lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:The Human League

message: Consider placing a not-to-be-confused-with link at the top for The Humane League. Jess_Riedel (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This was  NE Ent 12:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humane league 

message: Should we include in the lead or in the info block that The Human League are also listed as "Human League" (with no article)?  The albums reflect the name both ways, and even the band themselves seem to vacillate as to whether the article is used.  Either way, of course, it's going to be impossible to cite definitively…  2601:3CA:204:F860:F983:FD48:261D:D03A (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate name
Talk:Hyper-threading

message: Hyperthreading is pure marketing term for three totally different things: Either SMT(Core series processors and Pentium 4/Xeon), coarse-grained multi-threading(Itanium) or fine-grained multi-threading(old Atoms).
In the core-series "hyperthreading" there is nothing proprietary in the implementation. It's just SMT, which intel calls with it's marketing name. --Hkultala (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperthreading is pure marketing term, which this article does not say clearly 

message: In the second paragraph, it states that each logical core can run its own independent process. I was under the impression that there can only be one independent process per physical core, but that each process could spawn multiple threads to run concurrently on the different logical cores. Descriptions from Intel specifically stick to stating that only multiple threads can be run, and they don't mention processes, and other sources I've seen have stated that you can only run one process per physical core, but probably someone here knows more than me. The sentence in question: "With HTT, one physical core appears as two processors to the operating system, allowing concurrent scheduling of two processes per core." - Captain-Apone (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: On Linux, there's no scheduling difference between process and thread. In fact, a Linux process is just a container for at least one thread. Thus, discussing threads running on cores makes even more sense in that context. 141.162.101.52 (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Each logical core can run an independent process (vs can run a thread) 

message: As of this writing, Intel current 12th generation processors that include efficient cores (E-cores) are single threaded--not hyper-threaded.  I'm thinking this needs to be at least mentioned in this article, and with links to relative articles including:
Intel Core#12th generation
References/External links:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/resources/how-hybrid-design-works.html Macgyver24x7 (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance vs. Efficient cores (P-cores vs. E-cores) 

message: This article seems to flip-flop between the term processor and the term core. The terms should be clearly defined and used consistently. I am no expert, but my understanding is that each element that can do work for a thread of execution is a logical processor and that a core can have one or more logical processors, though physical processor is used in lieu of that meaning of core. (To my knowledge, there can be only one or two logical processors per core today, but in the future? Who knows?) Then there's the question of what is plugged into a socket and, today, has multiple cores. Is that a processor? Anyway, clear definitions and consistency of usage will be helpful. 141.162.101.52 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Processor vs. Core
Talk:Bolivia

message: Numbers and ranking of cities disagrees with List of cities and largest towns in Bolivia but both claim to be from 2012 census. 伟思礼 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population contradiction 

message: the MAS-IPSP party of Bolivia has been the ruling party of Bolivia ever since the mid 2000's, and it has a large control over the politics sector of the country. is this enough to be considered dominant-party or not? if so, then i will add that to the infobox of the country. JEVILOGEN (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sufficient in this format, which would be WP:SYNTH. The question would be whether sufficient reliable sources according to their due weight describe it as such. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I'd note that even if the country could have been reasonably regarded as a dominant party state, it may no longer fall into that category. I've seen a couple of sources describing the MAS as "no longer" hegemonic, even if its remains the most powerful party (Examples: 1, 2, 3). The party currently seem to be heading towards a split by the next election. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  can Bolivia now be classified as Dominant-party or not?
Talk:Josep Tarradellas Barcelona–El Prat Airport

message: The article is currently called "Barcelona-El Prat Josep Tarradellas Airport"; however, according to Aena's English website, the airport is called "Josep Tarradellas Barcelona-El Prat Airport". This would also be in line with other Spanish airports which include people's names, e.g. Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas or César Manrique Lanzarote. Vishal dh (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name with Josep Tarradellas 

message: Wikipedia has various references to 'Muntadas' Airport (e.g. Deutsche_Luft_Hansa#During_World_War_II ) and the wider internet has several references.  Given that there doesn't seem to have been any other international airport in Barcelona (?) are these references to El Prat?  
Gilgamesh4 (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Catalan Wikipedia thinks so, identifying the Aeròdrom Muntadas as one of three aerodromes amalgamated into the airport, which then took the Muntadas name for the duration of Franco's rule. Unfortunately, they cite the digital edition of the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana. I haven't found any non-encyclopedic sources myself. 86.178.124.211 (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the airport previously known as 'Muntadas' airport?
Talk:Borderline personality disorder

message: In the manipulation section:
"In one research study, 88% of therapists reported that they have experinced manipualtion attempts from patient(s)." 144.118.77.123 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Dawnseeker2000 21:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: The two paragraphs before the symptoms title contain the same information with different phrasings. 2A02:14F:17C:B4EE:0:0:1B0B:339B (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that, fixed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph duplication
Talk:Normal

message: A subgroup H of group G where Left-coset of H equal Right-coset of H. 
i.e. for any a in G, for h in H, ah=ha ( in symbols aH=Ha )
: Could a math guru tell what this is talking about? I can't tell what category it might fall under. --Twinxor 00:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an alternative definition of a normal subgroup but for the life of me I don't know why it's here. Ignore it. Gadykozma 00:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: Normal can mean many things indeed, so it is good for this to be a disambiguation page. To make this a true disambig, one would need to put the first paragraph, about behavior, to its own article, say called normal (behavior). Any objections to that? Oleg Alexandrov 23:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving the first paragraph to [[normal (behavior)]]?

message: I removed most of the links here, beacause there are over 100 pages that begin with "normal" and only some of them were included here. In most cases where someone is looking for one of those topics, they won't be searching for just "normal", but for the whole phrase, so most of those links were not very useful. In case someone gets here looking for "normal something-or-other", there is a link that lists all Wikipedia articles that begin with the word "Normal". What's left on this page is (hopefully) just the things that would likely be referred to as "normal" without any other qualifier. Nohat 06:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: major overhaul

message: Is it really necessary to strip out all the subcategorization in the math section?
It's fairly common when reading about mathematics to see something like "if X is normal, then..." and then the reader is left to figure out which of a dozen unrelated notions of "normality" are meant.  Having to go through a long list of things that may or may not be relevant seems unnecessary.  The stated rationale here is Wikipedia:MOSDAB but that page explicitly says "Long disambiguation pages should be grouped into subject sections, and even subsections as necessary."
Moreover, many of the words modified by "normal" here have multiple unrelated meanings in mathematics (e.g. "scheme," "variety", "distribution", "space") meaning that removing the categories is removing some necessary context. 
Separately, what's the rationale for removing several things, e.g. normal varieties or the second sense of normal numbers? Dan131m (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large edit for "style"
Talk:National Rifle Association

message: Change: In a 2018, in a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden and addressed to Congress, the NRA acknowledged it had accepted approximately $2500 in contributions from 23 Russian nationals or people associated with Russian addresses since 2015.
To: In 2018, in a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden and addressed to Congress, the NRA acknowledged it had accepted approximately $2500 in contributions from 23 Russian nationals or people associated with Russian addresses since 2015. Folgsta (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: - FlightTime (open channel) 01:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022 

message: The end of the Elections section says the NRA was the largest donor in the 2016 election of any "independent group." The source article from Open Secrets says "outside group." The question is the definition of "independent" vs. "outside," which normally mean the same for this purpose. If they do, the article is incorrect. Open Secrets itself lists Priorities USA Action Outside Spendinghttps://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/detail/2016?cmte=C00495861&tab=summary as the largest outside group with over four times the amount the NRA spent. QuilaBird (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue of largest outside donor
Talk:Galaxy Science Fiction

message: I think I have the first undefined reference <gold195210> fixed (it was at the end of the caption of the cover art image at the top) by using a reference to the covers from the body of the article. I can't tell where the second undefined reference <gold195201> can be defined. Geoff |  Who, me? 20:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now fixed; the problem was because when I removed some material (see the section above) I didn't take all of it; I took the part where the ref was defined, but not all the places it was used.  I've now removed all the material relevant to the section above and I think it's OK now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined references 

message: , I don't think there's a generally agreed standard that all magazine articles should have infoboxes.  I'm not against infoboxes in general -- I've written many articles about Anglo-Saxon kings which benefit from them -- but they're not automatically a benefit to every article, and I think that in this case the fields that are true across the whole life of the magazine are few enough that it's pointless to have one.
I think it's also worth mentioning that this article was promoted to featured article without an infobox, so there are at least some other editors who see no reason to add one.  Per WP:BRD I propose to remove the infobox again; please discuss here before re-adding it.  I'm not absolutely opposed to it, but I don't see the value, and would like to hear other opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox
Talk:Rabies

message: The article claims that the '78 corneal transplant case is "currently known to be the only human to human case of rabies in the United States." But i don't think this is true; in '04, rabies caused several US deaths after an organ transplant. Unless I'm mistaken about the meaning of human to human. I've removed the claim for now, but wondering if there's something I missed.
See: https://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/07/01/rabies.organ.transplant/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/us/fourth-rabies-death-reported-from-a-single-organ-donor.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazylittlefrog (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  US human to human case? 

message: my biology class is entering a wikipediathon for our 'final essay' grade this Thursday, we have been researching this topic for the entirely of the semester with a professor that double checks all our work to make sure it is wiki worthy, to be able to add the heavily researched topics i have and be graded properly in our class i need to have access to the rabies wiki page. 
my current topic is about rare cases of rabies, and unique cases of malpractice that has led to outbreaks. i am also doing a part of rabies epidemiology in south asian countries such as Cambodia, Thailand, and India. Megamilleron (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The form you used is for making requests of edits to the article. If you don't currently have anything to add/change about the article then please don't use this form. Once you have edits you wish to make you can resubmit this form with the changes, a source, and reasoning for them. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024 

message: The whole section, "Semi-Recent Unique Cases in Human Rabies" reads like a junior high school paper and is full of grammar and spelling errors Kptkrunch (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like this sentence: "This is through to be an extremely rare case in American medicine as human rabies has been eradicated for many years in the US, however it is thought that the treatment this man received wasn't through enough for doctors to treat him properly, without a blood sample they were unaware of how prevalent it was in his blood stream and gave him an insufficient amount of medication needed to halt the progression of the disease." I removed the section. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar and Spelling is Bad
Talk:Pie

message: In my opinion, both sections which contain different types of pies should be fully put into alphabetical order as not every type of pie listed is listed in alphabetical order which, in my opinion, could potentially make the article look unprofessional. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections containing different types of pies should be fully put into alphabetical order 

message: If pie throwing gets in here, then pie-eating contests should, too. https://www.leaf.tv/articles/how-to-plan-a-pie-eating-contest/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6XamPIhZM https://www.howcast.com/videos/281444-how-to-win-a-pie-eating-contest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_eating, www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/06/origin-competitive-eating-contests/, content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1820052,00.html, https://www.npr.org/sections/theprotojournalist/2014/11/13/360455809/8-epic-eating-contests-in-american-history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Pie_Eating_Championship213.109.221.139 (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pie-eating contests 

message: I have removed this content:
as being off-topic.  It might be possible to re-use it in another article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiquity 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Chocolate pie and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#Chocolate pie until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chocolate pie" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Please replace the spelling error "Puritain" with the correct "Puritan". 120.21.98.125 (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: RealAspects (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022
Talk:Politics of Morocco

message: What about Justice and Charity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.143.131 (talk) 
:Refer to Justice and Development Party (Morocco). -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justice and Charity 

message: The Green Left Party links to a turkish party. Amargaard (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Template Link Mistake
Talk:Participatory economics

message: I see a lot of room for improvements here.  The article could be organised better, made more consistent and more informative, and some parts clearly do not meet usual wikipedia standards.  The topic heading "Critique of tendency towards efficiency" does not seem to have anything to do with the subsequent text and should probably say "Critique of innovation under capitalism".  The criticisms section has problems in both directions.  One the one hand there are unsupported claims with no citations, such that Parecon needs a new bureaucratic class (which flatly contradicts earlier parts of the article), and on the other they are more several more criticisms out there (and responses) which pass the bar as reasonable sources.  Also there is no section on where this model comes from historically (which probably reflect how its originators and advocates choose to present it but has nothing to do with how an encyclopedia article should look).  If there are no objections I will attempts some major edits to make the article more internally consistent and informative.  Finally there are many, many places in this talk section where people grossly violate the guidelines at the top of wikipedia talk pages. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.  Assume good faith and don't be personally insulting (including being snide and snippy, which serves no purpose whatsoever).  I want to ask that people take care stick to these guidelines in any further discussion.
EveningTide (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements still needed
Talk:Critical temperature

message: Can this be covered here or on a different page? I don't think the references we have so far (see also ) really mean what's described here. Common Man 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superconducting critical temperature

message: The original table was unreferenced. I gave references for the new table , adding critical pressures and dropping some elements not in the references. Critical Pressure redirects to this page, so the expansion of the table and the highlighting of that phrase is appropriate. --Ben Best 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised with references

message: The critical temperature of tungsten is listed as 15500 K, and beside it, the Celsius temperature is supposed to be 15227. Since reliable measurement of such high temperatures is not currently possible, it seems obvious to me that the figure of 15500 K was calculated using thermodynamic methods, and that the two zeroes are not significant digits. But then, when one subtracts 273 to convert to Celsius, the answer should be 15200, due to a lack of significant digits further to the right. I have seen errors like this everywhere, even in the Guinness World Records. Who agrees with me?
Bbi5291 (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in precision 

message: This article does not appear to be sufficiently distinct to be its own. Should it be merged? Potatoswatter (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge from critical point (thermodynamics). This article is more intricately stated and referenced than that one, and critical point has meaning in mathematics that is useful in comprehension. For that matter, points hav an imajinary definition. BrewJay (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: If you think the material here belongs in critical point, then you support the merge proposal. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge to [[critical point]]
Talk:Side effect

message: There are many, many medical articles linking to this disambiguation page. To disambiguate the links on their pages, they should be directly linked to Adverse effect (medicine). However, this is a rather large task. I simply felt that I should let people know about this so that work can be done on changing the links to direct to the article of their intended meaning. -- Daverocks 11:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up the dab page itself, but can't find the man links to it referenced above (What links here doesn't show any).  Did somebody already fix those?  --RoySmith 16:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you say you can't find anything linking to side-effect. When I look at its What links here page, it yields almost 100 pages linking to it. Take a look. -- Daverocks 02:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link disambiguation 

message: I understand a "side-effect", while often taken to mean negative effect, could be neutral, or even positive. It's just an effect that isn't the main therapeutic or intended one, I think? Conversely, I suppose an adverse effect isn't necessarily a side-effect, if it is part the main/therapeutic effect (i.e. it has efficacy partly as a result of that negative effect). 
So while I do think that the common usage of side-effect does usually mean adverse effect (and would be more accurately and honestly called by that latter term) I'm unsure about side-effect redirecting to adverse effect as if synonymous. Also is there a need for one article on adverse effect (medicine) and one on adverse drug reaction? Be interested to know any other views. EverSince 12:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: We need Definitions for these and perhaps some other similar words!
(Example: http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-6111/misoprostol-oral/details/list-sideeffects  )
* Very common >=1/10
* Common (frequent) >=1/100 and <1/10
* Uncommon (infrequent) >=1/1000 and <1/100
* Rare >=1/10000 and <1/1000
* Very rare <1/10000
Source: http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/trainingcourses/definitions.pdf
ee1518 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - we should add this to the article (and say if the terms 'rare' etc, are mandated by FDA or EUMA etc) - and also to Adverse effect ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Added as new section. - Rod57 (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common, Infrequent, Rare side effects  

message: Diphenhydramine is marketed in the US to counter allergies (e.g., Benadryl - pink pill or capsule) and to counter insomnia (e.g., Sominex - blue pill or capsule), usually at slightly different prices in the same drugstore.  So, is the anti-insomnia effect a "side effect of Benadryl", while the anti-allergy effect is a "side effect of Sominex"? Acwilson9 (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  diphenhydramine?