lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Non-notability and deletion poll

message: For the record, here's why some consider Wikipedia:Deletion policy to say that non-notability is not a valid reason to delete: they claim that the fact that DP prescribes merging for "such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" and says that deletion is not required means that notability is an invalid reason to delete. However, I and many others feel that since the same page says AFD is the place to go if an article is "not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)", and WP:NOT says "not an indiscriminate collection of information", it is valid to AFD things for non-notability. Also, it could be claimed that there's a difference between something not deserving an article but deserving to be merged, and something not deserving more than a tiny mention in Wikipedia at all. ~~ N (t/c) 00:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Hurricane Edna

message: Better intro, more impact, neutral POV. Jdorje 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this POV? I don't see a point of view being flaunted here. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably I was talking abou the old text "The hurricane was merciful in every area where Carol was not," which has since been removed.  Not quite sure though.  The current text is okay (though the article is really short). — jdorje (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Can we have a deaths-by-state table for direct deaths?  Were all deaths in new england? — jdorje (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure they were all in New England but I'll see if they have a count for induvidual states. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I can't find a state-by-state toll. That article linked at the bottom of the page has the toll for Maine (8) but not anyone else. Other states affected include North Carolina, New York, Connectecut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 21:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths 

message: The second sentence says
but then a few sentences later, it says
this source says the wind gusts (not sustained winds) peaked at 120 mph on Martha's Vineyard (which could have happened before landfall). I'm guessing the first sentence is wrong, and in lieu of a list of the three hurricanes, I've removed it. --MillingMachine (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in opening paragraph 
Talk:Traditional Nordic dance music

message: "All four Nordic countries"? I thought there were five Nordic countries. What about Iceland? Erik 14:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: The only correct spelling in Norwegian is "spelemann". Not "spellman" nor "speleman". Noruga 09:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelemann 

message: Writing here a few years later, I'll second the thought that the title of this article is problematic. I have been cruising around quite a number articles on related topics for several months and only today ran into this (very nice) one. Is there anyone available who is knowledgable about how searches work? I think adding "folk" would bring it closer to its audience, perhaps "Nordic Folkdance Music?"Plskmn 20:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Problems?
Talk:Greater Napanee

message: doesn't avril's song go "grew up in a five thousand-population town"? here it says 15,000?
:Statistics Canada reports 15,400 as the official 2006 Census population of 
:Greater Napanee.--Atikokan (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As Ryan Malcom grew up in Amherstview, not Napanee, I have removed him from this page. 67.193.211.142 (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable People 

message: Says who?  No reference.  Is it volume of fish, number of fishermen, $ spent?  What is the measure?  I disagree, I believe many places in Northern Ontario would be far ahead of Napanee in volume of 'walleye' caught.
And, by the way, the correct Canadian term for this fish is pickerel; not walleye.  That's American.  Thank you.  And good-night.
--Atikokan (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walleye Capital of the World? 

message: This is ugly. Greater Napanee#Shopping reads like one long advertisement, complete with excess exclamation! points! The info about Dixie Lee and the restaurant at 401/Palace Road is outdated, not sure what else is no longer there. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the +1-613-354- White Pages directory. K7L (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of individual businesses 

message: Hi, is there a specific reason why the "Notable people" section is so very detailed? It would be much more easier to read if only the names are listed. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people section in the article
Talk:Atis

message: What does the Ifugaos have to do with the Atis? Are they a subgroup? Let 's remove if they are not related.--Jondel 00:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Ifugaos

message: If Ati and Aeta is the same shouldn't this article be merged with Aeta? Rolf-Peter Wille 04:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Aeta
Talk:Hurricane Connie

message: More impact. Jdorje 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Over on the list of retired tropical cyclone names I list 25 deaths in the United States based on various editions of the NHC's ﻿The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones and $25 million based on the seasonal summuary. However this article lists 74 deaths and at least $86 million in damage. When i look at the references provided something is telling me not to just roll over and add them in, but to check first.Jason Rees (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death/Damage Toll Discrepencys 

message: This is to let people know that this article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 6, 2019, and specifically paging the FA nominator(s), . It would be good if someone checked that the article needs no amendments. The main page blurb text can be viewed and edited at  Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 6, 2019.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page appearance
Talk:Hurricane Inez

message: According this page, the name Inez was replaced by Isabel. But I couldn't find the information about it. Please tell me the web site which describes it.--HERB 15:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacement

message: Infobox picture is the wrong shape.  Impact is nearly non-existent. Jdorje 05:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sigh), I tried to give a little more impact, but, dude, there is nothing on this storm! I couldn't find anything! It's still next to nothing on the page. →Cyclone1→ 00:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, that sucks. Hurricanehink 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, 1966 doesn't have the NHC data online for some silly reason (1965 and 67 do). One minor tweak, alter that pic.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Here are a few scanned pages from  on the effects of Inez in Florida, Cuba, and the Bahamas for inclusion in the article. The first page is page 231 and the last is 234 (I just typed that one out, because scanning it was too much work). This stuff is mostly available on Google Books, so there shouldn't be a copyright problem. Juliancolton (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Book info

message: HYRDAT database has upgraded Hurricane Inez to a Category 5 (from 130 kts to 145 kts). This article needs sourcing from HYRDAT! TheHurricaneExpert 05 (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Inez
Talk:Hurricane Celia

message: Better impact and intro. Jdorje 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs sources. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of it is done now Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: The biggest improvements needed to get this to B class or greater is more impact.  It has enough refs and info for C class, mainly due to the detail given in its storm history section.  Figure out whether you want August 1 or August 1st throughout the article.  Right now, it's not consistent in this regard.  Also, there is a color-filled rainfall graphic for Celia, if you wish to download it.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Metric units are needed in the article. You can compare the article against the B-class criteria we have, and figure out what else is needed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Metric conversions are easiest via the convert template.  That should be mentioned, because not everyone is using this template yet, and it has held up some articles on the road to GA.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact

message: The NHC has just revised its total to $930 million per appendix B (page 47) of The list of deadliest costliest etc hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage Total
Talk:Hurricane Eloise

message: Impact section causes this to be marked a stub. Jdorje 23:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better? Hurricanehink 21:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: I left it as Start-Class for now though it could be a B.  Some structure in the impacts, inline sources/references, and impact photos are (if possible) needed. Jdorje 21:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's some specifics about flooding. Hurricanehink 16:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo2

message: Can we make a deaths-by-region table?  Things don't seem to add up. — jdorje (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths 

message: The rainfall image is only partially done at this time; I linked to it concerning Eloise's maximum amount.  Expect it, and the associated webpage, to be complete within the next week.  Thegreatdr 21:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The color filled images and its rainfall page will be online/linked tomorrow morning.  Thegreatdr 13:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, thanks. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thegreatdr 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainfall 

message: Eloise is one of the wettest TCs to impact Puerto Rico, which should count for something.  Thegreatdr (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Please keep importance high, unless you wish to engage in a discussion about it
Category talk:Congressional districts of Massachusetts

message: I don't know how much good this will do, but here goes: These district article titles should not have the apostrophe in them. They should read something like Massachusetts 1st congressional district or First congressional district of Massachusetts. The possessive is unnecessary and unencyclopedic, not to mention just plain yucky-looking. Plus, if one must use the possessive, it should not have the last s here, but should read Massachusetts' first congresssional district. Eric talk 13:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The apostrophe
Talk:Earl Erne

message: My understanding is that the format "Earl Erne" is only correct form when the title is derived from a surname. But here the surname is Creighton or Crichton(!?). The title is derived from an earlier Barony. If "Erne"  is a geographical place then it should be "Earl of Erne" -- So what is the origin of "Erne"?
As for the Viscount - that appears to have existed in its own right for a time -- that is why it now a courtesy title
Jalipa (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl Of Erne 

message: A version of the arms is available at Category:Argent a lion rampant azure.62.31.182.215 (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms 

message: A version of the arms is available at Category:Argent a lion rampant azure.62.31.182.215 (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms
Talk:Massachusetts's 1st congressional district

message: Souldn't the title be Massachusetts' 1st congressional district? Tompw (talk) (review) 22:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 
Talk:1902 Wright Glider

message: Aviation historians unanimously refer to this aircraft as the "1902 Wright Glider", not the "Wright Glider of 1902". I feel this page should be moved accordingly. Willy Logan 15:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "1902 Wright Glider" 

message: The 1901 Wright Glider article should be merged into this article, which discusses all the Wrights' experiments with aviation prior to the 1903 Flyer. Willy Logan 04:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1901 Wright Glider merge
Talk:Massachusetts's 4th congressional district

message: Does anyone know why this district was vacant during the entire 31st Congress (1849-1851)?
:Please reply here: Talk:31st United States Congress#Mass 4.
—Markles 13:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacancy? 
Talk:Battle of Bushy Run

message: What does the dagger after "Keekyuscung" signify? Dan Watts 17:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dagger icon (†) is used by the Military history project to indicate that a commander was killed in the battle. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 21:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle Description

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for Bushy Run Battlefield
40.355278, -79.62 should be the correct coordinates according to Google Earth.
Please verify and correct the error.
Thank you in advance,
Joe Martin
—68.188.168.215 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , though I've used coordinates somewhat less precise, since the battlefield seems to cover a fairly extensive area. Thanks for pointing out the error. Deor (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error
Talk:Complementary event

message: Someone seems to be under the impression that if Pr(A) + Pr(B) = 1 then A and B are complementary.  That is not true.  For example, suppose one randomly chooses a number from the set { 1, 2, 3, 4}, the four numbers being equally probable.  The probability that one gets 1 is 1/4, and the probability that one gets either 1, 2, or 3 is 3/4 so the sum of the two probabilities is 1.  But obviously these events are not complementary; the complement of {1} is {2, 3, 4}, not {1, 2, 3}. Michael Hardy 01:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematical error
Talk:The Perishers (band)

message: This article was previously listed on WP:AFD, with a consensus to keep. --Phroziac(talk) 01:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD

message: According to this (http://www.filter-mag.com/artists/interior.119.html), it is not Sarah McLachlan, but the lead singer's vocal teacher Sarah Isaksson. However, I have seen Sarah McLachlan in concert with the Perishers as the opening act. When they played this song, she performed with them, but it is definitely not her on the CD.
The single released under the Nettwerk label was live, featuring Sarah McLachlan and not the album version, which features the lead singer's vocal teacher.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geckoman (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarah McLachlan
Talk:Lindy Layton

message: :No, Lindy Layton is alive and well - don't worry !
:Derek R Bullamore 23:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Hurricane Marilyn

message: More impact, better intro. Jdorje 21:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: added more impact and fixed intro. Storm05 14:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: I failed the GA nomination based on the following review.
*Well-written - Fail: Two typos, and overall prose is poor
*Factually accurate - Pass, although there are some inconsistencies. Why does the NHC say 8 deaths, but another site say 13? Finding those other deaths would help.
*Broad - Weak fail: Most of it is merely statistics. The preparations section only includes one sentence about actual preparations. Try not to be so listy in places. The watches/warnings section and much of the impact merely lists some facts about the storm. Was there any actual damage on Martinique or Guadeloupe? You go a bit into some damage in USVI, but for a billion dollar storm it is not comprehensive enough. Have you considered NCDC for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands? Economic impact should be merged with impact, as well. Furthermore, there are no metric units, which is a standard of the Wikiproject for articles greater than B class. 
*Non-POV - Pass, a little hard to fail in a hurricane article.
*Stable - Pass
*Images - Pass - have you searched through FEMA's image archive? IIRC there are some good damage images of Marilyn in PR and USVI
Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing's changed in months. The article's in neglect. Not gonna happen.Mitch32contribs 14:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, i will try to do more to this, and then maybe in a couple weeks give it a GAC. Juliancolton (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA
Talk:Hurricane Roxanne

message: In the first 2 paragraphs:
On the following day, Roxanne turned west-northward, where it promptly intensified into a hurricane. As Roxanne headed generally westward, it began to rapidly deepen, and reached Category 3 intensity less than 24 hours after becoming a hurricane. Shortly thereafter, Roxanne made landfall near Cozumel, Mexico at its peak intensity, which caused severe damage.
Roxanne rapidly Intensify while traversing the Yucatan Peninsula, and it emerged into the Bay of Campeche on October 12, the storm was a Category 3 hurricane. Further weakening occurred, and Roxanne was downgraded to a tropical storm later that day. 
209.96.101.75 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This part makes no sense
Talk:Hurricane Hortense

message: Impact. Jdorje 21:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better? Hurricanehink 03:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Could be a B at this point but I left it at Start. Needs more structure, impact pics, more impact, aftermath/recovery. Jdorje 03:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got more impact for everywhere it hit, and more pics. Can't find too much more... Where in particular needs more structure? Hurricanehink 21:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if we could get more impact info it would be good to have multiple sections under impact.  The next thing to do is probably inline sources, however. Jdorje 22:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed them to inline refs...very easy.  The history section needs some refs too (though maybe it all comes from the tcr). Jdorje 23:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good news, it does all come from the NHC report. Hurricanehink 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo2

message: It looks to me like 21 deaths is a misreading of the TCR, and the actual value is 39. — jdorje (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths
Talk:Hurricane Iris

message: Better intro, more impact. Jdorje 20:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we include info on Tropical Storm Manuel, sorta like with Klaus and Marco? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. You should also mention the NHC discussion which mentions the possibility for an EPAC Iris. In this discussion, they said if Iris redeveloped it would retain its name. However, Manuel wasn't a direct part of Iris, per this discussion. Still, it would be a good thing to mention. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo
Talk:Clear and Present Danger (film)

message: Are the random pictures of actors and/or places somehow related to the movie really helpful? Looks a lot like inserting some pictures just for the sake of having some pictures... -- Imladros (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are only two photographs on the entire page. And they depict the key supporting actors in the film. They are very much relevant. It's not in any way different from other film articles on Wikipedia that also include images of actors from their respective films. Baffled12 (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random pictures 

message: Seeing as the film holds an 80% approval rating, being generally positive, there should be greater emphasis on the positive aspects of why the film is regarded as such, seeing as the chosen sections from reviews for the film right now are all negative and critical, save for the highlighted blurb from the Washington Post article that is not even included in the actual body of general critical opinions on the film.2601:49:1:5316:3963:63AD:85B7:9C6 (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT? DonIago (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section too negative
Talk:Cut-elimination theorem

message: We read: In his essay "Don't Eliminate Cut!" George Boolos demonstrated that there was a derivation that could be completed in a page using cut, but whose analytic proof could not be completed in the lifespan of the universe."
I have checked that paper by George Boolos and I am mightily confused. In that article he is not talking about Sequent Calculus at all (it's not even mentioned) but about Natural Deduction only. The "cut" he is talking about is the "Modus Ponens" of Natural Deducation, not the "cut" of Sequent Calculus (Why does Boolos call this "cut"? I don't know!). Indeed, the point of the paper seems to be to compare refutation proofs (whereby you add the negation of the goal to the premises and derive BOTTOM) and Natural Deduction proofs employing Modus Ponens. It seems to have nothing at all to do with the Cut-Elimination theorem.  
To reformulate: In his essay "Don't Eliminate Cut!" George Boolos demonstrated that there was a derivation that could be completed in a page using Natural Deduction, but whose proof via refutation could not be completed in the lifespan of the universe."
Maybe more on this when I get the time to pore over said paper, Reading George Boolos is hard going as he takes a lot of context for granted and the reasoning is sometimes elided, as if he were entertaining a very bright student who knows what was hot at the time the paper was written.
There is a T101 in your kitchen (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did George Boolos really talk about Cut Elimination? 

message: If cut elimination is so useful, why have a cut rule in the first place? 31.52.252.40 (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I'm pretty sure this sentence is wrong
 For proof systems based on higher-order typed lambda calculus through a Curry–Howard isomorphism, cut elimination algorithms correspond to the strong normalization property (every proof term reduces in a finite number of steps into a normal form).
If the cut-elimination property states that for any proof *there is* an equivalent cut-free proof I don't see why that would imply *strong* normalization.
In fact, I'm not even sure it implies even the weak one as it's worded, since it's not stated that the equivalent cut-free proof is found by iterated single cut eliminations, but that is more of a pedantic remark since that is the case in general. Mtzguido (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong or weak normalization?