lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Behold a Pale Horse

message: MOVE: to: Behold a Pale Horse user:Tregoweth - 08:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone proposed to move Behold A Pale Horse to Behold a Pale Horse, although Behold a Pale Horse (disambiguation) and Behold a Pale Horse (film) has a link (even though it doesn't exist).  I've done the obvious and moved the page here (and removed the move notice). --ssd 05:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MOVE: Talk:Behold a Pale Horse (book) moved to Talk:Behold a Pale Horse user:Tregoweth - 09:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name / moves

message: Who said he was certifiably insane?  Was does the article not provide details about this that can be verified?  If whoever wrote this cannot provide more details, it should probably be removed.  18:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Author sanity

message: There is no source for the claim that Cooper confided this wish to his neighbor.  Is this the neighbor posting?  19:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims
Talk:Ptolemy Eupator

message: This redirect  is a holding action; Ptolemy Eupator deserves an article on his own. Septentrionalis 18:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redone the redirect to Ptolemy (disambiguation). I agree that an article is needed for Ptolemy Eupator and Ptolemy Nios/Ptolemy the Son/several other names. But the theories do seem rather complex. Carcharoth 01:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This creates a circular link, which is deprecated. Septentrionalis 03:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I've updated Ptolemy VI Philometor to include a reference to Ptolemy Eupator, and redone the redirect until, as you originally said, Ptolemy Eupator gets his own page. Thanks for pointing out that I'd done a circular link. Carcharoth 11:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Boolean prime ideal theorem

message: "Apparently, the ultrafilter lemma also implies BPI, such that both statements are equivalent -- please confirm if this is known to you."
I managed to work out a rather convoluted proof of this, showing that ultrafilter lemma-->compactness theorem-->BPI for free Boolean algebras-->BPI.  But I get the feeling there ought to be a more direct proof, and although I was very careful, I might have tacitly used some aspect of the axiom of choice at some point in my proof.
--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.244.82 (talk • contribs) 
:The compactness theorem (even for sentential logic) directly implies the BPI:
:Fix a Boolean algebra B.  For every b in B let pb be a propositional variable. Let T be the set of all formulas of the following form: 
:# not pb iff   pnot b 
:# (pb and pc) iff pb and c
:# (pb or pc) iff pb or c
:where "not", "and", "or" on the left side is a logical symbol, and "not", "and", "or" on the right side are the boolean operations.   T is easily seen to be finitely consistent, and every truth assignment to the propositional variables that satisfies T will induce an ultrafilter on B. 
:--Aleph4 22:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ultrafilter lemma

message: "the Boolean prime ideal theorem is often taken as an axiom of set theory".   Is it really?   Ever?   That sounds like there are (many) people who actually work in the set theory "ZF + BPI".  I doubt that.   Of course there are few people who investigate the strength of BPI, but I doubt that they consider BPI an "axiom of set theory".  
--Aleph4 18:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: often?

message: I merged ultrafilter lemma here as a new section.  The old talk for that page is very brief; you can find it at Talk:Ultrafilter lemma if you are interested. CMummert 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merged [[ultrafilter lemma]]  

message: Weak and strong PIT are equivalent for Boolean algebras via quotient algebras.  The same should hold for distributive lattices, but I am not absolutely certain.
TexD 19:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak BPI for Boolean algebras  

message: I think the article is too technical and it would be possible to simplify it, especially in the lead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part of the lead is "too technical"? It appears to be a straightforward and direct statement. As the lead says, these appear to be "simple and intuitive", so its hard to imagine how to write the lead so that its more-simpler and more-intuitive. One could try to jam a mini-definition of "ideal" into the lead, or maybe just "prime ideal" but why? Ideals occur in pretty much all branches of algebra; yet another definition won't save the reader if this is a new concept to them. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Is article too technical?
Category talk:Parks and open spaces in London

message: This category will, I fear, be only a needle in a haystack insofar as "parks and commmons" in London are concerned. The title itself raises questions:
* is it intended to cover the whole of all the London boroughs? Many of those on the list so far are in Central London, and are the obvious ones, although at least a couple are tiny spaces. Even so there are quite a few omissions, but obviously no article exists (eg Wandsworth Common).
* is it meant to cover all open spaces? It strikes me that "parks and commons" can be misinterpreted. There are a number of country parks (eg the huge Hainault Forest in Redbridge, for example). And one of those smaller entries is really only playing fields ... as are many of the others
*  It may be interesting to note that the London Borough  I know most about has no less than 100 parks and open spaces. Multiply that by 20-odd other Boroughs and this has all the potential of a huge list! 
Has the category been thought through? Peter Shearan 18:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am now searching the London stubs to see if any exist but are not included here. In doing so I discover another point which ought to be considered. As an example see the London Borough of Greenwich entry for Plumstead Common]. Looking at a map it can be clearly seen that the reason for the way that Greenwich show this as one item is that they are a "lung" for the Borough. To take them in isolation will have two effects:
* the connections between them will be lost
* we will end up with hundreds (since this is a common feature (no pun intended)) of similar cases all over London. 
Surely the best plan will be in these instances to have articles for each Borough, leaving the smaller ones within the articles and cross-referencing the larger ones? Peter Shearan 09:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

message: It seems a shame to have the big lists mixed in with the individual parks.  Anyone agree ?  Morwen - Talk 10:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No strong opinion really. Perhaps they could be grouped by a category pipe? Mrsteviec 21:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parks and spaces articles 

message: I made one sub category for the 25 or so articles i did on Croydon and named it Category:Parks and open spaces in Croydon, now there is one of these categories for every London Borough which i find pointless! These other articles hardly have anything in them and think that it's only being used so that Croydon won't stand out amongst the other boroughs. I made thecategory and template for a reason, to accomodate all the articles i made. Unless someone is willing to do this for all the other categories than i think that the small amount of articles in the categories already should be put back into this category, apart from  the Croydon one which has a reasonable amount of linking articles!! Pafcool2 12:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub categories
Talk:U.S. Route 202

message: *DE: 13.06 mi 
*PA: 57  (AASHTO); 60.7 Google Maps
*NJ: 80.31 
*NY: 22.62+0.29+0.25+24.22+8.19 = 55.57
*CT: 75.14 
*MA: 79.5635 
*NH: 95.178 
*ME: 169  (AASHTO); 170.1 Google Maps (includes portion beyond I-395 which is not part of the official alignment); 168.52 (Maine  route log)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaron (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official lengths 

message: The directions in the infobox were changed from north/south to east/west.  Is there a way for the infobox to reflect both?  In DE, PA and maybe even all of NJ, US 202 is signed as north/south.  I think in NY, its marked east/west, but I don't know about the remainder in New England.  VerruckteDan 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: East/West in NH. ZueJay (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New York too. ----DanTD 03:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction
Talk:Robert Lamm

message: I wanted to mention that Lamm could play piano by ear, but I don't know where to bring it up. (Also I don't have a reliable source to cite, but that can be fixed.) I could really use some help with all this. Thanks!
Cap'n Tightpants (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  You don't do anything at all without a WP:RS, so read WP:5 and get that reliable source!  Feel free to post it here and ask for someone like me to review and possibly include it. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible content addition 

message: "After the advent of MIDI, keyboards became superfluous." What a foolish thing to say. Jackhammer111 (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  superfluous
Talk:John Loewen

message: Does anyone know if Loewen has resigned from the Manitoba legislature yet?  If not, what are his plans for when the legislature reconvenes -- will he sit as an independent, or a Liberal?  CJCurrie 19:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: An earlier edit to John Loewen's biography page indicated that he refused to channel gambling revenues to the Winnipeg Jets, and may have been responsible for the team leaving the city.
This information was inaccurate, and has been withdrawn.  
Some Wikipedia duplication sites still convey this inaccurate information.  Where possible, this should be changed.  CJCurrie 00:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: I've heard that Loewen is supporting Gerard Kennedy.  Can anyone confirm this from a reliable source?  CJCurrie 03:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 leadership campaign
Talk:Patpong

message: Regarding : I am glad that you love my work, yet I do not appreciate being insulted by having my edits publicly called "half-legit and half-insulting". At the very least, I demand an explanation on the Talk page if any of my edits are reverted. 
Regarding the issue at hand: transwoman is not the same as kathoey; it is clearly a superordinate concept and linking to it in parentheses is both misleading and superfluous as the kathoey already provides the correct definition. AxelBoldt 19:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

message: The geographical coordinates were removed twice, the second time  with the comment "yet another stupid fetish by people with no real contribution to make". I do not appreciate the language nor the attitude expressed with these words. The location information is 
* correct and verifiable, 
* useful (to find the place with a GPS device in the real world, and to view air photos and maps via our automatic geographic coordinate links),
* and obviously relevant,
and therefore stays in the article. AxelBoldt 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location information removal
Talk:Area codes 757 and 948

message: This article was merged with and redirected to List of North American area codes as a result of an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 20:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: Many locations aboard Naval Station Guantanamo Bay have numbers in the 757 area code.  Unknown if this extends to residences, barracks, pay phones, or government or personal cell phones, or to non-Exchange retail facilities, but this seems to be worth mentioning.  https://www.military.com/base-guide/naval-station-guantanamo-bay/base-directory  knoodelhed (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTMO 

message: This map didn't show that 304 in West Virginia  has 681 overlay. It only has 304 in West Virginia. Carlm0404 (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighboring area 304
Talk:U.S. Route 206

message: Any info on why a North-South highway was given an even number? 98.221.124.80 (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's numbered as a spur of US 6. 69.125.229.110 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Even

message: This article needs some updating as construction is in progress
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/041318.shtm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needforspeed888 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the article. Dough4872 04:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillsborough Bypass 

message: See https://www.usends.com/milford.html for the conflicting evidence on that point. 69.125.229.110 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Terminus
Talk:U.S. Route 7

message: Per WP:USRD's informal "three state rule" if a highway goes through three (or fewer) states, any state-detail articles should probably be merged into the main highway article.  From a maintenance standpoint, editors would only have to maintain one article. –Fredddie™ 16:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to Twinkle not being able to do it automatically, I have placed similar notices on U.S. Route 7 in Massachusetts and U.S. Route 7 in Vermont. –Fredddie™ 16:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[U.S. Route 7 in Connecticut]]
Category talk:Lists of rivers

message: a lot of categories here need to be properly alphabetized, since most of them are under "L" for "List" right now.  we should go to each of them and change the category links so that they say something like "Category:List of rivers in Foo|Foo" instead of just "Category:List of rivers in Foo" so that they sort properly.  --Doviende 20:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alphabetizing
Talk:Shoji

message: @User:HLHJ, do you have a source for /ɕoɯʑi/? Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Suzukaze-c, I think I used a hiragana-IPA correspondence table, and am not surprised if this fails to give the correct pronunciation. I am happy to accept any correction, and I'd be even happier to have a source. Thank you for improving the article. HLHJ (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: In the second paragraph of the lead, the article states: The posts are generally placed one tatami-length (about 2m or 3ft) apart.... Two meters ≈ six feet? 76.119.40.77 (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 76.119.40.77, that was remarkably stupid of me. I did know that a meter is ~3ft, but somehow mistyped, and I have a habit of ignoring Imperial measurements when reading, so I never noticed... It is now fixed. Next time, please feel free to fix it yourself; it would improve the encyclopedia. HLHJ (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post distance
Talk:Their Law: The Singles 1990–2005

message: Anyone know why "What Evil Lurks" isn't included? Seems strange to omit it. --kingboyk 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Prodigy fans were able to vote which singles they wanted to be included on the first disc. Seems like WEL wasn't popular enough. Howlett remarked that he was a little disappointed because so few of the old singles were voted to be included by the fans. You may wonder why WEL isn't on the second disc of rarities and special tracks, but on the other side it didn't include any singles. cun 11:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that (what you've just told me about how the album was compiled ought to be in the article by the way). I guess fans wouldn't vote for WEL because many of them won't have heard it, and a lot of fans came to the band from "Firestarter" onwards (thereby missing the best material AFAIC!). It's really too bad it didn't make it to disc 2 though. --kingboyk 21:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "What Evil Lurks"
Talk:Order of operations

message: Logical OR and logical AND are non-associative and therefore should have equal precedence. Darcourse (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Logical AND typically binds tighter than logical OR, because people like to write expressions like A && B || C && D and have that mean (A && B) || (C && D). It's possible there's some programming language where this doesn't hold, but it would be mildly practically inconvenient. –jacobolus (t) 15:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programming languages 

message: Should we be including ISO standards in the "Mixed division and multiplication"? The standards include authoritative answers to some of the questions and ambiguities, for instance 80000-2-(9.6) states that '÷' "should not be used" for division (see division sign) and 80000-1 (7.1.3) states that the solidus "shall not be followed by a multiplication sign or a division sign on the same line unless parentheses are inserted to avoid any ambiguity". Unfortunately the standards aren't freely available and I have only come across snippets that others have posted elsewhere. StuartH (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to mention, though I'm not sure anyone follows this per se, in practice. –jacobolus (t) 06:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added as a minor update for now - I think you're right that very few people even know about the standard but it is still the standard and probably warrants a mention. StuartH (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO 80000
Talk:U.S. Route 1/9 Truck

message: There is much disagreement among sources about the number of the east-west section (Communipaw Ave etc) - some say 25T, some say 25M (of which there was another at New Brunswick, now 171), and some even say 25. --SPUI (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: State Route designation

message: http://www.panynj.gov/doingbusinesswith/seaport/pdfs/cpip/CPIP_Plan/V1_App_B.pdf
Designates 1/9 as "Regionally significant highway facilities"
Has a nicely worded description that "Truck 1/9 continues north to Jersey City, Union City, and North Bergen, and splits in the vicinity of the George Washington Bridge"
Finland 203 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  info to be added 
Talk:Aviation law

message: Statred article but need to expand it.--Mike 20:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pritzker Architecture Prize

message: A section counting the number of awards by country has been recently added to the article. I doubt this has any educational value. First of all, the prize is awarded based on individual merit, and is independent from the country of origin, country of residence or country of practice of the laureate. Second, there is no objective basis for assigning an architect to a country when his/her country of origin differs from the country of residence and practice. Third, the Hyatt Foundation is based in the US, and in the first 6 years had an obvious North American focus. The section IMO reads like a trivia, has no relevance, and therefore should be removed. Elekhh (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure why you dislike the table. It is only for an informational purpose. If the prize is awarded based on individual and there is no objective basis for assigning an architect to a country, then why don't you remove the "Nationarity" in the table? That said, if anyone other than you votes for deletion, I will not object to the removal. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually find the nationality column with the flags also somewhat distracting (see MOS:FLAG), however at least it provides some background information about each individual. Adding up the countries is what I find irrelevant, and it makes the Prize appear like a sports-trophy. Also, if you visit the official Pritzker website you'll see there is no such emphasis on nationality. -Elekhh (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As an editor who helped get this to featured list status, I'd have to agree with Elekhh's assessment of the summary table.  On an individual basis, it is interesting to note the nationality of the various winners, but it seems irrelevant to add up the "national" wins...  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of awards by country

message: A suggestion based on this article for Nobel prize in Literature  showed that the meaning of table label "Example Work" was not clearly read as meaning 'the thing cited in the award announcement'.  I think it would be better to change that to 'Cited work' or something -- anyone have a better label ?  Markbassett (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of table column Example Work

message: I don't really get what kind of rules or regulations have been broken by adding photos of some laureates from wikimedia commons. The quote "no fair use rationale for inclusion of this image in this specific article" would need some clarification.. Vasarchit — Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:FUR.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo section
Talk:The Sifl and Olly Show

message: Does anyone know if there is a connection (inspiration, parody, whatever) between Sifl and Olly and Kukla, Fran and Ollie? —Josiah Rowe 21:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No connection--see the comment from Liam Lynch on the "sockheads" email list here. Hypnosifl 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sifl, Kukla, Fran and Olly?

message: I don't believe it's true that Jimmy never appears on screen. I remember an episode in the second season where Olly was trying to embarass Sifl on-air, and he brought Sifl long-lost "father" on the stage, but it turned out it was just "our cameraman Jimmy".
I think he appeared on the season 3 DVD as well, where there was no one calling in for Calls from the Public, so they had Jimmy call in and he appeared in the normal Calls "bubble"
--Sportyboard 22:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cameraman 

message: I'm going to remove the following line from the popularity section:
During the beginning of the Futurama episode entitled "Parasites Lost", the song "We Got A Mighty Convoy" is playing in the background while the Planet Express crew stops at a gas station.
The Song "Convoy" by C.W. McCall was in an episode of Sifl and Olly, but there's no reason to assume that it was included in a Futurama Episode based on the popularity of Sifl and Olly. Convoy was so popular there was a movie based on the song released in 1976.
    - Also, Homer Simpson sings it in the "Timmy O'Toole" episode of The Simpsons. It's one of 
      Homer's many favourite 70s novelty songs. Greenaum 81.101.58.131 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convoy is not a Lynch/Crocco song 
Talk:Wolf River (Tennessee)

message: The Category Canoeing venues should probably be removed as this really covers constructed venues rather than "good canoeing rivers". Not sure what category should be used instead. GhostInTheMachine 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: I'm deleting the unsigned edit claiming that the river was named after "British General James Wolf" (sic). In all of my research into the name's origin, I never came across this information. Plus, the British officer's surname was "Wolfe." Since he died winning Quebec from the French, it's possible that the Wolf River in Wisconsin was named after him. Spellings of rivers and towns can change over time, but the dude's name will always be Wolfe.
Bridgman (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of river's name

message: I'm still a bit confused after reading this.  So, the current mouth of the river is actually a canal dug?  The river used to flow west, but then turned directly south to flow between Mud Island and the mainland?  And, finally, that means that it was damned off at were it bent south?  Any historic maps showing the course before it was manipulated? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouth