Talk:Natural language processing

message: Removed a spam link (several times) to a website called ivrdictionary.  This is a thinly veiled attempt to put advertising on Wikipedia.  Links were added by several anonymous users within a tight IP range.  Website purports to list ivr terminology, but in reality it prominently displays an advertisement to Angel dot com, which is a commercial company that sells IVR related products.  The same links were added to other articles that are related to IVR technology.  Calltech 16:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove external link 

message: I suggest adding a link to stemming in the see also or subtasks or challenges. I am not sure who is responsible for editing this article though, and I don't want to edit it myself without asking. Is stemming too detailed, or a subtask of another subtask only like IR? Not sure. I thought it was a pretty popular problem. Josh Froelich 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorporate stemming?

message: I think everyone would agree the external links section is a complete mess and full of spam, vanity links, and other links that don't add anything to the article.  I count 47 external links.  I'm sure there is someone out there who supports each one, but I think we all can agree that 47 is too many and there is certainly some redundancy.
I know it can be hard to part with large chunks of an article, but I propose the following: we assume that we are going to delete all of them and anyone who wants a link kept should nominate it here on the talk page.  We can then discuss whether it actually adds something unique.  Please keep in mind WP:EL, also.
--Selket 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Implementations links should be removed per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK --Ronz 03:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: My vague understanding is that maximum entropy methods represent the state of the art in NLP these days; yet this article seems to fail to mention them. Could an expert clarify/elucidate? linas 13:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article is lacking a notable subject, it's usually the case that nobody got around to adding it.  Please be bold and add a review of maxent NLP stuff to the article as you see fit, remembering to cite your sources.  –jonsafari 20:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In most subareas of current NLP, machine learning is at the core of most implementations. It's true that Maxent (or logistic regression, as it's also known) and its generalizations (e.g. Conditional random fields) usually perform well for these tasks, but they are not the only method. I'd say that margin-based methods such as Support Vector Machines are at least as popular. Anyway, it's more important to expand the section about machine learning/statistical modeling rather than just adding a section about Maxent. Kallerdis (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Maximum entropy methods

message: Does anyone feel it necessary to distinguish between NLP and HLT?  If so, please visit that article—it desperately needs work.  On the other hand, perhaps it should simply redirect here to the NLP article. —johndburger 02:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Human Language Technology]] 

message: The following were added to the External links section.  Perhaps one or more might be used as a reference someday?
* Goutam Kumar Saha, English to Bangla Translator: The BANGANUBAD, International Journal -CPOL, Vol.18(4), pp.281-290, December 2005, WSPC, USA.
* Goutam Kumar Saha, Parsing Bengali Text - an Intelligent Approach, ACM Ubiquity, Vol. 7 Issue 13, April,   2006. ACM Press, USA. 
* Goutam Kumar Saha, The EB-ANUBAD Translator: A Hybrid Scheme, International Journal ZUS, Vol. 6A(10), ZUS Press, 2005.
* Goutam Kumar Saha, A Novel 3-Tier XML Schematic Approach for Web Page Translation, ACM Ubiquity, Vol. 6(43), ACM Press, 2005, USA.
--Ronz 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Papers

message: I was going to add this in, but I thought it might not be a good Idea.  If you guys can incorporate it well and fit it in, please do:  (I was going to put it after the 'I never said she stole my money' part.)
Accenting words can be very helpful in giving meaning to a sentence that contains negatives, because the speaker is saying that a specific fact is not true, and usually something else without one expressed specific is.  Sometimes accenting words in a sentence can still lead to confusion, like in "Go over there" because "over" is being used to describe the relative position of the destination, but when taken by itself, "over" means ontop of something.  The accent in this case implies a literal meaning of the word...
24.250.97.223 (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add confusion about accenting words? 

message: PRO As stated on my talk page. Not much there but don't see anything here either so maybe better to do a little something here. Perhaps a  § (NLU, Semantics, Discourse, Top Level Protocols, etc.) to which the NLU article can redirect. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  (NLU) Merge 

message: Set these to values that seemed reasonable to me and manually created the Comments page. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:natural language processing/Comments|Rating and Importance]] 

message: A significant subproblem not mentioned (directly) is that the great majority of people use words and grammar incorrectly. For example, one of the most frequently seen errors in written text is using "loose" for "lose", as in "Did anyone loose this book?". A typical grammatical error is a golf analyst talking about something being "between he and the hole" instead of "between the hole and him". In fact, if you listen to sportscasters on TV, hardly five minutes will go by without some kind of gross grammatical error or misuse of words. Tens of millions of people are often subjected to this for hours at a time, week after week, possibly having a negative effect on the way they speak.
Ironically, even the article is guilty of speech misuse under the "Subproblems: Speech acts and plans" heading where it says: "Can you pass the salt?" is requesting a physical action to be performed. Actually, the verb "can" means "able to" and as such, DOES request a yes or no answer rather than requesting a physical action. The correct, unambiguous wording is: "Please pass the salt." or at the very least: "Would you pass the salt, please." The question mark is intentionally not used because we are not really asking a question. Also notice that adding "please", like your mother surely told you, instantly clarifies that a physical action is being requested. 
Speech is only half of communication; the other half is the cooperation of the listener in trying to understand what the speaker means regardless of errors in speech. So any computerized natural language processor must be programmed not only with proper grammar and word meanings, but also with the ability to recognize and correct for IMPROPER speech. Any NLP program which requires perfect word usage, spelling, and grammar is not going to work very well.  71.154.253.96 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subproblems 

message: I do not see a discussion of the July 2008 merge suggestion. Natural language understanding is a field unto itself, and I am going to rewrite that article 99.99999% and put a "main link" so there is really no need for a merge. This article is not in good shape either, but it is a much larger field and will need much more attention. It does have several good points in it, but overall a new computer science student would be well advised not to read it until it has been cleaned up. Unless there are objections I will remove the merge flag later. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Forgotten Merge? Better forgotten

message: The second bullet point in the section 'Concrete problems' is copied verbatim from its source, http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0311.html?printable=1. Is there permission?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jann.poppinga (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good observation; thank you for pointing this out. I am working on this section and the problem should naturally drop out as the restructure progresses. TehMorp (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 'Concrete problems' 

message: When I began, concrete problems was essentially a list of largely unelucidated examples; It seems better to work the examples in with some level of explanation (or work some level of explanation in with the examples). I began to do that, and now I'm wondering whether ultimately it wouldn't be better to end up combining this section with the Major tasks section. What that would entail would be including examples along with appropriate tasks to illustrate why that particularly task isn't yet solved, or what's difficult about the task. There's one fairly rich example, the "time flies like an arrow" example, subparts of which could be used under several different problems, so perhaps this example would be set up at the beginning of the list and then different aspects of it referred to appropriately.
Alternately, it could be interesting to use the examples before the task list as sort of a teaser, a "this is what we have to deal with", followed by a sort of "because of that, these are tasks that must be handled" type thematic progression.
Opinions? TehMorp (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 'Concrete Problems' and 'Major tasks' 

message: "And ALL fruit flies in the same manner - like bananas do;"
I don't think any program would parse "Time flies like an arrow" this way, given that neither "fruit" nor "bananas" appears in the source sentence.  I suspect this was copied incorrectly, but the original link is now dead.
Should it read "And ALL time flies in the same manner - like an arrow does"?  That's a pretty big change for a typo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parsing weird 

message: I don't know if the "Resources" section makes it redundant, but the text doesn't have too many citations. The "NLP using machine learning" section, which is a fairly long piece of text, hasn't got any citations at all. Isn't this needed? 90.233.154.111 (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Substituted at 00:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: What is the reason for this cleanup tag that you added to this article? Jarble (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I needed to inform the other editors somehow that NLPGuy is editing an article that is in violation of our COI policy. His COI edit was reverted by  as a result. Since the editor have stopped his COI editing, I removed the tag, but thank you for notifying. :)--Biografer (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, I do see a lot of original research in this article, considering that some sections are not referenced, but I might be wrong.--Biografer (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: COI tag

message: I'm not happy with the mismatch between the Major_evaluations_and_tasks section (and subsections) and Category:Tasks_of_natural_language_processing. mendicott.com (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Major evaluations and tasks

message: Shouldn’t “natural-language processing” be written with a hyphen, as it means “processing of natural language”, not “natural processing of language”? palpalpalpal (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: By typical English grammar rules, yes. By typical NLP research parlance, no. I don't think it hurts to include the hyphen (I read an article recently where I saw it) but I also made the judgment call to leave the hyphen out on my résumé/CV as a signal, if that tells you anything (I do ML/NLP research). Dem1995 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphen 

message: The current image in the infobox in the top right shows an automated online assistant built (presumably) using NLP technologies. The problem is that it shows a cartoon woman as the assistant. Do we really want to reinforce the stereotype of women assistants by showing it as the first (and only) image for the NLP page on Wikipedia? NLP has a gender bias problem and this image only magnifies it (not to mention alienating women who might be interested in the field). I don't think this particular accurately reflects an application of NLP today in any case.
I don't have any suggestions for alternative images at the moment, but I feel that an infobox linking NLP to other research areas (Machine Learning, Computational Linguistics, etc) would be more appropriate. For example, look at the infobox for the Machine Learning page. Surely the NLP page can be part of some portal/series?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatasg (talk • contribs) 20:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current infobox image reinforces sexist stereotypes 

message: While the overlap between cognitive science and NLP (or CL) is important, indeed, this passage does not describe an NLP task and simply doesn't fit the overall text. Either revise and move to an independent section or remove it. I'm inclined to the latter because I see no way to repair that easily. Chiarcos (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If this section on "Cognition" does not get deleted, at least one para needs editing badly.  About the word 'big', it says "When used as a Stative verb, as in ”Tomorrow is a big day”."  But 'big' is not a verb at all, much less a stative verb. ('verb' is a grammatical category, not a semantic one, and 'big' doesn't take any tense/aspect/person marking like genuine English verbs do.  The recent coining 'embiggen' does take such verbal inflection, but it's not stative, and that's not the word in question here anyways.)  I'm on the verge of just deleting that para entirely, since its description of 'big' in the sentence "That is a big tree" as a comparative is also misleading, if not as plain wrong as calling it a verb in the other sentence.  (It is certainly not grammatically a comparative, and it's not clear in what other sense it might be a comparative.)  Nor is the content of the para attributed to any source, i.e. it seems like personal research.  But simply deleting the para would leave the surrounding paras without obvious rhetorical connection, so I'm reluctant to do so.Mcswell (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

text: I worked that comment in. I also tried to make some more sense of it, straightened the language and linked the Lakoff stuff with more recent developments. Originally, this was basically a Lakoff excerpt, but that wasn't obvious from the layout. I worked out that paragraph into a section on developmental trajectories (where it fits nicely, even though the Lakoff ideas are absolutely *not* what is driving that). In any case, I no longer consider this a candidate for deletion, but one may consider renaming that and describing other current tendencies in the field (other than methods, that is quite clear now from the revised history section). Chiarcos (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognition 

message: An experience towards humanity and all act that promotes human sustainability as ways of transforming human right act to reality including underprivileged communities and to have the greatest purpose by fighting against obstacles and challenges 41.223.132.196 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanity and Sustainability 

message: For the disambiguation note at the top, there should be link to 'NLP' page 124.150.139.62 (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation