lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Voice-tracking

message: New page. Give it time. I've got necessary graphics to put together. --Xj14y 22:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

message: As a listener, the biggest tip-off that the DJ isn't there is when they never give the time. Satellite feeds may give time, but not the hour, i.e. "it's 20 minutes past the hour," time zone unknown.
75.69.160.252 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Checks 

message: As an Australian broadcaster I have to add another argument in favour of vt'ing. Until circa the mid 90s many smaller regional markets, especially in the geographically isolated state of Western Australia, would simply rebroadcast capital city programs overnight since taylored automation was tricky or expensive to installl 
Most would use automation systems that would insert local promos and commercial breaks via satellite pulsing, (eg. 6fms...now WAFM, REDFM...) not all mind you...some wouldn't even bother trying to localise the feed. . As a kid I remember hearing one town's local spots (Radio 747 Esperance...now part of RadioWest) all heavily distorted without remedy for a week. Almost all would feature constant mismatching of local and network break times, leading to crashes back into cap city program midway through commercials, or worse, the interminable sound of generic production music beds (usually featuring highly repetitive melodies) playing as time fillers. I often heard them in their entirety, 3 or 4 minutes worth, before they would fade and rejoin the satellite feed for the final seconds of a song, a real song, like one the public would find in a record store. 
This without even mentioning the irritation caused by content (weather, competitions, call-ins or general chat) completely irrelevant to the audience of the relayed feed.  
I don't deny that even with current technology, badly executed examples of network programming are broadcast regularly here in  Oz. Sadly I hear this sort of audio-ebola most times I tune in outside the range of metro transmitters, sometimes even on metro radio. But at least there are some communities that now get to hear radio made intentionally for them. It may well be generic, pre-recorded and made elswhere...but if done with thought it's more relevant than what they used to put up with.
Ok...more of a diatribe than i intended, but current methods of voice tracking have  lead to vast improvements in what some listeners are served...not all...but some is better than not at all. 121.215.79.1 (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: This whole article needs work - the information is too detailed or useless in some parts, but lacking key information in others.
The sections don't make sense either. I don't know how to flag the whole page/article as needing help, but I tried with using my very limited knowledge of Wikipedia and the subject matter. Lamarr Otems (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign and Refresh 

message: bosa 2401:3C00:53:A7E1:B9D9:937D:4A74:2D09 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  bosan 

message: Edit by surjo creation 103.219.46.78 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by surjo creation
Talk:Michelin

message: so why do people keep editing it from tire to tyre 2607:FEA8:29E3:8A00:54B7:DAF3:B212:1D8D (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in the box immediately above this section, this article is written in British English and "tyre" is how the word is spelled in British English. See WP:ENGVAR for further information. DH85868993 (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  tire vs tyre 

message: I am proposing to merge ViaMichelin into this article. FactFindersEnigma (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @FactFindersEnigma i agree Gerçois (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

text: This would seem to work as a subsection under michelin much better than an independent article  Geardona (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the idea that ViaMichelin should be merged with Michelin. None of the other subsidiaries of Michelin have been merged with the main page, so it seems perfectly fine to leave ViaMichelin with its own page on Wikipedia. Also, there is already a subsection on the Michelin page called "Online mapping" that includes a summary of (and link to) the ViaMichelin page.  RBRust (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Support merging But I will not cry when the article goes to AfD as ViaMichelin looks like promo. The Banner talk 10:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion
Talk:Tarte Tatin

message: The "Larousse Gastronomique" dictionary states that the upside down apple (or pair) tart was an old specialty of the Sologne area. The Tatin sisters just made it famous.
*If this can be verified and properly cited it would make a good addition to the article. Anyone got a copy of this book they can cite from? Stoo 01:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Could you give pronunciations- I think that would be most appropriate and less amateurish for your dictionary
:Done. -Krasnoludek (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a pronunciation 

message: http://www.tarte-tatin.com/english/page/sommaire-en.html (external link) is not valid anymore. A lot of sites have the receipt, which site is the "good one" to be quoted here ?! --F5pbl 09:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links
Talk:Sperner family

message: Is it necessary (or even appropriate) to over-divide such a short article into tiny sections?
Also, the Q.E.D. thing is cute, but the hollow square notation is more consistent with mainstream mathematical practices.
Peter Kwok 00:18, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
:There's nothing wrong with Q.E.D.  Zaslav (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many short topics.  Each could be expanded (invitation!), but they are distinct, so they should have sections, IMO. Zaslav (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: Is there a difference between a Sperner family and a clutter? (See the other wiki page?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.35.183 (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhhmmm, seems like maybe not ... it seems we should merge that article into this one. An alternative would be to rename this article to be "Sperner's theorem", mention this theorem from the clutter article, and redirect "Sperner system" to point at "clutter". linas (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also called an antichain in combinatorics, though the article antichain is about the more general concept on posets —3mta3 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Done, although the clutter material is not as polished as what was already here. xnn (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clutter 

message: Example 1 claims that the blockers of a graph are the minimal dominating sets, but this is easily seen to be false: consider the 4-vertex path a-b-c-d.  Then {a,d} is dominating (and minimal), yet not a blocker as it doesn't intersect the edge b-c. Perhaps the author meant that the blockers are exactly the minimal vertex covers (which is true)?  Dotdotdotatsignapostrophe (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Example? 

message: I changed the field from "foundations" (Foundations and set theory) to "discrete" (Discrete math), because Sperner theory is part of combinatorics, not part of foundations of math or its relative, abstract set theory.  It happens to be about sets, but not about properties of sets themselves.  It belongs to the subfield of combinatorics, often called "extremal set theory" or "combinatorics of finite sets", that concerns relations between (finite) sets.  Zaslav (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field of math 

message: This article seems kind of schizophrenic, with the Dedekind number and Clutter sections only being about Sperner families (and not Sperner's theorem) while the Proof and Generalizations sections are only about Sperner's theorem (and not about Sperner families). Maybe it would benefit from being split into two articles? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split?
Talk:Prisoner in the Vatican

message: The title of this article should be "Prisoner of the Vatican" which is the correct translation of the Italian expression "Prigioniere del Vaticano." The current title, "Prisoner in the Vatican," corresponds to the Italian "Prigioniere nel Vaticano," an expression that I have NEVER heard.
:I plan to look into the question of where this article should be in the near future. I picked up Kertzer's book the other day - sounds interesting - and noticed the discrepancy as well. But as I'm unfamiliar with the topic (and it's located at "Prisonero en el Vaticano" on the Spanish Wikipedia, although that could also be a mistake), I'll leave it for now. Recognizance (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Prisoner of the Vatican

message: User:Srnec has proposed a merger of the Prisoner in the Vatican and Vatican during the Savoyard era (1870–1929) pages. I support this merger and propose the new article be called Papal States government-in-exile. Clr324 04:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose the title "Papal States government-in-exile", since being consigned to the Vatican does not constitute exile. Srnec (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: An anon editor Special:Contributions/2406:E003:E12:D601:C031:28CF:6BB3:14B3 tried to start a category for "Prisoner of the Vatican". 
A national category of prisoners would normally be a sub-cat of :Category:Law enforcement in Vatican City‎ and :Category:Prisoners and detainees by country. However, as this status applied only to 5 popes, creating a category for them would not be useful, as their position not the same as the prisoners of other countries. Moreover, those 5 popes are already listed in this article. – Fayenatic London 20:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category not created
Talk:Siletz

message: The second external link does not work. --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched on the title of the article in Google and found the new link really quickly. If you find a broken link, it's OK to go ahead and fix it yourself! Often the link has just been moved. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: Isn't it a bit misleading to list the population in the infobox as the vague "fewer than" the enrolled population of the confederated tribes that happen to share the same name? The population section is much clearer. Can we make this clearer in the infobox or leave it out completely? Valfontis (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the most accurate number available. The tribe isn't extinct; they are just widely intermarried with other tribes. If you have another source of population figures, feel free to change it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't implying the tribe was extinct. I don't have a better source (I can't find any population figures in Wilkinson), but as the text explains, the number was as low as 100, and then they stopped counting. I think this should be noted in the infobox, as well as the in the text, that's all. People might not understand the intermarrying thing. Valfontis (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population in infobox 
Wikipedia talk:Supervised editing proposal

message: feel free to edit the page! Erich 04:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about adding a lower level (call it "Level 0 supervision") where they're only supervised on some pages, not all? I can think of several editors who are fine, except on certain topics. Meelar (talk) 13:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: This sounds very work intensive for lazy unpaid admins. Sam [Spade] 22:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: well given they're unpaid I wouldn't call them lazy. but it needn't be an admin, it could be any user. And if a user can't find anybodyto supervise them... well its "see you later" time really isn't it? Erich 23:29, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Congruence of squares

message: The claim that finding square roots in a finite field is equivalent to factoring is incorrect. 
In fact, finding square roots in a finte field is easy. Here is a link to an interactive web
page that does it:
Finding square roots (mod N) where N
is not prime *IS* equivalent to factoring.
The confusion stems from the fact that the
integers mod N form a field if and only if N is prime.
:The article doesn't seem to mention this at present - but see Shanks-Tonelli algorithm --catslash (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Square roots

message: The paragraph that begins "A case where a congruence of squares will not yield a factor..." is nonsensical. For one thing it refers to something which is an ordinary number (or possibly a residue class) as a "pair". Aside from that, if we're already assuming that x is not congruent to plus/minus y (mod n), then why go on to consider the possibility that n divides one of x+y and x-y? This possibility is explicitly excluded. Do correct me if I'm wrong. I'll check back later on and delete the offending paragraph unless someone has done so already, or pointed out my mistake. Buster79 11:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More confusion 

message: Currently the article says There is a good chance that n will have common factor(s) with (x + y) (x − y). Looking at the history, I find it used to say This means that n divides (x+y)(x−y) but not (x+y) or (x−y) alone, so both (x+y) and(x−y) contain factors of n. Which seems to make more sense - but then it adds A simple gcd operation will extract a factor in most cases. Why only most??? --catslash (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your English is fine. The article specifies that x \not\equiv \pm y \pmod{n}, but 2 \equiv -3 \pmod{5}, so your example is not considered a valid congruence of squares. However in practice, one would search for x and y, satisfying x^2 \equiv y^2 \pmod{n}, and then check that x and y were different (or simply try to see if they give a proper factor) - so the procedure could fail at this stage. Perhaps the article should explain this. --catslash (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Good chance?
Talk:Ruffini's rule

message: As this page was 36KB long, I moved the old contents (actually, most of this page) to Talk:Ruffini's rule/Archive
:Habbit 00:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived content

message: Is there anyone to whom this:
: (x4 + 3x2 + 2)(x − 3)
does not look better than the following?
: (x4+3x2+2)(x-3)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) exists for a reason.  Note: in non-TeX notation, italicize variables, but NOT digits and NOT punctuation; put proper spacing aroung "+" and "=" and the like; use "−" rather than "-".  Don't write 3*5 or 3 * 5 or 3 x 5 if you mean 3 × 5 or 3 · 5. Michael Hardy 23:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  notation 

message: I think a section on how the Ruffini's rule method came to be named synthetic division would be useful. --Pchov (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Is there a difference between Ruffini's rule and synthetic division? —Tamfang (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundancy 

message: I removed the template as it is my opinion the subfect requires some specialty language, but as the above 'talk' items demonstrate, the article still needs work in other areas....condially....Makermark (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More encyclopaedic
Talk:Joe Forehand

message: The original version of the article included "a Texan Republican" as part of the description of Forehand. In my brief search I could not confirm this information, and it frankly seemed to be a bit irrelevant to the article, so I took it out. -Rholton 04:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What makes this individual noteworthy? He probably should a footnote in the pages of the corporation he was dismissed from. Morenooso 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What importance does this individual have? 
Talk:Relevance

message: There is a particular form of relevance known as institutional relevance that comes up when discussing the relationship between social institutions and the people in society. For instance, this notion specifically comes up when talking about the social and cultural trust that people may or may not give to the Roman Catholic Church. The ongoing question that arose from Gaudium et Spes is : how can the Church be relevant in a secular world ? ADM (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Institutional relevance
Talk:Communes of the Doubs department

message: If anyone is really enthusiastic, here's the beginning of the huge table in the article expressed in the new Wiki table format. 
This fragment of the table includes the first 10 data lines, but note that the final line is from elsewhere in the table. It was included since it is the longest Commune name and makes the third column as wide as that in the full table. 
INSEE code	Postal code	Commune
25001     	25320      	Abbans-Dessous
25002     	25440      	Abbans-Dessus
25002     	25440      	Abbans-Dessus
25003     	25340      	Abbenans
25004     	25310      	Abbévillers
25005     	25250      	Accolans
25006     	25360      	Adam-lès-Passavant
25007     	25530      	Adam-lès-Vercel
25008     	25750      	Aibre
25009     	25360      	Aïssey
5170      	25420      	Courcelles-lès-Montbéliard (CAM)
Have at it! -Rholton 05:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Konstantin Staniukovich

message: I hate to comment on my own work.  I am forced to write the following in self-defence.
I  wrote the article to fill in a link from the Russian language page on which I had been working for several days, sometimes logged in, and sometimes not.  Since Staniukovich happens to be among my favourite Russian authors (I have the 1977 edition I refer to in the text), and the stories are excellent reading in depths of the cold, cold winter, the article wrote itself.
No sooner had I submitted it than someone grabbed it and put it, first on the "cleanup" list, and then on the "copyright violations" list.  The reasons given were, more or less, as follows:  I don't know anything, I can't prove anything, I haven't found anything, but I smell a rat!
Forgive me, it is not pleasant to say the following.  The suspecting user's presumption is extraordinarily offensive.  The very fact that someone could, without providing grounds, cast doubt on amateur work, which is by its definition all this project is, is reprehensible.  I have no objection to what I wrote being edited, erased, or otherwise mutilated, that's what this wiki thing is all about.  Accusations of partisanship are one thing.  Accusations of copyright violation require grounds if they are not to be dismissed at once as slander. I wonder how many other would-be Wikipedists this 21-year old has wrecked the fun for.   That's the saddest part of it all.
By the way, as I write this, the article is still on the cleanup list.  What's the point?  All articles, except the one one copyright, are ALWAYS on the cleanup list so far as I can tell.  Wiki, right?
Now.  The facts of the writer's life condense material published elsewhere: in the introductory chapters of all the collected works (which are in Russian, by the way), and a very different summary of Staniukovich's life, apparently from the original Brockhaus-Efron encyclopaedia of 1890-1906, or from its uncompleted second edition, c. 1910-1916.  When I claim I wrote the thing off the yop of my head, that's literally true: I'd read the source materials, of course, but I didn't have them in front of me as I wrote. There was a mistake even: the guy died in 1903, not in 1902. The evaluation of the sea stories is mine.  It was written, remember, as a stub that got ahead of itself.
A. Shetsen.  Not logged in, but at: --68.148.211.161 11:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Stargate (device)

message: Actually, the intergalactic bridge creates an inconsistency into the mechanics of address-dialing.
A gate's address depends on it's location, and when it's moved, it's address changes as well. That means that gates outside the galaxy can not have an address and can not be dialed to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.121.135 (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dialing

message: I think this is article is far too detailed. I think that as Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise key concepts, there is no need for the instructions on how to dial the device, no need for the extensive translations of in-universe hieroglyphs, and no need for the constellation charts. I am going to remove content, for reference the article before tiding is Special:Permalink/859000766. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Unduly detailed
Talk:Bayard (legend)

message: I don't know much about this, but I'm questioning "Renaud, also known as Orlando".  My understanding is that Renaud appears in a lot of stories that also feature the more famous Orlando.  --Chinasaur 06:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That should read Rinaldo, not Orlando.  The mistake is also in my copy of Bulfinch.  It seems it's easy to get those two confused.  Smerdis of Tlön 11:41, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled
Talk:Beretta 92G Elite IA

message: I'm merging this page with Beretta 92 as it's only a variant of the original and th e page contains only duplicated data. Please see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages which lists the following guidelines:
* There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
* If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.
* If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.
Deon Steyn 09:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Central Arizona Project

message: The article asserts that Barry Goldwater "teamed up" to secure passage of the bill establishing the Central Arizona Project.  This seems doubtful in the extreme.  First of all, the legislation was enacted in 1968.  Goldwater was not in the Senate from 1965 to 1969, so with whom did he "team up" to secure passage of the bill?  As the cited article from the Arizona Republic points out, Goldwater's political philosophy was "Individual liberty, free-market economics and a reliance on individual initiative," which makes it unlikely that he would have supported anything like the Central Arizona Project, no matter how much good it would have accomplished for the benefit of the people.  Probably, the "bipartisan compromise" consisted of an agreement between Democrats and enlightened Republicans to keep Barry under wraps so that he would not interrupt the discussion with statements like "if we needed water when I was a boy, we did not ask the federal government, we dug ourselves a well."John Paul Parks (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree that it seems odd that someone like Goldwater would have supported this type of project, apparently it is true. See https://www.myheraldreview.com/opinion/central-arizona-project-once-had-a-provision-for-the-charleston/article_cd6f5392-1137-11e8-b4f5-bbfa23f7593a.html
Twirlnhurl (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

text: And the article does not mention the Central Arizona Project at all. Alexander Springstea (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Goldwater Hagiography

message: I liked this so much I listed it on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Mackerm 07:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled