lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Impromptu

message: While putting the year in parentheses is the standard form of disambiguation for movies in video and dvd guides, I wonder if its the standard form here. I would expect something more like Impromptu (movie), but given that their are two impromptu movies, Impromptu (movie, 1991) seems a litttle clunky. I don't know, I'm just asking. 141.217.70.178 15:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: I find a bit of a problem with this article: it seems to imply strongly that most impromptus are free-form compositions, as suggested by the idea of spontaneous improvisation, but in fact some of the best-known impromptus mentioned in the article appear to be perfectly orthodox textbook forms, such as those by Chopin and Schubert.  For instance, most of those by Chopin are in a perfectly orthodox ternary form, with the individual sections also structured in quite an orthodox manner for an individual section of any piece.  Similarly for many of the Schubert Impromptus: one is a set of variations, with nothing obviously unusual from a structural point of view, and at least some others are in a normal ternary form.  I don't see anything free-form about these pieces.
I feel the article should mention this, and (if an explanation can be found) explain why there is the discrepancy between the free-form suggested by the title "impromptu" and the fact that many impromptus are in fact perfectly orthodox in form.  In short, is it known why so many composers chose the title "Impromptu" when their pieces are quite orthodox in form and not at all suggestive of improvisation?  But I do not know of actual sources that explicitly discuss this, to cite, so I cannot amend the article myself. M.J.E. (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character of impromptu described in article often fails to match actual impromptus.
Talk:Lesbos Prefecture

message: An editor (Mahogany h00r) just changed the "See Also" section to redirect a reference to Lesbian to point to the language dialect Lesbian Greek.   I'm thinking that, particularly in an English-language encyclopedia, by far the most notable thing about Lesbos is the association with lesbianism.  I mean, I bet this page gets hundreds as many times the hits as the other Prefectures of Greece.  Two questions:  1. Do people think I'm incorrect? 2. If not, what's the best way to handle this in the article?  I would add a sentence to the introduction, something along the lines of "In modern times, outside Greece, Lesbos is best known as the home of Sappho, an ancient poet known for her romantic poems about women; this led to the term lesbian to describe such relationships."  I could even see adding (somewhere in the article, perhaps when describing the economy) that Lesbos is a popular lesbian tourist destination, though I'd want to source that claim first.  Thoughts?--Inonit 14:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree. The article on Laconia mentions its relation to the adjective laconic HonoluluMan (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lesbians?
Talk:The Saint (Simon Templar)

message: Information on the French movie series seems to be missing. 2604:3D09:1F74:1C00:5038:F7DB:5AB1:A6E4 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was listed in the film section, not television. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing info
Talk:Tree line

message: The article claims that the lack of trees on South Georgia and other sub-antarctic islands is due to exposure and not to the Antarctic treeline. This is not correct, Grytviken (old whaling station) on South Georgia is far too cold in summer to host any trees. The warmest month, February, has a 24-hr average of 5.4 centigrades; a 24-hr average of at least 10 centigrades is needed. South Georgia is thus tundra, and well beyond the Antarctic treeline, see this link here.
Is there any location in Tierra del Fuego where the Antarctic treeline occurs on land?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.102.136 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my answer would be yes. Moreover, the Auckland Islands in New Zealand have trees (mainly Metrosideros umbellata) inland but tndra near the coasts. 霎起林野间 (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctic treeline 

message: Christian Körner, an expert on this ecotone, just pinged me on my talk page, saying that this article should be titled "treeline", not "tree line". What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A search of scientific papers via Google Scholar shows 48,500 results for "treeline" and 87,000 results for "tree line": I am reluctant to change unless there is some strong evidence the other way. — hike395 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Treeline" or "tree line"?
Talk:Life on Mars

message: A study by John E Brandenburg suggests that a paleolithic equivalent martian civilization was wiped out by 2 massive nuclear weapons. I would urge you to please read and discuss before you delete my topic, thank you!
Not peer reviewed but free: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340952315_EVIDENCE_OF_A_MASSIVE_THERMONUCLEAR_EXPLOSIONS_ON_MARS_IN_THE_PAST_The_Cydonian_Hypothesis_and_Fermi's_Paradox
Peer reviewed but paywalled: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2016-5529
Thank you for reading! :D
These studies could contribute to the Fermi Paradox Article as well! Chantern15 (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone will delete your post here on the talk page (no one has yet, over year later and counting), but as for adding this to the article, right now it likely falls under . Since you've only provided the two sources, one that has not been reviewed and one that has but is paywalled, it's hard to say if they would be sufficient enough to support adding mention of this to the article (though it's probably unlikely). You would in all likelihood need more sources, and solid ones at that. (imho) - wolf 16:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study Suggests That An Aggressive Alien Species Wiped Out An Ancient Martian Civilization Through Massive Nukes
Talk:Bhakti

message: I think, the order of sections is not logical. I feel "History" should come after "Etymology", then followed by "Bhakti Yoga". I propose the following order : Etymology — History — Bhakti Yoga — Types and classifications. Any thoughts on this? --Nvineeth (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that. I see etymology sections typically at the beginning. Then the more specific "types" and a possible Bhakti schools, or Bhakti in different religions, section should be at the end. General--->specific being the pattern. Priyanath talk 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me even if history bit seems more relevant to a reader. Wikidas© 17:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of Sections 

message: I'd recommend adding a section directly linking one to specific bhakti techniques.
One would be www.howtoloveGod.org  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingwithGod (talk • contribs) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhakti technique 

message: "The Bhaktilive channel" link is just adverts. Would someone who knows how to do so please remove it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.54.103 (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links
Talk:Rummel's Law

message: :while the United States is often considered to most closely protect its population's personal freedoms it is has also killed far more of its citizens than any other western democracy. 
Does "killed" include executions of common criminals, or does this mean that some un-named critic is accusing the US government of the same sorts of mass murders that Rummel accuses the Communist states of committing? --Uncle Ed 20:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, the term Rummel's law and the wording presented here are the coinage of Arnold Beichman, not of Rummel himself - although these are certainly Rummel's ideas. (I've seen Rummel's Law also presented as "Power kills; and absolute power kills absolutely" but it's not clear that Rummel wrote exactly that, either.)  Our current article makes it sound like this is Rummel's terminology, and so the mention of Beichman is kind of inexplicable. Am I misinterpreting this -  if not, we should rewrite this to put Beichman up front and identify him. DavidWBrooks 21:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Hetch Hetchy Valley

message: Does anybody know why is it called Hetch Hetchy? jengod 21:02, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
:Added info to article -- hike395 17:25, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Please don't remove information on the politics of the power generated from this dam. The Raker Act is a significant part of the Hetch Hetchy story. 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is, but it's already covered at O'Shaughnessy Dam, and the "History" section already links there.  Maybe we should make the link more prominent. --Smack (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Smack --- controversy about the dam is covered by the dam article, that's how we decided to split things up (see above) -- hike395 05:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with smack.  There's no reason to not include information in this article as well.  Considering that Hetch Hetchy's primary historical significance is as a sight on controversy over the damming it makes little sense to not include that information in this article.--136.167.69.184 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political info
Talk:Battle of the Medway

message: So this article is arguing, no uncertainty admitted, that an Iron Age ruler of a couple of English counties + an embryonic city (Colchester) + a few hillforts, had the manpower and logistics to assemble an army of 150,000 men? Lol!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.121.197 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Caratacus and his 150,000 Men

message: Is "Battle after" intended to mean "the next battle after Medway" or "Medway was the battle after..." ? Deb 21:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody objected, so I've done it. --Nicknack009 23:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Vladimir-Suzdal

message: Just added roman transliteration to cyrillic entries in the intro. They should be correct... T. S. Rice 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly, yes, but accents are never shown in transliteration.  I made the corrections, although I am not entirely sure we even need translit in this case.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly true. If you feel that it's kind of a hindrance, you can feel free to take it out. T. S. Rice 02:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it as a hindrance.  Still, if someone else does to the point of feeling it would be necessary to remove it, I am not going to restore it back.  Thanks for taking time to respond.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trasliteration 

message: Should Duchy of Vladimir redirect here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And wouldn't Duchy of Vladimir (200+ hits) or Principality of Vladimir (600 hits) be a better name? Vladimir-Suzdal has 700+ but is less informative... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  00:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Duchy of Vladimir

message: Please discuss changes to the dates and other parameters in the infobox. The most recent unexplained reversion includes a reference that supports the existing version of the page, listing Alexander III as the last Grand Duke of Vladimir, with a reign ending in 1331.  It does not list Ivan I among the leaders of Vladimir, nor support an end-date of 1340.  Please do not make changes without providing edit summaries, and please do not continue to make these unsupported changes of dates and other parameters without gaining consensus here first.  Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained changes 

message: I have locked moving of the article. If you want to move the article please file a proper WP:RM. I do not have my own opinion on the matter, although through years of editing I learned to respect opinions of User:Ghirlandajo  Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move warring 

message: He lived 174 years? Really?2A00:1028:83B2:106A:7101:3D9F:3626:2F20 (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1157–1331?
Talk:University of Warwick

message: What the heck is this? Please write an article or section. Found in "Abhinay Muthoo is the Dean of Warwick in London" Also an ext source:  Is this an official term? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Warwick in London]] 

message: Not notable on its own merits Rogermx (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have canned it with a db-club personally. We can't have articles for random societies of every university! There's nothing particularly special about this society and I don't see where it would fit in with this article either. Maybe at best it could get a mention in the Warwick SU article? Adam Williams (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Support. There is no reason Warwick, let alone this specific society should have special treatment. Wholeheartedly support. JJ Liu (Dylan Smithson) (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Warwick Speakers]] into [[University of Warwick]] 

message: :tried to edit links to this article from Community Pump and check if any past office bearers are onWiki. So it appears to be a society within Warwick SU and its links to Toastmasters International and awards can go there?
Kaybeesquared (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  agree with above
Talk:Northern line

message: As of 20 september some parts of this article need rewriting to reflect changes brought about by the opening of Battersea & Nine Elms stations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.119.250 (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battersea / Nine Elms 

message: The article claims that "The tunnel from Morden to East Finchley via Bank, 17 miles 528 yards (27.841 km), was for a time the longest in the world. The Channel Tunnel linking the UK and France together is now longer."
However, this isn't true, as according to the list of longest tunnels of any kind, the Rothschönberger Stolln (water) tunnel (50.9 km) was the longest from 1882 to 1945, which was already longer than the Northern Line tunnel (27.8 km) when the latter was completed.
The claim makes more sense if we're only talking about rail tunnels - in which case the Northern Line tunnel was indeed the longest from 1940 to around 1978, when it was beaten by a line in St Petersburg (29.6 km) - long before the Channel tunnel was built. Gadget1000 (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true but it comes from an English English idiom. 'Tunnel' without qualification means some form of route tunnel - Rail, Road or Pedestrian. A water tunnel or trunking to carry cables would be qualified. This is not universal and to the rest of the World the Rothschönberger Stolln aqueduct was the longest tunnel. Meanwhile the claim that this was the longest rail tunnel always seemed artificial. A tunnel should have a portal at each end connected by a tube. Having intermediate stations where people could enter and leave just seems wrong. But most lists are happy with subway tunnels being in the same category as rail tunnels. I'm editing the article to address the substantive point. OrewaTel (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest tunnel?
Talk:Figurative system of human knowledge

message: This is obviously very rough. Perhaps a better model could be done with tables? It's difficult to figure out good ways to address the very sprawling diagrams in the Encyclopédie and represent them in an HTML format. At least, I don't know quite the best way to do it.  Many of these words could be Wikified, of course, if anybody wants to work on that they are more than welcome to. I've also done my best to check for typos but they are plausible. A scan of the original French version is on the Encyclopédie page. This translation varies a little bit but not significantly, though it does suffer from being less comprehensible because of the format. Suggestions are welcome! --Fastfission 23:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Secularism in France

message: People will misunderstand what is laicity reading this article. Laicity and securalism are not the same. Both are french words : laïcité and sécularisme with different meanings. Laicity (laityness) is about the people. Secularism is about the state.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:224:DA90:FDD4:A72E:939:DDD7 (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: a very bad article

message: Christine Boutin, who openly argued on religious grounds against homosexual domestic partnerships (PACS)
This sentence is wrong: the PACS is not only for homosexuals, but also for heterosexuals. This should be made clear. 81.57.225.31 10:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is right. She argued on religious grounds against homosexual relationships and their acknowledgement in the gender-neutral PACS. David.Monniaux 12:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PACS 

message: The cited sentence is factually wrong :
"The simultaneous broadcasting of the traditional Protestant and Catholic Lent sermons (operating since 1946) has been interrupted. Earlier the broadcasting of the Russian Orthodox Christmas night liturgy was similarly stopped on 6/7 January."
In 2024, all larger religions as well free-thinkers (masons) have their time slot every sunday morning.
It is of course crazy that the anti-religious free-masons get their time slot on public TV when they vigorously protest when religious organizations want to get a meeting room in a French town hall. Ft (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcasting of religious sermons on public TV
Talk:49th (West Riding) Infantry Division

message: In WW2 the division had two different versions of the polar bear badge, head down, (1st) and head up (2nd). Why revert a picture of the first when otherwise the second is being repeated?Usedtoknowthat (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the infobox it is normal to use the current insignia. As mentioned in the article the head down insignia, used when part of a different Brigade, was replaced. The Divisional commander thought it looked like the bear was 'cowering' instead of hunting, by looking down an ice hole for a seal to emerge. By all means place the old insignia image in that section, if you feel it is relevant to the new Division. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've got references for both badges and the change over. (Speaking of references, this article needs a few more.)Usedtoknowthat (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar Bear 

message: The note under the 1st pattern polar bear sign now makes no sense. Who's saying what?Usedtoknowthat (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar Bear 2
Talk:Zagovory

message: To help with determining the correct terms in different languages, an expert in Slavic languages and/or folklore may be needed here. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your tag from 2020 still relevant to the current article? The "Etymology" section appears to "identify" the relevant terms in the three major Eastern Slavic languages plus Polish, a Western Slavic language which has historically influenced and been influenced by the neighbouring Belarussian and Ukrainian languages. (These terms being zagоvory, zamowliannia, zamowy, and zamawianie choroby.) If this isn't what you meant, could you update/clarify the tag? – Scyrme (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi there, it very much looks as if the whole article needs to be checked where refs are needed and the text cited correctly, a job for someone with a good knowledge of the subject. I'll amend the tag. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert help needed
Talk:Itô's lemma

message: The sentence "This is not Ito's Lemma, and is in fact just a specialization of the Lemma." is an odd one.  I know this as Ito's Lemma.  If it really isn't Ito's Lemma, then either this page should be renamed or Ito's full lemma needs to be stated.  We can't have an encyclopedia that purports to have an entry named "Foo" and not describe "Foo".  Either this page describes Ito's Lemma or it shouldn't be the Ito's Lemma page.
Can someone please tell me what Ito's Lemma is if this isn't it?  Otherwise, I intend to delete this sentence since this is the Ito's lemma I've come to know and love.
If there are no objections, I also intend to change some of the wording so that terms don't "disappear" or get "deleted".  Instead, we should state that the calculation is performed to O(delta t).
Sliver 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry Does Not Deliver Promise 

message: Can someone provide an improvement for "(B represents random variation over time)" st the start of the first main section. Melcombe (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made what I think is an improvement to this --128.243.220.41 (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's rather better. Melcombe (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defintion required 

message: Which version of Ito’s Lemma is Geometric Brownian Motion meant to be an example of? It looks like an application of the case of an Ito drift-diffusion process with sigma_t = S*sigma. But doesn’t the notation sigma_t imply that sigma_t is a function of only t, not S? The page for Geometric Brownian Motion seems to essentially re-derive the lemma for its special case. Tnedde (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but S is a function of t... Hairer (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Example 

message: Is there a reason that an informal derivation of the lemma appears before the statement of the lemma itself? I found this confusing. Would anyone object if I moved the statement to before the informal derivation? 129.215.104.157 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I might personally find an informal derivation before the formal one to be more helpful, as part of the motivation/intuition, but this mostly seems like a matter of preference. That both are here is good, and I don't imagine there is a 'right' order. Youarelovedfool (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of page