lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Law of total tricks

message: Looking at this article it seems to be written in a fairly negative light. I personally find 'the law' much more useful than it would seem to be from this article. What do the rest of you feel? I still think it is a good article, however. Perhaps it should show how swapping cards (eg moving a king so the finesse fails) does not normally affect the total tricks - only changing the distribution (even breaks = less TT, bad breaks = more TT).Cambion 12:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and how can we 'verify' the hand? Use suitplay? heheh. (See suit combinations...) Cambion 12:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ran the current example through GIB's double-dummy solver.  It verifies that NS can make 4S.  However, GIB says that EW can make 2H rather than 1H as the text states.  Even the text lists only five defensive tricks.  Radius 01:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh. Thanks. The example went through several consecutive rearrangements, and, according to the Murphy's Law, ended up in the wrong one. I think hope I fixed it now. Duja► 07:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Example

message: The most common use of the term (as a specific technique published and named as such) contains capitals as in "The Law of Total Tricks" including use in mid-sentence.  When in context, it is also referred to as "The Law" and "The LAW."  Having looked at several references, I do not think "The law of total tricks" (i.e. no caps) is correct in any context and the article should be moved to "The Law of Total Tricks" and all uses and links amended accordingly.  Other opinions/comments? Newwhist (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name capitalization, abbreviation

message: Mike Lawrence (prolific bridge writer) and Anders Wirgren have published "I Fought the Law of Total Tricks," 
(2004, Publisher: Best Bridge Books, ISBN-10: 0976299917, ISBN-13: 9780976299912),
which questions the validity of the Law of Total Tricks. I think that this article should mention this criticism. 69.1.135.71 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism
Talk:Catalytic triad

message: the existance of a low barrier hydrogen bond in serine proteases is controversial at best; and it has been directly ruled out by high-res x-ray for alpha-LP: (http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/2006/128/i28/abs/ja057721o.html). i propose we revert that portion to something more like the previous version. Xcomradex 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LBHB

message: For such a fundamental enzymology page, this article has been in need of attention for a while. I've tried to keep what I could from the previous version.
===Changes made===
*Removed entirely the previous sections:
**Example - The introduction sentences were sadly incorrect and misleading.
**Amino acid sequence, histidine 57 - which simply looked at similarities between three S01 serine proteases
**Four atom characterize different ASP-HIS-SER enzyme families - very specific point based on a single paper. I had hoped to integrate some the information elsewhere, however the original paper was too poorly written.
*Added non-protease examples
*Attempted to represent the range of different triads whilst emphasising their similarities
*Introduced sections on convergent and divergent evolution
*Added images to help clarify
===To be done===
*My background is in proteases. Examples from non-proteases would help to balance this article
*I aim to add a few images to illustrate the convergence and divergence  (Complete 31 October 2013)
*Make sure that other relevant enzymology pages link to this  (Complete 21 November 2013)
Evolution and evolvability (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 overhaul 

message: *My background is in proteases. Examples from non-proteases would help to balance this article
*I aim to add a few images to illustrate the convergence and divergence  (Complete 31 October 2013)
*Make sure that other relevant enzymology pages link to this  (Complete 21 November 2013)
Evolution and evolvability (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: To be done
Talk:Cajundome

message: This is beyond absurd:  despite the fact that a compromise has been reached on this issue, a couple of people still feel the need to vandalize these pages.
As per below, the compromise that was agreed to  (over a year ago) was that leaving in 'often referred' Is the solution: 
"I agree 100% with Billcasey905. I'm fine with it saying that it is often referred to **insert name** with the source that is given, that's why I didn't revert Pncomeaux's edits. Until the other nicknames become a common name, it should stay as is. Corkythehornetfan 19:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism
Talk:Decurion (Roman cavalry officer)

message: This:
:There were 120 cavalry in an Ala (auxiliary cohort) of a legion.
ist fault. The 120 cavalry of a legion were no auxiliary cohort. And in the early republic the legions had up to 300 cavalry.
The contubernium had no leading Rank. The Decurio as infantry rank vanished by the transformation to "manipular-Legion" and reduction of the decuria to contubernium.--WerWil 10:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fault
Talk:Legatus

message: There is also a Catholic business organization of the same name which might deserve an entry. ADM (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic business organization

message: This article oversimplifies the subject. Which is understandable, since the use of the Latin word legatus under the Empire can be confusing.
* Legatus denotes a person who is an assistant or representative for another person. Thus a legatus of a legion was the Emperor's assistant assigned to command the unit. (Practically all of the military units of the Roman Empire reported to the Emperor, not to the Roman state -- I think there might have been one or two Senatoral units, but their headcount was no more than two thousand men, as compared to about 300,000 Imperial soldiers.)
* Provinces of the Roman Empire were divided into those reporting to the Senate (known as "Public provinces"), & those reporting to the Emperor (known as "Imperial provinces") -- which just happened to have almost all of the soldiers stationed in them. The Public provinces were administered by pro-praetorian or pro-consular officials; the Imperial provinces were administered by legati, or deputies, of the Emperor. Of course, as time went on & the distinction between the two were blurred, governors of Public provinces were sometimes incorrectly referred to as legatus, but until the reforms of Diocletian & Constantine in the 4th century, this was an important distinction.
* All governors could appoint their own legati. He was a junior senator who was either being trained for his next step in his cursus honorum as governor (in which case he'd usually serve as legatus only once), or a non-entity who was destined not to advance to either a governorship of his own -- or the consulate -- who would serve as legatus to a number of governors.
I obviously need to dig up the references for these statements, but the above is subtly different from what the article states & better reflects the sources. Currently the 3 sketchy cites the article currently has doesn't exclude what I have written, let alone supports what the article asserts. -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article and the others on different types of legates could use a substantial overhaul.  I just had to go and read up on legates in Harper's, because nowhere could I find a mention of judicial legates.  This title, or the anglicized "legate" (currently a disambiguation page, but that could be retitled "legate (disambiguation)") should be a blanket article covering all the different types of legates, with separate articles on ambassadorial, military, and imperial legates (governors, and legates subordinate to the governors, such as the aforementioned judicial ones, etc.).  I might take up this project in the next few weeks, once I get done with the letter "P" in Roman gentes.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism
Talk:At-large

message: :Please see a related discussion at Talk:General ticket#General ticket vs. Plural district vs. At-large.—Markles 16:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General ticket vs. Plural district vs. At-large 

message: "editor at large" redirects here, but there's very little information on how this applies to the position at any given magazine. I guess it would be the editor all the other editors elect to - do what?  Some more info on that would be helpful to the uninformed. I'm going to go do some net searching to find out, but why is there no information on how that works here?Rabidwolfe (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ABout to post the exact same thing User:ZayZayEM (to lazy to log)124.186.156.59 (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I searched for "editor at large" and ended up here. But this article is only about politics, not publishing. Either this article should be fixed, or a new article should be created for "Editor at large". --JHP (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also 100% US-focused (not that that's anything new...) and so I leave the article none the wiser as to whether it applies anywhere else in the world. 86.132.137.5 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Have added in a new page about editor at large as totally different to the US political idea. JamesCollins (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editor At Large?

message: For the EU Parliament, many countries, amongst which Germany the largest, use a single constituency covering the entire country, with proportional representation nationwide. Isn't it the case to include/mention them here? Pqnlrn (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Germany and other EU countries
Talk:6b/8b encoding

message: Why does an article called 8B6B talk about the 8B10B encoding?
And why the article not link to the 8B10B article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8B10B)?
  
"8B/6B encoding"   seems physically impossible -- there's no way to map 8 bits to 6 bits without losing (at least) 2 bits of information.
I suspect this is either a typo ( 8b16b encoding ? ), or, more likely,
someone misunderstood a description of a *decoder* for 6b/8b encoding -- .
What should we do about this article?
--68.0.120.35 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could make a request to move it to a more correct title, or propose it for deletion (which is less useful IMO, because someone will have to write 6b/8b from scratch if this gets trashed). Kimchi.sg 19:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you moved it to the correct page -- thank you, Kimchi. (Although I prefer "6b/8b encoding"). --68.0.120.35 19:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Areani

message: Got any? Really interesting and would love to see more, if of course it can be backed up. :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence? Refs? 

message: I'm not sure 'arcani' is actually inaccurate - I believe there's some debate as to the correct spelling due to corruption in the original manuscript which contains the reference to them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.37.247 (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Arcani' - interpretation vs inaccurate?
Talk:Roman helmet

message: This looks like an interesting division into types of helmet that could be quite instructive but without illustrations or descriptions of each type the information is very little use. Anyone know what the types refer to? - PocklingtonDan 11:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do types A-I mean? 

message: Roman helmet and Galae seem equivalent. Propose merge/redirect. - PocklingtonDan 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propse merge and redirect
Talk:Jarmo

message: Does anyone know the coordinates of this site?  
CANeW says that it is at 35° 36'N, 44° 48'E.  I think this is close, but to the nearest second would allow one to pinpoint it on a map.
Griffinity 11:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikimapia says that it is located at .  Griffinity 15:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The Iraq Museum agrees (with lesser precision) that it is at 35° 34'N, 44° 55'E, so it appears that the CANeW coordinates are inaccurate.  Without having actually walked the site though, I am reluctant to add the coordinates to the main article.  Griffinity 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: Removed the following as material unrelated to the topic:
UC Berkeley (section title)
Jason Felix, an archeology student at Berkeley, is nicknamed Jarmo by his friends. (section content)
Also did some minor copyediting.
Ahrie (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated Section 

message: I was amazed that this article was so short. I looked around and found a decent looking article on the Portuguese Wikipedia and I have incorporated much of it here. I am by no means an expert and cannot guarantee the exact truth of much of it. It also need references, but I hope it will at least inspire someone who knows more about it to keep improving the article. Jarmo deserves better. --CIngram99 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation from Portuguese 

message: I agree with the translator from Portuguese Wiki that this is a good beginning on what should be a stronger article. I did cut out the sentence, "It was one of the first human civilizations." The article already established that this site is important as a Neolithic site contemporary with other famous early agriculture sites. To get into what is "civilization" is not necessary. If anyone really wants the sentence back, feel free to revert me.Middle Fork (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Beginning Here/ I Cut Out an Unuseful Sentence
Talk:Galea (helmet)

message: Just kidding.
I deleted the absurd sentence that stated "There is ["]evidence["]that the plumes were worn only in parade, not in battle." Because it's had a citation needed tag since 2007. If there really was evidence for it, I guess we would have found it by now. Anyway it's an absurd suggestion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.13.163 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupy the Roman Helmets!

message: Roman helmet and Galae seem equivalent. Propose merge/redirect. - PocklingtonDan 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Propse merge and redirect

message: Excuse me, folks. The spelling of this first-declension noun is galea. The declension goes:
galea
galeae
galeae
galeam
galea
galeae
galearum
galeis
galeas
galeis
There never was a galae, which in the context could only be a plural of some gala. There's no gala. I checked my unabridged Latin dictionary, which is Gaffiot's, and is a good one. It seems clear that galea was metathesized into galae by some well-meaning but tired wiki-scholar.
However I encourage your efforts. We all make mistakes. Keep up the good work, brothers (and/or sisters). Mistakes can be corrected. You need to move the article to galea, after you check the veracity of my Latin. No big deal. If it drags on and I encounter it later I will move it. PS. Yes, "Roman helmet" refers to the galea. No point in having two, now, is there? By the way if you do not have a Latin-English, English-Latin dictionary, there are some on the Internet. You use them on-line.Dave 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Galae is mispelled

message: In the 1970's, a Roman plaster helmet mould was discovered preserved in the infill of a substantial Roman Wall in Colchester. This recently resurfaced in a garage in 2010. More information will be posted as it becomes verified. Images is to follow... Antimatter31 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman Helmet Mould
Talk:Read (transgender)

message: I've just tagged this article. Various apparently factual statements are made without a whisper of evidence. If someone can find sources for these things then that'd be lovely, otherwise big chunks of this article will have to go.
:This page has been replaced with a redir to the Passing (gender) article, which now contains a new (much shorter) section covering this subject. That new section is referenced. I've left out stuff that I couldn't immediately find refs for. I made a mistake in creating this page in the first place, as it should have always been contained within the passing article to be in accordance with WP:WINAD. --AliceJMarkham 01:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Marc Van Montagu

message: Article created to provide basic information on a Flemish biotech pioneer. Pvosta 12:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Manica (armguard)

message: >No find in the archaeological record, however, can be identified for certain as a manica, though some believe pieces found in a hoard of armour fragments near Newstead are in fact manica ([2] and [3]).
With the finds at Carlise (and romania) the above statement could be inaccurate. Attention should be paid to Dr Bishops work in this area. --Justin Andrews 13:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over Archelogical Record
Talk:Limes Arabicus

message: There is some good info on this in Luttwack's "Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire" in his coverage of the Limes. I will try and add some more info later today - PocklingtonDan 12:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deserves more info

message: I have fully improved the article. Hope it is OK now.--OneDalm0 (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement

message: "Mostly in the province of Arabia Petraea" and 1500 km long cannot be, Ar. P.'s eastern border was only a few hundred km long and never reached into northern Syria, but the limes did. A wrong definition makes the whole article worthless.
 Arminden (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where and how long
Talk:David Cox (artist)

message: There is also an on-going dispute with Birmingham Council and the decendants of Joseph Henry Nettlefold, with claims the City sold 6 Cox's without permission & against the conditions of the bequest. (Ref Brimingham Post, 2 Oct 2006) Ephebi 12:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Recently the file :File:David Cox by Sir William Boxall lowres color.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 02:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New file [[:File:David Cox by Sir William Boxall lowres color.jpg]] 
Talk:List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 1960s

message: How come this has been tagged as having insufficient context etc yet the same tag hasn't been applied to the lists of number one albums from other decades, which are equally lacking in context/explanation? MFlet1 12:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! Especially since there is no reason given on the talk page. REMOVE. Triangle e 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of number-one singles (UK) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 19:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Roman infantry types

message: The history element is not as full as the structural history of the Roman military, and the list of units is not as full as the List of Roman army unit types. This whole article seems to be based (both in its use of iamges and in its onfines of military units covered) on the game "Total War: Rome". Propose anything of worth from this article is merged into either of the two articles mentioned above, and then this article redirected to List of Roman army unit types - PocklingtonDan 12:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No response in almost a month. Will implement redirect now. - PocklingtonDan 21:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article seems to be redundant
Talk:South Australian Certificate of Education

message: Is SACE an actual test on your selected subjects – or a project on the subjects to completed in your own time in Year 12?
:The acronym refers to the certification proper. There is no official test for SACE. The applicant must complete 22 "units" (satisfactorily in at least 16) where the units must be chosen according to a subject pattern. The judgement of "satisfactory" is usually some combination of in-school assessment and "moderation" by the assessment board (SSABSA). BobTheFish 09:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SACE ? 

message: The SACE is undergoing significant changes as per Future SACE which need to be reflected in the article, as many of the processes described in achieving the SACE are to be alterred.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.237.52 (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to SACE 
Talk:Kibbie Dome

message: What was the stadium called from 71 to 75 also instead of piping Field turf for SprinTurf which are two different companies how about creating an artricle for SprinTurf  Smith03 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:Milstein method

message: It should be \frac{}{}dX_t=a(X_t)dt+b(X_t)dW_t instead of \frac{dX_t}{dt}=a(X_t)dt+b(X_t)dW_t.
Sorry, my bad. Comment deleted. Sullivan.t.j 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Legio IV Macedonica

message: It is the fifth macedonian legion not the fourth. see link:  http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi%C5%9Fier:LegMaced02LVM.jpg
A brick from a "castrum" built by the fifth legion in today's Romania. LVM stands for Legio Quinta Macedonica  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.61.56 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not fourth but fifth 

message: sory but Italy didn't exist back then. maybe Rome? nevertheless, it wasn't called Macedonica for nothing.Andyvader (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian legionaries?

message: There are enough archaeological evidences and publications demonstrating how modern “Herrera de Pisuerga” (Palencia, Spain) was the main base for the legion during the Cantabrian wars. 84.13.215.7 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The IIII LEGIO MACEDONICA settled in today’s Herrera de Pisuerga, not Juliobriga.
Talk:Legio V Alaudae

message: Hi, article is saying that Legio V Alaudae was destroyed during Domitian's Dacian War's. But in Livius.org is told that it was destroyed in Batavian revolt 69/70, not in 86/87. Also in book "The Emperor Domitian" by Brian W. Jones () page 138-139 is told that the legion did not survive Batavian revolt and was not the legion wich was destroyed in Dacia. So I think it should be noticed in article that its not clear when the legion was destroyed?  --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was Alaudae destroyed? 