lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Jan de Weryha-Wysoczański

message: Interesting to observe that only subsequent to the 2008 publication by his son Rafał de Weryha-Wysoczański, aka Chevalier Rafał Hugon Maria de Weryha-Wysoczański-Pietrusiewicz, of the "Genealogy of the de Weryha-Wysoczański Family" for the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels does "Jan de Weryha-Wysoczański" become "Jan Michał, 6th Chevalier de Weryha-Wysoczański-Pietrusiewicz"; are there any independent sources outside of family-produced ones? Was the artist ever known as this before?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.168.38 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations
Talk:Diadumenian

message: My printed sources seem to prefer "Diadumenianus", while "Diadumenian" is apparently what coin collectors use, and so it has many more Google hits. Leaving it at the latter for now. Stan 14:56, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Our rule is to use the "most common" name that is still correct, thus Livy and Bill Clinton, with redirs from Titus Livius and William Jefferson Clinton. For someone this obscure, it's tougher to tell what is "most common"; ironically, the coin collectors seem more aware of his existence than the history professors. :-) Stan 19:43, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What does 'followed his father's death' mean? That he died? At the battle of Antioch? What is "a.C."?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.180.4 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear text 

message: I’ve seen both 207 and 208 get used for Diadumenian birth year. Which one is it? PrinceofFrancia (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth dates  

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :The 60-day child-emperor and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#The 60-day child-emperor until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The 60-day child-emperor" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Brad Garton

message: From VFD:
*Brad Garton - not famous. Secretlondon 20:35, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)
** Keep, famous enough, given the other things we've kept here. Fuzheado 00:39, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm seeing what appears to be sufficient mentions in Google books link to remove the notability tag. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 
Talk:Mary Ann Bickerdyke

message: I started to clean-up the article a bit.  A lot of the information was unnecessarily spaced out, so I've collapsed some sections into larger paragraphs.  There are a number of claims that do not have clear citations from my read-- these will need to be clarified.  The nice thing is that there appears to be numerous sources for Bickerdyke bio that haven't yet been tapped.  Are many of these accessible at the Pritzker? I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked on this a bit today as well and there are only two missing citations now.  TeriEmbrey (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I've upped this to B class by our standards, although I think it could use additional visuals.  Perhaps some pictures of the conditions in the hospitals, the locales where she worked, especially in the CW.  Also, their should be a bio box, not only her picture at the head of the article.  The box should contain the relevant statistics on her.  auntieruth (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking a look at it. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Teri, I suggest expanded it with some info from other sources, such as Spencer Tucker's.  I don't remember if you used More than Petticoats, or not.   Also it would be useful to include some information from soldiers and officers about her.  auntieruth (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Military history project review
Talk:G5

message: ----
Does anyone else think those two articles should be merged?
Boffy b 17:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Although technically they're not quite the same thing, the distinction is pretty delicate, and there's not so much content that an article needs to be split for manageability. Stan 17:46, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Talk:R4M

message: "Two warheads were available for the R4M, the common PB-3 with a 4kg shaped charge for anti-aircraft use, and the larger PB-2 for use in the anti-tank role"
Soory, but that's wrong - as the designation "Minenkopf" indicates, the normal warhead this rocket carried was a thin-walled, high-capacity charge of about 500 g explosive. The weight of the entire rocket was around 4 kg, so obviously it couldn't have mounted a "4 kg shaped charge".
Only the dedicated anti-tank version of the R4 had a shaped charge, with a weight comparable to that of the HE warhead.
--
  Right, warhead was about 500 g, that was considered as always lethal against any aircraft. The dedicated AT version was called "Panzerblitz" and looked like a modern AT rifle grenade in shape.
Lastdingo (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: At the bottom of the page, under "operations," I see some fairly ambitious claims about number of B-17s shot down by Me-262s firing the R4M: fourteen in March and thirty in April. Can those kills be confirmed from other sources?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.86.167 (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Success rate of the R4M 

message: All German sources state that Panzerblitz III used 75 mm shaped charge, not 210 mm!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.39.46 (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  total nonsense about Panzerblitz III
Talk:List of Scottish writers

message: This page duplicates part of List of Scots. I suggest that the writers be removed from the other page and a link made to this one.  Dduck 18:27, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Could we not make this list a bit more impressive? It is rather bare, boring and uninformative at present.
If we made it into a nice table format, with a column for Dates, Genre(s), Key works, and Notes, etc. then I think that the reader would find it a lot more useful. 
See Wikipedia:Featured lists for the benchmarks. --Mais oui! 09:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about this - tables are more useful where the contents are known and limited. Using a table could discourage people from making additions - and the aim should be to make the list as complete as possible. I would suggest adding information to existing names - that would encourage anyone adding names to be more expansive. Robina Fox 10:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prettify 

message: I'm not sure who this Tony Hughes is, but when I click on it, it leads to Jeffrey Dahmer, who is an American serial killer. Am I missing something here? Tony Hughes may need to be fixed or deleted, depending on who he is ... VictoryClassWoman 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Hughes 

message: A list of Scottish writers which excludes J K Rowling?? 
As a Scot born and brought up in England, I don't like the phrase "Those on the list were born and/or brought up in Scotland." 
What's the rationale for that? She lives in Scotland, has for 20 years, and when she moved to Scotland she had the first three chapters of HP in her pocket, so the other many chapters were written in Scotland. If the referendum had passed she would have been an automatic Scottish citizen on day 1. Her writing haunts are minor tourist attractions in Edinburgh. 
Let's remove that text and make it what it says on the tin - a page of Scottish writers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.116.225 (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this definition of "Scottish"? 

message: Seems to me that this page should be called Scottish authors. A "Writer" in Scotland is a solicitor. 86.170.247.107 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name error
Talk:Characteristic polynomial

message: This section is completely incomprehensible to me.
What on earth is "matrix tearing and gruing" and "determinant of a matrix with a shift"?
Where do the poles of the secular function come from? A polynomial has no poles.
Most of this section looks like something from uncyclopedia and is completely confusing. 
I doubt it belongs on this page at all.
HugoBarnaby (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Everything after the first paragraph, particularly the middle of this section, is  very poorly written. I can only assume it was written by a non-native speaker of English or, like you said, as a joke. It would be great if someone familiar with secular functions could re-write this section more clearly. 155.41.17.62 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secular function section 

message: Article mentions two conventions, justifies settling on one, then uses the other in the tail of the article.  Perhaps settle on one convention (the one argued for at the beginning) used throughout except in one section which explains the other, gives corresponding forms, show how to interconvert, so that all "alternative" convention is restricted to that section.  
An explicit expansion of the polynomial (with the alternative form in the "alternative" section) showing the terms/coefficients referred to later might help clear things up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.144.66 (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul needed 

message: In the entry text I read:
" p_A (t) = \sum_{k=0}^n t^{n-k} (-1)^k \operatorname{tr}(\Lambda^k A) "
After consulting the entry about exterior algebra (which is referred to by the text), I noticed that the symbol \bigwedge is used there.
Is this actually the symbol that was intended / should be used instead of capital lambda in the current entry?Redav (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  <math>\bigwedge</math> instead of <math>\Lambda</math>? 

message: The current entry text contains:
"When the characteristic is 0 it may alternatively be computed as a single determinant, that of the k×k matrix, [...]"
Could someone tell us the characteristic of what is meant here? (I did follow the link to "characteristic" (algebra) but that seems to deal with rings and fields, and the connection to the quoted statement is not clear to me.Redav (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The connection is that the facor 1/k! makes no sense in non-zero characteristice. However I have edited the article for clarification. D.Lazard (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot! I consider that helpful.Redav (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristic of what? 

message: This article uses p_A(t), but I’ve also seen \chi_A(t). Perhaps a brief note on common notations is needed.
TomFryers (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: AFIK, there is commonly accepted notation. D.Lazard (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see talk:seal (emblem) -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: {{noredirect|seal (device)}}

message: May be of interest to participants in this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion attempt in progress at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allende stamps]]
Talk:Rosemary Brown (Canadian politician)

message: Rosemary Brown était un personne vraimene.
----
she had three kids and 240 awards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.197.55 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I came to the website to learn something about her for a school project. I really didn’t find as much…. Maybe add some more facts please. I really need. 184.144.26.52 (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did she do? 

message: Please add more facts I can't really find anything about Rose Mary Brown 207.107.138.202 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did she do??
Talk:MSX BASIC

message: Well, I´m taking the time to write a proper article to MSX Basic. I hope to make things clear and to show how advanced this basic was for its time. Loudenvier 02:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSX Basic 

message: I added MSX BASIC 1.2 to the MSX 1 section. 1.2 can be found on some Gradiente Expert machines in Brazil. On Sharp Epcom HotBit machines in Brazil MSX BASIC is renamed HOT-BASIC and can be found in versions 1.1 and 1.2. 
On a related note the similar but not 100% MSX compatible SVI machines run version 1.1 renamed SV extended BASIC. 100% MSX compatible SVI machines run MSX BASIC 1.0. Generalleoff 20:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's incorrect to remove it. MSX in Brazil was the second place the machine was more successful in the world. Hot-Basic, although not official by MSX foundation was bundled with MSX machines. The question that rises is, was HOT-BASIC not simply a label of MSX-BASIC? Yes, it was. HOT-BASIC did not differ from MSX-BASIC, it was only a marketing stratagem of Sharp. MSX-BASIX 1.1 and 1.2 existed and had bug fixes in the brazillian machines, so there's no point removing this information. Loudenvier 14:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should be made clear that there is no 'global' MSX 1.0, 1.1 or 1.2 (nor MSX 2.0, 2.0+, it is nowhere called that way), just MSX (standard version 1). Linking to the MSX main article might be very useful. It would also help to mention that the 1.1 and 1.2 are specific for Sharp MSX computers in Brazil. ManuelBilderbeek 08:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSX BASIC 1.0 / 1.1 / 1.2
Talk:Scale (ratio)

message: I would like to suggest some modifications for this page.
1
The second and third paragraphs grate uncomfortably with the level of the page since they require graduate level mathematics. Remove them? Move them to the end to a small section entitled something like "Mathematical Note".
2
Tidy up the comment on maps and link to a rewritten page on "Scale(maps)". There I have suggested definition of point scale and representative fraction.
Peter Mercator (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested modifications 

message: See Talk:Scale (map)#Even more merge: Scale (ratio). --109.53.229.124 (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Scale (map) (or rename the two articles) 

message: What does the scale of the map assist us with 41.114.64.227 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography
Talk:Harold Godwinson

message: My edit citing Robin Fleming in ODNB for Harold's coronation being the first in Westminster Abbey and deleting the citation of the Westminster Abbey as saying that this is uncertain has been reverted. An anomyous summary on an abbey website is not a reliable source for eleventh century history and also the wiki version which I revised is ambiguous. It appears to say that it is uncertain whether Harold's coronation was the first in the abbey, whereas the website says it is uncertain whether he was crowned there. Frank Barlow in his biography of Edward p. 254 also says that Harold was crowned there, so that is two reliable sources against one doubtful one. I have therefore reverted back to my version. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harold's coronation 

message: Watched a podcast with Marc Morris recently, in which he suggested that the arrow-in-the-eye tale may have been a deliberate reference to the Biblical King Zedekiah, who was an unfaithful vassal of the Babylonians (similar to what the Normans claimed Harold to be). He saw his sons killed in front of him (brothers in Harold's case) before being blinded.Paulturtle (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We would need a better source than a podcast but it seems unlikely that the Normans would have wanted to identify with the Babylonian destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As I am sure you know, there has been a good bit of scholarship discussing on the arrow in Harold's eye.  Even with a better quality source, it would probably still be an WP:UNDUE drop in this bucket of speculation.  Not every novel take from a scholar, even a respected one, trying to squeeze one more paper for their CV out of thoroughly-tread history is fit for a general biography. Agricolae (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Zedekiah 

message: The present text of the "Marriages and children" section makes it hard to tell how many Ediths there were, and hard to know for certain which Edith is being referred to each time that name appears. It's probably clear enough to those who already know the facts, but someone learning the facts here for the first time might be lost. I certainly was. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have hopefully clarified this. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Edith?
Talk:Group object

message: Near the bottom of the article it talks about how most of group theory can be transfered over to group object theory.  It uses subgroups and normal subgroups as examples.  I do not understand how subgroups could be transfered over.  The only way I could think of is to say a subgroup object is a subobject of a group object that follows the group object identities in the article but that won't work because a subobject isn't a object in its own right. It's a equivilence class of monomorphisms with codomain G! It just doesn't make sense.  Possibly, someone out there can clarify this and put it in the article.--SurrealWarrior 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert, but can't you just do it with an individual representative of the subobject, which would be a monomorphism into the group object? You will probably have to work in the category of morphisms into the group object. ---- Hans Adler (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably you are right, but it would be nice to see it worked out in a reference. For example, I suppose you would need a factorization system to define things like kernels, so the isomorphism theorems are perhaps not completely general... I don't know of a reference, though. Sam Staton (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good place to see it worked out for an example are the topological groups, Lie groups, and algebraic groups (here a great deal of elementary group theory is repeated nearly verbatim but with "continuous", "analytic", or "rational" sprinkled generously).  Probably a good place to see how it doesn't just "work out" is in Hopf algebras where basic ideas like Lagrange's theorem become not so basic.  Those two extremes might help to figure out what sort of reference for the general case might exist.  I also have a dim idea that it might follow trivially if one looks at regular group actions rather than just plain groups, so one might look for a reference from that angle. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Group objects and their morphisms in a category form a category.  A subgroup of a group object is then a subobject in the category of group objects.  Subobjects are defined as equivalence classes of monomorphisms, but then one normally works with a representative of the subobject since anything reasonable you want to do with a subobject is invariant under the equivalence relation.Wellsoberlin (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subgroup objects 

message: Someone requested an article cogroup be created. I have added the definition of cogroups as an example. I also created redirects from cogroup and cogroup object. It might be worthwhile to extend this and put it into a section of its own. ---- Hans Adler (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cogroup object
Talk:December 1

message: Moved: 
*1917 - In Nebraska, Father Edward J. Flanagan founds Boys Town as a farm village for wayward boys (in 1979 it was opened to girls as well).  
Nope - happened on December 12. --mav 01:16, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events Moved and Removed 

message: The Rosa Parks entry will soon become a FA, and we are preparing for the article to appear on the main page on Dec 1.  To prevent any overlap this year, can an admin replace Rosa with another event? Lotsofissues 01:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace Rosa Parks 

message: I've reluctantly removed the following from the Events section, as they don't seem to be supported by their respective articles:
*1969 – The first legislation to limit aircraft noise levels at airports is introduced in U.S. Federal Air Regulation, Part 36.
* 1971 – The Indian Army recaptures part of Kashmir occupied forcibly by Pakistan.
* 1981 – The AIDS virus is officially recognized.
If anybody knows more than I do about these events, please add them back with links to articles that support them. Alexbook (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Events Removed 

message: My understanding is that anything mentioned on this page has to have an article.  The linked article for this "feast" does not mention it.  His death is mentioned properly above in the section on 'deaths' on this day.  I suggest the Feast for Death be removed (unless of course someone writes an article on it or includes it in the linked article)  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Feast for Death of Aleister Crowley" 

message: Ken Berry died on Dec 1, 2018.  Somehow he was never added to this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Berry
Beatles777! (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ken Berry's Death
Talk:Peaches Browning

message: Putnam County is in which state? RickK 01:40, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: January 25, 1927 - The "Daddy and Peaches" separation trial begins in New York. An ongoing saga, the sex-drenched tale of the courtship and stormy marriage of millionaire Edward West "Daddy" Browning (age 52) and his 15-year-old child-wife Frances Belle "Peaches" Heenan, was one of the most publicized stories of the decade that gripped the lurid imaginations of the press and public, despite its complete unimportance. Peaches sued Daddy for separation, claiming mental anguish from practical jokes and sexually perverse behavior. The judge ruled that Peaches' testimony was not credible and Daddy won the case. 
So, it was in New York. But we still don't know whether it was in White Plains or in Putnam County. Dpbsmith 02:53, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It was White Plans, see citation I added to article.  Also, grounds for divorce were abondonment on her part.User:BANNED IMPERSONATOR) 17:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Assuming we've settled that it is indeed New York we're talking about, could you even get a divorce here prior to 1968 without proving adultery? That might have been part of the young lady's problem, in which case it's a pertinent bit of trivia.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 14:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grounds for divorce