lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
MediaWiki talk:Category-empty

message: When there is an empty category, is there anyway to force its inclusion in a category like say "Empty Categories" so it can be deleted and pruned?Mbisanz (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but you can just use Special:Unusedcategories. :) Nihiltres{t.l} 23:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Empty categories

message: 
The "learn more" link should go to Help:Category#Adding a category by using a template - the current link (Help:Category#Delayed updates), just takes it to Help:Category and not to a particular section. D.M.N. (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --- RockMFR 22:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: Please replace the link to WP:FAQ/Categories with a link to WP:FAQ/Categorization.
GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , although I often wish your requests would be accompanied by one further sentence to explain why the change is needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 2 January 2016 

message: Please change the page so that it includes the magic word  to detect how many members a category has in the current page using .
If the category is really empty, it should just look like:
There are no pages or files in this category.This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
If the category is not empty but no items are shown within the user's selection, it should look like
There are no pages or files within your selection.This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
The code should look like this:
There are no pages or files .This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
Eyesnore 01:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 18:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I almost forgot. Make sure to change  to  as the "R" parameter of the PAGESINCAT magic word removes the formatting (commas) from the number, thus preventing an expression error. Eyesnore 19:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

text: — xaosflux Talk 21:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 19 September 2021
Talk:Law of contradicion

message: I don't think you should delete this article, though short because when you search Law of Contradiction in wikipedia nothing comes up, and there is nothing that guides you to the Law of Noncontradiction, I think this article is good to inform people what the law is and that it also is usually defined by another name, if there is something I can do to make it better please let me know, thank you.
:If you type it without the uppercase 'c' (Law of contradiction), it takes you to the appropriate page. If there are different circumstances under which one would refer to it as noncontradiction or contradiction, a separate article might be warranted, but since they are mere synonyms, they should be on the same page. Since you had trouble finding the redirect, though, maybe Law of Contradiction should redirect as well. --Nucleusboy 20:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:2004–05 Serie A

message: Links provided in this section are broken.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.49.243 (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading: Transfers 
Talk:Middleton Park

message: Shouldn't these be two separate articles?--J3Mrs (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middleton Park and Middleton Park ward 
Talk:Matsudaira Yoshinaga

message: This article is awkwardly worded by someone who is obviously not a native English speaker. Furthermore, there are no references to the used sources in the text.
I also spotted a major error in the "Participation to the National Affairs" section. Ieshige was not the 14th, but the 9th shogun. The person who assumed the mantle of shogun was Tokugawa Yoshitomi, who then changed his name to Iemochi. I'm going to edit that right away.
It could be that a lot of this has been written from memory, which is very problematic. Vickstick (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple problems
Talk:Adila Fachiri

message: hadnt she ever died? thats very interesting  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.129.132 (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In this article there is a confusion between the two sisters. Béla Bartók dedicated the two violin sonatas to Jelly Arányi, not to Adila. However he dedicated to Adila an Andante for violin and piano, and he sent her the folded score attached to a postcard.
My references for that are:
in the score U.E.7247 of Universal Edition it is noticed in French:
Deux Sonates pour Violon et Piano
U.E. Nr. 7247  Ie (en 3 mouvements)
U.E. Nr. 7259 IIe (en 2 mouvements)
composées pour Mlle Jelly d'Arányi
par
Béla Bartók
and in the facsimile-score published in 1980 by Editio Musica Budapest of the Andante for violin and piano, the postcard is adressed (in Hungarian) to Ms Adila H. Arányi.
With my best wishes
Pcsillag (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The two Arányi sisters and Bartók
Talk:Bernard Fowler

message: Is there someone who can put together a grid so we can list Fowler's contributions to specific songs and albums for other musicians? I suspect the list will be long.
Also; there are some great photos of Fowler somewhere.  What does it take to find one?
--leahtwosaints (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the current copyright rules, I think the only way you're going to get a picture of Fowler up is to take one of him. Chubbles (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I secured several photos of Bernard now- just gotta really look, ask and prey I mean, pray! --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Good question. (Please sign your posts, just click four of these things (~) and we can communicate). Anyone know how to find birthdates of session musicians? It's really bugging me. --leahtwosaints (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a grid for all of Fowler's session work 
Talk:Lake stratification

message: That Epilimnion, Metalimnion and Hypolimnion be merged into this article Lake stratification.
*:I vote Yes, merge.  Each of the detailed layers as they currecntly stand is more of a definition than an encyclopedia article.  Wikipedia would be better served to compress all four articles into just one. N2e 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. While N2e's point may be true 'as they currently stand' one of the fundamental features of Wikipedia is that short articles are invitations to expand them. Further, If an editor of another article wishes to link for example, the word epilimnion to a clarification of its meaning, a clarification of its meaning is what he needs. This may be found by digging around in a catch-all article but that would tend to overload the reader with superfluous information. It is shaping up well. Leave well alone and let us devote our energies to seeing that articles, short or long are well-written and informative ones. (RJPe (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: — Assignment last updated by LynSchwendy (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: EEB 4611-Biogeochemical Processes-Spring 2024
Talk:6th Army Corps (Ukraine)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 6th Army Corps (Ukraine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607174644/http://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?lang=ua&part=news&sub=read&id=10175 to http://www.mil.gov.ua/index.php?lang=ua&part=news&sub=read&id=10175
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 
Talk:Seattle Sounders (1974–1983)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Seattle Sounders (USL) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 17:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Ludwig Milde

message: If he was born in 1849 and died in 1913, he died at around age 64, not 74.  Either his age at death or at least one of the dates of his life must be incorrect here.   Uporządnicki (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life dates?  Age? 
Talk:Formosa Plastics Group

message: Despite being a large company that appears to have published a fair share of patents, I can't find any coverage of Nanya Technology Corporation that satisfies WP:ORGCRITE. Content could perhaps be merged to this article about the parent company. signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merger. Mccapra (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Nanya Technology Corporation]] into [[Formosa Plastics Group]]
Talk:Prebilovci

message: ===Genocide of Serbs===
This is not for wikipedia because nobody outside Serbia is calling Ustaša crimes against Serbs genocide!
===Massacre===
In longer version of article there is 18 lines about Prebilovci (together with history) and 28 lines about Prebilovci Massacre !! Wikipedia is having article Prebilovci Massacre so this is for that article !
===Virgin Mary===
Prebilovci is in Čapljina municipality. Virgin Mary has been "seen" in Čitluk municipality.
Can somebody using arguments tell me what is wrong with this statement ? ---Rjecina 21:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: Prebilovci is in Čapljina municipality. Virgin Mary has been "seen" in Čitluk municipality.
Can somebody using arguments tell me what is wrong with this statement ? ---Rjecina 21:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Virgin Mary

message: Would recent editors of this article please grow up. And would justiceinwiki, in particular, please stop his childish behaviour of putting all his comments on this discussion page into bold text, as though he is somehow more important than everyone else.
Let's remember we are talking about a place with a population of about 50 people. In the normal way of things it would hardly warrant a mention. But the place IS of interest, because of the atrocities and because of the religioius nonsense nearby.
It seems that justiceinwiki wants to mention graves that may date back to the Bogomils. Rjecina does not want that. As  justiceinwiki has cited a reference. I don't understand why Rjecina is objecting, though I accept that there might be a reason. Then there is the very important question of whether we should say National park or National Park. (LOL) The term is not used here as part of a proper noun, therefore in English national park is correct.  But probably this detail just got caught up in bigger changes when people leapt to use the revert button. To help take the heat out of the debate, it would be better if editors limited themselves to changing only one thing in each edit, even if this means doing several edits. It would then be clearer to see who is arguing for what.
Lastly it would be a welcome courtesy if justiceinwiki would give a brief summary of each change he makes, like most of us usually try to do. Regards Kirker (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  November edits
Talk:Zoé's Ark

message: I removed text that said that "the volunteers were reportedly beaten". The reference cited does not assert that the volunteers were beaten. It says "While there were no obvious signs the group had been physically maltreated, one French prisoner gestured that he had been beaten, our reporter says." A gesture is not evidence of a beating, thus the BBC article does not report that the prisoners were beaten. 70.5.86.104 21:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled discussion 1 

message: As mentioned on Talk:2007 Zoe's Ark kidnappings, IMHO, 2007 Zoe's Ark kidnappings Zoe's Ark should be a redirect to Zoe's Ark 2007 Zoe's Ark kidnappings. The association appears to be notable only because of the recent abduction or alleged abduction. --Edcolins (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:2007 Zoe's Ark kidnappings --Edcolins (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 
from
 to [[2007 Zoe's Ark kidnappings]] 
File talk:Lillian Gish 1917.jpg

message: not possible to determine date of photograph, no specific reason given for PD Calliopejen1 23:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: explanation given on image page seems correct. Superm401 - Talk 00:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Gish155.jpg]]
Talk:La Mine d'or de Dick Digger

message: "The end of Le Sosie de Lucky Luke also marks one of the very few times Lucky Luke kills the villain, the only other instance being the antagonist of Lucky Luke et Phil Defer." Doesn't he kill the original Daltons (not the nephews" as well? In "Outlaw"", I think... Anyway, here is a reference for it (in French), and the reason it hasn't happened anymore afterwards. Fram (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, in this original pocketbook version Bob Dalton unquestionably dies quite violently, (though not as obviously in the case of LL capturing Bob, and then "cut to-" the graveyard panel, from the revised official album). I wish I hadn't forgotten my original source for that statement, I think I  just transwikied it from the French article. I'll try working through a translation of this BDoubliées and have a go at elegantly applying these given statements from "Schtroumpf, les cahier de la BD" numéro 43, spécial Morris. MURGH disc. 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that's a good source, one of the decent older magazines on Franco-Belgian comics. Fram (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a go at a more accurate text, maybe a bit overmuch but I think it's interesting stuff. MURGH disc. 15:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death of villain
Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Pamiers

message: Bishop of Girone? Can't find anything. Charles Matthews 21:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 

message: According to this article the bishop from 1685 to 1693 was François de Camps. The link is  blue as a result of my producing a stub on the man as an antiquarian, sourced from George Crabbe’s, Universal historical dictionary of 1833. I don’t read French, but it seems that his appointment as Bishop was never ratified in Rome, so I am not sure whether he was or was not ‘actually’ the bishop. If you do read French, and want to follow it up, these two links should clarify the matter:
*Dictionnaire de Port-Royal au XVIIe siècle
*Les évêques et les archevêques de France depuis 1682 jusqu'a 1801 (1891)
In both cases search for "de Camps". Ian Spackman (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: François de Camps

message: I removed the French Republic flag icon from the Infobox, in accordance with several sections of WP:ICON; specifically (quoting),
* Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.
* Flags make simple, blunt statements about nationality, while words can express the facts with more complexity. [Auch was not part of France for many centuries, and then it belonged to the Counts of Foix and Kings of France (whose flag was a large golden fleur-de-lys on a white background), not to the French Republic. The diocese was not an integral part of the political structure of the French state, except for the decade of the French Revolution.].
* Do not rewrite history. Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure, event, object, etc. Political boundaries change, often over the span of a biographical article subject's lifetime. Where ambiguity or confusion could result, it is better not to use a flag at all, and where one is genuinely needed, use the historically accurate flag.
--Vicedomino (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of French Republic Removed
Talk:Étude No. 1 from Trois Nouvelles Études (Chopin)

message: None of these Etudes is particularly worthy of their composer, though they are nice pieces and good studies in technique.  I cannot forsee any but trivial expansion of these individual articles.  The other Etudes opp 10/25 are of a completely different order: they are each and individually among the most important works ever to be written for the piano.  I see no reason not to merge all the others too for now, though, if they are also tiny articles. They could be split later.  Jubilee♫clipman 18:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge (again)
Talk:Allegro barbaro (Bartók)

message: The "analysis" section of this article is mostly humbug, as even a cursory examination of the music will show. For example:
Re: "Allegro barbaro is in ternary form, which means that there are two distinct themes, but one is presented twice."
In fact, both the opening theme and the theme that immediately follows it return in the piece. The opening theme returns first with a different, more tame harmonization (and without the bi-modality of its first appearance.)
Re: "Allegro barbaro melodic material is mostly based on the pentatonic scale..."
The only pentatonicism in the entire piece occurs in the opening theme (and its reappearance), and even there a complete (anhemitonic) pentatonic scale never occurs--without extra tones from the diatonic scale. 
Re: "...while the underlying harmonies are chromatic."
The "underlying harmonies" are often tonally at odds with the melody, which is to say that there is both bi-modality and bi-tonality in the piece, but they generally aren't chromatic in and of themselves. The chords are nearly all simple tertian triads: minor, major, augmented, and diminished chords with a some major seventh and minor seventh chords in the middle section, and within a phrase apart from the melody they generally imply a non-chromatic tonality or modality. TheScotch (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Analysis"?
Talk:Fuzzy mathematics

message: The paper still does not finished Batyr 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  untitled 

message: I added a cleanup and wikify tag to the article. Currently, it doesn't onform to the manual of style of Wikipedia, and it can use some sectioning, and copyedit aswell. This article is getting in some nice shape, and is a neat addition to wikipedia. A few secondary sources wouldn't hurt either, but are always hard to come by, in math articles. Martijn Hoekstra 11:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might did change the reference formatting. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  article issues 

message: Jeez, can someone rewrite the intro so it's more accessible to non-math people? I have a BSc in physics and am currently a science grad student, and it's still totally incomprehensible to me. The fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic intros are much more comprehensible to a non-expert, can we get something like that (that doesn't invoke so much jargon)? 70.189.38.161 (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: word to the wise: there is nothing behind the jargon smoke screen. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D1B7:91BB:C98D:C0FC (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, most of the higher mathematics articles on Wikipedia have the same problem.  Anyone who understands the article didn't need to read it in the first place.  Anyone who does need to read it will never understand it. 174.28.35.236 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintelligible 

message: The article lacks such section. Appls do exixt but i am unwikipacitated unfortunately now. - Altenmann >talk 04:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications
Talk:Berceuse (Chopin)

message: *  "The first sketch belonged to ..." is not clear. That sounds as if she had commissioned it, which could be the case but we don't know. I think it's unlikely. Ref. says the MS was in her possession, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she owned it. Jmar67 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, these are the subtleties of English I really don't know well enough. So often, I'd prefere to say what the source says, but then the "paraphrase" watchers come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought it was a simple misspelling on the editor's part. Yes, quotes should be written to the letter, so I restored the original spelling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit 
Talk:Order of Saint Nicholas Thaumaturgus

message: The Order of St. Nicholas: "Membership in the Order is open to all who may qualify under its rules and requires the submission of an application and payment of annual dues as set forth periodically by the Board of Governors."
*But this is a different one from the Ukrainian and Russian orders listed at the dab, isn't it? --Irpen 21:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crooks' order
Talk:Tga za Jug (wine)

message: Google hits are not exactly "minuscule": . It is in fact one of the better known Macedonian wines. GregorB 21:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed prod
Talk:Drumming (Reich)

message: The prior version treated Drumming as an album, whereas it is properly a music composition.  This is why I have totally rewritten it to reflect its status as the latter.  I have left the album box info for now, but I really think that the box needs to be removed.  Any other opinions here?  Thanks, DJRafe (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Album boxes have been removed. DJRafe (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox question

message: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music) it appears that the title of this article should be "Drumming (Reich)".  Any thoughts/objections regarding changing it? Froggy88 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with that title change; it's more accurate. DJRafe (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Drumming (piece)" has now been moved to "Drumming (Reich)". Froggy88 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of article

message: ... so very much. I heard this performed many, many years ago. Decades ago. And have never been able to track it down. Let's face it, "+drumming +reich" ain't great search terms! Huge gratitude from me for this. --BenTrem (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks ...

message: I added two videos that show visualizations of the theoretical piece and an observed performance. I'm working with the author of the visualization, Michael Schutz who is adding some text. BenFictional (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videos

message: The articlr currently uses the above two terms interchangeably. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts or movements?