind of a category, whereas a magma cannot (as far as I can see.  composition in categories is always associative).  None of this applies of course to the unrelated use of the word groupoid to mean magma.  In that usage, they are the same. -Lethe | Talk 18:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think historically magmas were called groupoids by some people, but then the category theory definition of groupoid came into vogue so people needed a name for the old groupoids, hence magma. Besides, magma is a very cool name for such "primordial" objects. I remember wondering as an undergraduate how many axioms one could throw out and still have interesting mathematics. :-) - Gauge 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Category of monoids. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 14#Category of monoids until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Category of monoids" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Lysithea (moon)

message: Two different values are given for the mass. I'll probably get around to figuring out which is more accurate sometime, but if someone wants to beat me to it, go right ahead. --Bkell 01:47, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Strawberry Eggs

message: Isn't this duplicated with I My Me! Strawberry Eggs!? --Nanshu 01:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: I don't know how to do it, but I believe there's a way...Ranma9617 08:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On merging this with [[I My Me! Strawberry Eggs!]]...
Talk:DNA/Archive 8

message: You looked up dichotomy on wikipedia because of this and put it on VFD didnt you? lol (I dont appreciate that - I created that entry) Bensaccount 04:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly.  I looked at your contributions, and when I got to dichtomoy, I put it on VfD. Stewart Adcock 01:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: This is not a zero-sum game Bensaccount 18:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: [Peak:] That is your POV, which you should not impose on others. For example, many people believe that the preamble should mention chromosomes. Since not all DNA is in chromosomes, and since not everything in a chromosome is DNA, some people felt that the connection between DNA and chromosomes could be left to a second paragraph within the preamble.  This is not to say that there shouldn't be a section on "Location". That depends on how much we want to squeeze into the preamble. Peak 04:36, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Independence (disambiguation)

message: This wording in Independence (disambiguation)
*In mathematics and sciences, independence is a relationship between two variables meaning that a change in one of them doesn't imply a change in the other. 
was replaced by 
*in mathematics and science: 
as part of an edit that was primarily a cut-and-paste at 18:20, 2004 Mar 15 from Independence, which used to be the disamb page. I left the article text as i found it:
: 02:26, 2004 Mar 16 . . Jerzy (rv to last of Docu, which is probably preferable, after getting the two dozen words into the history of *this* page where it's relevant) 
: 02:22, 2004 Mar 16 . . Jerzy (Restore a couple dozen words whose deletion is not reflected in this page's history (Pasted from Revision as of 17:28, 2004 Mar 15 of Independence)) 
: 18:33, 2004 Mar 15 .
But my goal was to get that into the history of Independence (disambiguation), rather than have it exist only in the history of Independence, which is solely about politics.
I think the first, longer wordiing is poorly thought through, but IMO it may be a hint at some further disamb worth doing: what struck me about the first wording is that it doesn't capture the sense of independent in experiment design, which is not a matter of disconnection, but rather a matter of the direction of connection.  The independent variable is the one the experimenter varies directly, hoping to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis that the variable being measured is a dependent one in that the independent variable's behavior does cause it to change. --Jerzy(t) 02:42, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
maybe the etymology of the word should be looked at to see how its applied, or in some cases misapplied till its the common usage. Sreyan 20:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: I'm surprised that a search for 'independence' takes you straight to the page on politics, and not a disambiguation page, but then, I live in the home counties and I was looking for Independence (probability theory) at the time. Is this a culture thing? Should we assume that the political meaning is the most common one? Should the disambiguation page state that meaning first, as if all others are obscure? When I think of independence, I think of a child growing up, getting a job, and leaving home, or of a system where two parts are able to operate without consideration for each another, such as a car in two-wheel drive, where the front and rear axles can rotate at different speeds or in different directions. Yes, I think of political independence too, but it's certainly not the only thing that jumps to mind. I propose renaming Independence to 'Independence (politics)' or some such, and having Independence redirect to Independence (disambiguation). But perhaps this discussion has happened already. J Alexander D Atkins (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  should this be the main page?
Talk:Throne

message: In Medieval times the throne of Solomon was associated with Mary. The ivory of the throne represented purity, the gold represented divinity and the six steps of the throne stood for the six virtues. There's that "passive of attribution" again. A quote would lend weight and color to such a statement.  Without it, this sounds like the "Language of the Flowers." Wetman 03:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: The article mentions ecclesiastical thrones, but it should also mention the expression altar-and-throne, which is the name given to the pre-Revolutionary regimes in Catholic Europe, which were characterized by a close collaboration between the royalty and the papacy, such as in the Holy Roman Empire. (cf ) ADM (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Altar-and-throne

message: The section heading "Throne" "Islam" has been completely empty, except for a link to Al-Baqara 255, since this edit in 2011, more than six years ago. There's no reason for the empty section to have persisted for this long. If there is no objection, I am going to delete this empty section and will move the link to the "See also" heading. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Johnbod (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response. Done. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty "Islam" section
Talk:Flag of Canada

message: With recent acts of vandalism on the article, I suggest that we could apply a page protection like Pending changes protection or Semi-protection, like the Flag of the United States article to protect the page from spam. ChaseYUL99 (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel it is warranted, you can request protection here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protection 

message: If the Union Jack is considered an "official Canadian flag" as it says in the article, why isn't the Union Jack below the Canadian flag on the top of the article. 2600:6C63:417F:23FB:F1C0:56A2:F263:B442 (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Maple Leaf flag is the official national flag, whereas the Union Jack is only officially recognized as a "ceremonial" flag. There is a difference in purpose and their placement in the article corresponds as such. Leventio (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union Jack 

message: In this edit, a unreferenced paragraph was added on a commericial establishment that has a flag collection. I checked the (3) other edits by that IP. In another article, Canadian flag collection, there are a couple of references, but they're to the Arts and Leisure section of a local newspaper. This typically wouldn't meet WP:FAC's requirements for sourcing, so I'm going to remove the paragraph. It won't bother me if anyone re-adds it ... if you have proper sourcing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing unreferenced paragraph
Talk:Retrosexual

message: As noted, this page was moved in from Wiktionary.   The original entry was submitted anonymously.  I was unsure as to the copyright status, so noted it and assumed that some Wikipedia denizen would Do The Right Thing before too long.
My guess is that the copyrights had not been cleared, and that linking to wordspy is indeed the Right Thing in any case.  The Wiktionary entry has had the copyrighted bits removed entirely.
There was certainly never any intent to run afoul of US copyright law or Wikipedia policy, and I apologize if I have done so.
:I've paraphrased the definition from the wordspy site (I don't believe that that is copyright infringement) in the temp site. Darkcore 04:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Please add  for categorization purposes. Thanks. -- œ™ 02:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Editprotected request

message: I want to put this template and intentionally sitelink this to wikidata:Q4393724 Tacielle (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 21 August 2021
Talk:Steamer

message: I listed Steamboat, Steamship, and Paddle steamer, as well as the redirect Steamer on the Wikipedia:Duplicate articles page. I think that the first 2 terms are interchangeable based on the "What links here" lists, and although paddle steamer is ok as a separate article, there's some overlap with what's in the other 2 articles. I think there shd be only steamboat or steamship but not both.  But I'm not a ship-boat expert, so I'm not going to decide or attempt to merge the text appropriately. (And I just went thru and changed all unclarified "steamer" links to "steamboat" but now not sure whether that's right...) Elf | Talk 05:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Marathon

message: https://nos.nl/artikel/2424610-brinkman-spot-met-wetten-van-topsport-en-loopt-nationaal-record-in-rotterdam
Nienke Brinkman
"Prompt klokte ze 2.22.51, waarmee ze het negentien jaar oude Nederlandse record van Lornah Kiplagat uit de boeken schreef."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.83.125 (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  new woman record in 2022

message: I've added a paragraph break for clarity, which editor Track1News talk has been reverting for unknown reasons.
This seems trivial, but the main desideratum of an encyclopedia is that it should be readable. Excessively long paragraphs are hard to read. A paragraph that wanders from one topic to a different one is hard to follow.
I'm baffled as to Track1News talk's zeal for eliminating paragraph breaks. The explanation "we didn't have a paragraph break here before so we don't need one now" has no basis in Wikipedia policy.
Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph break
Talk:Josip Štolcer-Slavenski

message: What does "new secvence of the universal time" mean?  Elf | Talk 05:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: he never considered himself a serb,  and is a croat by birth, his family stemming from germany but being in međimurje for generations at the time of his birth; so i see no need for the old introduction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.210.39 (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  serbian and german? 
Talk:Gauss–Bonnet theorem

message: I have started Pfaffian, so maybe someone can do Generalized Gauss-Bonnet theorem???
Tosha 05:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the generalized version?

message: Does the manifold really have to be orientable? AxelBoldt 01:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. AFAIK, it just must be able to be triangulated (to get the Euler characteristic), but other than that there are no requirements on the surface. cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 17:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Russians also don't mention orientability , so I'll make the change. AxelBoldt 01:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Orientability is related to the existence of a metric.  For example, a projective space has no metric, and is also unorientable.  In the absence of a metric, the boundary integral of the theorem has no meaning.  Nevertheless, the requirement that the manifold be Riemannian necessarily implies the use of the Riemannian metric.  Therefore, the manifold must be orientable.  Specifying that it must be so is therefore unnecessary, but it does contribute to clarity of exposition, which is, after all, one goal of a wikipedia article.  6 October 2008
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.153.115 (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Any paracompact differentiable manifold has a metric, regardless of its orientability or lack thereof.  The statement of the theorem still holds for non-orientable manfolds.  In most formulations of the theorem, the integrals require only the surface measure to be well-defined (which only needs the metric, not an orientation).  Some versions of the theorem, however, involve the Pfaffian of the curvature, and these require orientability.  siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientable? 

message: It seems to me the application section should be moved since it's really just an application of Euler's formula. The Gauss–Bonnet theorem is only used to show that the Euler characteristic of the sphere is 2 and there are much more elementary ways of doing that. --RDBury (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move application section? 

message: It would be great to provide the proof either in the article directly or via references.
--Wladik Derevianko (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is proof? 

message: I'm not at all familiar with the subject matter, but I feel like an excellent addition to this page would be a description of how this theorem could be applied to a surface in 3D, which would make it a lot more intuitive. I'm not sure if the cited textbooks give any such examples. Wiki47222 (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example in 3-D
Talk:Field extension

message: Given a finite extension L/K, can a basis of L over K always be chosen to contain 1? I think so, because one can simply choose any element x from the basis and multiply all of the elements from the basis by x-1. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bases containing 1 

message: but extension fields  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.101.128.146 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Fixed. D.Lazard (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction does not define or describe field extension 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Purely transcendental extension and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 10#Purely transcendental extension until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 10:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Purely transcendental extension" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Trivial extension has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 23:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Trivial extension]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]