lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Writing about math

message: I disagree with inclusion of proofs in most cases in articles.  Proofs seem to fall into one of two categories: primary sources, showing how something was originally done, and teaching tools, showing people why something is true.  Either one is an excessive detail for an encyclopedia unless we're writing about something to do with the proof itself--we can tell people a formula without deriving it right there, and thereby cut straight to what they want to know.  They're more appropriate for a teaching textbook than a reference, and so they should go in wikibooks. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can argue the same way that the mathematical formula is primary source. --Ineffable3000 17:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way, Yes. We include short primary sources, like the text of John 3:16, but we don't include whole copies of UN resolutions or the Treaty of Versailles--we quote selectively to convey the essential points. If we can write a concisee prose sketch of the proof with the important points, why do we need to write out every line?  Leave that for a specialist source; we're a general reference. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not? If the proof is too long, the policy says that the proof should be summarized (which it is). --Ineffable3000 04:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proofs 

message: I declined speedy deletion of the proposal in light of the discussion here, which is obviously about the proposal. I'd suggest tagging it with  instead of deleting it.--Kchase T 09:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skimmed this page and tagged it.--Kchase T 11:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected?
Talk:Olive Thomas

message: That's not an occupation that I know of. --Agusk7 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation: socialite? 

message: Most of these refs appear to be referencing quite a big chunk.  I dont see what major parts or mighty claims are unsourced here.  Why not put a 'citation needed' at relevant parts instead of the entire article?  Or why not check the refs to see just exactly how much they were sourcing?  I'd advise not usuing the Vogel biography for Olive, its trash and frankly the Taylorolgy site has better stuff.  Not sure there is a solid print source on her (in fact I'll go out on a limb and say there is not).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.213.218 (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: Is the date of birth correct here, because Kenneth Anger's, Hollywood Babaylon says that she was only 20 when she died, which would make her year of birth be 1900, but it is given in the article as October 1894 which make her nearly 26 when she died, do we know who is correct Mr Anger or the author of this Wikipedia article?
Yakacm (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOB 

message: Moved here from my talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for getting back to me. What is your evidence for claiming that the book is wrong? Do any of the sources discuss this point? If they do, then this disagreement among the historians could be mentioned in the article. I don't have access to these sources, and have only seen about four lines of page 257 of "Foster", all that Google Books is willing to show me. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olive taking medicine 
Talk:Special Shabbat

message: Shabbat Mevarchim: The qamatz-veis syllable is unaccented, and is closed by the schewa under the reish. The qamatz is therefore qatan, and should be spelt "Mevorchim" not Mevarchim. If there be no objection, I am going to change it.Kepipesiom (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

message: Correct me if this is wrong, but Shovavim is not a concept related to Shabbat. It is a six-week period which, by default, includes six Shabbatot. We wouldn't say that the Shabbatot of Sefirat Ha'Omer or of the Three Weeks are special, so why shoild we do so for Shovavim? Yitz711 (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shovavim as Special Shabbat?
Talk:HMS Thetis

message: ...and other Thetis-placnemaes in BC.  On Thetis Lake I've dabbed the entry for HMS Thetis with the 1846 version; it was sold ot the Russians in 1855; the next on the list was built in 1871, but I think that's too late for this round of namings, which IIRC was in the 1840s-early 50s.  The name-origin file at BCGNIS doesn't say; does anyone know here whether v.1846 served out of Esquimalt, or would that be v.1871.Skookum1 (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both spent time in the Pacific. If the lake was named by the early 1850s then it was the Thetis launched in 1846, but you would need more accurate dates to be sure. Benea (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Note re [[Thetis Lake]]
Talk:Stephen Bachiler

message: I added "Winston Churchill" and "James Dean" to the list of Stephen's descendants. Ihaveacomputer 05:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small Change

message: Added several descendants. For each, we can point to pedigree, as required. To boot, we can start to bring in references. Also, stated labels. This guy is too important (Church/State separation, got Winthrop to take notice, etc.) to not have a good page. As well, putting a pointer back to the Descendants section on the Facebook descendants page. jmswtlk (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Descendants, Section labels

message: I believe the descent of Winston Churchill and his mother, Lady Churchill, from Stephen Bachiler is an error. I can find no evidence for such descent, though they are related to allied families of Bachiler in Hampton, NH. This error evidently arose from a misreading of the text on the Lane Memorial Library website. In the article "What do they have in common?", Assistant Director William H. Teschek states that James Dean, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, L.L. Bean, Louis L'Amour and Daniel Webster descend from Stephen Bachiler. However, it says that Winston Churchill, W. Rodman Philbrick, and Lewis Cass are descended from the Philbrick family. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 21:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill descent is an error 

message: There is no mention of John Lithgow, Mitt Romney, Kelsey Grammer, Christopher Lloyd, William Macy, Lewis Henry Lapham or Willis Carrier being notable descendents of Stephen Bachelor. Those need to be  added. Rhonda Harrison (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendents
Talk:HMS Chatham

message: Is it likely that the RN would have two four-gun Chathams in 1790? Perhaps this is an error in the article. rewinn 06:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No error, they're both listed in J. J. Colledge. Overlapping ship names in the same period were not uncommon. Benea (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate Chathams in 1790?

message: Seems dubious that all of these were named after the town or shipyards when Earls of Chatham served as prime minister and as first lords of the Admiralty. — LlywelynII 22:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Namesake
Talk:Emily Rooney

message: It appears that the first sections of this article were copied and pasted from here: https://www.duhocchina.com/wiki/en/Emily_Rooney.
As such, the formatting is different than what I've encountered before, re: reference/citation style. Also, at least one citation link is broken. I'm not familiar with how to correct the format. Advice sought. --PaulThePony (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference issues
Talk:Maximos IV Sayegh

message: I dropped in some basic facts. Please add to this page as you can. GMPHARO 05:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Talk:Gargoyle (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: Having recently started a List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, I am trying to determine which monster articles should be redirected into the lists.  I believe this article may be a suitable candidate to be merged and redirected into List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974-1976), as that is when it first debuted in the Dungeons & Dragons game.  Please discuss reasons for or against such a merge.  If no discussion has taken place 5 days from now, I will redirect this article to that list; otherwise I will follow whatever discussion takes place here.  Thank you!  :) BOZ (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: As there were no responses, I redirected this article to the list page.  Since no response is also no consensus, any editor may restore this article at any time. However, rather than simply reverting, I urge you to use this space to develop some form of consensus regarding the article, lest another editor put this article up for deletion. BOZ (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected

message: I am restoring this article to add a publication history section.  If, afterwards, it is believed that this article should be redirected once again, you may do so. BOZ (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored

message: While it is good to define what a particular monster is, may i suggest also listing it's statistics and abilities. This would be a great help for dungeon masters trying to expand their resources and more finely tune the campaign that their players enjoy. thank you for your time. 174.28.68.114 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Statistics are available in the books - we're not trying to be a game-guide or reprint of a Monster Manual. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion
Talk:Manticore (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: Having recently started a List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, I am trying to determine which monster articles should be redirected into the lists.  I believe this article may be a suitable candidate to be merged and redirected into List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974-1976), as that is when it first debuted in the Dungeons & Dragons game.  Please discuss reasons for or against such a merge.  If no discussion has taken place 5 days from now, I will redirect this article to that list; otherwise I will follow whatever discussion takes place here.  Thank you!  :) BOZ (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: As there were no responses, I redirected this article to the list page.  Since no response is also no consensus, any editor may restore this article at any time. However, rather than simply reverting, I urge you to use this space to develop some form of consensus regarding the article, lest another editor put this article up for deletion. BOZ (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected

message: I am restoring this article to add a publication history section.  If, afterwards, it is believed that this article should be redirected once again, you may do so. BOZ (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored
Talk:Pleasure principle (psychology)

message: after the word "pain" how about placing the word "unpleasure" in parenthesis.  That is the word that Freud uses in Introductory Lectures and may be more accurate, as hunger is not really a pain.  Sexual frustration too may not really be called "pain".  I am referring to the Strachey translation published by Liveright p443
I think perhaps this article is a bit simplistic as it is now. In my understanding, Freud's pleasure principle is really the death drive. Pleasure is the cessation of pain, i.e. being hungry is painful and eating relieves that pain, so reduces excitation and sensation, the zero point of excitation and sensation being death, which all life seeks "by means alike, old and new", the complexity of life being merely elaborate means to return to an undifferentiated pre-living state . . . at least according to 'beyond the Pleasure Principle". --74.14.113.167 20:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pain or "Unpleasure" 

message: As much information as there is about the reality principle is a change of title in order?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.39.100 (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather, I think reality principle should be made its own article, and have done so. - Draeco (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Change? 

message: AFAIK this term was introduced in Kant's "Critique of the Pure Reason". It is cited by Freud as well-established among philosophers. 79.98.94.232 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: From what I have read of Freud, I believe the definition written here is inaccurate. The word ‘needs’ is not appropriate. One could possibly use the word ‘desires’ in its place. It would also be much more appropriate to cite a document written by Freud, instead of a document that inaccurately contrives a basis by referencing the contradicting theories of Freud and Maslow. 2601:541:680:6B10:75FA:1DA2:6534:8875 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition is inaccurate
Talk:Stone frigate

message: This is a generic article, so the specific location  should be located in its own article, since you don't contain HMS Dreadnought in the article on generic dreadnoughts.  -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With no apparent dissent between the above post and today (about 4 months), I am splitting the marked content into its own article. -- saberwyn 12:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Split off HMCS Stone Frigate

message: Should this article be renamed to something like "Royal Navy shore establishment" ? DexDor (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename ?
Talk:Complex numbers exponential

message: The biggest flaw right now is that there is no introduction to explain the math and why it is important to the Wikipedia. That can't be easily determined from the math (and I took calc and linear algebra back in the day, so I'm not completely out of league here). What is a complex numbers exponential and why is it a topic worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia? —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a  tag to the article which should protect it from deletion for a short while. Please try to fix this as soon as possible; as C.Fred says, as it stands the article doesn't provide enough (or in fact any) information about what it's actually for. Tonywalton  | Talk 09:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this article supposed to accomplish?
Talk:Superman (animated)

message: I felt that this page needed to be created since the Superman page is already long & adding all of this would make it way too long. So, please don't delete it, just edit what's here, add pictures, etc. Son of Kong 05:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it needs to be deleted.  Superman_in_popular_culture#Animated Hatch68 05:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a clear example of an article that adds nothing not already covered. Rhindle The Red 05:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: page creation

message: I'm leaving the merge tag even though I think it should be deleted, just in case anyone feels there is any reason for a merge.  I don't think so, as there's nothing of value not already covered in the existing article. Rhindle The Red 05:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merge
Talk:XO-1

message: There is also an XO-1 (laptop). How to make article for that?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/19/features/design20.phphttp://www.engadget.com/2006/11/15/olpcs-xo-1-gets-its-first-unboxing/
Somemoron 05:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  laptop
Talk:CKOT-FM

message: Easy101.com appears to exist, but is redirecting on my browser to easy101.fm which doesn't seem to exist.  Can anyone verify this, and the "official website" links be removed if it is verified? Whisperwolf (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Website gone?
Talk:Open Journal Systems

message: Still reads like an adDGG 06:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like an ad 

message: I suggest the replacement of Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia (IBICT) for Brazilian Institute for Information in Science and Technology (IBICT), since the article is in English and the later is considerably more meaningful for the non Portuguese speaking readers. Joao 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBICT 

message: I got a CD in the mail with no information except it was sent from "1300 Argyle Street Regina, SK, S4T 3R9 Canada" and "OJS" written on the CD. Some of the files are missing their extensions, and the ones I can read were not written by someone that is a native English speaker. Not sure what to do with it. --198.85.212.10 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD 

message: I've warned  about using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion and notified
 (notified
 too) to avoid WP:Edit warring. Would you please discuss here and reach consensus, otherwise the page can be blocked for further edits. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits
Talk:Triumph (band)

message: Am I the only person who feels this article contains quite a negative POV about the band's work? —Malber(talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Negative is OK if it's referenced. See WP:NPOV. It isn't an amateur fansite. It is an encyclopedia. All verifiable information either postive or negative is welcome in this project. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative 

message: Subscript text
Article seems more peppered than most with influence of author's personal tastes.
For example, lyrics are referred to as simplistic, but their lyrics simply aren't, with references to Damocles' sword, Warhol, and Heinlein.
As well, there is an overly negative tone to much of the opinion on the band ("wooden", etc), that is disproportionate to Triumph's obvious success.
Numerous references to Rush are made; the bands are nothing alike.  Rush is an album-oriented theatrical experience, and one of the best-selling bands in music history (76th all time, RIAA).  Triumph is a rock band.  They are both Canadian trios, and comparisons should end there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanrigbybrown (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs a review by a credible music authority 

message: Am I the only one spotting the inconsistency with the statements of "no reunion" in the article and the picture accompanying the article of the 2008 reunion concert in Sweeden?
I should think the reunion should be mentioned...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icdaman (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not alone... it is a glaring inconsistency, and the personnel sections list people as if the band are 'current'. Also odd no comparison with fellow progish-rock-HM canadians Rush? Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reunion 

message: They're not a christian rock band, nor are they "known for" christian rock influences. Why was that added? Meve Stills (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian rock? Why? 

message: Another session member is guitarist Sil Simone, he has a songwriting credit on Surveillance  2607:FEA8:1360:7B3:F164:A5B:781F:6DFB (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Session Member Sil Simone
Talk:Chilliwack (band)

message: This was on the Chilliwack disambig page where it shouldn't be; I don't have time to fit it into the article if it's not already there but here it is:
:Chilliwack is often referred to as the greatest Canadian band of the 80s. Their most famous work "Fly at Night" features many references to the NHL's biggest club, hockey's Toronto Maple Leafs. The group would eventually retire after touring university sites and not doing well despite having sold out large hockey arenas just 3 years earlier.
Skookum1 06:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: text from dismabig page

message: Just out of curiosity why is this article of top-rated importance? Basser g 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-assessed from A/Mid to Start/Low for WPCANADA. No way this article is A-class, see . --Qyd (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top rated importance? 

message: Hello. What song had a line like "Dump her (a car) in the Bay"? Or something Close to that? It's been driving me nuts all day. I did not hear it in any of the songs I played, so maybe I'm just too old and brain dead, but I swear I Think it was Chilliwack. Thank you for your time. Rock on!  Griffin, from Texas. 2601:2C6:8001:6B40:6568:8A4A:9076:657A (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello. What song had a line like "Dump her (a car) in the Bay"? Or something Close to that? It's been driving me nuts all day. I did not hear it in any of the songs I played, so maybe I'm just too old and brain dead, but I swear I Think it was Chilliwack. Thank you for your time. Rock on!  Griffin, from Texas.
Talk:Hiroshi Kume

message: He's gay, right?  --Westwind273 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Four Lads

message: See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations & References
Talk:Aurumvorax

message: Having recently started a List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, I am trying to determine which monster articles should be redirected into the lists.  I believe this article may be a suitable candidate to be merged and redirected into List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, as that is when it first debuted in the Dungeons & Dragons game.  Please discuss reasons for or against such a merge.  If no discussion has taken place 5 days from now, I will redirect this article to that list; otherwise I will follow whatever discussion takes place here.  Thank you!  :) BOZ (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: As there were no responses, I redirected this article to the list page.  Since no response is also no consensus, any editor may restore this article at any time. However, rather than simply reverting, I urge you to use this space to develop some form of consensus regarding the article, lest another editor put this article up for deletion. BOZ (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected
Talk:Marija Pavlović

message: This person is already listed within the page for Medjugorje in Wikipedia.
The entry simply clarified her existence in case someone searches for her in
Wikepedia or even via Google, since Google often picks up Wikepedia entries.
Moreover, the content that describes her was almost entirely
based on Wikipedia itself, and is hence as reliable and as unbiased as Wikepedia itself.
Please see the entry for Medjugorje in Wikipedia. Thanks.
:Again, nothing new in this article.  Also, Google will pick the person's name up just fine from the main article.  Please don't add articles about more people from the Medjugorje article if there is nothing more to be said about them.  Hatch68 06:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)