lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Standards:Noise measurement

message: This is an experimental page looking for comments and help.
Most official standards cost a lot to buy, often £100 for a slim document. They also contain everything needed to ensure an unambiguous and complete definition.
These facts work against the aim of standardisation, which is to bring everyone together where possible.
While official standards are usually copyrighted, their content in terms of ideas and definitions, as opposed to their precise text, is not, and could not reasonably be copyright.
I therefore suggest that Wikipedia might aim to put up all standards on Wikipedia, in simplified form: all the essentials, without the padding.
While a separate Wiki for standards is a possible alternative, I suggest that putting standards under the same roof as Wikipedia makes for more convenient linking and editing in association with articles.
This probably requires a common header, so that, for example, a search for Standard:Noise measurement does not get confused with other pages on the topic.
I then suggest going further, and creating WikiStandards, where new or alternative standards are laid out as proposals and worked on by interested parties. I see a case for this sort of standard in order to bring together, for example, manufacturers of power adaptors, so that manufacturers no longer specified that their product must only be used with the power adaptor supplied. If power supplies were standardised in terms of voltage and maximum current, with connectors keyed to prevent mis-use, then products need no longer include adaptors as standard, and power adaptors could be re-used rather than thrown away.  I see this, and many similar standards (Camcorder batteries are another prime example) as enabling a major contribution to the WEEE directive, and hence playing a major role in preventing pollution and waste.
Manufacturers currently tend not to cooperate, and standards bodies, being commitee-based are too slow and cumbersome to bring what I have in mind about. Wikipedia might revolutionise standards writing and help save the planet!
Am I using the best format for this - any suggestions or support?  --Lindosland 18:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you're not using the best format. I will merge this to noise measurements. Pascal.Tesson 22:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Bullet in the Head

message: copyvio movie description? — Omegatron 18:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: i personally think that the song bullet in the head is at least as well known (if not more well known) than this movie, so shouldn't searching for bullet in the head redirect you to a disambiguation? Charwinger21 (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: shouldn't bullet in the head direct to something else?

message: Please change final sentence of the plot into: “ Eventually Paul dies, then Ben tosses his gun away and limps from the scene.” (because NO final bullet is shot by Ben, as mentioned by the French page for this film) 2A01:CB08:299:D100:7467:F50F:A370:12FE (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I've reworded this to avoid having to describe what looks like a minor plot detail. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  02:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2021
Talk:Jehovah 1

message: I have been an ordained SubGenius minister for 19 years, and I have never seen JHVH-1's name spelled "Jehova 1."  Therefore, I am changing the references here and in the Church of the SubGenius article.
--MitchS 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p4.html --67.140.132.62 (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Appelation 

message: Is there some sort of blasphemy award I can give this article? Because this takes the cake. --Eliyak T·C 13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blasphemy
Talk:Land incentivization

message: Is incentivization actually a word?--63.22.95.82 18:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: um

message: one would assume they would run out of land in 200 years and start collecting taxes eventually..--Calm 11:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  selling land is "the primary means" of generating wealth? 

message: Have redirected this to Incentivisation. Alternative for this non-referenced article was to completely delete.  – S. Rich (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Category talk:Nazi Germany

message: There's a bit of ambiguity and overlap between :Category:Nazism and :Category:Nazi Germany.  Rather than do a CfV on merging the two categories, I suggest the following and am editing the category text to reflect what I feel is a logical division between the two categories, namely that
* :Category:Nazism be reserved for articles relating to Nazism, the ideology, and that
* :Category:Nazi Germany be reserved for articles related to the implementation of Nazism in Germany between 1933 and 1945 (aka the Third Reich).
This is not a perfect division, because there exists no proper place for people or events relevant to Nazi Germany prior to 1933 (but not afterwards), and yet these people and events are relevant to the eventual rise to power of Nazism in 1933.
I'm looking for ideas how to make these categories (or others in their place) more useful to all.
In order that all discussion be in one place, please comment on this talk page.
: — JonRoma 18:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category ambiguity/overlap

message: Should be a Nazi military subcategory. I suspect most of the articles in this cateogry remain in the German military category or the Nazi officials category. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi military
Category talk:Nazism

message: There's a bit of ambiguity and overlap between :Category:Nazism and :Category:Nazi Germany.  Rather than do a CfV on merging the two categories, I suggest the following and am editing the category text to reflect what I feel is a logical division between the two categories, namely that
* :Category:Nazism be reserved for articles relating to Nazism, the ideology, and that
* :Category:Nazi Germany be reserved for articles related to the implementation of Nazism in Germany between 1933 and 1945 (aka the Third Reich).
This is not a perfect division, because there exists no proper place for people or events relevant to Nazi Germany prior to 1933 (but not afterwards), and yet these people and events are relevant to the eventual rise to power of Nazism in 1933.
I'm looking for ideas how to make these categories (or others in their place) more useful to all.
In order that all discussion be in one place, please comment on the talk page for :Category:Nazi Germany.
: — JonRoma 18:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category ambiguity/overlap

message: Should not National Socialism be categorized into :Category:Nationalism and :Category:Socialism, neither of which categories it currently belongs to? __meco (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say it should. Though User:XXPowerMexicoXx said National Socialist Germany renounced socialism and to see Nazism, that article acutally says the opposite.  National Socialists are anti-capitalist and socialist by their own definition.  I shouldn't have to quote everything here, when anyone can just read Nazism#Anti-Capitalism and Nazism#Strasserism. As I see it, there should be a good reason not to categorize this category in accordance with what the main article says, but anyone is welcome to try. A Werewolf (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalism and Socialism
Talk:Bragg peak

message: Is this definition of Bragg Peak strictly correct? The Bragg peak, as applied to clinical radiotherapy is the peak of maximum energy deposition in the depth-dose curve of ANY absorbed radiation (photons as well as electrons.) The Bragg peak does not describe the surface dose or the tail of the curve.
The Bragg peaks, and the depth-dose profiles of different energy photons, electrons, protons, pi-mesons etc are all exploited in the clinical situation.Jellytussle 18:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't very convincing. care to elaborate?--Deglr6328 22:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The current image (in the text of the article) represents the Bragg peak in a uniformly dense medium, though the length scale will change depending on what uniformly dense medium you choose due to associated cross-sections changing. For things like auroral physics, where ionisation is created by electrons and protons coming in and striking atmospheric particles, you start off with a low density material (which stretches the initial tail) and then get a very sudden peak as you hit higher energy stuff, which brings the Bragg peak closer to the Chapman function, which is the much different photon version. Although the image here does show something, it would need to be closer in to show the actual peak. At present it shows emission, but not in enough detail to show there's a lead up to the brightest bit and then a sudden cut-off. If it did, it would be good, its just its so far out at the moment, the bright bit could be due to the beam spreading. MilleauRekiir 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: note

message: It seems that this article confuses two things, each of which should probably have an article. One is, as Bragg found, the energy lost with depth from a proton, or other charged ion beam. That is worthy of an article.
Second is the use of such beams, especially proton beams, for cancer treatment. They are better than photon (X-ray and gamma ray) beams because of the Bragg peak. One can fairly well localize the region where energy is deposited (and DNA damage occurs). This is worthy of its own article. Mixing them the way this one does, doesn't well explain either of them. Gah4 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion
Talk:Moosic, Pennsylvania

message: We need to talk about the different Moosic neighborhoods:
Greenwood
Lower Moosic
Spike Island
Belin Village
Moosic Heights
Glenmaura
We also need to note that the Riverside School District serves the community.
Including Riverside Elementary East, located in Greenwood.
Moosic students attend Riverside Jr.-Sr. High School in neighboring Taylor.
Geographical Features:
Rocky Glen Lake
Glenwood Lake
Spring Brook Creek  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.100.237 (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. Additions: 
Talk:Sacred Heart Canossian College

message: I have tried to tidy up this page, add some information to it, enhanced the links to other Wiki pages, etc.  Please check if it conforms to the Wiki's quality standard or not, and if not what people should do to update it. 
-- unsigned comment.
:I did another tidy up, fixing the very odd use of "our" and "we" in this article.  However there remains a huge amount of work to do, including adding an infobox for the contact details.  Also, the school song might be copyrighted and its origin and copyright status must be checked. --Mintchocicecream 18:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Loránd Eötvös

message: correct ROLAND to LORAND, plz plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.114.139.236 (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All done. Ian Cairns 20:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Hungarian: "Loránd" in English "Roland". -- Harp 10:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As this is the english wikipedia, it would be useful if pronunciation guides were provided for all non-standard foreign language names and words such as this physicist's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.59.214 (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the description, how we can write the pronunciation? -- Harp 10:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *
*
*
*
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone (talk • contribs) 20:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References
Talk:Lovers in Paris

message: This page is incorrect as Lovers in Paris was in fact not the highest viewed SBS drama. e.g. the 1995 drama Sandglass had a higher viewing rate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.183.121.50 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is incorrect 
Talk:Aventura, Florida

message: The photograph for this article is terrible. It's soft and overexposed. I strongly recommend a replacement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.50.90 (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Photograph 

message: Hmmm, since the mall was named for the Aventura condominiums and apartment buildings and original two towers built there, wouldn't it be safer to say the city was named after the original condo project?
IMO, of course... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CodeCarpenter (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City named for the mall? 
Talk:Southwest Ranches, Florida

message: Can someone add a picture or two onto here? I don't know how to get one that we are allowed to use. -- HughMorris15 (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Southwest Ranches is twinned with this town in Ireland. Why?
It is odd, because this Irish town honours a unit of deserters from the us army that was formed during the Mexican war. Many were later hanged for treason. Every sept. 12, Clifden flies the Mexican flag. 
Does anyone know the background to this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:8923:2636:1252:3B3 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, we are not a reference service. None of that is mentioned in either this article or the one about Clifden, nor could it be without a reliable source. Donald Albury 16:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Clifden
Talk:The World According to Garp

message: This article focuses on the role of Jenny Fields and even on the relatively unimportant father, who is only mentioned in the beginning. Shouldn't this be rewritten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.179.195 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 December 2005
:I added an infobox and a few other items to the article. It's still heavily weighted toward the start of the book, though. NinjaLore 07:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Ellen Jamesian redirects here, but then is not mentioned here.  Could someone who knows who she is and why it redirects here fix this? 68.228.0.128 (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The term is explained at Ellen James Society. --Mathew5000 (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ellen Jamesian 

message: If we write a plot or character summary, without showing references as to who we are paraphrasing, we are engaged in Original Research. Even a literal, chapter by chapter summary of actions in a novel is original research, unless we are summarizing a notable commentators summary. A novelist may in fact not intend the action to be that important, but instead is focused on a psychological point, which the action exemplifies. i added a link to the nyt review of this book at the time. references like this can be used to create a sourced article here. This problem is rampant on WP, not to blame any of the good people trying to help this article. its very hard to resist the desire to summarize a novel one is passionate about.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot and character summaries

message: Searching for "undertoad" gives a redirection to this page, which is relevant but somewhat confusing since the word is never mentioned on the page. If the concept of the "undertoad" warrants it, maybe a section should be written about it (and the redirect then should point to that section). If not, I think "undertoad" should have its own stub page mentioning that it is a misheard word from this novel. Mumiemonstret (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undertoad redirects here 

message: Please note that one editor is repeatedly adding unreferenced commentary and opinion, and without giving an edit summary. For example   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.32.152.7 (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Further note: the persistent editor has posted false warnings, is now bordering on being in breach of the 3RR.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.32.152.7 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced commentary and opinion

message: Is it really accurate to say that Jenny "raped" T.S. Garp? The movie uses that term, but I don't think the book does. Of course, he didn't consent, but he did say, "Good." 108.183.22.133 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it. Mentally handicapped people are allowed to have and enjoy sex. Bkatcher (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape
Talk:Professional File System

message: I'd just like to point out that there's absolutely no doubt that PFS was the first Amiga filesystem to introduce a filesystem-level "trashcan", as it was a) an Amiga filesystem with a filesystem-level trashcan and (b) was the second Amiga filesystem (if you consider OFS/FFS to be a single one) and OFS/FFS did not have one. I think there were a grand total of four native filesystems on original Amiga so it's not exactly a stretch to claim.
An example of how Wikipedia is completely unsuitable for publishing anything Amiga-related, due to the paucity of modern third-party references. Citation is needed but can never be supplied. 2.217.212.107 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Amiga magazines of the 80s/90s are suitable as reliable sources... so check your library and provide needed sources. Pavlor (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Amiga magazines rarely go into the technical detail required. 146.191.95.1 (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I would question if old Amiga magazines out of print would fall within wikipedia's notability guidelines. Generally one might expect to be able to read and confirm references. 90.192.220.55 (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Offline sources are perfectly useable (note many Amiga magazines/scans are available online). I participated in dozens AfDs and nobody ever disputed good old computer magazines as sources proving notability (see WP:RS and WP:N for more general info). Pavlor (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trashcan
Talk:Thingwall Hall

message: I cleaned up a couple gramatic errors I had found, but I think some more information on Thingwall Hall and maybe some more pictures would be good. I'll see if I can find any. --Icthusgirl 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can somebody cite some sources to show that they are two different building. If they are then maybe they should be split into two separate articles.--NeilEvans 19:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thingwall Hall/House 

message: I've moved the contents of this page to a new page 'Thingwall House' as there is evidence for there being two distinct buildings with different purposes.--Zenichiro 13:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thingwall Hall/House
Talk:Hurricane Charlie (1951)

message: Article is almost there...a little more on impact would be nice, but mostly it just needs to be copyedited. Jdorje 05:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: #Is it reasonably well written?
#:A. Prose quality:  
#:: 
#:B. MoS compliance: 
#:: 
#Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
#:A. References to sources:  
#:: 
#:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
#:: 
#:C. No original research: 
#:: 
#Is it broad in its coverage?
#:A. Major aspects:  
#:: 
#:B. Focused: 
#:: 
#Is it neutral?
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#Is it stable?
#: No edit wars, etc: 
#:: 
#Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
#:A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
#:: 
#:B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass or Fail: 
#:: 
Nice job, CapeVerdeWave, this article had been sitting there forever and was not getting expanded. You did a nice job. I really suggest sending this to PR then FAC. This is the definition of a great 1950s storm. Passes all criteria.<FONT FACE="Dom Casual" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch32contribs</FONT> 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article review 
Talk:Schisma

message: Is the introduction of the modern meaning really due to Ellis?
Grove Music Online states in an unsigned article (s.v. schisma):
"In 19th- and 20th-century writings (for instance, P. Lichtenthal’s Dizionario e bibliografia della musica, Milan, 1826) it refers to the difference between the Pythagorean and syntonic commas...."
Ellis would have been about eight years old when Lichtenthal went to press.
Looking at the OED, it appears Ellis may have been merely the first to use the modern meaning in English.
This article also should mention that "schisma" was used before the 19th century to refer to various small intervals, but did not have a standard meaning. (Examples are cited in the Grove article.)
151.198.141.55 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ellis?? 

message: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.5249
Possibly useful stuff here; Wikipedia is its only reference though. Melchoir (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the Kirnberger Kernel Is So Small
Talk:Harry Partch's 43-tone scale

message: It seems like it should be mentioned somewhere in the article that Partch called this scale "Monophony". I've just started reading Genesis, but I believe this is how he always refers to the 43-tone scale.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.0.20 (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monophony

message: This section seems to be presenting an argument for why 11-limit ratios alone do not make a "good" scale.  "Good" is clearly a matter of opinion, so whether this is Partch's argument/method or someone else's, it should be sourced.  --Ds13 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for argument/method to fill in the "bad" gaps in 11-limit ratio scale?

message: "Erv Wilson who worked with Partch has pointed out that these added tones form a constant structure of 41 tones with two variables. A constant structure giving one the property of anytime a ratio appears it will be subtended by the same about of steps. In this way Partch resolved his harmonic and melodic symmetry in one of the best ways possible."
Would someone please correct the above? I would but do not know what is actually intended to be communicated (although it sounds interesting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielsed (talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erv Wilson's "constant structure" 

message: In Genesis of a Music there is a diagram titled 'the 43 tone scale' which I admit does not help my argument. But like 12-tone ET it is a system not a scale (yes there is the 'chromatic scale' but.. Maybe pedantic and it is arguable but Partch uses the term 'tonal system' or simply 'system' repeatedly. Scales are a selected series from within any system. The article title should be changed to "Harry Partch's 43-tone system". I'll do some work on this article at some point. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a 'scale' but a 'tonal system' 

message: I think it should be mentioned that the starting point of the scale (i.e. the 1/1) is the tone G (according to Partch: Genesis of a Music). The audio files should be corrected accordingly by transposing them all up by a fifth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.166.177.168 (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change 1/1 to be a G