lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Embedding

message: Happily I comment to you that abstract embedding had been accepted in PlanetMath
, i.e. my friends there agree
--kiddo 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "injective" does not make any sense for arbitrary morphisms in categories. or what do you understand under this term? even if you replace it by monomorphism, this is not the correct meaning for topological spaces e.g.. apart from that, it is clear that it is impossible to summarize all the meanings in the given examples in the "naked setting" of category theory. I suggest to delete this general remark in the article, also in planetmath. ---oo- 01:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: abstract embedding

message: In the "Differential topology" section of the article it is stated "When the manifold is compact, the notion of a smooth embedding is equivalent to that of an injective immersion."  This is ambiguous, since there are two manifolds involved in an embedding: the domain and the codomain.  In fact, if only the codomain is compact, the quoted statement is false (consider the image of the line y = sqrt(2)x in the square torus T = R2/Z2).Daqu 15:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem in section "Differential topology"

message: I think something should be put in about \hookrightarrow as a symbol often used for embeddings/injective maps SetaLyas (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. I've added this to the intro.  --Lambiam 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hooked Arrow

message: I don't see why that needs to be a separate article. The notion is essentially covered here. Pcap ping 12:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Hans Adler 12:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The inclusion map is a more elementary concept that deserves to be easily accessible, whereas embeddings in topology and geometry deserve an accurate and separate discussion. Moreover, neither an inclusion needs to be an embedding nor an embedding has to be always regarded as an inclusion. --Txebixev (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[inclusion map]] 

message: The article states
In the terminology of category theory, a structure-preserving map is called a morphism.
I don’t think this is correct. In a lot of mathematics texts, perhaps. But in the language of category theory I think this would be called an monomorphism or a section. I’m not a mathematician so I wanted someone to verify this instead of just changing it. Craig Pemberton (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy?
Talk:Clepsydra (diatom)

message: Another hoax from 24.7.43.194 on a subject worth an entry Wetman 06:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: COMMENT

message: Well, the header says it.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed PROD.  Not a hoax. 

message: Native Cited
:"The Tasmanian protists comprise several distinct and geographically restricted taxa (Croome el al. 1987, Pipes el al. 1989, Vyverman el al. 1997, sub m). We describe a new species of amphoroid diatoms, Clepsydra truganiniae, which shows striking similarities in cell morphology and cytology to the section Psammamphora of Amphora sensu lato, consisting of marine, mainly subtidal species. We re-examined two taxa of Psammamphora, Amphora arenaria and A. obtusa, provide an updated description of their morphology and propose to transfer them to the new genus Clepsydra. The taxonomic position of this new genus and the potential relationships with other groups of pennate diatoms, in particular with the recently described new genus Eunophora (Eunotiophycidae), are discussed."
This should probably be in a larger categorical group of "Pennate Diatoms" in a list of cited types.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcheronSS (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea; I'm sitting on the fence on this merge proposal. To do it systematically would also mean merging each of the Diatom genera to either Pennales or Coscinodiscophyceae; is that worthwhile? Klbrain (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennales 
Talk:Logistics

message: Brief introduction of logistics 203.115.73.17 (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logistics 

message: Logistic in developed in kerala 2409:4073:4E9B:B381:C072:AE83:7B3F:2ECD (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logistic in developed in kerala
Talk:List of logarithmic identities

message: I hate to be pedantic but I think this is a bit of a poor sentence:
"note: to say the limit of a function "equals infinity" is not strictly correct notation, as "infinity" is not a value. What is meant by the limits equations above is simply that the functions increase/decrease without bound."
For a start, there is nothing wrong with saying that a limit equals infinity because it is just notation, it has a very precice meaning in mathematics. As long as you define things well enough, there is no such thing as incorrect notation. Incidentally, the definition of tending to infinity given is also wrong, increasing without bound is not the same as tending to infinity, the sequence, 0,1,0,2,0,3,.... increases without bound, and so does xsin(x) as x tends to infinity but neither of these functions tend to infinity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.112.46.6 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, if we interpret 'increases without bound' to mean monotonic increase, it's false in a different way: 1,0,10,9,100,99,1000,999,... tends to infinity but does not increase without bound. The note is entirely false: saying a limit equals infinity is strictly correct notation, infinity (in this sense) is a value (in the Extended real number line), and the given statement is not what is meant by convergence to infinity. Even if it was correct, this list is not the place for a discussion of the minutiae of limits: that's what the link to limit of a function is for. I've removed the note. Algebraist 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor sentence 

message: \lim_{x\to0} \log{(1+x)} = x, but always  \log{(1 + x)} < x. 
 \lim_{x\to\infty} \log{(1+1/x)} = x
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you mean  = 0 or the second one? That follows pretty quickly from the upper bound you gave yourself. I added some inequalities so people may deduce this themselves. Thomasda (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing log limits 

message: Hello everyone,
I've been working on revising the "Calculus identities" section to include the identity for Harmonic number difference. To avoid cluttering this talk page and to facilitate detailed feedback, I've drafted the proposed changes in my sandbox. Please view the draft here: Harmonic number difference.
I welcome all suggestions and comments to ensure that the content meets Wikipedia guidelines and that it's accurate and clearly explained. I would be grateful if you could share your feedback and thoughts here on this Talk page.
Thank you for taking the time to review and for your valuable insights!
Best regards. Twoxili (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmonic number difference
Talk:China Youth Daily

message: To the people working on this page, please make sure for the links at the bottom, you put in English names for what they link to.  chinese is fine, as long as you give it English too.  Remember, this is the English version.  Thanks. Fuzheado 07:58, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Fuzheado, I did not realize you edited this article until I saw the talk page.  Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is this the same publication as China Youth News? There is a reference to the News at Lenovo which I would link here if I knew they were the same. I can't find a separate publication called China Youth News and I suspect it's just an alternate translation of the name. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  China Youth News? 
Talk:Hotline

message: ÓUh, Hotline is not p2p, it's very definitely client-server in architecture.
its not just that its call someones phone thinks its time to call hotline phone today  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.99.32.5 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've added a disabig link to Hotline Connect. I'm not the person who removed the Hotline Connect stuff, but I agree that it doesn't belong on the body of this article. It's not really a 'hotline' in the sense used in this article, but a distinct topic with a similar name. --Eloil 07:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig 

message: This page is formatted in a totally different way from most disambig pages.  Shouldn't each meaning be a short link to articles that hold the main text?  Also, Hotline Connect should be here.  It is irrelevant that the network is mostly defunct.  This is an encyclopedia, not (as the previous poster seems to think) an advertisement. Strait 04:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format? 

message: This is a joke, right? Kransky 13:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with 'batphone' 

message: I think it's clear that while the neologism "batphone" gets used in various places, the idea would be better referred to as a "private hotline". A large portion of the article is taken up by random examples where the term "batphone" was used to inflate its notability. If the irrelevant information was pared down, it could easily fit in its own section in the hotline article about both private hotlines and so-called batphones, something I supported in the article's failed AfD. Note that this is not suggesting the idea of a batphone is not notable, just that there is too much of an overlap.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: * Oppose merge. Agree that the Hotline page requires more work and updating, and that there is some overlap between the two concepts, but the reality is that the two terms have forked over time. The term "bat phone" is now widely used to mean a mobile device with a "private" number that is only given out to select few individuals; this is different from a "hotline" and the two should not be confounded. There actually is extensive literature around the use of "Hotlines" particularly in business and customer service, that is distinct from "bat phone" and should definitely be incorporated into this Hotline page as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

text: *: Perhaps, but there are plenty of professed uses within the article itself that are much more similar to dedicated hotlines. A dedicated hotline was how the original Batphone was used as well, so it in no way solely refers to a private telephone number. Plus, in the age of cellular phones, hotlines where there is no number dialing process are no longer as feasible, so it's more something that was forced to be done.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Bat phone]] into [[Hotline]]
Talk:Sonia Gandhi

message: Please Change From Sonia Maino to Edvige Antonia Albina Màino in Early Life https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Sonia-Gandhi 117.210.161.75 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added three sources to back it up. But now I have noticed that it had been removed before, will investigate. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Woah, there had been a long discussion about this name and at the end it was decided that it is fake. I will revert my edit. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it fake. Please see https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sonia-Gandhi Jitamrasabi (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2023
Wikipedia talk:Translation

message: is there anyone that could translate the following page on an international sailing race into English? https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Gascogna Silverinhos (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. This isn't the place to request translations. See the options given on the project page that this talk page belongs to, specifically the part at the shortcut WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. Largoplazo (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  English translation for international sailing race  

message: There is a discussion here about updating the Avoid machine translation section of Help:Translation. Participants in this project may be interested as Help:Translation was spun out of this page. TSventon (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid machine translation
Talk:Gematria

message: I corrected the reference to the "666 1st Beast"/Antichrist Revelation 13:18. 50.253.143.113 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Beast/Antichrist: Greek 'Kaisar Neron' = 666 in Hebrew Gematria, Latin 'Caesar Nero' = 616 

message: In reading over the lead section, the question in my mind that never got answered was "the mechanics are described but why do this at all?" What was this used for? How are the numeric values interpreted? What meanings, if any, were derived from numerical values of words? This wasn't clear. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even sure it's described in the body of the article. I know occultists use a dictionary arranged numerically such as 777 and Other Qabalistic Writings of Aleister Crowley. The number is interpreted in terms of (all?) the words which also add up to the same number. Don't think Crowley's the best source for this though, and I'm not aware of any more traditional numerical dictionaries, but one would think they must exist in the traditional Kabbalistic schools. Skyerise (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely there is some purpose to doing this other than engaging in some arbitrary analysis? If different words represent the same number, what of it? The point of engaging in gematria isn't clear in this article. I am not sure that the primary sources you alluded to would help either, because they likely already assume the reader knows the purpose. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that the true meaning of a passage may have been disguised by replacing a word with one having the same value. Perhaps this is covering in the main article, Kabbalah? I'll look into it when I have a chance. Search-wise, probably "Kabbalistic exegesis", maybe? Skyerise (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Historically, the first text to describe the process from outside Judaism is probably Johann Reuchlin's De Arte Cabbalistica (1517). Skyerise (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: That formula is not correct. The easiest counter-proof is that f(0) through f(9) all output zero. 2601:180:8300:B8D0:F5AA:F23E:37F4:24A6 (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Formula in Methods of Hebrew Gematria: Standard encoding 

message: The article has no mention Japan, even though the practice is widespread in japanese, like Hatsune Miku is 39, etc. 92.249.156.69 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable sources that confirm that? Onomancy does mention Japan. Polygnotus (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in non-semitic languages.
Talk:Oskar Schindler

message: The article currently says: 
I recently pointed out that the ultimate source for this appears to be Thomas Keneally, but his original statement appears to have been different (it contained the important word "probably"). I don't have Keneally's book at hand, so I added a source that quoted him, and changed the article accordingly (in this edit). My edit was reverted, for understandable reasons (the source is a book review, not a scholarly article).
The online sources that I could find for the claim that Schindler was the only member of the Nazi Party on Mt. Zion ultimately lead back either to that book review, or directly to Keneally (example that links to the book review). They usually omit the word "probably". That's problematic, because their source doesn't actually make that claim.
Could someone please check the two references currently given (Steinhouse 1994; Thompson 2002, p. 25), to see if they provide additional sources, or also rely on Keneally? Could someone also have a look at what Keneally actually wrote in his book, and if he explains how he arrived at that conclusion? Renerpho (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Keneally does't mention that in his book, which I have right here. The source is this article. It says "As far as Thomas Keneally could discover" so I think we should re-add your word "possibly" but we don't actually need an additional citation since this one already covers your point.  — Diannaa (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, thank you. "Possibly" (your word) and "probably" (my word) both work. Renerpho (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only member of the Nazi Party who is buried on Mt. Zion 

message: Change "Schindler lost the actual ring soon after the war" to "The ring itself is consider lost with no clear indication of what happened to it in the year following the war."
This better reflect what in the cited source which does not in anyway indicate that Schindler lost the ring as opposed to it being stolen, sold, confiscated or simply lost after Schindler's death. The only quote in the cited article is clearly more general: "That gold ring has long been considered lost, with no clear explanation of what Schindler did with it after the war." Edit709 (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . Changed to  Xan747 (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: is it still protected? MatthewKulinsky (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes  — Diannaa (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023 

message: Should this article mention Schindler's alleged role in the Gleiwitz incident? He's already mentioned in the article on the incident itself. It seems like it might be a good tidbit to add to the section on his Abwehr career, if there are reliable sources to support his involvement. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a pretty minor incident in his life. I don't think we should include it. — Diannaa (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role in [[Gleiwitz incident]]
Talk:Three Gorges Dam

message: Why does the text saying "Taiwan Military" have a hyperlink to the Chinese military forces? Surely there should be a link to the Taiwanese military. 137.220.71.103 (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in hyperlink 

message: I had noticed a sub chapter called "structural integrity'. It seems written by someone who knows nothing about engineering and is somewhat embarrassing to see this written on Wikipedia. As it is purely sensational and taking what is a fairly normal benign feature and make it seem like it is unprecedented and spells immediate disaster. To explain in layman's terms,  there's to be an expected range of deformation when a dam first fills up and then fill up again and designed to change shape. Not so unrealistic for cracks to appear and generally only really a problem when it's not repaired for a long while if monitored to be serious. Typical example is say 12 years without any routine maintenance. But I highly doubt the Chinese government would neglect that basic duty given the immense political significance of the dam, and so with consistent maintenance and proper management, that is not an unprecedented issue.  Perhaps it's the media who likes to make clickbait stories, but I had expected Wikipedia to be a bit more professional. Though to be fair, even the media outlets informing of other dams cracking and at least also give necessary context by engineering experts on why people should not be blowing this out of proportion.  Anyways the chapter should not even be there because there has not been a single thing there that's particularly noteworthy or unusual for a dam. All dams go though deformation and cracks and yet the article writes it as if it's unusual for it to occur, and hence is both highly unprofessional and unnecessary to have. Engineertakes89 (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessity of Structural integrity chapter
Template talk:EU countries

message: I have just added the Eurozone and Schengen Treaty countries in a new list under the big headline of the European Union.
I have added them because not all countries of the Treaties are Members of the EU and not all Members of the EU are countries of the Treaties. On the other hand both institutions are mentioned in the European Contracts --> new list, but under the headline of the European Union. I hope you don't mind. --EBB 16:04, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurozone and Schengen and candidates

message: * I like the first proposal more than the second, makes more sense to me. I mean the one where it sais "How about a box for European countries in the EU:" (if anyone cares) Sky 13:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pros and Cons

message: Now that we have the categories system do we still need these boxes? --tsca 16:52, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
*I'd defenitely say yes, because this way you can browse from one to the next without having to go to a seperate page. I like them as long as there aren't too many of them at the bottom of a page. Sky 12:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  still useful? 

message: MediaWiki talk:EU countries merged with this page to merge edit histories. There should not be any problems.
zoney ♣ talk 12:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Nice idea, and they are pretty, but such a mish-mash of colours is distracting and over the top for such a template in my opinion.
This was reverted on :Template:European countries and :Template:EU countries and candidates. I see no reason to make an exception for this template, because although a smaller list, we are still talking 25 images extra loading on a page! People complain enough about templates without that!!! zoney ♣ talk 17:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, those flags don't look very well in this template. /Jebur 17:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags
Talk:Matt Drudge

message: Much of the writing in this article seems somewhat similar in style, vocabulary, etc., to that on Drudge's website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.13.150 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship 

message: Added a copyright free image of Matt Drudge, only reusable image i have found of Drudge so if you find a better image feel free to replace it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry-Oscar2323 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added an image of Drudge  

message: You are invited to participate in the RfC at Talk:Drudge Report#RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right?.  --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology of [[Drudge Report]] 
Talk:Viola (plant)

message: Why is there a Latin pronunciation?  Can I remove it? –Jérôme (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.–Jérôme (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin pronunciation 

message: Thoughts on moving some of the taxonomy section to its own article? The article as is seems pretty unwieldy. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy of violets article? 

message: This line in the article
:** Subsect. Viola ('Rostellatae)
currently breaks formatting in a tool of mine because the single ' before "Rostellatae" should be a . It seems this line has been corrupted in some edit, and it would be great if it contents could be restored to be correct.
Eelworm (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be  if you want to give it a check. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy: ''Viola Rostellatae''