lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Contract bridge diagram

message: Is it appropriate to have a list of WP bridge hand diagram templates (or a link to such a list) on either the article's main page or its talk page? Matchups 02:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Those templates are primarily editors' aid rather than encyclopedia content per se. Duja 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates
Talk:Commonwealth Nations Bridge Championships

message: At a glance, I agree with the conclusion by User:Awo that the singular is appropriate, but I disagree with the reasoning. We should say "Championship" because there is only one tournament, or competition (as we often say), or event (as they say re Olympic Games, at least). We should say "Championships" where there are multiple championships conferred, most commonly where at least one of women, seniors, or juniors compete alongside open competition.
At most, the use of singular or plural at an official website should govern the title of an article here. (Proper nouns used by WBF, EBL, and ACBL vary so much, even in naming one competition, that I think we should go further and impose some consistency in full names.) --P64 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Championship(s) 
Talk:Audrey Grant

message: I am not sure if it is just the article and lack of references but she doesn't seem to pass the GNG. Just writing a bridge book does not pass the notability test.Tetron76 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: She is in the American Contract Bridge League Hall of Fame; far more than enough to qualify her as notable.  Newwhist (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Isn't her name Audrey Grant Lindop, though she continues to use Audrey Grant? David Lindop is her (apparently third) husband.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:2F10:40A5:0:0:0:2F10:40A5 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Audrey Grant Lindop???
Talk:Digital Monster

message: Noting that a discussion about changing the name of this article is happening on WT:DIGI#Change title of Digimon Battle Pet Article. -- Ned Scott 02:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion ended, article name changed from Digimon Battle Pets to Digimon virtual pet. --Gear-Richie 22:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name change 

message: According to the article:
"For a Digimon to grow into Ultimate level, Digimon must at least battle fifteen times in Rookie and Champion levels.
Digimon could only reach the Ultimate level by battling 40 times in their lifetime and winning at least 60% of them (unconfirmed)."
Why are two contradicting statements written in the same paragraph? Since no sources are used, (i.e. orginal research, but is [probably] acceptable in a document like this), the more "reliable" one should be included. I'm pretty sure that there's a minimum win percentage, but "40 times" is by far too high in terms of number.
Yoda921 05:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody has answered me, I've fixed this.
Yoda921 06:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prerequisites for ultimate 

message: It's redundant, it's dubious, it's poorly formatted...where are all the Digimon fanboys? Someone please clean this up with sources, or I'll chop all out. 69.182.67.235 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess. 

message: the intro says it came out in 1995 it came out in 1997  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.225.22 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: the numbers no longer make sense. bandai announced in december 2021 they had sold 14 million units since 1997. we list 14 million sold in 2004, and 24 million units in 2005.Muur (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: sales figures
Talk:Index of journalism articles

message: . . .
1. Assaults
2. Assassination 
3. Impunity
. . .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaiki (talk • contribs) 05:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section suggestions 

message: I suggest adding the article on Hallin's spheres to the index. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hallin's spheres
Talk:Available energy (particle collision)

message: The move was done improperly. If someone gets the redirect deleted, and this page moved properly, I don't mind. I just want the history preserved. However, I'm unsure as to how the new name would be any better (or worse for that matter). Fresheneesz 08:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that.  I don't move very often.  I'll try to move it properly now. The term "Available energy" in physics has a definition by Gibbs in classical thermodynamics (that is also called exergy).  To me, differentiating between the two articles by calling one "(physics)" implies that the other isn't physics.  I don't think these two meanings are related because the second law in the exergy sense requires a macroscopic system that isn't needed for a two-particle system. "Available" is just an adjective, and it could be used in lots of different ways, I guess.  There's also "available energy states" as described in the Fermi energy article, and that's physics too even though it refers to one particle with no collision, so calling this article "particle physics" doesn't seem right either.  I'm going to try moving it to "Available energy (particle collision)." Flying Jazz 12:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, ok, that makes sense. If you're trying to move it, you may not know that you can't move the page to where you wanted it now - because that page exists (as a redirect). You need to propose deletion, using the  template, and once the page is deleted, you can move this page to it. I suppose thats why this page is at (particle collision) instead of (particle physics). Fresheneesz 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: moving to Available energy (particle physics)

message: This definition implicitly (yuch) assumes a setup where
an incoming particle (beam) hits a stationary target,
a.k.a. "stationary target" experiments.
In the last 30 years, setups where particle beams
collide dominate particle physics, and in particular,
the energy frontier (though stationary target experiments 
have a very sizable niche).
So this page is overly specific, and even if it's
renamed to "particle physics" it still 
fails to live up to its title.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.224.150 (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This doesn't even cover the particle physics usage 

message: I never heard of this term--- the available energy is just the center of mass energy minus the sum of the masses of the most stable particles with the same conserved quantities which can be made by the collision. Is this called available energy?Likebox (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depends on the Collision 

message: http://www.physics.lancs.ac.uk/resources/alevel/p3.pdf
The above link contains a reasonably good reference for the main equation in the article. I checked the derivation and it gives the right equation. 
I think that the E term should be the total enrgy of the moving particle rather than it's kinetic energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davide De Mola (talk • contribs) 11:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Reference for the Equation
Talk:Unusual notrump

message: A phrase in this article, deleted today, claims that the UNT is one of the earliest conventions devised in bridge. In fact, Stayman was devised in the early 1930s, as was Blackwood, the GSF and Gerber. The Lightner slam double came along in 1929, along with the strong 2 club opening , and the takeout double goes back at least to 1912. One club forcing and artificial was used in auction bridge and Harold Vanderbilt build the Vanderbilt Club on it in the 1920s.
Alvin Roth came up with the UNT in 1948. TurnerHodges (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Attribution statement and reference added accordingly.  Newwhist (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an early convention
Talk:Suction convention

message: This convention description could use more clarity regarding the options for this convention (mentioned at the end), and in particular should include some definition of hand strength and/or distribution in order to use the convention in the first place. One assumes that it should not just be used for any hand...high card point count or numbers of cards per biddable suit are necessary parameters for almost any bridge convention used to defend against a strong bid by opponents. Also, does this convention presuppose the opponents have in fact bid strong nt (15-17 hcp) or is designed to work against a weaker nt opening ?
Kenfree (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Context required

message: The article currently states that the convention is not permitted except over artificial openings.  What is the reason for this, if correct? Newwhist (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This restriction on suction has been lifted for Open and Open+ acbl convention charts (effective May 2023).  Here is the current ACBL convention chart: https://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/Convention-Charts.pdf 76.88.104.166 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: ACBL prohibition
Talk:HMS Unicorn (I72)

message: This ship cannot be correctly described as firing its guns in wartime at Korean land targets. An official state of war was never declared in Korea.AT Kunene (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You quibble, sir. The difference between a "police action" and a formally declared war is pretty irrelevant to the guy on the receiving end. The United States hasn't declared war since 1941, do you deny that it has legally been at war more than once since then?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  wartime? 
Talk:Ai Yazawa

message: If it's marked with s outside, why's it rated Start here? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I had a moment :P Fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmph. Such a mundane reason. Next time be more interesting, eh? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Nana has been on hiatus for a while now due to Yazawa's illness - is this correct? Any sources or more info on this? 84.196.52.80 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct, though I don't have a current source of the sort usable on the page just at hand. Possibly check ANN? She's been unable to work on it for something like nearly a year now. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Ah, here we go -- news reports have her health problems starting in June 2009, with Nana officially going on hiatus with the August (on sale in July) issue. Still no resumption since. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illness 

message: Yazawa is listed as a co-creator on the "Princess Ai" entry.  That should probably be on this page as well.  Eventually, when I've time, I'll refresh my wiki-fu and fix that but would welcome it if someone beat me to the punch.  72.130.91.250 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other works 
Talk:Hidetsugu Aneha

message: The Japanese version of this page has been deleted.  Perhaps we should delete the English one as well?
*No problem. In Japanese wikipedia, we must not create the articles about private citizen. In English wikipedia, creating private citizen's article is permitted. Aneha is referred to a private citizen in Japan. But I don't think so! His name is frequently reported as a criminal by the Japanese media. Additionally, he was summoned to the Diet of Japan as a witness. He is a public citizen, not private! --Hatto 06:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 面白い規則ですね。LordAmeth 16:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: In the text the architect is classified several times as an first class architect? What does this mean? -88.72.230.67 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First class architect
Talk:Moto Hagio

message: See what you can do with that --KrebMarkt 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. That had be linked to in the External Links, but the link rotted. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

text: From what i could gather she gave at least 2 more interviews ref one with About.com Deb Aoki and one with Comics212's Christopher Butcher so more interviews stuffs to come :p --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries -- it's actually better that we use the archived version, as we know it's stable. Thanks for the update tho'. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I've done a sandbox to begin the work on the anthology's page. --Malkinann (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  refcleaned --Malkinann (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  refs 

message: *
All apologies: The link to my quote from the first paragraph has changed. 
- Dirk Deppey, The Comics Journal
:: No worries -- it's actually better that we use the archived version, as we know it's stable. Thanks for the update tho'. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref changed 

message: Coverage started raining:
*From RS website or blog passing WP:SPS:
**GNR Snow Wildsmith
**Manga Critic Katherine Dacey
**Publisher Weekly Archived link on August 11, 2010
**Manga Cumurdgeon David Welsh more to come
**ANN Lissa Pattillo
*From NOT RS or NOT ACCEPTABLE SPS yet informative and good read:
**Comics Girl
**Genji Press
Side note: Guess who got into the queue for Moto Hagio signing?
--KrebMarkt (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a sandbox to begin the work on the anthology's page. --Malkinann (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  refcleaned --Malkinann (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Drunken Dream
Talk:Keiko Takemiya

message: More universities offering majors in manga Keiko Takemiya position as head of the manga faculty. --KrebMarkt 17:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs dump 
Talk:Kaze to Ki no Uta

message: Here's some more information for the production/reception sections. I won't be on Wikipedia much for the next few weeks, so I figured I'd post everything I collected on the talk page for you to check out. These are just the bullet points; I posted the full article/book excerpts with machine translations and citations in my sandbox. :) KuroMina (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pulling this together; I'll integrate it into the article in the coming days. Morgan695 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've integrated the basic outline you've posted here into the article, except for the What Did You Eat Yesterday? note, which feels a bit WP:TRIVIA to me. I'll take a look at your sandbox in the next few days to see if I can flesh out some of the sections even more. Thanks again for pulling this together; this really expands the Development section especially in a way that makes a much stronger case for taking to FA status. Morgan695 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There was enough info on Sanrūmu Nite in your research that I was able to spin it off into its own article; please feel free to edit/expand it as well. Morgan695 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. :) I hope the article makes it to FA status! And thank you for the co-nomination; that wasn't necessary, but it was kind of you. I bought Takemiya's 2021 autobiography the other day, so I'll let you know if I find any more interesting details/stories. Glad to see there was enough material for a Sunroom article, too; I'll be sure to take a look at it soon. KuroMina (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

text: BTW: I checked the OVA's end credits, and Triangle Staff appears at the very end under "production cooperation" (), along with three other companies. (Here's a transcription of the end credits via a fan wiki.) So they were involved but in a minimal role. A few other animation studios, such as Studio Max and Studio Musashi, are credited for the "in-between animation" (). There isn't anyone listed as the primary animation studio, as far as I can tell. The Anime Encyclopedia says the OVA was "[produced by] Studio Gallop, Konami Kogyo, [and] Herald." However, Studio Gallop doesn't appear in the end credits at all, and their website doesn't mention Kaze to Ki no Uta Sanctus. The 1987 June advertisement I cited in the "Adaptations" section says Konami was responsible for the "animation production/work" (), using the same kana/kanji for animation studios. But I don't think Konami ever owned an animation studio. =/ Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut answer about the OVA's production. KuroMina (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pulling that together. Listed these details in the article with conflicting info in notes per WP:CONFLICTINGSOURCES. Morgan695 (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info dump
Talk:Negative double

message: Good work on improving the article - any chance of giving references for the polls? I mean can you cite the artcle rather than just give  a mention of it at the bottom? Cambion 12:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

message: FT2, your efforts to expand the article are highly appreciated; however, would you please take care to clean it up and remove duplicate information; in particular, see WP:LEAD—now we have an overlong introduction and table of contents in the midst of the text? Duja► 16:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, I see that it wasn't entirely your fault, and that it was in similar shape before. Nevertheless, my plea stands. Duja► 16:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

message: The material that was added on July 5 is (in decreasing order of import) wrong, careless, poorly written and indulges in POV. No wonder the editor decided to remain anonymous. It is wrong: among other problems, it implies that in the sequence 1m-(1H)-Dbl, the double promises 4 spades. Of course it is often played this way, but many play the double to show 5 spades and bid 1S with 4. It is careless: the tables contain extraneous braces and inconsistent capitalization. It is poorly written: the editor cannot decide whether a sentence's subject is singular or plural. It contains POV: the reader has no interest in the editor's attitude toward "modern bid at any cost bidding." Enough. I think I can successfully defend my removal of the edits. TurnerHodges (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of July 5 2010 edit 

message: Thanks.  One example of what impressed me was the history, including the derivation of the term.  All of the information I've seen on the web about what "negative" means is vague and confusing and, it turns out, incorrect. 
Mark.camp (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outstanding article!
Talk:Silent Valley Reservoir

message: An article exists on the Binnian Tunnel.  Should we not just point to it from the Silent Valley page? --Marksie531 08:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete. AlexSloan 22:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binnian Tunnel Exists As Seperate Article
Talk:Michaels cuebid

message: I don't think it is "commonly agreed" that Michaels not be used on very weak hands. There is widespread disagreement on this and I suggest changing it unless some very good reference can be found. 
I am not arguing the merits of the approach suggested; I am simply saying that it is a suggested approach and not what is commonly agreed.
I think it is much more common to play Micheals and the Unusual NoTrump, for that matter, on very weak or very strong hands. Expressed in HCP, 5-11 and 18+ would describe how most of the people at tournaments play the conventions. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point Count Requirements
Talk:Operation Cycle

message: It isn't finished yet but it's better than the previous edit. The narrative after 5 June needs doing, the lead is inadequate and Karslake and Roskill have more to say. The German side needs more detail tooKeith-264 (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Is this a British or French unit? The text is unclear and there is no xref. Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: French, thought it was obvious, apols.Keith-264 (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  31st (Alpine) Division 

message: The insertion of this informal label, while allowing a degree of brevity in the text, has the disadvantage of not being strictly accurate.
It might be a contraction too far to refer to elements of the 51st (H) Division as a whole as 'Highlanders'.
It is more customary to refer only to soldiers of Highland regiments as 'Highlanders.' While the infantry brigades of the 51st Highland Division were made up of battalions drawn from the Highland regiments, in addition to several support units from the Corps there were units serving in the division that were not Highland- notably the Lothian and Borders Horse- or  even Scottish, for example the machine gunners from the Middlesex Regiment and Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, as well as pioneer battalions of the Royal Norfolk Regiment and Royal Scots Fusiliers. These all fought or were captured at St Valery.
I suggest it would be more accurate, and do proper justice to the other troops mentioned (proud though they might be at the association), to find another portmanteau term to referring to undifferentiated portions of the division. 
JF42 (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's far too much detail, unless equivalent information can be added for French and German units which will be far too long.
PS you shouldn't revert talk page comment. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You misunderstand. The  generalisation although convenient, is inaccurate. I am not suggesting you itemise the information which I provided to indicate why it is accurate. I am reccommending that you find a more fitting expression. It is not a major point but it deprives the article of authority.
JF42 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

text: There's nothing to misunderstand; it's a difference of opinion.Keith-264 (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Have another look.Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Highlanders'
Talk:Meckwell convention

message: The link to the Bridge Bum article describes Meckwell Escapes (by the partnership which has bid 1NT), not the Meckwell defense against 1NT. I haven't edited it out, because it still is interesting and perhaps related.HughieGRex (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Bridge Bum link subsequently removed by others; Meckwell Escapes deserve their own article. Newwhist (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge Bum Article
Talk:Lionel convention

message: It was proposed to merge this stub with others. It was not made explicit with which articles this could be merged with, nor was a reason for merger given. 
If you merge this article, you have to merge together all articles in List_of_defenses_to_1NT. Would not give a desireable outcome. Also, this article has the potential to grow (example hands, alternative responses, (dis)advantages over other treatments, etc.). JocK 09:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge