lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Romanticism in science

message: "No longer were people seeking a unification between man and nature based on the ideals of harmony, but a more precise approach that eventually gave rise to the study of science that is prevalent today. But it's not actually useful." Is that supposed to be part of it? It seems slightly important to me.
On the other hand, I might just be reading it the wrong way.
Comakid 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake? Or am I just reading it wrong? 

message: This is a huge subject - lots has been thought and written on the subject. This one article is a start, but it could be much better.
First, there are not enough references to suggest just how much thought and writing has been done on the subject. Second, the quality of the article as it stands needs improving.
Finally, I have a contribution to make, but I'm not sure how to include it. Here it is:
An obscure but important contribution to the study of Romanticism and its relation to science, specifically to epistemology, is Owen Barfield's Romanticism Comes Of Age. Barfield directly addresses the question, "In what way is imagination true?" and in answer develops a critique of Romance. The essence of that critique is a focus on imagination as an organ of perception. Barfield's other works, including Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry, looks at Goethe's scientific studies as seminal works of Romantic science, including Metamorphosis of Plants and A Theory of Color.
Glad to see that this article is part of the History of Science project.
Djsmitherman 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional references 

message: I'm curious why Andreas Vesalius is included in the list of Enlightenment scholars -- I tend to teach him as an exemplar of the Renaissance, and it seems to me that a 16th-century scholar is much too early to include in this period.
Brainybear (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same question.  It does not make sense to include Vesalius in the Enlightenment, and even Descartes is stretching it a little bit. Scaluni (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review by Scott for Romanticism in Science
Talk:Neutron time-of-flight scattering

message: Hi all,
There is a facility at CERN called nTOF:
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/NTOF/
Perhaps it could be added to the known neutron time of flight facilities.
--Ademus4 (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  nTOF at CERN
Talk:Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story

message: As the film has been deemed a copyright infringement, I am removing the link to google video. IrishGuy talk 00:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [untitled]

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 

message: I looked at the cited articles and could find no such mention that Haynes insinuated that Richard was gay. I saw the film in question and she only threatens to tell their mom and dad about his secret life -- which could be anything from using drugs to being gay, but nothing is specifically addressed. 
Unless this has been mentioned in an article and I'm just missing it, then it needs to be removed or noted with "citation needed" at the least. - Stexe (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Accused of Being Gay? 

message: Is there an independent, reliable source for this? The claim reads as outlandish to a casual Todd Haynes fan who hasn't seen a single scene involving this in any film directed by Haynes other than this one (I'm Not There, Safe, Velvet Goldmine). I understand Haynes directed one other film called "Dottie Got Spanked" which aired on PBS, which is the only other example I'm aware of, but it takes an extremely literal viewing of the Haynes filmography to consider spanking a common theme (as opposed to celebrity, which *is* a common theme).  2601:585:8100:4BEB:6C51:D91D:369E:34DE (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanking as a Common Theme of Todd Haynes Films 

message: The link to Michael Edwards in this article is incorrect. It links to the wrong actor. It should link to Michael Sean Edwards, who is on IMDB and who is also the editor of Dresden. 2603:7000:DA42:25F0:469:8235:E002:C8FA (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect actor listed.
Talk:Schizocoely

message: This is not characteristic of only protostomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.102.230  (talk • contribs)  05:48, 4 December 2006
:I tried to clarify the text accordingly to answer the concern and the note.  I also provided sources. Manudouz (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation between schizocoely and protostomes.
Talk:Roger Nichols (recording engineer)

message: This article needs improvement to follow Wikipedia encyclopedic standards.  At the basic level, it fails WP:Autobiography.  Reliable sources need to be introduced, meaning if the subject is notable, then third-party sources would have been written about it, and these sources should follow Verifiability guidelines as well.  Also please What Wikipedia is Not in terms of the self-promotion shown here.  Cricket02 03:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unencylopedic

message: The Connie Reeder page mentions "Reeder is credited as a writer or co-writer on all tracks of her husband's release, The Roger Nichols Project." - but I don't see that mentioned here. -- Beardo (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Roger Nichols Project
Talk:Noise (video)

message: I'm from Buenos Aires, Argentina and i don't know if it is only from my city but we call "lluvia" (rain) to this noise. i have never heard it called as "nieve" (snow) before. --191.83.185.110 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is probably called "Lluvia" in Argentina 

message: Why does video noise consist of only black and white dots? --Abdull 10:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer: due to the automatic gain control in the amplifier --lucadealfaro —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Nostalgia Nerd made a nice video that explains it. Let me try to summarize: for historical/compatibility reasons, analog color TV is actually comprised of a B&W signal first, then a color overlay. Now, when your TV gets no proper signal, it treats random ambient electromagnetic noise as if it was a signal. Except it can't find the specific markers for the colorburst, so there is no color information to lay over that. --179.182.131.165 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amplification? 

message: The Universe's background radiation is in the microwave range, and requires special antennas (radiotelescopes) to detect.  It is not easy to detect, and it certainly cannot be done with normal TVs!  --lucadealfaro  —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No Background Radiation

message: What is the sound of the static called; I thought it was white noise. It seems to be always the maximum amplitiude (loudness) at whatever volume level- the loudest it can potentially be at the volume setting it's at- it's louder than the commercials. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sound

message: Static is caused by the Big Bang and the atomic bomb?  Can we talk about adding a citation for that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.186.240 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the atomic bomb bit but I have heard about background radiation from the Big Bang being the cause. In fact it's been cited on several Discovery channel science shows as I recall.. -- œ™ 03:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the first paragraph for real? 

message: Maybe this is just me, but I've also heard it referred to as "fuzz" and "salt and pepper". Use your imagination. 67.171.222.203 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate names 

message: Once again we find a reference, in the opening sentences, to "pixels" on an analog video display. There is no such thing in the legacy television signal or on a legacy television screen. There is only a discrete number of lines; horizontal resolution is continuously variable depending on the quality of the electronics.
2600:1700:5B2E:9050:69F6:B561:92D0:500D (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are no pixels on a CRT 

message: Try as I might, Google can't find me a decent video or image of the positive static discussed in this article. An example would be immensely helpful and interesting. 72.213.167.220 (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of the positive static from the UK
Talk:Noise print

message: This article is entirely inadequate to the task it takes in hand.
Dark-frame subtraction is hardly analogous... It's used to subtract errors inherent in the recording medium itself.
"Noise print" is a naive (not adaptive) background noise cancellation technique that assumes there are spectral components with high ubiquity that can be removed to produce an overall improvement in the quality of a recording. Phase-cancellation is an adaptive method that is similar, using a simultaneous recorded "noise" channel which is then subtracted. These techniques may be well suited to live performance situations, but are no longer considered adequate for recorded material, which can be enhanced at leisure using digital filters developed by non-linear analysis (repeated listenings of played-back content).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Deli meat

message: I think this page should be merged with cold cut.  Everything listed under deli meat also qualifies as a cold cut, and the information in each article could help the other.  Anyone else agree?  Wyldphyre 04:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine. --Eyrian 05:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Merge. Snarfies 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?
Talk:Noise temperature

message: There are already articles on Noise Figure and cascade equations.  Pleas consider using them as sources for references instead of duplicating the information here.
Thbusch (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication

message: I don't really see the need for all the subscripts in this equation.
:P_{RL} = k_B T_{s} B_{n}
Much easier to read is simply P = k T B. Just to compound the problem, part of the article uses k with a subscript and part does not. Drkirkby (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because someone copied it from a book. I'm fixing it now.... Interferometrist (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so many subscripts?
Talk:Ultimo (brand)

message: This is fairly blatantly advertising -- I suspect a cut-and-paste from the  website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.140.17 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Interesting that the main Michelle Mone page states that Lady Mone claimed that an Ultimo bra was worn by Julia Roberts… but that the movie’s production team disputed that. But here it’s just stated as fact. I mean fair play, great PR, but it’s not true, is it? 213.55.226.105 (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed that, with citations. Iancorcoran (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erin Brokovich
Talk:Nuclear magnetic moment

message: Info re the measurement method of this magnetic moment is missing from the article.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurement method 

message: It says here "In cases with odd numbers of either or both protons and neutrons, the nucleus often has nonzero spin..." Obviously, if the number of nucleons is odd, that means for odd-even or even-odd nuclei, the spin is definitely non-zero. Now I accept that in principle it would be possible that for an odd-odd nucleus the last proton and neutron compensate their spins, but at Even and odd atomic nuclei it says that at least among the primordial nuclei, this does not happen. Are there known artificial odd-odd nuclei with zero spin? Otherwise I would suggest to change the above expression to say "always" or at least to drop the "often".
And with respect to the section on g-factors: what is called g(s) here is what I think about if I read "g-factor". What is called g(l) here seems to be about the orbital contribution to a nucleus' spin (there is no definition of these quantities). Thus it is quite trivial that these are 0 and 1 for neutrons and protons, respectively, isn't it? I also wouldn't called these values "measured", it's just that experiments are in accordance with theory with respect to these values. In contrast, g(s) are clearly measured, as there is no theory that would predict these values. But in general, to me it seems that the article would become better if this distinction would not be made and only g(s) would be treated and called "g-factor", in accordance with general usage. Perhaps a note could be made that the orbital contribution is as expected, but the present presentation is unnecessarily complicated, I think. Seattle Jörg (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies
Talk:Nuclear magneton

message: The "Neutron magnetic moment" article seems to make sense.  173.175.54.131 (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merger 

message: First, quarks have spin-angular-momentum of {\hbar} \over {2}; typical charge of {e} \over {3}; and typical mass of {m_\mathrm{p}} \over {3}.  Accordingly, the expected quark magneton would be:
:\mu_q = {{ {{e} \over {3}}    {{\hbar} \over {2}}  } \over { 2 {{m_P} \over {3}} } }  
:= {{\mu_N} \over {2}}
Then, in units of \mu_q, 
:\mu_P \approx 6
:\mu_N \approx -4
Then, assuming that 
:\mu_P = 2 \mu_{up} + 1 \mu_{down}
:\mu_N = -1 \mu_{up} - 2 \mu_{down}
Then, that system of equations can be quickly solved, yielding
:\mu_{up} = {{8} \over {3}}
:\mu_{down} = {{2} \over {3}}
Then, accounting for up-quarks having twice the normal quark charge; and attributing the remaining discrepancies to differences in up-quark vs. down-quark masses,
:m_{up} = {{1} \over {4}}
:m_{down} = {{1} \over {2}}
in units of m_P.  Thus, a simple picture, of down-quarks having twice the mass, and (negative) half the charge, of up quarks; qualitatively accounts, for proton & neutron magnetons, as well as masses (neutrons heavier than protons).66.235.38.214 (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can find in the page for Up quark and Down quark, typical quark masses are in fact around {m_\mathrm{p}} \over {100}, so this is clearly not helpful. Also, as far as I can tell this is original work and according to  Wikipedia's policy should not be included on the page. Ragnarstroberg (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  simple semi-Classical explanation ??
Talk:Nuclear material

message: A recent edit added information about U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions regulation of nuclear materials.  It cites the NRC definition of "nuclear materials" (plural), which is distinct from the standard international definitions of "nuclear material" (singular) and appears to give undue weight to an idiosyncratic U.S. definition.  In the context of this article, I believe the reference to the type of materials regulated should be much shorter, and the discussion of how they are regulated should be dropped. NPguy (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRC and Nuclear Material
Talk:Nuclear pumped laser

message: Does anyone know what the power intensity characteristics are for such lasers?  The brief description makes it sound like these nuclear pumped lasers could probably achieve the highest power intensity of all possible lasers (including chemical lasers, etc...), but it doesn't state anything about them, or show any of them!
Nukemason4 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Power Intensity
File talk:Pioneer10-plaque.jpg

message: Seeing as this is today's featured picture, I am here to question whether or not it is worthy of that status. Sure, it is important and notable, but is it worth being featured? Sharkface217 05:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being important and notable are precisely the reasons why it's being featured. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pioneer Plaque for the discussion. howcheng  {chat} 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature?
Talk:OGLE-2003-BLG-235L

message: # exoplanet.eu has the orbital radius listed as 5.1 (± 1.6) AU, instead of the 4.3 (± 2.5) AU listed here.
# The distance of the star is listed as 5.2 kpc instead of the 5.8 kpc we have listed here.
# Its apparent magnitude of 19.7 was not listed, although I've listed it now. Does WP:SYN prevent me from using a calculated value of absolute magnitude?
I would fix the first two points if I felt confident enough that I wasn't missing something. As a layperson (with a Masters in Physics/Astronomy), I know just enough to be dangerous. It also took me a while to realize that the discrepancy with the values listed at the Astrophysical Journal abstract were caused by the incorrect assumptions listed in the first paragraph of the Lens system section. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies between this article and the linked database 
Talk:Ultima Online: Kingdom Reborn

message: I don't fully understand why the Kingdom Reborn page has been marked for deletion. Shouldn't  public memos and statements posted on companies websites be valid for inclusion? At the very least this should be discussed by the community (the reason for this comment).   I believe that publically released company statements are fair use, and should be included here. For substantiation  see the Wikipedia FAQ on Copy Rights, specifically the Fair Use section point 4; It specifically covers press releases. Furthermore they both were quotations with citations, which are also allowed according to the Wikipedia FAQ.   Comments?
Anon      3 December 2006
:I think there definitely needs to be something else here, and what is here could probably be removed altogether since a simple external link covers all that. --Sydius 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultima Online: Kingdom Reborn 
Talk:Oops-Leon

message: I failed the GA since I felt there just wasn't enough content in the article. I know there can't be too much expansion, but it needs more than that.--Wizardman 16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have appealed this Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review.  I don't see what the article is missing, and I'm asking for are more concrete suggestions for ways I can meet the criterion you feel the article has failed. -- SCZenz 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA
Talk:Welding helmet

message: Just deleted this section. If you want it back, show some evidence that it is/was ever used or is somehow influential. Snori (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: MannGlas

message: * https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHAfactsheet-eyeprotection-during-welding.pdf
references OSHA Publication 3151, which is 
* https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/osha3151.pdf
references 29 CFR 1926.102(c)(1), which is at
* https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.102
but it doesn't... say... what the HELL the shade numbers actually mean or where they're defined.
Guess that is a dead end.
Other attempts:
* https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1917/1917.152 (end of page, has another table of shades)
* https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/federalregister/1994-04-06 (nothing really although it does give plate thicknesses as well as shades)
* https://www.osha.gov/etools/shipyard/general-requirements/ppe/ppe-selection/hot-work mentions
* https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1915/1915.153#1915.153(a)(4) which is another shade table (this one is good because it gives actual amperage numbers and plate thickness etc)
* Latter references ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2010 and ANSI Z87.1-2003 and ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998)
jp×g 06:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild rabbit hole
Template talk:PartofWPCANADA

message: Why can't any content be below it?  --Arctic Gnome 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might mess up. But as a template, it seems that you can put it anywhere. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: hm

message: From my memory, WikiProject Japan and the Good Articles both tagged their articles with similar icons like this, but they were eventually removed from articles. Only featured articles and spoken articles get this treatment, but even so, there was much debate about them.....I seriously don't think this template is a good idea, seeing such precedents. Just my two cents. _dk 08:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just applying this template to related portals and WikiProjects? (which was what I originally was thinking). I never thought about applying this tag on articles (which is definetly a bad idea).  AQu01rius (User • Talk) 19:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very bad idea. Per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_13#Template:titled-click and Template:Click: Do not use this template unless absolutely necessary. It is also redundant to the far more appropriately talkpage based Template:WikiProject Canada. Please remove all instances, and (db-author) delete this template. --Quiddity 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long it it stays within the Wikipedia: namespeace this should be fine.  --Arctic Gnome 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are already links leading to WikiProject Canada on all the relevant sub-project and portal pages. This is just redundant icon-cruft/branding. Plus if we use it, everyone will want to use one, leading to a sea of tiny confusing icons (eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Japanese prefectures). —Quiddity 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a bad idea
Talk:Optical parametric amplifier

message: The article does not clarify the connection between nonlinear optics and parametric amplification, e.g. what type/order of nonlinearity is exploited. Some diagrams would be very helpful to the non-expert. There should be a clearer border between the the physical process and experimental/technical implementations. Nonetheless the article states nice details about what problems can occour in real-world implementations. Dwkdwk 12:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Panchagavya

message: I have not the slightest idea what this stuff might be used for, and no Hindu-related article links to it. Some clues, please? Fleebo 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: There is nothing called as panchakavya. Kavya means poetry and gavya means related to cow. So if we wish to speak about cow then we have to use term panchagavya only. Panchakavya means five poems or something like that. South Indians must be pronouncing it as kavya as there is no difference between ka ga gha sounds in South Indian languages. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panchagavya is the right term  

message: said epithet is too stigmatizing to including in a page's list of Categories with so little referencing or justification as in this article. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed [[:Category:Pseudoscience]];
Talk:N-number

message: All distinct information from this page has been merged into aircraft registration, & this page has been changed to a redirect to aircraft registration.  This page should possibly be a disambiguation page, as the term N-number appears to have other uses in math, science, & engineering. Such disambiguation is beyond my knowledge or interest, but I would invite it.  --Ssbohio 05:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)