lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Visibility graph

message: Okay, I've learnt how to mark this as a stub now, and found out what a "peacock phrase" is and removed it.
On the space syntax link -- declaration of interest -- I have an interest in applications of graph theory to architecture and urban planning.  If anyone feels it is wrong to mention it, please discuss it here.
Anyway -- things to do here:
Possibily separate out the art gallery problems into their own page (you'll note for now that I have simply linked it to here)
On the problems: cover both the number of guards and the guard placement problem.  Fill in solutions to with and without holes.  Mention that placement is NP-hard, and that there is only a lower bound on the number of guards for arbitrary polygon with holes.  If anyone wants to take this on, please do.
--stochata 20:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree that the Art Gallery Problem(s) are important enough to warrant their own article.  I will do this if nobody else gets around to it first.  --Jamie King 12:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a separate article for the art gallery problem.  I've also removed the paragraph about the art gallery problem because that paragraph wasn't really related to visibility graphs.  The relationship between the art gallery problem and visibility graphs could be mentioned if someone feels like it.  I did mention it briefly in the art gallery problem article.  --Jamie King 20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Why does museum guard problem redirect here? Should there be a mention here? // Brick Thrower 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the museum guard problem to redirect to the art gallery problem. --Jamie King 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Museum guard problem
Talk:Traffic congestion

message: The beginning of the page uses the term "modal split" but it links to a page "Mode choice" upon which the phrase "modal split" doesn't occur; this page should have a parenthetical explanation of what "modal split" means next to the first usage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayle Shanks (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modal split? 

message: Bad car and more makes acceilintent 46.120.53.90 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad traffic hits cars and more 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ridakazmi2 (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: 2023SP Communication Research Methods

message: @Belbury Look, I just love that picture, as it illustrate how one man's misfortune is another's opportunity. Which is something that the others don't... that's about it, it adds this extra knack. Synotia (moan) 20:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I hadn't realised that was your reason for adding it. The article doesn't need both this and the similar Bogota traffic jam, though, so I'll replace it. Belbury (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Communication is key ;) my bad I guess Synotia (moan) 10:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image
Talk:Flood myth/Archive 1

message: OK, the thing I don't get here is the fascination with *just these* potential explanations for the origins of flood myths. I completely disagree with the idea that the historical floods should be mentioned in second paragraph, and especially as detailed as they are now. A one sentence explanation is really more than sufficient, in my opinion. If it was lower down I thought a couple of sentences were fine.
On the other hand, if we are going to mention that these are possible explanations for why flood myths evolved, then it seems to me that we should, following NPOV principles, mention *all the other* explanations that have been offered over the years to explain how these flood myths came about. 
Specifically, we should mention the Creationists' water vapor canopy thing, Freudian/Jungian stuff about the watery womb, information about how some of the old chaotic forces and great monsters that destroy civilization were thought of as representing water (Tiamat, etc.) and, most importantly, the simple fact that the cradles of civilization were built on flood plains and legends always exaggerate facts for dramatic effect.
I'm also looking for the sources I saw a while back showing most scientists think Ryan, Pitman and Ballard are off their rockers. Once I do I'll post it in the appropriate article and then you guys debating about whether it belongs here can see it.
DreamGuy 09:45, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
: I'm all for more information rather than less.  If Freud and Jung tie the womb to the flood myths, then fine, it is fodder for the page.  Your mention of the creationist's water vapor canopy theory would have been the first I had heard of it if I had not just today encountered it while researching.  It has been discarded by them (See the Answers in Genesis site), but in any case, would be covered by linking to the biblical flood page or creationist page without going into any more detail than other issues.  In other words, the referrent is the biblical flood story, not the water vapor canopy, which is a detail in the discussion of that story best left to the more detailed biblical flood pages or the creationist versus evolutionist debate pages. Hu
::The Freud/Jungian stuff is very welcome. The "vapory canopy stuff", whatever it is, is more likely to be part of the myth rather than its origin, so it would belong under "modern versions" and not under a section speculating on the origin of the myth. dab 11:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: quite apart from the ongoing controversies, some of the myths could do with some background and wikification, and some might be actual copyvio copy-pasted off the net. In what sense is Chaldean used here? When/how is this myth attested? Might it actually be younger than Genesis? Also, some of the other myths (Americas) simply give the name of a people as a title  and embarks right into a matter-of-fact narration (if these myths were the subject of any theological dispute, this would be harshly criticized, i.e. who believes in the "inerrancy" of the Chaldean myth as presented here??) dab (ᛏ) 17:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: background, wikify, copivio
Talk:Bratislava

message: The Wikipedia page listing capital cities with international borders says that Singapore has borders with both Malaysia and Indonesia, and that therefore Bratislava is not the only one. I will not argue about it because I don't understand the technicalities involved - and I'm not going to learn them. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two national borders 

message: Hi, in the Budapest article is the exactly same issue Talk:Budapest#Climate
Climate of Slovakia is continental and not subtropical! Please keep consistency between articles. Users who are living there or near also can confirm this.
::::
::::
OrionNimrod (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response over at Talk:Budapest. Same thing applies here. Uness232 (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate
Talk:Eridanos (river of Hades)

message: Strabo, the squinteyed fool, was evil and blasphemous against the might of Zeus! How could he speak against such an obvious truth! Said: Rursus ☻ 11:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grr!

message: As Strabo is later than Virgil, I suppose the answer can be assumed securely as: a mythological river situated in the (extreme) north of Europe (or the then known world). I would thus suggest a renaming of the article as "Eridanus (mythology)". --Malcolm77 (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most commonly seen today is good, but what was Eridanos basically and originally during antiquity (from Hesiod to Strabo)?
Talk:Zofia Nałkowska

message: Is the Engilsh title for "Granica" really "The Frontier"? In the novel 'granica' usually means 'limit'.
Gdabski 16:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Technicality, but I've learned recently that Library of Congress lists her dob erroneously as 1885. Just in case anybody wants to "correct" it... don't :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  04:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in LoC
File talk:W a mozart.jpg

message: This is my first entry here and I know I should have read more on this editing, but I can assure you that my knowledge on Mozart is quite extensive:http://allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=50630
I simply would like to comment that this main picture of Mozart is historically inaccurate and looks nothing like the man.  The painting by Joseph Lange is considered the most lifelike of the ones made when he was living.  The most famous one by Barbara Kraft was after his death, but this portrait is considered superb because she combined the 3 of the best (the Lange, the family portrait by the piano-forte, and the one showing M recieving the Golden Spur).
This black and white jpg is very poor and does not do justice to your great site.  I would recommend the Kraft.  I can upload a very high quality pic of this if you wish.  ttc359@gmail.com
Best regards,
Tim Cheng
: Kraft's image is now available at: :Image:Wolfgang-amadeus-mozart 1.jpg. Lange's image::Image:Mozart (unfinished) by Lange 1782.jpg. Shawnc 01:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Boogie-woogie (dance)

message: This page lacks history mainly because the main part of the text is transferred from the article about boogie woogie, that mainly was about the music style and a little bit about the dance. I did not do it the clever way when I split the article up in two and transferred text, I guess. Habj 16:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article history

message: The first sentence stated that the term "boogie-woogie" is mainly used in Europe. That's obviously wrong. The second and third sentence weren't much better. The term "boogie-woogie" is most associated with a form of piano playing. Like jazz, it is very much an American invention. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. If a reader simply wants to know the definition, dictionaries are readily available, and this article is unnecessary. If the desire is to write about boogie woogie piano playing, that can be done in a separate article about jazz piano or elsewhere. I don't know anything about boogie-woogie dancing, if there is such a thing.Vmavanti (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and wrong 

message: I've cleaned up this article but encourage someone who knows more of this dance form to offer more clarity on its indefinite mentions of "parts of Europe" where boogie-woogie dance is done for one purpose or other. Mucketymuck (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague geography
Category talk:Wikipedia images of people

message: If this categorization is to be really useful, I think we have to be very careful to distinguish between "images OF people" and "images WITH people" ! The tendency to include "images WITH people" here seems to be increasing.
I'd suggest that "images OF" should be reserved for "specific people" (Koffi Annan, Queen Elizabeth II, Confuscius etc...) and peoples (a Maori warrior, a caucasian, a mongolian etc...) and "rôles /positions" (a Beefeater guard, a Morris dancer, Venetian Carnival Revelers, a hippie etc...). I don't think the "WITH" category would be very useful, and therefore several of the images currently included here (eg.  and )should be in other categories. Wikityke 17:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OF or WITH 

message: How is "Subcategories (but not in the sense of the software feature)" supposed to be used?  The links are to specific articles, not to lists of images.  (SEWilco 18:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategories sense 

message: Good grief.  The category tags are supposed to be put on the image description pages, instead of listing the images on the category description pages.  There are way too many images on this page.  They should be actually sorted into subcategories, or better yet, uploaded to commons. -- Beland 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup request

message: this is clearly an overcrowded category. could one robotize a classification into subcategories?
(by considering keywords on the image page and on te "what links there" pages, and the categories thereof)
— MFH:Talk 19:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  overcrowded
Category talk:Style guides

message: Category that is categorised? Hmmm. Strange. Consider merging the following categories: :Category:Style guides, :Category:Bibliography and :Category:Reference and make them a subcategory of :Category:Library and information science. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?
Talk:Kirchhoff's theorem

message: I copied the original material from spanning tree (mathematics) and added a different formulation of Kirchhoff's theorem using the cofactor of the admittance matrix. Then I wrote a new article admittance matrix and deleted most of the explaination on this page in terms of discrete Laplace operator (which was just a definition of the admittance matrix). Now the article is quite terse, perhaps someone else can add some material to illustrate the theorem. Although I do not think it is a good idea to duplicate the definition of the admittance matrix here. MathMartin 17:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: : Seeing that Cayley's formula follows from Kirchhoff's theorem as a special case is easy: every vector with 1 in one place, -1 in another place, and 0 elsewhere is an 
: eigenvector of the Laplacian matrix of the complete graph, with the corresponding eigenvalue being n. These vectors together span a space of dimension n-1, so there 
: are no other non-zero eigenvalues.
I don't think this is fully correct. First it should be mentioned that we're talking about M_{11}, not Q. M_{11} is n-1\times n-1 and has n-2 eigenvectors of the form (\dots,0,1,0,\dots,0,-1,0,\dots) to the eigenvalue n and one eigenvector (1,1,\dots,1) to the eigenvalue 1. Multiplying those eigenvalues gives obviously n^(n-2).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.77.186 (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cayleys formula 

message: In case anyone is interested, here are illustrations that could make the counting of spanning trees more intuitive:
 => 
In this pecular case there are 11 spanning trees covering the original graph.
I hope that helps, --MathsPoetry (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration 

message: The determinant of the Laplacian matrix is 0, because the constant vector 1,1,1...,1 is in the matrix's kernel. So this determinant is not the number of spanning trees.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Semeria (talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I added "minor" in the first sentence, which I think fixes the problem. (Ehm, I was very close to marking it as a "minor edit".) --St.nerol (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in introduction
Talk:Bertel Thorwaldsen

message: It appears that his name was spelled with a "v":  Thorvaldsen.  Should the title be corrected--and perhaps this article merged with the "Bertel Thorvaldsen" article?  Logologist 18:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Lee M 00:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Elizabeth Harden Gilmore

message: The text of article was obtained from public domain site. Darwin 18:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: We could do with some more information to make this a better article.  From http://www.wvculture.org/shpo/nr/pdf/kanawha/88001462.pdf, the application for declaring her house/funeral home a national historical site, it seems she was born Elizabeth Mason and married  Silas Harden.  Silas died in 1947 (he was born in 1889). This is confirmed in https://www.marshall.edu/graduatehumanities/files/Peyton-PowerPoint.pdf (page 13).  She presumably acquired the name Gilmore by marrying someone named Gilmore. More about her activities is essential; I could easily see multiple paragraphs.  --Erp (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunting information
Talk:Modjeska Monteith Simkins

message: The text of article was obtained from public domain site.
Darwin 18:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Oscar Stanton De Priest

message: The text of article was obtained from public domain site.
Darwin 18:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Category talk:Explorers of Antarctica

message: :Revisiting the Days of the Year project, I see that January 28 lists Bellingshausen as having neared the coast, but that January 30 lists  Bransfield as having discovered land. It should be noted that Magellan in 1521 declared himself ready to sail to 75 degrees South, and that Cook in the 1700s had to turn back at 71 degrees South because of ice. Thus the British Admiralty lost interest in the Antarctic regions. Therefore until an individual could prove there was land, nearing the coast is equivocal. Granted, in retrospect, Bellingshausen was first. But at the time, Bransfield unequivocally found land, a discovery which was determined by some procedure in the Admiralty to be of little value. Hence, not until more evidence showed that Antarctica was significant, the 3 men found something obscure, of little worth, and not worth honoring them for, at that time. Thus we list them all on Wikipedia. If  you disagree, please join in. Bransfield was selected because the annotation for January 30th was unequivocal. You are welcome to join the Days of the Year Project. The Selected Anniversaries for February up to February 22nd currently need some more selections, by the way. Ancheta Wis 18:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Greater Romania

message: * Greater Hungary is irredentism;
* Greater Bulgaria is irredentism;
* Greater Greece is irredentism;
* Greater Russia is irredentism;
* Greater Romania isn't irredentism.
How do we call that? Special pleading. Or lacking WP:CIR. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV
Talk:Treeshrew

message: Is the little tree-style diagram the standard Wikipedia method of describing such classification? Could it be handled better (Perhaps an image instead)?
:It isn't standard (the layout below is more standard). Neither layout looks perfect. Definitely something we could improve upon somehow. Pcb21| Pete 21:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Someone get a photo of these creatures!! I must say i am intreaged to what this relitive of our actually looks like. I believe they feature in the new guinness advert:  http://www.metacafe.com/watch/35459/guinness_evolution/ mastodon 02:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: A reference to the molecular studies showing that they were primates is needed to be in keeping with Wikipedia standards, any chance of adding one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.167.202.126 (talk • contribs).
:Um, what do you mean, "were primates"? They were never primates. They were thought to be primates. Are you asking for a citation for why they aren't primates? I've given one, Mammal Species of the World. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a primate 

message: I'm wondering if the word for Tupaiidae originates from the malay(?) word, Tupai? Gross (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is indeed as per this. Should be added. Shyamal (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tupaiidae origins? 

message: Okey moleculary they might be distinct because of many tens of million years of indepedent evolution. But morphologically (and neurologically as far as I know) they look extremely alike to our most ancient Plesiadapiform ancestor. I do believe they are at most morphologically unchanged from the time of our common ancestor rather than being the result of convergent evolution. That's off course my PoV, but am I so irrational?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncles of humankind?
Talk:Robert Maxwell

message: I'm new here, and wondering if there's a rule governing my issue. There are some things that need clearing up in the early part of the article having to do with Maxwell's transition from the Continent to England and from birth name Ján Hoch, to alias Leslie Du Maurier and finally to Robert Maxwell, the name he eventually adopted legally as a war veteran. Should "Maxwell" be referred to as "Maxwell" from the beginning, rather than as whatever name he wore when he was walking the earth pre-Maxwell? Seems to me he should be placed in time as he would were we talking about his childhood, when we would scarcely want to refer to him yet as "Maxwell." Thanks for any help provided. --Jhoughton1 (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: He should be referred as Maxwell, as well in similar other cases are done in Wikipeda, and the article's name is also concluding that.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Maxwell/Archives/2013#Other_names    .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:BC0F:F0EB:5A0D:F9 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in a name? 

message: Can information about Maxwell's connection to a Vienna-based company called Nordex be added to this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: BRD Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Nordex

message: about possibilities of reunification and ties with the western economics. Loong interview https://www.zeit.de/zustimmung?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeit.de%2F1981%2F09%2Fddr-wiedervereinigung-kein-tabu-mehr 2A03:2260:200F:403:7410:59A3:423C:572E (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big interviews with Erich Honecker, east german leader in 1981 with R Maxwell 

message: ‘Maxwell had an argumentative phone call with his son Kevin’
The word ‘argumentative’ is (was once?) used to denote the character traits of an individual human being: someone who enjoyed or at any rate chose to engage in, acrimonious debate. It would appear that the phone-call in question caused both parties to become incensed and disputatious; it seems there was discord and an exchange of conflicting views. Even so, but the word ‘argumentative’ is wrong. Try ‘angry’ phone-call, perhaps. 
This would appear to be another contemporary misusage, a word wrested from its proper context by journalistic or political minds of imperfect understanding seeking to persuade by bombast. A similar blight has been placed upon the word ‘secretive’, another word relating to the personality traits of an individual, one who is devious or evasive, who hides their true feelings, but is now used to denote clandestine or undercover organisations like the CIA - ‘a secretive agent’, for example, or a confidential documents - a ‘secretive government report’, for example.
No. 121.44.10.121 (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argumentative?