lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Pannus

message: It would sure be nice to learn more about this condition in the way of treatment options.  I have a very large friend who has this problem very badly.  It would be nice to know what the prognosis is and how to find a specialist who deals with treating the pannus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.204.90 (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See plastic surgery, and most likely abdominoplasty.  Note that this is almost always (99%+) considered optional surgery for aesthetic reasons and is therefore not covered by health insurance.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for more information
Talk:Vivarium

message: I see the article on terrariums was redirected here some time ago.  Anyone have a link to a discussion on it?  I can't find anything.  As one of the two major types of vivarium—along with aquariums—I'm curious to know what the rationale was, assuming there even was a consensus for it, as other types of vivariums still have articles.   Mbinebri  talk ← 04:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be an article focused only on the horticultural terrarium. It seems to be the more common and traditional form. Most people do not think of a glorified reptile cage with plants when thinking of a terrarium. Thriley (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Thrilley, it should be more about plants and less about the other quasi-terrrarium things.Laurenlinn (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrariums redirect here (2010-2013) 

message: This article is clearly trying to push a liberal vivisectionist point of view. 76.26.81.197 (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.213 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of view (2011) ? - Need pages for vivarium types eg terrarium (2013) 

message: The definitions of these two as currently written is confused and partially reversed.
A riparium (ripa = bank or shore) is a semi-aquatic vivarium divided horizontally with a terrestrial zone beside as aquatic zone. Its design allows the accommodation of semi-aquatic animals. The transition between land and water can be a gradual incline of substrate, or a sharp horizontal drop with access ramp.
A paludarium (palus = marsh or swamp) is a semi-aquatic vivarium divided vertically with an aerial zone above shallow water (marsh) or mud (swamp), and including mandatory accommodation of semi-aquatic plants. The substrate surface may be a gradual incline between dry land and deep water, or horizontal without terrestrial nor aquatic zones.
Either type of vivarium can be designed to accommodate a variety of animals and plants, with many species equally adaptable to either. Large display vivaria such as at zoos may include a combination of elements such as a riparium-paludarium-escarparium-arboretum combination; perhaps the article should make clear that not all vivaria can be subcategorized due to inclusion of multiple elements. 67.22.75.220 (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paludarium vs Riparium
Talk:Semi-minor axis

message: As written here and indicated by the merge banners, with no feedback from anyone except User:Joel B. Lewis who favored the merge, I will do it later today (or tommorow). M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 11:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Semi-major axis]] and [[Semi-minor axis]]
Talk:Eccentricity vector

message: Can someone check the first equation for the ellipticity vector (involving the angular momentum h)? It should be unit-less but has a unit of mass from the angular momentum h. Using "m^2" in the denominator would fix it. The second equation for the vector is correct. 98.114.178.67 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The h vector is the specific angular momentum equal to r cross v, so it has units of m^2/s. I've edited the section to try to be a little clearer about this. Jaxcp3 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with units of an equation
Talk:Mean longitude

message: The lead defines the concept in terms of a counterfactual.  The problem with doing so is that counterfactuals admit multiple interpretations depending on how they're reconciled with reality.  How about defining it instead as 360 degrees times the fraction of a year elapsed since the last periapsis?  The current opening sentence is fine as a second sentence as long as it isn't taken as the definition.  If no one objects I'll do it myself.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me.  However, your description here describes the mean anomaly rather than the mean longitude.  But if you can come up with a good definition, go for it.  --Lasunncty (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

message: A very wordy article for a simple concept. Mean longitude is just the angular distance from a reference direction which a body would have if it moved at a uniform angular rate, rather than the non-uniform rate which occurs because of an elliptical orbit. That's it.
The second paragraph is discussing, in a convoluted, repetitive fashion, so-called mean elements, which have nothing to do with mean longitude. Mean elements are a sort of average over a long time period. Yes, you can have a mean longitude as part of a set of mean elements, but this "mean mean longitude" thing is a little contrived. I had to search for it to find out what it was supposed to be, and only came up with a couple of hits. Tfr000 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs work
Talk:Orbital node

message: This article deals with the concept of orbital nodes in astronomy, but there is also a concept of orbital nodes in quantum chemistry (which is what I was looking for when I found this). Maybe a disambiguation is in order? 202.155.85.18 (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on Astronomy
Talk:Non-inclined orbit

message: This article was MERGEd to become a part of Near-equatorial orbit on 5 September 2022.  See discussion and consensus on the near-equatorial article Talk page.  The article had remained completely unsourced for over a dozen years, and any editor could have removed all those unsourced statements just for that reason alone.
Have begun to challenge the lack of sources in the new (merged) article; so hopefully may be improved with time in the new venue.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article MERGE
Talk:Orbital inclination change

message: I have added a  banner, but since my assessment of the article's class doesn't match that of the  assessor, I haven't removed that banner. Since the article currently has no references whatsoever, rating it "Start" as I have done seems generous! How does it rate a "C" for Astronomy? Indeed, is it within scope there? (sdsds - talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm. I guess I had another article opened and I gave C to this one thinking it was the other. My bad. Seems more like a stub to me. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed the  due to lack of applicability. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The equation for delta v as a function of inclination change does not seem correct. For example, take the case where w + f = 0 or 180. This occurs when the spacecraft is at the orbital nodes, where the impulsive maneuver should be performed. In this case abs(cos(w+f)) = 1 (absolute value because negative DV doesn't make sense). Now also consider at the same time the denominator when the spacecraft is at perigee (true anomaly = 0). The denominator is at a maximum which means the fraction is at a minimum. The article states that changing inclination at apogee is optimal. The equation says changing inclination at perigee is optimal. Performing some side analysis suggests that the denominator should be 1-ecos(f), though this is only approximately correct. And finally, the cos(w+f) in the numerator takes on a value of zero when the argument is pi/2. A delta V of zero to change inclination would be quite a good deal! In fact, when w+f = pi/2, it is impossible to change inclination at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.45.94 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject banners and article class
Talk:Serafina Pekkala

message: "She rules over certain clans in the district of Lake Enara in Finland" 
Is this how it's spelled in the books? I presume this means Lake Inari – or Enare träsk in Swedish. --Anshelm '77 00:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, this is how it's spelt.  Ánar in Northern Sámi, anyway.  Pullman changed a lot of details of the names to give a lot of things an other-worldly feel.  I recall it is Enara, however I don't recall they Finland by name... Lake Enara is just in "the north". --Ryan 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Escape orbit

message: The (uncited) definition of an escape orbit is inconsistent with prevailing use. It is common knowledge that escape trajectories can be either parabolic or hyperbolic. 
The content of the page is specific to radial parabolic orbits, not escape orbits. It should be merged with radial trajectory.
Should "Escape Orbit" be left as stub, a disambiguation page, or moved to Wiktionary?  --Norbeck (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Sources for this page
Talk:Capture orbit

message: The (uncited) definitions of capture orbits and escape orbits are inconsistent with prevailing use. 
The term "capture orbit" most often refers to any orbit where the orbital energy changes from positive to negative via a perturbation, e.g. a hyperbolic trajectory that becomes elliptic due to orbital insertion.
:"MGS Mission Plan Section 5. Orbit Insertion Phase:  This burn will take the spacecraft off of the hyperbolic approach trajectory and onto an elliptical capture orbit with a period of 48 hours" 
:From NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, a  graph demonstrating an elliptic capture orbit
The content of this page has little to do with capture orbits, it should proably be merged with radial trajectory.  
Should "Capture Orbit" be left as stub, a disambiguation page, or moved to Wiktionary?
Norbeck (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Sources for this page 

message: "We find, therefore, that in general relativity, there is a whole new class of orbits, capture orbits where a particle with nonzero angular momentum can reach r=0"
Currently this page is redirected to parabolic orbits, capture orbits are not parabolic.
-- Norbeck (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition used in general relativity
Talk:Orbital perturbation

message: Theoretically, an orbit described by Kepler is ideal as Earth is considered to be a 
perfect sphere and the force acting around the Earth is the centrifugal force. This force 
is supposed to balance the gravitational pull of the earth.

In reality, other forces also play an important role and affect the motion of the 
satellite. These forces are the gravitational forces of Sun and Moon along with the 
atmospheric drag.

Effect of Sun and Moon is more pronounced on geostationary earth satellites where as 
the atmospheric drag effect is more pronounced for low earth orbit satellites.

As the shape of Earth is not a perfect sphere, it causes some variations in the path 
followed by the satellites around the primary. As the Earth is bulging from the 
equatorial belt, and keeping in mind that an orbit is not a physical entity, and it is the 
forces resulting from an oblate Earth which act on the satellite produce a change in 
the orbital parameters.

This causes the satellite to drift as a result of regression of the nodes and the latitude 
of the point of perigee (point closest to the Earth). This leads to rotation of the line of 
apsides. As the orbit itself is moving with respect to the Earth, the resultant changes 
are seen in the values of argument of perigee and right ascension of ascending node.

Due to the non-spherical shape of Earth, one more effect called as the “Satellite 
Graveyard” is seen. The non-spherical shape leads to the small value of eccentricity at 
the equatorial plane. This causes a gravity gradient on GEO satellite and makes them 
drift to one of the two stable points which coincide with minor axis of the equatorial 
ellipse.

Working satellites are made to drift back to their position but out-of-service satellites 
are eventually drifted to these points, and making that point a Satellite Graveyard.
Atmospheric Drag 

For Low Earth orbiting satellites, the effect of atmospheric drag is more pronounces. 
The impact of this drag is maximum at the point of perigee. Drag (pull towards the 
Earth) has an effect on velocity of Satellite (velocity reduces).

This causes the satellite to not reach the apogee height successive revolutions. This 
leads to a change in value of semi-major axis and eccentricity. Satellites in service are 
maneuvered by the earth station back to their original orbital position. Vaishnavi amamcherla (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital perturbation in satellite communications
Talk:Immigration to Macau

message: I think this page needs some updates.  Please see this article on new cash deposit requirement, and comments on Macau ID/residency offered to Mainlanders:
http://www.macaubusiness.com/index.php?id=437
-- Adeptitus 00:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

message: how long's the whole thing take from begining to end to get the macau passport?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodinbloodout343243 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  investment migration
Talk:Parabolic trajectory

message: How is this a stub, it is pretty long.Jamesrules90 (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: stub

message: I just added the section on Barker's equation (kinda like Kepler's equation but for parabolic orbits). I've noticed that in addition to the page not containing sources, it is also a little repetitive, specifically with the identifications of variables. I'm going to try to clean this up a bit and maybe try to flesh it out. Any help with proofreading, formatting, sources or whatever would be great.
Jaxcp3 (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixes
Talk:Central body

message: This article lack sources.  All of the information in it is incorrect. Not a single fact is true in the article for for orbiting body either. I'm nominating them for deletion.
In astrophysics, the "central" body is known as the "primary". And the "orbiting" body is known as the "secondary". .
It's not a "standard assumption" that an "orbiting body" has an insignificant mass relative to the primary. 
It is not necessary to assume an inertial frame.
The central body is not at the focus, the barycenter is. --Norbeck (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Talk:Orbiting body

message: This article lack sources. ALL of the information in it is incorrect. Not a single fact is true in the article for for central body either. I'm nominating them for deletion.
In astrophysics, the "central" body is known as the "primary". And the "orbiting" body is known as the "secondary". .
It's not a "standard assumption" that an "orbiting body" has an insignificant mass relative to the primary. 
The central body is not at the "elliptical foci". The focus cooincides with the center of mass, and the orbit does not have to be an ellipse. --16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: sources
Talk:Areostationary orbit

message: This is with reference to the "Stationkeeping Section"
 Any satellites in areostationary orbit will likely suffer from increased orbital station keeping costs, because the Clarke belt of Mars lies between the orbits of the planet's two natural satellites. Phobos has a semi-major axis of 9,376 km, and Deimos has a semi-major axis of 23,463 km. The close proximity to Phobos in particular (the larger of the two moons) will cause unwanted orbital resonance effects that will gradually shift the orbit of areostationary satellites.
The citation needed is well deserved. It stands to reason that Phobos and Deimos are too small to have a substantial effect on the orbit of a satellite, with Phobos having just 1/7000000th the mass of Earth's moon, and Deimos being 1/5th as large as Phobos.
I did some original research using numerical simulation which shows that Phobos does shift the orbit, but does so extremely slowly, less than 1 arcsecond per month, and the stationkeeping requirements to account for the influence of Phobos, while real, would be very small (probably less than 0.05 m/s per year). It is hard to find any published research references to perturbations caused by Phobos and Deimos on the orbits of martian satellites and those references generally just dismiss the moons stating the lumpiness of the martian gravity field is much more significant. Furthermore, original research again, it would seem that for a typical solar-powered satellite radiation pressure from the Sun would generally exceed the effect of the gravity of Phobos.
While I only have original research to indicate that this section is substantially incorrect/misleading I could also find no references to it being substantially correct. A section on stationkeeping should either go into the actual factors (lumpiness of martian gravity, sun's gravity, radiation pressure, Phobos and Deimos) and their respective magnitudes, or this section as it currently is should be removed as being vague and misleading.
BlakeMM (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stationkeeping - Phobos and Demios
Talk:Specific angular momentum

message: The first paragraph on this page contains a terrible pun.  As a non-wikipedian I don't know how this relates to the wikipedia style guide but I thought I'd point it out.
Peace  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.163.121 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Puns

message: is, by definition, exactly the same as h for the perturbed orbit at every instant. The difference is that if the perturbations were to suddenly cease, the object would follow the osculating orbit rather than the perturbed. So the statement "However, for perturbed orbits the h vector is generally not perpendicular to the osculating orbital plane." is wrong. Tfr000 (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''h''' of osculating orbit 

message: Why are we proving them in an article about specific angular momentum? We have several articles about Kepler's Laws. Tfr000 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kepler's laws? 

message: Not that it's really needed, given this is a more mathematically focused article, but it could probably benefit from having at least one other source. 2001:18E8:3:1087:F000:0:0:3FE (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently only one source
Talk:Simon Burley

message: I've found two sources on Google Books that contradict one another, regarding a rising in Kent regarding Burley in 1388. Chaucer's Official Life (Hulbert, 1912) says there was a rising in support of him, while The English Rising of 1381 (Past and Present Society Conference, 1981) speaks of a "movement in Kent pressing for his execution" which induced the Lords to uphold his sentence. Awaiting more detailed data, I've removed mention of the rising entirely. (Burley was also responsible for an outbreak against him in Kent in 1382, when he tried to claim a resident of Gravesend as a serf.) Choess (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebellions in Kent
Talk:Vis-viva equation

message: :For a given μ, and a given r and v at a single point of the orbit, one can compute ε, allowing an object to be classified as having not enough energy to be orbital, hence being "suborbital" (a ballistic missile, for example), having enough energy to be "orbital", but possibly being suborbital anyway due to the shape of the orbit, or having enough energy to be extraterrestrial (as a meteor, for example).
Is ε specific orbital energy? Although there's a link to that at the end of the article, the symbol isn't explicitly defined anywhere in this article, and eccentricity can also be denoted by epsilon. Dependent Variable (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it.--Patrick (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Undefined symbol

message: We read here that "It is the direct result of the principle of conservation of mechanical energy which applies when the only force acting on an object is its own weight." ITS OWN WEIGHT? OMG! What is the "weight" of a satellite in orbit at 100,000 km above Mars?! (will it matter whether the orbit is circular, elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic???) Why is mechanical energy not conserved when other external forces are applied???? Garbage! Also, we will learn that "v is the relative speed of the two bodies" !!! MORE GARBAGE! NOWHERE is it mentioned that the equation is about only two bodies, nowhere is it mentioned that one body is in orbit above the other. Nowhere is the definition of the "relative" speed to be found. Really horrible development of the concept.174.130.19.69 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbage!  

message: In the derivation, we go from:
: \frac{1}{2}v_a^2 = GM \left( \frac{r_p - r_a}{r_ar_p} \right) \frac{r_p^2}{r_p^2-r_a^2} 
To:
: \frac{1}{2}v_a^2 = GM \frac{r_p}{r_a(r_p+r_a)} 
It is clear that each  {r_p}  cancels on the RHS, but how does one cancel the  (r_p - r_a)  with one of the  (r_p^2 - r_a^2) ??  
Note that the expression is  (r_p^2 - r_a^2)  and not (r_p - r_a)^2 , which is necessary to get that latter result.  I am willing to believe that the Vis-viva equation works, but we missed an assumption in the derivation here.
Thank you - anon
: Could be using the well known  (a+b)(a-b) =  (a^2 - b^2)  ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This step in the derivation does not seem to follow
Talk:Sphere of influence (astrodynamics)

message: I am wondering what size is the solar SoI sphere and Hill sphere to the Milky Way? Reddwarf2956 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milky Way solar SoI? 

message: The Moon, which is placed in the table with its own value of SOI radius, is a special case here since exitting the Moon's SOI would put a body into the SOI of the Earth, and not the Sun. For all of the other entries in the table, leaving their SOI means entering the SOI of the Sun instead. I'm not sure of the best way to format the insertion of a note on this uniqueness, but text saying "Since the Moon's orbit lies entirely within the SOI of the Earth, leaving the SOI of the Moon does not place a body in the SOI of the Sun, like the other planets on this list, but that of the Earth instead" would be appropriate. siafu (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see the reason to have the moon if other moons are not included. John W. Nicholson (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? It is calculated completely analogously, just with the major mass being Earth, not the Sun. Other moons could be added instead, if you like. --JorisvS (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

text: It is clear in the literature what SOI means for the Moon. And the exception is noted in the text that is is "usually the Sun". It is also true for moons of other planets that they have an SOI associated with their parent planet. But I think it is worth pointing out the Moon as a specific example where big "M" is not the Sun since it is specifically included in the table.   Uluhtc (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight issue with "Moon" in table
Talk:Apse line

message: I propose the article be called "the line of apsides", to match prevailing usage.
Google "apse line"       =   6,350 
Google "line of apsides" = 329,000  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norbeck (talk • contribs) 08:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobody calls it the Apse line