lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Rigging

message: Just added lateen rig to see also, which needs many more. The article or perhaps a Comparative sail rigging article needs to incorporate more named rigs. The commons rigging and sub-cats such as Sailing ships by rig is full of good sail plan illustrations, which would be of great educational value to someone interested in learning about sail tech. // FrankB 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another image at .  —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lacking 

message: *Webster's 1913: "Dress; tackle; especially (Naut.), the ropes, chains, etc., that support the masts and spars of a vessel, and serve as purchases for adjusting the sails, etc. Running rigging (Naut.), all those ropes used in bracing the yards, making and shortening sail, etc., such as braces, sheets, halyards, clew lines, and the like. — Standing rigging (Naut.), the shrouds and stays."
*Webster's 1928: "Dress; tackle; particularly, the ropes which support the masts, extend and contract the sails, &c. of a ship. This is of two kinds, standing rigging, as the shrouds and stays, and running rigging, such as braces, sheets, halliards, clewlines, &c."
*Random House 1987: "The ropes, chains, etc., employed to support and work the masts, yards, sails, etc., on a ship."
So, as we can see, that does not include the masts or sails. --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have trimmed this article to fit within the definitions, above. It was clearly out of scope, addressing parts of a vessel that are better handled, elsewhere. User:HopsonRoad 16:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: The lead paragraph currently consists of a single, long sentence with three em dashes, which muddy the meaning and make it hard to understand:
: 
Having only passing familiarity with sailing—I do remember terms like spar, and boom vang, but not enough to define them—I am unable to parse that long sentence in one go due to the three dashes, and I'm still not sure what the standing rigging and the running rigging are, although I guess I could figure it out if I sat down and annotated the sentence piece by piece. Can someone more familiar with the meanings have a go at redoing this? Two em dashes are fine, and can define an appositive, but three generally only confuse the matter. Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a go yesterday after coming from WP talk:MOS.  Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence dashes muddy the meaning
Talk:Newport, New York (disambiguation)

message: Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Proposal for New York villages within towns, it has been proposed that pursuant to WP:TWODABS, the more prominent of the entities listed on this page should be deemed the primary topic and moved to this page, and linked by a hatnote to the other entity. Please direct comments regarding this proposal to the discussion linked above. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move
Talk:Character (arts)

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Fictional monster. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 21#Fictional monster until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fictional monster" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Charly Putoznwschvtzky. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2#Charly Putoznwschvtzky until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Charly Putoznwschvtzky" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Mr. ask. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Mr. ask until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mr. ask" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: About this: I don't really mind, Anita5192, but since you think it is a term that everyone will know, I suppose I should say that I created that redirect precisely because of an encounter at another article with someone who doesn't know it, and who thought that the term art meant only the fine arts.  It may therefore be helpful to people who are less educated than you.  (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I see your point. I just put it back.—Anita5192 (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art 

message: Since the term Fictional character redirects here, still exists, and is a prevalent regular form of speak to refer to a character in fiction, it has to be mentioned somewhere on this page, and I do think somewhere in the opening paragraph makes sense. BopSeven (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already mentioned in the opening paragraph, and in fact is the very beginning:  "In fiction, a character is . . .", implying Fictional character. Inserting anything more would be redundant.—Anita5192 (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional character 

message: The redirect Cartoon character has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Tea2min (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Cartoon character]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Frederick the Great

message: , it seems you'd like to change the image of  Frederick's signature.  Is there a particularly reason that makes the new one better than the old?  The .svg image you prefer comes from a commercial fine art print site without attribution, giving only a date, ostensibly 1st August 1744.  The .png image that has been used comes from an attributed work, Gerhard Ritter's Frederick the Great. the image specifically dated to 1 August 1780, but it is also attributed to a specific document, a letter to d'Alembert. Like the unattributed signature, the one illustrated by Gerhardt can be inspected. It is a link is in the Wikimedia image description. Wtfiv (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Frederick's signature

message: battle of soor 30 September 1745 second Silesian War. Frederick was in command. Trampled12 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: added. Wtfiv (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Wtfiv The battle is marked 4 June 1745 when it was fought on the 30 September 1745. Trampled12 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: oops! Corrected Wtfiv (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battlefield location missing on map 

message: Which of the following should serve as the infobox picture for Frederick the Great?
Friedrich der Große - Johann Georg Ziesenis - Google Cultural Institute (cropped 2).jpg|A (Current Image)
Friedrich der Große - Johann Georg Ziesenis - Google Cultural Institute (cropped).jpg|A2
Friedrich der Große (1781 or 1786) - Google Art Project.jpg|B
Friedrich der Große (1870) - Google Art Project.jpg|C 
Christoph Friedrich Reinhold Lisiewski - Bildnis Friedrich des Großen (1772).jpg|D
Antoine Pesne - Friedrich II. als Feldherr (1745).jpg|E
 Emiya1980 (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Emiya1980 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: A Please see my previous comments Chariotsacha (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Chariotsacha Aside from the fact that Frederick the Great personally sat down for the painting, what evidence do you have which corroborates that A is a more faithful representation of Frederick's actual appearance than any of the other options listed?Emiya1980 (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree that a better cropped version could be made. The issue I see is just a slight excess of negative space. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: *A2 - (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I like the cropped image best.  "C" comes in seconds if later it comes down to splitting hairs.  I don't imagine it will though. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

text: *A2. Is preserves the status-quo portrait while focusing on the detail. It was originally a 4.6-foot-tall portrait, reduced to a few inches in the infobox. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: * Change – To Anton Graff's 1781 portrait (B), presumably painted from life, and easily the most widely known and recognizable depiction of Frederick the Great. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc for Frederick the Great's infobox picture
Talk:Alexander Numenius

message: Naming prolem, how shuld we seperate this Alexander of greece, from the modern King Alexander of Greece>
-fonzy
Alexander of ancient Greece? -- Mintguy
Alexander of Macedon? Danny
: That's a different Alexander. i.e. Alexander the Great.
::whoops. Sorry. Danny
Seeing as Alexander of Greece has been known for some thousands of years already (here we are talking about him), it seems reasonable to suppose that his memory is likely to outlast that of the modern king (no disrespect intended), and perhaps this Alexander of Greece should take priority. There is no other common name he is generally known by? Tannin
::: Alexander of Greece (rhetorician) or Alexander of Greece (philosopher) would work. Danny
As he is the son of Numenius that's effectively his surname. so maybe Alexander son of Numenius.
Maybe Alexander of Greece (king) and Alexander of Greece (rhetorician)
-fonzy
* Makes sense to me Tannin
:::I just inadvertently committed a truncated and meaningless edit commentary, so let me say something here.  I do not believe there is any evidence that this person has ever been known as "Alexander of Greece."  Neither Smith nor EB1911 supports this.  Whoever commented that "Alexander son of Numenius" is another common form of reference is correct, by the way.  Wareh (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming problem
Talk:Gondwanaland

message: As I understand it, "Gondwanaland" was the original term but is now obsolete. Shouldn't the redirect go in the other direction? "Gondwana" is the preffered term. Not the most scientific of methods, but for what it's worth, a Google search on "gondwana" yields 45,100 hits, as against only 14,600 for "gondwanaland". Tannin 12:48 Dec 21, 2002 (UTC)
----
Does anybody know where the name "Gondwana" comes from or what it means?
: It's named after an area of India where fossils and geological structures were first found that suggested its existence. I have the details somewhere around here. Tannin
The Gondwana region/district is well-known in Indian history. It's in Central India. Here's a reference to it, including a map: http://www.itihaas.com/medieval/akbar3.html
I believe it merits mention even in the 'briefest' description of Gondwana in an encyclopaedia.
Harmander Singh Aug 26, 2003 (harmander.singh@ato.gov.au)
: I agree. This article should be moved back to Gondwanaland, and a new article created for the original Gondwana in India, which is still there under that name. The number of google hits indicates that 1) most geologists have no idea where the name came from, 2) the original name is not that of an English speaking region. Imc 18:19, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Talk:James Louis Sobieski

message: Err...the article says that 1697 was the first time "that the rightful candidate had been debarred from the throne by military force," but mentions nothing of the  kind.  Reading the article on Augustus, I see that by "the rightful candidate," it is not Sobieski who is meant (as one might suppose) but Conti.  Shouldn't this be either clarified here, or removed?  BTW, could we have articles on the various Polish elections, in the way we do about papal elections?  I would find that interesting. john k 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1697

message: Additionally, I've usually seen him called "James Louis Sobieski," rather than "Jakub Ludwik."  Any thoughts? john k 16:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably the case for how he is referred to properly in English. Charles 19:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name 1

message: "James Louis"? This weird English-French contraption should be replaced by his proper, Polish name, Jakub Ludwik. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name 2

message: From the date of the hairstyle and costume, and also from the facial features, I think the portrait depicts Jakub's grandson Charles Edward Stuart. Silverwhistle (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Portrait
Talk:Paper-and-pencil game

message: No definition expansion in years, no real content (the topic is self-defining), and the article name is not a standard game type (most references call these board games, albeit homemade. This stub is better done using Categories if the "paper and pencil" distinction needs to be kept. Objections? Support?
-- Netoholic 15:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: there seems to be a category for it already. I agree it's a stub, and I don't see what could be added to it. But we might as well leave it, you never know what might come up eventually. (History of pencil and paper games perhaps?) -- Tarquin 16:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, for now, but I think that a "history of p&p games" would only be a collection of histories of the specific games. I've setup a games sub-category for :Category:Paper and pencil games, so we'll see how it shakes out. -- Netoholic 16:55, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I've never heard these referred to as "board games." And is the concept any more self-defining that "card game" or "board game," both of which nevertheless have pages? Stellmach 18:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article value? 

message: What does "equally well suited to playing as a board game" mean?  Is it that it is fun to play?  That it is portable?  Easy to play? -Slash- 07:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: I would be very surprised by definitions that allow erasing, because it seems to me that it makes many chess variants become paper-and-pencil games. (Draw the board and pieces, and to make a move, you erase the piece from its origin and draw it again at its destination.) Certainly a low-cost way of playing them, but they would seem to fit better in a different class. Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "usually without erasing" 

message: Currently, the article simply lists a number of games in the body of text, formatted as prose. 
"Some popular examples of pencil-and-paper games include Tic-tac-toe, Sprouts, Dots and Boxes, Hangman, MASH, Paper soccer, and Spellbinder."
Each of these listed games is sufficiently notable to have it's own Wiki page, but they represent far from every pencil and paper game. If each has it's own page, wouldn't it make more sense to split that out to a List format page for those articles?
Alternatively, if the list of games is kept on this page, would it be reasonable to expand the list to include games that are well referenced, but do not have wiki pages? This Stub is in need of expanding, and a List section may make sense, rather than having the most popular games listed in the body of the text.
192.77.12.11 (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page have a Section listing Pencil and paper games, a "List Page" to chronicle them, or stay as is?
Talk:Insect

message: Under "insects and other bugs" --> Diversity --> figure with header "Insects are extremely diverse. Five groups each have over 100,000 described species" the word "Bettles" should be changed to "Beetles" Finaledylctvm (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2023 

message: Change "Woodlouse: a dozen legs,
a dozen segments"
to "Woodlouse: seven pairs of legs,
seven body segments" 50.173.91.21 (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be seven thoracic segments, I see. Ok, let's tweak the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2024 

message: I started a discussion on this some months ago, see the thread above, but it seems to be being ignored by editors, so let's try again. The MOS indicates that the lead should have an image which gives an idea of the subject of the article. There is no call for the image to try to cover everything, and it's clearly impossible to do so in a large subject like this one. The body plan of an insect is however rather simple: 3-part body, 3 pairs of legs, appendages including antennae and mouthparts, and very often two pairs of wings. An image with an insect big enough to be intelligible and legible on a small screen, or in a thumbnail image, conveys this message clearly to readers; a composite image with a dozen or more micro-thumbnails crammed together may say "variety" but it also says "too small to see properly" to a large percentage of the audience. I'd say that a lead image should be exactly that: a single instance, big enough and clear enough to say just one thing: "insect". Scroll down in the article, and the physical diversity, the range of body plans for different habitats, the phylogenetic range, the various life-cycles, the different means of locomotion — diversity has many meanings for insects, and all are covered in the article: but they can't all be covered in the lead image, and nor should they be, it's at once impossible, unnecessary, and pointless to try. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image
Talk:Astrologer

message: Looking through the history of this article it has been created as an article but changed to redirect to list of astrologers repeatedly. Little to no reasoning was given in these actions, and I see no reason to leave it as a redirector when this topic could actually be written extensively about. Sam 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article's state

message: Why? The text in this article is actually from the astrology article. Merging it would be repetitious. Sam 17:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one else has any thoughts, I would like to remove the templates. Sam 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge with [[astrology]]

message: I am a  professional astrologer and programmer. You can ask me about wiki astrology article. --User:Astrolog
my e mail id is vastuanil@gmail.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.78.139 (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will help if someone needs 

message: Hi MrBill3, it seems that my edit has been reverted again by 27.32.65.246 without discussing here on the talk page first. How do we proceed now? AadaamS (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that single wl revert was valid. Linking the word astrologer to charlatan in an article on astrologers is not exactly good editing and won't stand any challenge. I am not an admin or mediator just an active editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverts by 27.32.65.246 

message: This short and uninformative article has, rightly in my view, been tagged for months to be merged to the main article, and I see the merger has been proposed years ago also. Since there's basically nothing here that isn't in the main article, nor is there really anything to say that isn't there already, I'm boldly going ahead with a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Point estimation

message: Note that we already have Estimator. - Patrick 00:17 Dec 22, 2002 (UTC)
----
Yes, and it discusses theoretical aspects such as bias and mean square error.  I intended Point estimation to be more about approaches to estimation, such as Maximum likelihood and Method of moments.  Statistical estimation was to be a more general overview, pulling in different types of estimation, methods, and philosophies.  Of course, it would mainly be a pointer to pages that would discuss each in depth (eventually).
Your edit:
:point estimation is the application of a point estimator to sample data...
seems a bit obscure to me.
My previous version was supposed to say:
:In statistics, point estimation involves the use of sample data...
It was supposed to be understandable to someone who didn't already know what an estimator was.  Yes, it's very general, but that's why I included the final line, indicating more work was needed:
:approaches, methods...
dcljr 16:00 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)
P.S. - Please remember to indicate your changes in the summary line.  I know I sometimes forget, too... :-)
----
I missed the link to Estimator and the explanation of the relationship between the two articles. - Patrick 16:23 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)
---- 
The 'formal' definition here "... the application of a point estimator to the data to obtain a point estimate" seems to be entirely circular and content-free: if the reader knows what a 'point estimate' and 'point estimator' are (NB these terms redirect back to the same page!), to then give it the name 'point estimation' adds nothing.  If the reader doesn't know this leaves them as much in the dark as before. 
--Tdent (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I was looking this up re project management and EIA. As this stands I can understand it, but for many readers this lacks worked examples or how this could be applied to qualitative rather than quantitative data. Can this be added in?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.74.165 (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  best estimate examples
Talk:Simple random sample

message: Not a good idea, in my opinion. The two articles cover quite different ideas. I have commented in a bit more detail on Talk:Statistics and Talk:Random sample. Avenue 13:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggested with Random sample 

message: I added a simple example that should help illustrate the distinction between a random sample and a simple random sample. Steve Simon 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example distinguishing random and simple random 

message: The example problem says "Consider a school with 1000 students, divided equally into boys and girls, and suppose that a researcher wants to select 100 of them for further study."
The calculation of probability P = 1 - (1 - 1/1000)^100 of a student (ultimately) being a selected when using selection with replacement appears to be incorrect because it fails to account for the fact that the selection process must continue until 100 distinct students have actually been obtained for the sample population. If during the process a previously drawn name is drawn again, the name is returned to the pool and another drawing is made as if the duplicate drawing never occurred. At the end of the process, which may take more than 100 drawings to complete, there must be 100 distinct students in the resulting sample population. The calculation given makes sense only if 100 names are to be selected (possibly with duplicates, due to replacement), and whatever resulting set of students obtained (possibly less than 100, if any duplicate names were drawn) is taken as the sample population.
To take an extreme (unlikely) example: suppose Sally Smith's name is chosen 100 times in a row. The calculation given only makes sense if the resulting sample population in this case would be the single student Sally Smith. This procedure won't help the researcher and hence won't solve the example problem.
Blargoner (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sampling students with replacement