lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Old Mobile Site

message: Probably a good idea. I'm not sure anyone would find the article otherwise. JodyB talk 03:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article is a work in progress with intention of cross referencing, I'll withdraw my merge proposal. Regards, Вasil | talk 00:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine. I have assessed as start class at the moment. JodyB talk 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Just noticed that the coordinates seem to be off a bit. The infobox map shows the site in Mississippi. JodyB talk 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Figured it out - fixed JodyB talk 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How did you know what x/y values to use? Вasil | talk 17:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a chart here that purports to give you the values. However it is off a good bit, shifted east I think. I ended up with some trial and error to get it fixed. JodyB talk 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: The dot shows down around Tampa here.  /Blaxthos 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still wrong

message: I have reassessed the article as B class after finding the current version to be well-researched, having verifiable and reliable references, having a good layout, and including relevant photos(which are hard to come by on this subject).  Great work Leeannedy.  Altairisfar (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessed

message: Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville states he sailed 1699 to French and 1706 he is in Havanna. Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville states, that he was at 1701 ascended to the governorship. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 07:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gouvernor
Talk:Cornering force

message: The article starts out defining cornering force, but then only talks about tire force, tire lateral force, and total tire force without defining them nor relating them to cornering force. Any ideas? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, the lede has been changed to define tire force and only defines cornering force second. However, Pacejka defines side force (pg 4) and cornering force (pg 96) as synonyms and brake force (pg 4), but not tire force. Since the article it titled "cornering force", I am going to change the lede back. If references are found to define "tire force" then perhaps the article should be moved or renamed. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology
Talk:Cosmic noise

message: It was completely uncited, speculation by a single wikipedian, not to mention erroneous - the cosmic "noise" is not sound. All sorts of EM radiation permeates everything. Just because the term "noise" is derived from having parallels with aural cacophony doesn't mean it has anything at all to do with "Aum". One might just as easily claim this invisible thing permeating everything is "Chi" or the "Holy Spirit". Unigolyn (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed spiritualism section 

message: this article makes no mention of magnitudes of the various noise sources -- 135.23.66.249 (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestions for improvement 

message: Please add that: extra noise/particles from the void itself. And these generated particles are related to the Hubble function which evolves with time and it's not a constant.
:: Add links. We need it because it contributes to the big bangs (cyclic).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:483B:A86C:38D8:2E99:D778 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra noise of the void itself
Talk:Coulomb barrier

message: Is there anything to this?
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2007/12/14/a-successful-fusion-process-punches-through-the-coulomb-barrier/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsglobal (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

message: there is at least one mistake in the given expression for the potential: a Coulomb-Potential goes with 1/r !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.125.193 (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential 

message: I have not studied strong forces, but it seems that, if we are talking about a barrier, we probably want to give examples of calculating that barrier or give some sample pre-calculated values. A calculation presumably needs Coulomb force equations and also strong force equations.
Reference: "To overcome this barrier, nuclei have to collide at high velocities, so their kinetic energies drive them close enough for the strong interaction to take place and bind them together."
If we look only at Coulomb forces, we simply get that the closer the particles are, the greater their repulsion (with "near infinite" force present near zero radius). We need to appeal to strong forces to calculate where the increasing Coulomb repulsion is matched by the strong force in the opposite direction.
I presume learning this force value or this radius value is the whole point of specifying a "Coulomb barrier". Hozelda (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  strong force calculations?
Talk:Couple (mechanics)

message: I think couple = torque. Isn't it? --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not strictly equivalent - torque is the moment resulting from the application of a couple. A torque can result from a single force or a combination of different forces. A couple can only result from two equal and opposite forces. –Sarregouset (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  couple = torque ? 

message: The principal states sum of moments has to add up, does it imply there has to be a force coupled with a moment? In other words there can simply exist a moment without a force is it not? Typically we tend to associate a force with a twisting moment because things have to add up but is there any such statement ever made? (i.e a twist/moment has to have an associated force? I have seen this break in case of cantilevers and seen a nice article on Varignon's theorem here: http://web.mit.edu/4.441/1_lectures/1_lecture10/1_lecture10.html but never the reverse)
(-Alok 08:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  is force mandatory for moment 

message: -Abhishek Shukla.. paragraph  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.194.217 (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   what does it mean? 

message: Something got messed up in the formula at 'Simple Couple' 'Definition' where 'd' was supposed to be defined - fix please thanks
12.33.223.210 (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something got messed up in the formula 

message: The article discusses a simple couple (which is perhaps equivalent to a single couple?), but makes not mention either single- or double-couple. Could someone add a description of those? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double couple?
Talk:Junkers Ju 88

message: I propose adding this section. It is my understanding that the Ju-88 was the main fighter deployed by germany in the battle of the atlantic. I couldn't find a single mention of this in the entire article, and I believe that is unsatisfactory. Asgrrr (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.8 Battle of the Atlantic 

message: Hi,
I noticed that in the "Specifications" section, there is no Height listing.
Funny, every other aircraft has it as the #4 item, after Crew, Length, Span, ... then Height.
Obviously an oversight.
I don't have any authoritative books on this, or I would add it with a reference.
Someone should enter the correct number (should be between 4-5 meters, I reckon).
James
202.44.196.142 (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the: HEIGHT?
Talk:Coupling (physics)

message: besides this artice needing to be written, are we referring to the quantum mechanical coupling corresponding to the interaction between particles, such as a electron and a photon, or two quarks? if so,this phenomena is not really considered to fall under "quanum mechanics" as it is the basis for QED, QCD and similar fields. Clarification with someone with knowlege in this subject would be very helpful
Pjbeierle (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum Mechanical Coupling

message: How do we know when fields are "coupled"? The only useful part of this article is the first sentence:
:"In field theory (physics), two fields are coupled if they are interacting with each other."
The rest are just empty headings. Maybe Lagrangian densities could be brought in, they give an indication of when two fields are non-interacting (when the Lagrangians are separable into a sum of Lagrangians, one for each field) or interacting (unseparable because of interaction terms). I don't think this is always true, but it should be for most cases. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 10:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear
Talk:Crooks fluctuation theorem

message: Changed 'fact' to 'phenomena' in last sentence.
"Note that for the backward transformation, the work distribution function must be evaluated by taking the work with the opposite sign. The two work distributions for the forward and backward processes cross at  W=\Delta F . This fact has been experimentally verified using optical tweezers for the process of unfolding and refolding of a small RNA hairpin and an RNA three-helix junction [1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junipel (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed language of last passage

message: I believe the definition here is flawed; the CFT as I understand it deals with general non-equilibrium start and end states. The definition given here says that the start and end states are canonical ensembles, which implies (by definition) that they are equilibrium states.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.70.10 (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Flawed definition

message: The first equation in the article contains a quantity σ[x(t)] that seems not to be defined, though the subsequent discussion in effect defines it.  Clearer exposition would be very desirable.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is sigma?
Talk:Cross fluid

message: In reference to this edit from the article as is:
"^^^This is all wrong. Cross fluids tend towards a zero shear viscosity and an infinite shear viscosity according to mu(gammadot)=mu_inf+(mu_0-mu_inf)/(1+(C*gammadot)^n). There are four parameters, not three; and the limiting behaviors are incorrect. Sorry that this is not formatted well at all, but I couldn't figure out how to change the formula on my own. Hopefully someone else can! (source: http://www.rheologyschool.com/advice/rheology-tips/25-making-use-of-models-the-cross-model)"
I can confirm that the model is indeed incorrect. The present model in the article is an incorrect rendition of the Ellis fluid model. I do not have time to correct it now, but I have added it to my to do list.
Xenomancer (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the model being incorrect...
Talk:Crystal oven

message: Why does the table of specifications for crystal oscillators include a column for radiation (RADs)?  Neither crysal oscillators nor atomic clocks emit ionizing radiation.  Or is this radiation tolerance?  Or is it supposed to be heat radiation, and the units were mislabelled?  If no one can straighten this out, I'm going to remove this column. --ChetvornoTALK 08:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Radiation?

message: I removed the power reference for the DCF77 receiver as 4.7W make no sense for the receiver circuit alone. The linked Reference pointed to a time server device, which is significantly more than is needed to receive a time signal.
The table further contains a column called 'Accuracy', shouldn't this be 'Precision' as 'Accuracy' is somewhat meaningless for a time source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.125.149 (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with other frequency standards

message: Please add the following to the oscillator table in this article:
* WWV - I see DCF77 in the table, but I don't know WWV has different values or not, thus is why I didn't add it.
* Hydrogen maser frequency standard
* Strontium and/or other frequency standards, per https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2017/11/nists-next-generation-atomic-clocks-may-support-official-timekeeping
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Table
Talk:Torcetrapib

message: An editor recently change the passage 'first administered in man in 1999' to 'first administered in humans in 1999'.  I'm not going to revert this change, but I will point out that the commonly referred to milestone in the pharmaceutical industry is 'First time in man' and not 'First time in humans'.  It is an industry colloquialism. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Pfizer has for at least 5 years used the term FIH ("first [time] in human") to refer to the milestone, which is laudable as in the 21st century it's about time we moved to more gender-neutral language.68.43.123.215 06:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'First in man' vs. 'First in humans' (industry colloquialism) 

message: It is definitely off the map now:  JFW | T@lk 08:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Used that in the article now. Rod57 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CMT 

message: JFW | T@lk 15:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis 
Talk:Turkey Tyson

message: he batted once, and never played in the field.  While it meets the requirements, this still seems like it should be removed for its lack of notability. Perpetualization 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I sympathize with you (and once thought the same), it does clearly meet WP:BIO . I've removed the notability tag. Kathy A. 22:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Transcaucasian ruble

message: Were there coins for this currency? If not, it should be explicitly stated in the article. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coins 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved. Unopposed; no minimum participation required. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 November 2022
Talk:Decay product

message: Is there still a need for a diagram?  It appears this article has a good diagram for the decay products of Pb212.
Medgno (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the banner. Double sharp (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram still needed?

message: "Radioactive decay often pickles a sequence of steps" - what does it mean to, ah, pickle a sequence?
76.26.223.116 (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Old vandalism, long since reverted. Double sharp (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Pickles?

message: twenty nine radio isotope of protatimium have been discovered the most stable of which being  PA with a half life of 32,760 years is to have found the perfect 👌 for your needs. 41.122.0.203 (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decay products, radioactive
Talk:Dehydron

message: OK, we have all three of Ariel Fernandez's COI articles concentrated in this one now.  This is actually a pretty rich area - namely, understanding Protein–protein interaction down at the biochemical level and qualities that facilitate such interactions, and quantifying those qualities... and using those understandings for drug discovery (and especially drug design).  There is further work to do, to set the content free of the COI that put it here and to contextualize it with the rest of the fields it touches on and the many people working in them.   I'll be working on that slowly.... Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and merged this into Solvation shell - will work on it further there. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  work to do
Talk:Larz Anderson Bonsai Collection

message: the collection is in a park but it is not a park itself. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category removals 
Talk:Anderson Memorial Bridge

message: As of June 2015, the bridge was under construction and the Quentin Compson plaque nowhere to be found. If there is any authoritative info out there about its whereabouts or future reinstatement, that would be a great addition. 138.234.155.222 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Directional stability

message: Reading the article this is clearly copy and pasted from a book. I don't know what to do but delete it all..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.20.208.76 (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

message: Can some one add some aero examples?  I would, but I'm so tired... :-)
-- Gummer85 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I see the only example so far is a car 

message: My eyes glaze over with all those equations - and I can handle it, being an engineer and all.  But, Gah! Yuck!  :-)
Stability is about the tendency to return to a starting point after a disturbance from it (and to stay there dynamically), that's all.  It's just that simple.  Directional stability is stability about a vertical axis.  Everything else is just example.  No need to digress.
I will trim some of the car stuff after a suitable waiting period for rebuttal.
-- Gummer85 (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is yet to receive its first in-line citation! Go for it! Dolphin (t) 05:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  80% of the detail in the Car example is off-topic 

message: I was looking for an article on car directional stability. That's the best result I've "googled" by now.   Just a dozen of equations, and all the main ideas are explained. Perfect article! Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.15.8 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks, great article!!!
Talk:Dispersion relation

message: My understanding of what Kramer et al. were doing suggests that a prism is not the appropriate way to illustrate this concept.
Kramer and Heisenberg discovered how to account for the dispersion of light that occurs when monochromatic light is directed into some medium that absorbs photons and subsequently radiates photons. If a high intensity photon is absorbed, a high intensity photon of the same frequency may be emitted, or two (or more) photons of lesser energy may be emitted depending on the history of the return of the electron to its equilibrium state.
Monochromatic light comes out of a prism as it went in. P0M (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The diagram 

message: The article states:
"Dispersion occurs when pure plane waves of different wavelengths have different propagation velocities [...]"
Technically this statement may be true, but it confused me (and it could mislead) since dispersion occurs with other waves than plane waves as well, at least with water waves on a water surface, and those are not plane waves.Redav (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not only plane waves 

message: The section "De Broglie dispersion relations" has a puzzle.
"in the nonrelativistic limit is
: E = m c^2 + \frac{p^2}{2m},
...
: E = \hbar\omega, \quad p = \hbar k."
So when I equate the two energies and sub the momentum:
: E = \hbar\omega =  m c^2 + \frac{p^2}{2m} =  m c^2 + \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m}.
Then divide by h-bar:
: \omega =  \frac{m c^2}{\hbar} + \frac{\hbar k^2}{2m}.
Whereas the text arrives at:
: \omega = \frac{\hbar k^2}{2m}.
The first term in the correct form is mass-energy divided by h-bar.  At rest a particle has (rest) frequency but infinite wavelength, zero wavenumber. 
The version the text arrives at comes from Schrodinger's eqn where mass is ignored, not from the relativistic energy-momentum relation as implied by this section. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the subsection to give a consistent story linked to the de Broglie hypothesis on matter wave. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbled "derivation" in [[Dispersion_relation#De_Broglie_dispersion_relations]]
Talk:Bibi Mubarika

message: She is an important woman for the pakhtuns, but like all women of the tribe is seldom mentioned. It took me a while to get this much information about her, but am waiting on an out of print book to add more detail. Her marriage to Babur made peace between the Mughals and the Yusufzay for nearly 40 years. If we keep it open we may get other people to contribute to it.
(Khana bibi 23:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you write about her, please keep in mind our manual of style and the neutral point of view. Even if she is notable enough for a wikipedia entry, her article is not very encyclopedically written. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Displacement (fluid)

message: Look carefully at the illustration, which is from Carhart and Chute's 1912 physics textbook, and notice how the numbers on the graduated cylinders range from 10 (at nearly empty) to 26. The artist took liberties with the relationship between mathematics and physical reality. Can someone please find or construct a public-domain drawing that does not have this deficiency?
My first thought was to change the drawing with a simple renumbering of the existing marks on the cylinders, but I doubt that would work, because the first major mark is too close to the bottom. We'd have to replace 10 through 26 with the odd integers from 1 through 17. Snezzy (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crazy illustration 

message: I am in the process of writing an urban-fantasy novel where the world's geography has changed abruptly, as has its people.  Here is my hypothetical question:
Suppose that the island of Manhattan sank into the waters of the Hudson.  I mean, completely, buildings and all, like an elevator going slowly down to the basement floor.
My question is:  what kind of displacement effect would an event like that have on the nearby land masses?  I'm not necessarily asking about tidal waves or tsunamis (though I imagine something like that would cause any number of catastrophic effects---normally; remember, this is a modern fantasy I'm writing); what I'm asking about is the effect this would have on how much land mass of the surrounding area would be consumed by the sinking of such a massive, heavy-laden island.
I appreciate any worthwhile comments (and any considerable fantasy-based ones, as well).
15:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantasy-based Hypothetical Question 

message: In
Thus buoyancy is expressed through Archimedes' principle, which states that the weight of the object is reduced by its volume multiplied by the density of the fluid. 
density should be replaced by specific gravity (at least I hope that this is the english term for g*density: I am italian).
pietro151.29.200.96 (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  debug
Talk:Frederick Salomon

message: In the Salomon surname paige it only says "Frederick C. Salomon (1826-1897), civil war general". It does not tell you which civil war and so it is inaccurate. In a world filled whit civil wars i think it is bit insulting to think the USA had the only one
Sincerely yours Anonymous, September 18th 2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.113.166.183 (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy in the Salomon_(surname) paige