lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Lingua franca

message: Comments welcome please. An IP - '222.152.26.228' - has expanded this short subsection with further statements and Wp:CITEKILL numerous citations. There are many issues with this and I don't have time to work through that section properly. If you don't already know, as part of the Maori Renaissance in NZ, there is a widespread promotion of all things to do with Maori culture and language, a project enthusiastically adopted by certain sections of society prone to such causes. This subsection is an example of what is happening. Some general concerns that other editors with more time might want to handle, or just comment on here, are: 1/ Most of the sources are not ideal Independent-RSSs they are opinion pieces or govt published articles 2/ Maori words have been used instead of the commonly understood English words (I have put back the two islands to 'North Island' and 'South Island', for example. 3/ Classical Maori is a theoretical term with no evidence to back its existence - Maori were illiterate until European arrival in the late 18thC. It is the term used to describe the unknown form of the language during the period known as Classical period of Maori history c. (1500-1769). It is debatable if it should be in this list. 3/ WP:SYNTH is everywhere. The last sentence about an 1867 act is being used, for example, as evidence that because of that act Maori stopped being a lingua franca. This is original research and off-topic. 4/ The term L-F here refers to the period from 1769 to 1840/50. Some Europeans used Maori with varying levels of fluency to communicate with the locals, such as in barter and by Church missionaries. This is not really a lingua franca situation, and if it can be technically described as such, it goes against the spirit and intent of the term. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Maori 

message: : [German] 
This seems to say that beyond Europe the countries where German is official are Namibia. 
Is Namibia the only one (in which case the sentence ought to be rewritten), the most populous, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is the only one with official status on a national level outside of Europe, see German language. It is, however, also a recognized minority language on a sub-national level in Brazil. Additionally, the Azovsky Nemetsky National District in Russia lies outside the boundaries of geographical Europe. These are the ones documented on Wikipedia, but use of German as a lingua franca is not confined to these places (it is, after all, still one of the most-spoken languages in Europe, and still has a pretty large set of L2 speakers). TucanHolmes (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  the range of German
Talk:Stunnel

message: Do encyclopedia entries for software projects make sense?  matt 17:25 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
If they are important software projects, yes. The Anome 17:30 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
:Yeah, that's what I think.  Linux yes.  Stunnel no.  matt 03:59 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
:Why not?  It is not like we are concerned with limited space and have to pick and choose between the two.  We can have both.  Each software project should be given the attention it deserves.  If stunnel is not important, not a lot needs to be said about it.  Does the article add to human knowledge?  yes.  Does it somehow minimize articles on other software projects?  no.  
:Webmin is usin it. 84.137.193.250 18:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: From the given example:
:"Network traffic from clients connecting to the mail server on port 465 would initially pass over SSL to the Stunnel application, which would then transparently forward unsecured traffic to port 25 of the mail server."
So stunnel is good for faking security when there actually is none? Weird example. --Abdull (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The example is valid. Stunnel is being used to add a security layer to a mail server, not a client, and thus enables encrypted traffic over the open Internet.--Chrisj1948 (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-security? 

message: The first application protocol I ever implemented was SMTP so I really appreciated the example.  However, think that perhaps an HTTP port-80 vs. port-443 tunnel might be more understandable or relateable to most people?
SystemBuilder (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe HTTP is a better example?
Talk:Fitness

message: of fitness. -- Tarquin
: Why was the link to Fitness (sport) removed? --- Timo Honkasalo 15:20 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
 
Because Fitness (sport) is the page for an actual sport named "fitness". AFAIK, there is no such sport. The page for medical fitness would me medical fitness or fitness (medical) or fitness (health) -- Tarquin 15:22 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
:A least in Finland where I live, there is a sport named "Fitness" and they have championship matches and stuff. Maybe it goes by some other name elsewhere, or maybe it's completely local phenomenon. I wouldn't be suprised, some other pretty weird sports have been invented here, like "Nordic walking".
Then I stand corrected! :-) Put the link back in and write an article to tell us about it!  -- Tarquin 22:49 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
C'mon people we need more than this . So people try and say more  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.3.35 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Water pipe

message: Water pipe is measured by its OD in the UK. Is this true for elsewhere?
Yes it is.
no it isnt
In Ontario, Canada waterpipe (more commonly refered to as watermain) is measured using the inner diameter of the pipe. Metric is commonly used on blueprints, but English measurments still have their place (and supporters) on the jobsite.  For example, 8" PVC watermain would be shown on the engineering blueprints as 203MM, while 6" sanitary/utility PV C would be shown as 150MM, a 2.4MM discrepancy that is understood and accepted given the non exacting tolerances than can be worked with in the industry. Markca 08:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

message: Where is the transition point between pipe threading and pipe flanging, where there is a ring or lip at the pipe end, and which is bolted to the next pipe end? Is use of flanges based on pipe size, pressure, or some other reason? -- DMahalko (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threading vs flanging
Talk:Case-based reasoning

message: This entry is incorrect. Not just a bit off, but completely so. CBR was around years before Alice (in 1988, 3 years before Alice, Jaime Carbonell had a paper on it). Any objections to deleting this entry until someone can properly research it?
Zippy 23:32 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
----
I just found that there's already a much better entry for "Case based reasoning" - redirecting this entry to that one.
Zippy 04:18 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
----
Hi, Can u tell me then what is this mean?
http://pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=c96f911b3e35f9e1
What do u think about it?
Is there somebody online at the other end?
Or is it an example of "Case-based reasoning" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
: Neither. It's a simple "bot" that can respond to a small number of pre-programmed questions. It's nothing complex like CBR. 86.174.124.26 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I recognise the example about Fred and his blueberry pancake recipe. Isn't it from Kolodner? Has it been sufficiently (or at all) rephrased? 86.174.124.26 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio?

message: I am deeply dissatisfied with this article because it doesn't define "case-based reasoning" precisely enough to distinguish it from other data-based artificial intelligence techniques in general. If someone could write the precise distinguishing characteristics of "case-based reasoning" I would appreciate it a lot. (I also want to write Textual case-based reasoning, so I'll need some background). Duckmather (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of term is too unclear 

message: The diagrams that this article presents appear to be labelled in french, meaning that they are not very useful for presumably most users of the english wikipedia. Are there alternatives of the appropriate language? MinimumViablePerson (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams in french?
Talk:Disarmament of Iraq

message: Is there a reason this article has not been merged with Iraq disarmament crisis?  It seems rather outdated -- for example Hussein 'denies' WMD (present tense & by now well-known as true).  Does anyone object to a merger, then deletion of this article? Wolfman 00:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?
Talk:HTML tag

message: Can someone verify that:
 <li/Foo/
is valid HTML? I doubt it. It does not render in IE6 or Opera711.
:It is valid HTML, since HTML is an SGML application. It is not recommended HTML however, and it is highly probably it will fail in all web browsers. I've added a note on that to the page. Jor 01:07, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Shorthand notation

message: I figure since this page exists I might as well advocate some standards-compliant practices here. Jor 01:07, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewritten partially 

message: I'm redirecting this article to HTML element. Here's why:
* It seems fairly useless to have an encyclopedia article on a single semantic structure (the HTML tag) that has no meaning outside the context of an HTML element. It would be like having an article on the C++ left parenthesis.
* The bulk of the current article discusses various shorthand notations involving HTML tags, inherited from SGML. These are more appropriately discussed in the HTML or SGML articles.
* The remainder of the article's contents is about HTML elements.
I personally don't think there's any useful information here; history will of course be preserved in case anyone wants to vet the prior version for things to add to the HTML element or other articles. -- Wapcaplet 18:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting to [[HTML element]]
Talk:Norman Schwarzkopf

message: Should this page be a redirect too Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.? He's certainly the more famous one, and just about anyone searching for "Norman Schwarzkopf" is looking for him rather than his father (whose main claim to fame involves a not terribly significant connection to the Lindburgh kidnapping). A disambiguation header at the top of Jr's article would take care of the few people looking for his father. -R. fiend 19:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: redirect
Talk:Struan's

message: A number of minor characters related to Struans are being proposed for merger rather than being deleted.  They have no notability of their own under WP:FICT. JASpencer 20:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - go for it. Radagast83 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: Why does this page have the extra S? LonelyPker 16:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Struan"s"? 

message: It is too bad the author wasn't able to write Struan's through the Hong Kong transfer to PRC control in 1997. That would have been something. Chris (クリス) (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clavell

message: A cleanIPA tag has been readded to this article. The tag says that there is non-IPA pronunciation information in the article, though as far as I can see there isn't.  Does this imply that editors would like to see some of the names given in IPA?  If so, specifying which on the talkpage would be helpful. --Slp1 (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA
Talk:Marie Curie

message: Maria Curie to Maria Skłodowska-Curie, which is her actual full name. She used both surnames legally. 70.50.69.217 (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024 

message: Please add this under Commemoration and Cultural Depictions:
Marie Curie appears on the French 50-cent euro coins released in March 2024.
Source link:
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240310-veil-baker-and-curie-acclaimed-women-to-appear-on-new-french-coins 77.64.145.81 (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you Irltoad (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2024 

message: Different than stated in the intro text, she was not the only person to be awarded Nobel Prizes in different fields. She was rather one of two people to be awarded Nobel Prizes in different fields, the other being Linus Pauling. 77.22.70.236 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done:. The text actually says "in two scientific fields". Pauling's other prize was in Peace. Hqb (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024 

message: Change Marie Curie to Marie Skłodowska-Curie 91.233.205.14 (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: per WP:COMMONNAME. If you really insist on the change, you can make a requested move, but I believe it's unlikely that consensus will be in your favour. Liu1126 (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024 

message: Why only one last name? Her name was Skłodowska-Curie 2A00:F41:4813:5FE2:2980:B568:A4DC:3433 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last name 

message: Change Marie Curie to Marie Skłodowska-Curie. 164.127.229.70 (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: WP:COMMONNAME User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 12:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2024 

message: in 1995 she became the first woman to be entombed on her own merits in the Paris Panthéon, WHILE Poland declared 2011, "the Year of Marie Curie", during the International Year of Chemistry. 192.116.64.236 (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   in 1995 she became the first woman to be entombed on her own merits in the Paris Panthéon, [10] WHILE Poland declared 2011, the Year of Marie Curie, during the International Year of Chemistry.  

message: Which is her real legal name. There is no reason to omit half of her legal name. 2A02:A311:4339:7880:5CF:EF50:5D:A311 (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please change the article name to Maria Skłodowska-Curie
Talk:Lists of armoured fighting vehicles

message: So, how come Katyusha should be classed as a AFV? It's neither armoured or a vehicle... :) Ok, I agree some MLRS could probably be classed as AFVs, but since the Katyusha is usually mounted on a ZIL truck I think it should not be classed as one. -- Jniemenmaa 07:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of my reasoning is that the Katyusha, while strictly speaking refers to only the rocket launching system, has essentially come to refer to the entire vehicle, both truck and rockets.  As for its armor, I've read (I'll try and find the source if I can) that the Soviets would mount the rockets on an (rather thinly) armor plated truck if they could manage to find/build one.  Perhaps we could compromise and leave the Katyusha in the list, but attach a footnote and explain at the bottom of the page that is sometimes not considered an AFV, going into further detail within the main Katyusha article itself?  (BTW, nice updtate to the list).  Oberiko 13:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have a hard time seeing it as a AFV. With your reasoning a Humvee with a TOW could be classed as an AFV. I do agree that some MLRSs are AFVs, like the American M270 . -- Jniemenmaa 14:30, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: AFVs and MLRSs

message: The AFVs are divided according to countries, should the list of AFVs of country someland should include only AFVs developed and manufactured by it? Or can it also include an AFVs purchased from other countries? MathKnight 17:20, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should keep it to AFV's developed and manufactured by the nation.  If we start with vehicles used by other nations, we'll essentially have to double-list nearly half of the vehicles on the page.  (Especially in the WW2 era).  What you might want to do is create a specific page for that nation, thereby not having to worry about it becoming to convoluted.  (My guess is that this page will eventually just become a list of lists eventually anyway).  Oberiko 20:48, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the answer. MathKnight 22:04, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Own production?
Talk:Offside (rugby)

message: You are well offside in english grammar. The piece obviously needs a diagram to spare the poor reader from the injurious literacy. Domskitect (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that. Bagpuss
----
Do you think it would be useful to describe a bit more about offside?  For example, the defending side offside at rucks and mauls, etc.?  Also, your comment about being offside if infront of the ball kicker is true only if the players are attempting to play the ball.  the kicker (typically the full back) can put them onside by becomming the furthest forward attacking player (i.e. chasing his own kick) at which time they all become onside.  This might be too much for an intro to offside though.  Casualobserver 14:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: This article should have an intro line briefly describing the purpose of offside in rugby football, history of the rule, or whatever, before moving in to sections (as per MOS). I don't know much about the rule, so if there are any rugby rule gurus out there here is your chance to shine :-)   --Daveb 07:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro line 

message: Is the offside rule the rule that requires rugby players to throw the ball sideways? Or is that a separate rule or modified offide rule? If so, this should be made clear in the article. The first thing that people notice about rugby is that you can't just throw the ball forward to a team mate - so it should be explained if this is or isn't the offide rule. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  12:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  throwing the ball sideways
Talk:Cato Institute

message: I have marked this section as being written like an advertisement, since it makes no effort to rework Cato's stated positions in an encyclopedic, neutral way. 64.203.244.11 (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the "International" subsection of the "Cato positions on political issues and policies" section 

message: There exists no section on criticism, even though many have commented on contributions to climate denialism and smoking lobbying, etc. Onhand I have no specific examples but I’m sure they could be found rather easily. 2600:4041:5804:2500:6056:CFD4:8105:DB7 (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism is good, especially on this anti-science organization, but criticism sections are not. See WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severe NPOV Problem
Talk:Violet (color)

message: While browsing, I observed that the primary shade labeled as "Violet" at the top of this page, and the shade in the same spot on the page Shades of violet are two different colors, and noticed that we should probably choose one or the other to make the shade, for consistency across Wikipedia. Lets try to form a consensus on which one to select. Book909 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The color shown at the top of the article "Shades of violet" is based on the HTML/CSS color names, but in this case it's definitely not violet, it doesn't even meet any definition of it. That pink color definitely shouldn't be called "violet". I tried to change it, but a user reverted the edit. I understand that the W3C colors (W3C is the source that is used in that article) are the ones that English Wikipedia uses as standard, but, in this case, I find it nonsense. We should form a consensus on the shade of violet that should be shown as the "standard" one. 8-leaf clover (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. However, since this is a change to Shades of violet, this discussion should take place on that page's talk page. Perhaps start a thread there to discuss? GoodnightmushTalk 14:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreements between this page and "Shades of Violet" 

message: I propose merging Violet light into this page. I think this would be a fairly uncontroversial merge. Violet light is quite short. All of its content would be appropriate on on this page. No mainspace pages link to it (not even this page). Nevertheless, I thought I would open it up for discussion first. I can take care of the merge myself in a week or two if there are no objections. GoodnightmushTalk 17:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is for the best. "Violet" is an anthropocentric concept and it would therefore be appropriate to discuss violet light under the category of violet color. Furthermore the article violet (color) has sufficient science subtitles to accommodate the violet light article, whereas the violet light article cannot naturally accommodate the variety of subtitles under violet (color). I hope that you will make the merge as soon as possible, to provide certainty and closure to this awkward issue. 2001:8003:2002:8D00:98D6:2433:6119:C566 (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merging [[Violet light]] into this page 

message: Please correct: L*=41; C*=124.8; hab= 311.8° ZJ (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIELAB