lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Disc integration

message: I think, since this article is in the :Category:Calculus, people could just click on that category and find calculus related articles, rather than keep a calculus sidebar of links on every page. Wonder what other people think. Oleg Alexandrov 15:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also starting to dislike those sidebars, but perhaps it would be best to first convert it to a footer. --MarSch 14:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The calculus sidebar 

message: This page was recently moved from Disk integration to Disc integration, with the editor's justification being "This is the spelling used in the intro". However, the page was created using American English, and it remained in that form until this revision, when an anonymous IP rewrote the article and converted to British English in November 2005. Bizarrely, the IP in question, 128.123.202.11, resolves to New Mexico State University.
As specificed in an ArbCom ruling of June 2005, it is inappropriate to change from one style to another, and editors should defer to the style used by the first major contributor. I'm therefore changing all instances of "disc" to "disk", and restoring the original page. Please note that I am American neither by birth nor residence, so this is not nationalism run riot, merely proper application of WP rules. --DeLarge 20:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - as long as the article is internally consistent, I am happy! I moved it from Disk integration to Disc integration for consistency, but also for the simple reason there was no redirect from Disc integration at the time, and this was a fast way to do it! It was a good faith edit indeed, but not an error. Although I do not really care whether this article is spelt with a c or a k, I disagree with your reasoning: "disk" vs "disc" is more complicated nowadays than American vs. British English (see Disc or disk (spelling)) and the ruling you cite talks mainly about the stability of an article and only refering to the original contributor "if in doubt". My impression is that mathematicians, even American ones, tend to refer to disc's with a 'c', perhaps because we use a lot of greek, or maybe because we tend to view things optically rather than magnetically :) So don't be surprised by the New Mexico State University IP address: I bet the editor was a mathematician. Geometry guy 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of page move 

message: I have an exam on this in a few days, and found that the equations and formulae were very helpful. I just wanted to give my props to everyone who wrote this article - thank you very much! 68.149.170.235 (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos
Talk:DECSYSTEM-20

message: Since this computer never existed, I think reference to it should be incorporated into the article PDP-10. Or deleted altogether. - Fernkes 01:22, Sep 29, 2003 (UTC)
: Ah, I disagree. It might be more appropriate to move the page to DECSYSTEM-20, and such a page deserves to exist (there are some significant internal hardware differences), but even then we'd have to have a link from PDP-20 (under the Wikipedia rule that working names never stop working). Noel 18:34, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to weigh into an extremely old discussion, I think we need to reverse the redirects: currently DECSYSTEM-20 (which existed) redirects to PDP-20 (which didn't); this is silly. Unfortunately, to do this properly takes an admin, which I am not. - IMSoP 02:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't require an admin; I just did it.  --Brouhaha 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDP-20 

message: I question whether the machine should ba called a "minicomputer".  I think that it should qualify as a "mainframe computer" — unsigned comment by TenexHacker on 20:13, 2006-10-07 (UTC)
You can question it all you want. Olsen and everybody at DEC knew they were making Minicomputers. No DEC machine, ever, was a mainframe. 77.127.166.197 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minicomputer? 

message: “PDP-10 computers running the TOPS-10 operating system were labeled DECsystem-10 as a way of differentiating them from the PDP-11.”
Might anyone have an actual reference for that claim?  DEC named (almost) all of their computers “PDP-”, and the different numbers seemed an adequate way to distinguish each model from the others.  Was the DECsystem-10 name really invented because someone at DEC thought there would be confusion between PDP-10 and PDP-11?  76.100.23.153 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DECsystem-10 

message: Hi, 
I'm reverting this edit of yours. The reason is that your claim that the only "physical" change were a different paint seemingly contradicts the sources - at least if one considers changes of hardware as "physical", which I (among others) do. Best, JoergenB (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  For starters, a rather obvious difference was the height of the cabinets. Lars Brinkhoff (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical differences
Talk:Sud Aviation Super-Caravelle

message: There is a problem :
The late Caravelles (subsonic) were also Super Caravelles.
Look at the engine on this photo :
This is a Super Caravelle
Ericd 01:44, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: obviously a stub, but not even a mention that a short range supersonic aircraft would have undoubtedly been producing lots of sonic booms over a heavily populated landmass creating an environmental and publicity disaster?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  funny, very funny
Talk:Hoax letter writers

message: What's a lexilink? -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:18, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#
====Survey - in opposition to the move====
#Weak oppose. I don't like the word "spoof" here. To me that term would imply that the list consists of imitations, rather than pranks. I know that's not the only definition of "spoof", but I believe it to be the most common. I agree with changing the title to reflect that this is a list. Dekimasuよ! 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Weak oppose. I don't like the word "spoof" here. To me that term would imply that the list consists of imitations, rather than pranks. I know that's not the only definition of "spoof", but I believe it to be the most common. I agree with changing the title to reflect that this is a list. Dekimasuよ! 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: Francis Wagstaffe is another pseudonymous author who has been removed from the main article. That was the name used by the Rev. Canon Toby Forward when he wrote spoof letters to Anglican bishops, in order to publish their replies as "The Spiritual Quest of Francis Wagstaffe." He has the distinction of having had his collection of short stories, "Down the Road, Worlds Away" by "Rahila Khan" (Virago Upstarts, 1987) withdrawn and pulped by the publisher. NRPanikker (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francis Wagstaffe 

message: Other readers who are better informed than I may be able to help decide whether the epistolary novel "Letters of an Indian Judge to an English Gentlewoman" published in 1934 under a pseudonym by the romantic novelist Dora Black should be counted as a collection of hoax letters. It was obvious to me that it was a work of fiction, but the famous literary critic Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak was taken in by it in recent years. What should settle the question is how it was received at the time. I don't have ready access to bound volumes of literary magazines from the 1930's, or of the British and Indian newspapers where it may have been reviewed when it first came out. NRPanikker (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letters of an Indian Judge to an English Gentlewoman
Talk:RAF radio alphabet

message: Should that be Nab/Negate?  —Michael Z. 2005-04-11 18:11 Z
:I've usually seen that written as Nan - i.e., N-Nan. Ian Dunster 08:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nab/Negat 

message: Since the table is not ref'd, I'm redoing it.  One of the sources confirms the first column, w a few changes, including the dates; there seems to be no room for the second, as the first went directly to the third, so I'm commenting it out; and I've changed some of the third though I don't have a good ref yet.  Please restore if I've screwed up, just include your refs so we can confirm.  — kwami (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting / changing
Talk:Grand Army Plaza

message: Some things that I would like to contribute to the Grand Army Plaza page of Wikipedia is more on the history of how the Grand Army Plaza came to be. Along with this, I would add more information on the architecture within the plaza. I might talk about the political and historical aspects of the Grand Army Plaza as well.
Bibliography:
Bailey Fountain Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn, 1932. The New York Times. The New Work Times, 18 July 2010. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.
Karsten, Peter. Encyclopedia of War and American Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006. Print.
Pogrebin, Robin. “Shaping a Plaza’s Next Century.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 June 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.
Gabriela Shen (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding information to Grand Army Plaza page 

message: Should this page be moved to Grand Army Plaza (Brooklyn) to disambiguate from Grand Army Plaza (Manhattan)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of only two GAPs, of which one is near where I'm sitting and the other in Brooklyn. In colloquial talk, my neighbors usually call the one near us by a more complex locution such as, "In front of the Plaza Hotel". Jim.henderson (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Grand Army Plaza (Brooklyn)?
Talk:Supercentenarian

message: Can anyone shed some light on the age verification process that is mentioned in the article, but not explained?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeliff (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification process 

message: He also did a Timex watch commercial 2603:6080:3506:B74:C9D2:259D:48E6:8EC9 (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willie Duberry South Carolina was said to had lived to 121 I don't see him listed
Talk:Inaccessible Island rail

message: *
*
*
*
*
*Reduction of the Clavicles in the Mesoenatidae, with Some Remarks Concerning the Relationship of the Clavicle to Flight-Function in Birds
*Rothschild, L. W. "On the eggs of Atlantisia rogersi." Bulletin of the British Ornithologists Club 48 (1928).
*Rand, Austin Loomer. "The origin of the land birds of Tristan da Cunha." Fieldiana Zool 37 (1955): 139-166.
*Hänel, C. H. R. I. S. T. I. N. E., and RICARDO L. Palma. "The lice of the Tristan da Cunha Archipelago." Beitrage zur Entomologie 57.1 (2007): 105-133.
*
*
*
*
*
Not all of these will be used, but most have something to add. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 19:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papers to include 

message: I removed the following section:
Given its small size, the species is regarded as an example of insular dwarfism, with isolation on a small island free of terrestrial mammals having allowed it to assume the ecological role of a mouse.
My reasoning is thus:
::*Foster's rule is generally applied to closely related taxa. You'd say make a comparison between members of the same genus or closely related genera. This makes sense, as animals exhibit ranges of sizes so one best describes a species unusual size in relation to closely related species (Is an aardvark a giant or a dwarf? Who knows?). This species is monotypic and its closest relatives are uncertain and considerable time has passed since it diverged from them so in that regards the application of Foster's rule to this species is problematic. 
::*With regards to its closest relatives as currently understood, the genus Laterallus is itself tiny and mouselike. The black rail  and Junin crake are comparable in size if not slightly smaller, and the other members of the genus are around the same size or very slightly larger. So if the species is roughly the same size as their relatives, how can they be a good example of insular dwarfism? I would guess that the suggestion that they are an example of insular dwarfs is based on an earlier taxonomy?
::*Finally, Foster's rule would suggest that small species get larger on islands, not smaller. This obviously didn't happen either.
:*I don't think it's worth even including it as a "it has been suggested that it is an example of". I don't wish to disparage the book, but in the context of this species the book is not a reliable source (even if it's otherwise good). Sabine's Sunbird  talk 04:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Island dwarfism 

message: my in inkom hap for your time and same you go to raju sardar Patel nagar name is on 2409:4070:AECA:6F:0:0:D749:7C0B (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rajendra sardar
Talk:Phelsuma quadriocellata lepida

message: Hi Kingturtle, 
I put"KRÜGER 1993" back in the Phelsuma quadriocellata lepida article. The scientific name of a plant or animal consists of its Latin name + the author who first described this species + the year in which the species was described. Sometimes the name of the author is abbreviated (like L. for Linaeus). Please do not remove the author in other articles on animals!
Cheers,
Jurriaan 06:49, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Talk:Square mile

message: I am wondering about the wording of this article.  It says A square mile (symbol mi²) is an imperial unit which is the area of a square whose side is one mile.
Shouldn't this read ...which is equal to the area of a square... Or is the current definition a formal definition of what a square mile is? -- Popsracer 10:42, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "...but like many imperial units which have officially been "abolished" in the United Kingdom, it remains very familiar in that country, with extensive unofficial usage."
Err... we still use miles officially here. Not sure what to do about changing this. Don't want to just delete it, but...
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mullet (talk • contribs) .
: AFAIK the UK’s only (but very visible) remaining official use of the mile is in traffic and there you don’t need square miles. Christoph Päper 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK
Talk:Square kilometre

message: Though the information about Brugge and Chester is very interesting, their areas are nowhere near one square kilometre. Brugge is more than 3.5 square kilometres and Chester is just over half a square kilometre. Neither city is a good illustration of a square kilometre so their presence in an article about the square kilometre is not justified. What do others think? Michael Glass (talk)
:I included them to show the range of sizes that one might encounter when estimating the areas enclosed by city walls and to encourage readers to make their own estimations when they arrive at an unknown city. Both have a well-defined boundary, unlike London, Rome or Paris where the medieval boundaries have all but vanished from the maps. Martinvl (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brugge and Chester 

message: Proposal: merging Square kilometre and 1 E+6 m²
Rationale. It was proposed one time earlier but no discussion seems to have come of it—and no merger. These to articles have overwhelmingly overlapping topics. Therefore I suggest they be merged, though I have no preference for which way. __meco (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: Is there a better wording for k(m2) than "kilo–square metre"? --Backinstadiums (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a correct wording, and no better one was ever considered, because this unit is only fictional and not in practical use. Purgy (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  kilo–square metre
Talk:Contrast

message: I have a formula for contras computation and it is:
:C=\frac{R_{white}}{R_{black}}.
Do you know more about it ? This is the special case of black and white. I also have some table values from IEEE of contrasts for paper and LCD displays. Do you think this should suite the Contrast keyword? // Rogper 12:52, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't understand what these contrast values mean some computer magazine give in their lcd monitor tests, for example: 400:1 or 300:1. --Abdull 23:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Should "max" and "min" in "Lmax" and "Lmin" be subscripted? DMacks 16:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrast formula
Talk:Caste War of Yucatán

message: There needs to be more signifigant material added to that section, or else it should be removed and that ONE sentence added to another section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.35.227 (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the isolated section wasn't contributing to the article, and have removed it. Some future expansion to the article can presumably address any significant displacements of populations. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless section: "Cozumel" 

message: The real name in Spanish is "Guerra de Castas" 
The Name Caste War i absolutly Wrong.... it wasn't a War of puryty an virginal behavor, it was a war of Races and social status... a war of indians vs whites.
Casta = Raza.
Casta means Lineage or Breed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ximbal (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what definition you're using for "caste", but that is absolutely the appropriate word to describe a combination of "Races and social status".  "Breed War" would make no sense in English; "Race War" might work, but "Caste War" works better. Binabik80 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether or not one wishes to argue about the best translation "Caste War" has been the standard English name for decades, well established in English language literature on the subject. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Important. Is Not Caste, Is Breed. 

message: the infobox puts the UK & british honduras on the mexican side only. that doesn't do justice to the complexity of the war as far as i understand the rest of the article. something like 1847-1893 economic & military support on the mayan side, and after that on the mexican one might be more accurate, for example. i suggest somebody with in-depth expertise to edit and substantiate the infobox accordingly. EnTerbury (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  side of UK in the war
Talk:List of towns in the United Kingdom

message: Where do we put towns that are unitary thingies in the list, by the way? -- Tarquin 10:27, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  This also proves why administrative "counties" should not be used. Technically, unitary authority areas are in NO administrative "county". Thus, the use of real historic Counties solves this problem. If you ask someone which county they live in they are not going to reply "I live in the Unitary Authory area of such and such"! They WILL however reply that they live in "the County of such-and-such-historic-County". UAAs can be mentioned in the main articles for the town in question, but they have no place on this list. 80.255 11:39, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unitary doodads 

message: I notice someone (User:Warofdreams) has removed all the second-level alphabetical headers. I agree that the TOC is less cluttered but this does make it more difficult to "spot-edit" a single letter's worth. I would suggest splitting the page in four, one for each top-level header, so we can use a compact alphabetical TOC for each. Phil 08:45, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)
:I've split the page up, and Phil Boswell has added the compact TOCs. Warofdreams 16:34, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings

message: This article is grossly misleading - particularly the third paragraph.
In the UK, city status is ONLY conferred by a Royal Charter (hence the competition between towns when it is known that new cities are to be designated, e.g. in 2000 and 2002 and why Rochester lost its city status.)
Please see the Wikipedia article 'City status in the United Kingdom' for a much more accurate explanation.
Any 'measure' that goes against the official definition is no more accurate or relevant than folklore and merely adds to confusion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:890D:6C01:356F:370B:3170:694E (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: City status
Talk:Richard Burbage

message: did he have any middle names, any names other than his short title of Richard Burbage? andrew rickert 02:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This page says "After the death of their father in February 1593, Richard and his brother Cuthbert ..."  But the page for James Burbage (father of Richard and Cuthbert) gives his death date as 1597.  What year did James Burbage die? DerJKlinge (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death date for James Burbage: 1593 or 1597 

message: I've also seen it as 7 January and even 7 July.  How sure are we that it was 6 January?  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth date

message: :
If someone is "widely considered" famous, is not that alone enough to make him famous? —Tamfang (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily, if those doing the considering are after his time. Still makes me itch though. —Tamfang (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  fame and meta-fame
Wikipedia talk:EUobserver cooperation

message: This description seems to say the info is temporarily in the public domain for Wikipedia's use only, but PD means that every sentence is fair game for mangling and redistribution forever, and in particular I'm not required to attribute it to anybody in particular. Stan 16:23, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the public domain for everyone (but only the summaries, and only the material released during the agreement). Please feel free to clarify this in the text if it is not obvious.—Eloquence 16:42, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Talk:Chewbacca defense

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion after a concensus emerged to keep:
*Chewbacca Defense - nonsense, very specific, very unencyclopedic. TwoOneTwo 22:00, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  VFD discussion from 2003 

message: Martha Stewart's defense is using something similar:
On Monday, Strassberg called the prosecution's case a house of cards, repeating "it makes no sense" 23 times in the first hour of his closing argument.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/02/news/companies/martha/index.htm?cnn=yes
67.113.40.155 18:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martha Stewart 

message: Have your Slashdot aside if you must, but the "see also" should be part of the usage section, not a separate section. --ihatepotsmokinghippies 05:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slashdot 

message: I'm not sure how the "Note on Ewoks" is relevant to the rest of the article:
"It is inconclusive as to whether George Lucas created Ewoks out of budget constraint or as a marketing scheme."
It looks a bit gratuitous to me. --Lorem Ipsum 06:21, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Ewoks 

message: When I saw the original South Park episode, I assumed the Chewbacca argument was a reference to an actual copyright infingement case, Dean Preston v. 20th Century Fox Canada Limited et al (1990), but the article makes no mention of this.  Essentially the plaintiff claimed that the ewoks were taken from a script he sent to 20th Century Fox, rather than being adapted from the Wookiee concept.
Some details in this pdf  Zoganes 14:01, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
: The connection doesn't seem likely to me... Evercat 23:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to actual copyright infingement case