lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Rembrandt

message: JAMA Ophthalmology published articles in 2018 and 2019, theorizing, then refuting, that both Rembrandt and Leonardo may have had undiagnosed exotropia (commonly, "walleye"), a type of strabismus—an eye misalignment. Exotropia typically leads to favoring one eye, leading to vision resembling those seen when painted on a flat canvas.
I've removed this section as WP:UNDUE (and it was placed far too high). All top artists are plagued by this sort of thing. Note that a) the journal backed down, and b) as usual it was in the Christmas issue of the journal, no doubt alongside the studies on which chocolates the nurses take first from mixed boxes. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Posthumous

message: In the text Rembrandt is referred to as "a Dutch Golden Age painter", not as a "Dutch painter". However, not all painters of the Dutch Golden Age were actually Dutch. Therefore, this is potentially confusing and definitely not accurate. Should this be replaced by a normal reference (e.g. "Dutch painter") to his nationality? Nico Gombert (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "a Dutch Golden Age painter" be replaced?
Talk:Quakers

message: :Greetings: The article fails the WP:B-class criteria. It is tagged with "citation needed" from September 2018, in the "Universalist" subsection, and in the "Calendar and church holidays" subsection from October 2022, as well as an August 2019 "needs additional citation" section tag. 
:The B-class criteria (#1) states,   --  Otr500 (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues and classification
Talk:Redshift

message: The lead says, "Gravitational waves, which also travel at the speed of light, are subject to the same redshift phenomena." But then it would be true that gravitational waves are subject to redshifting by gravitational potentials. Is this true? Praemonitus (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redshift of gravitational waves 

message: is not the right word for two descriptions of the same thing changing correspondingly. 184.97.176.97 (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I removed it as unnecessary. Praemonitus (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  simultaneous
Talk:Rocket

message: 49.163.220.26 (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2023 (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. Cannolis (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2023 

message: I love nuclear thermal rockets as much as the next guy, but I don't think a picture of a uranium gas core rocket (regrettably still in the theoretical domain) is representative for the 'rocket propellant' section. 2A0C:5BC0:40:1A9E:B25C:DAFF:FE32:7DF1 (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas Core Light Bulb?
Talk:RNA world

message: FWIW - (For being aware only of newly published relevant studies - not necessarily to incorporate into the main article) - On 8 July 2022, astronomers reported the discovery of massive amounts of prebiotic molecules, including for RNA, in the galactic center of the Milky Way Galaxy. - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loads of prebiotic molecules found in Milky Way? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jellyfish829 (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Molecular Genetics

message: This section seems to have little to do with the RNA World hypothesis specifically and would therefore be a better fit for the general RNA article instead of this one. But I’m no biologist, so I might be misunderstanding the content. 174.50.77.178 (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. It will be done. Chhandama (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the “RNA in Therapeutics” section be moved?
Talk:Roman Inquisition

message: Is there a reason not to combine Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and this article? Are they actually "different" offices, or has merely the name and possibly the focus changed? My Catholic history is somewhat lacking, and I'm not sure which would become the actual article title. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge
Talk:Russian Revolution

message: HARD TO NAVIGATE 149.19.43.45 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  plz make this user friendly 

message: the following passage was hard to read, and seemed to have run-on sentences that were hard to follow. i also felt like it was not formal or objective.
This is the 3rd paragraph under october revolution. 
"The provisional government with its second and third coalition was led by a right wing fraction of the Socialist-Revolutionary party, SR. This non-elected provisional government faced the revolutionary situation and the growing mood against the war by avoiding elections to the state Duma. However, the October revolution forced the political parties behind the newly dissolved provisional government to move and move fast for immediate elections. All happened so fast that the left SR fraction did not have time to reach out and be represented in ballots of the SR party which was part of the coalition in the provisional government. This non-elected government supported continuation of the war on the side of the allied forces. The elections to the State Duma 25 November 1917 therefore did not mirror the true political situation among peasants even if we don't know how the outcome would be if the anti-war left SR fraction had a fair chance to challenge the party leaders. In the elections the Bolshevik party received 25% of the votes and the Socialist-Revolutionaries as much as 58%. It is possible the left SR had a good chance to reach more than 25% of the votes and thereby legitimate the October revolution but we can only guess."
if anyone is looking to improve this page i think this would be a good thing to do 169.231.184.32 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  this passage should be re written 

message: Things led to russian revolution 41.114.208.160 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: the description of (UTC) Mbetye (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things led to the russian revolution
Talk:Risk management

message: — Assignment last updated by Jessssy (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

message: Nature of risk management 103.133.254.24 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of risk management  

message: — Assignment last updated by Wangzitong1018 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu
Talk:Runes

message: CNN reports that runes dating back to about year 0 have been found. It's not a scholarly source so, so I'm not adding it. But assuming it's true, we should put the earliest runes further back. Herostratus (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The new Norwegian find is from the period AD 150-250. It does not push the starting date of the runes themselves back. But it may be the oldest inscription on a stone known to date. Note that it is not a runestone in the sense of a standing above-ground memorial. It is a slab used to line the inside of a cremation grave pit. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older runes found? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved.  Favonian (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Runes →  – Does not meet either of the two requirements of WP:PLURAL. Treetoes023 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 February 2023 

message: The section on scholarly work on runes is rather brief and gave me the impression that the study of runes finished long ago. However, when searching for rune frequencies (n-grams), I found that linguistic research is actually ongoing. There is an active scholarly journal, The International Journal of Runic Studies with current articles . There is an ever growingdatabase of runes. I understand that Runic Studies deserves its own entry, but the section here should say a little bit more.  B9 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern academic work  

message: On 7 July, User:156.61.250.251 changed multiple instances of en.us spelling to the en.us alternative. I reverted, citing MOS:ENGVAR and wrote to them on their talk page  Nevertheless, they reinstated their edit, which was reverted again by user:Notrealname1234 again citing ENVAR. They also began a discussion at my talk page, which I have now transferred here. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Background
Talk:Rational root theorem

message: At the end of "A Proof" it says, "Thus... p/q is a root of f(x)."  That's not so at all, is it?  The proof starts with "Suppose p/q is a root..."  Wouldn't it be best if the conclusion reminds the novice (me) of the conditional nature of the theorem: "IF a rational root exists, then..."?
Thanks.
--Dan kirshner (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: One question

message: I have a couple of questions and suggestions about this article.  I'm new at this so please bear with me.
The parenthesized comment in the first line seems awkward to me because it suggests that the 'rational root test' is used to find the zeros, whereas the rational root theorem has another purpose.  I suggest it be inserted after the parenthesis or removed altogether as superfluous.
As well, to be more specific, perhaps 'rational' should be inserted in 'constraint on solutions.'
The subscript on the constant coefficient is too large.  It looks ugly and interferes with the reading.
In formal writing, I don't like a sentence to begin with an abbreviation.  For example, further down the page, a sentence begins with 'E.g.'.
The exponents further along should be re-formatted to be consistent with the rest of the article.
'Rational Roots theorem' should be changed to 'rational root theorem' (although I guess the caps could stay on 'rational' since it is the name of something.
In the sentence 'Any polynomial ... must have a root in the set of real numbers' how about writing 'must have a real root' instead, and indicating the reason being that the roots come in conjugate pairs and reals are self-conjugate?
The formatting of subscripts and exponents in 'A Proof' needs improvement (I don't yet know how to do this).
I have a couple of general questions that I know belong in another place but don't know where.
On Wikipedia, are split infinitives okay?  I don't like them and have a tendency to edit them out, but I don't want to appear pedantic or quarrelsome.
Do corrections of obviously misplaced modifiers require prior discussion (after all, such an edit usually does change the meaning of the sentence).
Thanks for any comments or help,
Aliotra (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A few questions

message: with Factor theorem?--Mongreilf (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is a different result that also happens to be about polynomials. Xnn (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Afghan Civil War (1928–1929)

message: Afghanistan clearly existed as a sovereign state in the early 1920s.  Since the article has been written specifically about Afghanistan and it's rulers from 1919-1929, the Afghanistan template is more applicable.
--Khampalak 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Dispute 

message: The term "Afghanistani" is incorrect and has never been used as a self-designation by it's people or by other nations.  "Afghan" is the official designation for the citizens of Afghanistan as well as anything related to Afghanistan and it's history, culture, etc.  Please refrain from using "Afghanistani" in the future.  Thank you.
--Khampalak 14:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "Afghan" a specific tribal identity, though, not necessarily indicative of all people who live in Afghanistan?  Thus, wouldn't "Afghanistani" be more accurate in indicating all people who live in the region and not just one ethnic identity?--76.22.88.212 (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect terminology 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved as a technical request to revert an undiscussed move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Srnec (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Afghan uprising (1928–1929) →  – Yesterday User:LetMeLiveFr changed the title from "Civil War" to "Uprising". I wish I could revert his undiscussed move, but I can't seem to figure out how to do that. So, I am manually creating a page move request on the talk page, but this page should be moved to "Civil War" in the case of a "No Consensus" result, since that was the status quo.
Anyhow, LetMeLiveFr's rationale for changing the title was "Most books here use "uprising"; Saqqawists were defeated within weeks; This can't be considered a civil war". First of all, not only is "Saqqawists were defeated within weeks" factually untrue (from the initial uprising to their ousting, took 11 months) - it's also WP:SYNTH and WP:OR - even if it were true, you - a user - can't use the length of a conflict to judge how it should be described.
Second of all - Most books here use "uprising". But do they though? Kabul Under Siege: Fayz Muhammad's Account of the 1929 Uprising (on which the bulk of this article is based) refers to this as a "civil war" on page 93. Progressive Afghanistan also uses the term "civil war". I see no reason to change the long-standing title to "uprising". Koopinator (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Hey look, User:LetMeLiveFr has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, so it's not likely he'll come in to oppose this move now. Guess this is just a matter of waiting for an admin to take a procedural action now. Koopinator (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 October 2023
Talk:Richard Nixon

message: Is he mentioned in this article? (I can't find it.) He served as ambassator to India, amomg other posts, and had a significant effect. Krok6kola (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

message: Pigs were the reason why Nixon became a hog. 81.145.42.114 (talk) 09:55, 9 May 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) 10:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024
Talk:Socrates

message: please explain how the political climate is relevant here. I don't think the paragraph that I removed does this. Thanks, Willbb234 13:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: hi @Willbb234. Apologies for the delay. I 'll try to reply as soon as I have some spare time. Cinadon36 08:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @Willbb234, Apologies for the late reply. The political climate is pivotal for grasping the trial of Socrates. A prevalent theory suggests that the trial was politically motivated, as elaborated within the section. It's crucial to provide readers with contextual information regarding the political climate of the time to fully comprehend the political argument presented in the article.Cinadon36 07:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political climate
Talk:Sega

message: Based on Shuji Utsumi's promotion. But I don't really get what's changed here or if the previously listed people are in new roles, so I'm hoping someone else can figure it out instead. Popcornfud (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: When the next fiscal year end report comes out will probably be a good primary source for this.  If I recall correctly their fiscal years end at the end of March, so it may be a couple of months. Red Phoenix talk 15:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. We should probably at least update Utsumi's title, since that's known, right? Popcornfud (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: With a source, yes of course. Red Phoenix talk 23:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the info + source to the body earlier this week. I've gone ahead and added the info to the infobox too, and I removed the two other guys listed there, as leaving them in the infobox would be self-contradictory. Popcornfud (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key people needs updating in the infobox
Talk:Soviet Union

message: Aren't they supposed to be called "Premier" of "Chairman" W1k1Us3r.0924 (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the main leaders had various titles. Lenin was Premier, Stalin was General Secretary, etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the leaders called "main leader" 

message: You know how the RSFSR's Wikipedia page has both the 1st and last symbols from the RSFSR? Why not do that for the USSR? I mean, it had 5 flag changes, which is beyond too much, why not have both the 1922-1923 flag/coat of arms, and the 1955-1991 flag/coat of arms? 342rfawrfarefarwf (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the infobox's symbols. 

message: Second-to-last paragraph of lead section:
"In the mid-1980s, the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, sought to reform the country through his policies of glasnost and perestroika."
If people disagree that's fine, but I suggest the change of "In the mid-1980s" to "From 1985", as that was when Gorbachev became the leader of the USSR. Thank you! 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:5410:DC5F:EA4B:FD94 (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024 

message: I want to add a section of the pros and cons of the soviet union. Longlivethesovietunion (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

text: There is already a section titled "Legacy".  Do you have material that would be suitable to add to it? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024 

message: I want to make some changes to allow a more positive outlook for people visiting the page. Coolperson45 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 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. Charliehdb (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2024
Talk:Seafood

message: It said: "Molluscs (from the Latin molluscus, meaning soft ) are invertebrates with soft bodies that are not segmented like crustaceans. Bivalves and gastropods are protected by a calcareous shell which grows as the mollusc grows."
This is not a good description. Monoplacophora do show segmentation. These are not eaten, but the description above appear to include all molluscs, so one would have had to point this out. Crustaceans would not have been the only group of sea creatures that show segmentation even if that was the case; vertebrates are segmented, so are annelids. And marine chelicerates too, even if they are not eaten. There are many gastropods that don't have shell. The edible species do, but readers visiting the article could get the wrong impression. Therefore the introduction is trimmed and slightly modified. 46.212.117.57 (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of molluscs

message: The list includes freshwater organisms as seafood, however the definition only includes saltwater organisms.
The definition should be updated to include freshwater. 149.22.193.45 (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  freshwater seafood
Talk:Science fiction

message: I'm currently researching and rewriting the WP article on Nat Schachner and spent weeks looking for biographical material on him. I couldn't find any sources that provided Schachner's personal background until stumbling upon the St. James Guide to Science Fiction Writers (1996) on the Internet Archive. Its profile also included a brief though helpful essay on Schachner, for which I'm grateful.
I was surprised, then, to find no reference to this work in the Science Fiction article. That's just an observation, not a criticism. My question is: Where would this book best be included in the article? A few possibilities come to mind, though there may be others:
* As a citation for text in the article (current or added)?
* As a general work under General and Cited Sources?
* As an External link?
I'd appreciate feedback. And I'd also appreciate if anyone knows where I can find more information on Schachner. BTW, I've gathered links on the Internet Archive to as many of Schacher's stories as I could find (around 90% of his work). If you'd like to read his stories, check out his Bibliography. As for the article, so far I've only posted the lead, though I have most of the article written, and I'm currently in the process of adding the citations. Allreet (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''St. James Guide to Science Fiction Writers'' 

message: The redirect American science fiction has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:American science fiction]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Korean science fiction has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Korean science fiction]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Star Trek

message: If we are moving individual sections for each of the shows, something I agree with, we should also move the top ten episodes section.  I don't think it is controverial, so i will do so now. Oldag07 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unsure whether the information should be included anywhere, but perhaps List of Star Trek television series#Critical response is more appropriate than the current location? - adamstom97 (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I am hesitant to remove information outright. i am more of an advocate to spin the information off into sunpages. After looking very hard for a better location, the list of Star Trek television series seems the best out of a lot of not so great options. Oldag07 (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving episode ratings section

message: A proposal has been made to move the List of Star Trek episodes page into the List of Star Trek lists. Discussion Oldag07 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged Oldag07 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to move the List of Star Trek episodes into the List of Star Trek lists