lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Target Disk Mode

message: Apple's site doesn't give a consistent capitalization (it mixed 'Target Disk Mode,' 'Target Disk mode' and 'target disk mode'), but the Mac OS X help files (for Panther, anyway) use full capitalization. I'd recommend moving the article to Target Disk Mode, any seconds? MFNickster 02:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there seem to be no objections, I will be bold and make the move. MFNickster 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: TDM does not work on PowerMac G3 towers (Blue & White) or the first generation of PowerMac G4 towers (PCI Graphics).  These are the only Macs that shipped with FireWire but did not support TDM, but this is not clear in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.174.10 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compatibility 

message: One of the requirements for the host computer is given as "Mac OS 8.6 or later[1]", but the next paragraph talks about how Windows and Linux machines may be used as the host computer. These cannot both be correct. Is there a reason why "Mac OS 8.6 or later" is given in the requirements? Electron100 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't actually any special requirements for the host, since target disks appear logically identical to any other external drive using whatever bus. These are actually the requirements to use modern Firewire devices (as distinguished from something like the old Apple Firewire Kit,) without which one obviously couldn't use Firewire mass storage of any type. 66.133.250.190 (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Host Computer Requirements 

message: At the time of writing it's not clear whether the 2015 Macbook will support target mode but the suspicion is that it will require a dongle if it does...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.39.171 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This ArsTechnica Macbook 2015 article suggests that target disk mode still exists on the 2015 Macbook and needs a special cable but has been removed from the Startup Disk preference pane for some reason. 46.208.39.171 (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2015 Macbook 

message: According to Apple's Target Disk Mode support documentation, if either the host or the target being connected via Target Disk Mode has macOS 11 Big Sur or newer installed, there is an additional requirement that a Thunderbolt cable be used to connect the two computers. F355fan (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cable requirements for Big Sur or newer macOS
Talk:Mass ratio

message: I've never seen a mass ratio used to describe an aircraft, and the inclusion of aircraft in the intro paragraph makes it unnecessarily vague and confusing.  If you can cite a use of a mass ratio in the context of an aircraft that's not a rocket, please feel free to re-add the deleted material.  --Doradus 03:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omitting aircraft stuff from intro 

message: I've got a couple of questions. They may just be silly questions but bear with me.
*You mention that this is a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation: Does this mean it's an approximation (and if so, how good?) or just that it's easy? 
*It's not clear to me whether this equation takes into account the fact that as you're travelling and using fuel, the wet mass of the rocket will change. Is this under the approximation that the mass is constant, and it's kind of an average velocity? (This may not be relevant here but I thought I'd ask anyway)
*Also from what I gather the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is used in stages. Is the mass ratio also calculated in stages?
One suggestion I have is maybe defining \Delta v early on for the less technically inclined reader (ie, ... the change in velocity, \Delta v...). Also you've left off a 'v' in math tag in the current last sentence.
This is a well written article btw. Kudos Doradus
--JT 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: The mass ratios in the table do not count all of the dry mass of the rockets.  Is there some reason for that?  For Ariane and Space Shuttle, the emtpy mass of the solid boosters is not counted, but their propellant mass is.  That is giving wildly exagerated mass ratios.  I believe the mass ratio for Ariane is about 7.8, not 39. DonPMitchell (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the table has confused mass ratio and mass fraction.  Mass ratio doesn't just use the emtpy mass that reaches the destination, it refers to the ratio that appears in Tsiolkovsky's formula, the total wet mass over total dry mass. DonPMitchell (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Yep, this is the table from the payload fraction article.  Someone misunderstood the concept of mass ratio when they copied that table here. DonPMitchell (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Is Completely Wrong
Talk:Astrostrategy

message: The first sentence is manifestly false.  The second sentence is both manifestly and historically false.  The third sentence is scientifically false.  The fourth sentence is roughly correct.  The fifth and sixth sentences are misleading.  The seventh sentence is dubious.  The eighth sentence is incorrect. The section should be re-written by someone who is well-informed about the Lagrange Points. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.1.1 Lagrange Points 

message: I removed trebuchet from the group of weapons claimed to be able to launch projectiles to Earth from the moon.  It could be that the intent of the citation-needed template was that such a possible use for cannon and mass drivers should be supported by citation also.  If so please reinstate the citation-needed template.  My understanding of the bombardment of Earth from the moon is that it would be a two stage process with the first stage building up a large secret stockpile of projectiles at L2 with the second stage being the rapid firing of a bombardment that would eliminate the enemy means to fight.  Since it would take about three days minimum for the bombardment to fall to Earth, the enemy would launch its counterstrike before it was destroyed.  So one must wonder how wise bombing Earth from the moon would be.  - Fartherred (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lunar trebuchets attacking Earth
Talk:Equation of the center

message: Related expansions may be used to express the true distance r of the orbiting body from the central body as a fraction of the semi-major axis a of the ellipse,
:\frac{r}{a} = (1 + e^2 /2) - (e - \frac{3}{8}e^3) \cos M - \frac{1}{2} e^2 \cos 2 M - \frac{3}{8} e^3 \cos 3 M - ... ;
or the inverse of this distance a/r has sometimes been used (e.g. it is proportional to the horizontal parallax of the orbiting body as seen from the central body):
:\frac{a}{r} = 1 + (e -e^3/8) \cos M + e^2 \cos 2 M + \frac{9}{8} e^3 \cos 3 M + ... .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfr000 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  storing this here for now - off-topic material 

message: Ok, I think I finally found where this
 In the case of the moon, its orbit around the earth has an eccentricity of approximately 0.0549. The term in \sin(M), known as the principal term of the equation of the center, has a coefficient of 22639.55",[2] approximately 0.1098 radians, or 6.289° (degrees).
came from. See , pg. 139. Two things — 1) Brown is not talking about the equation of the center. The "terms" he lists are for a completely different, much more complicated, theory of the Moon's motion. No "term in \sin(M)" is discussed in that theory. A search of the text for "equation of the center" yields no hits. It is possible that the sin(M) term of the equation of the center might have a similar numeric value, but Brown is not the source of it. 2) Nothing is "known as the principal term". Here is the text:
 The addition of 1" to the adopted coefficient of the principal elliptic term in longitude (22639".550) requires an addition to the factors... blah blah blah etc.
Brown is not naming anything "the principal term". He is merely describing something to be done to the term with the largest numeric value, and "principal term" is easier to read than "term with the largest numeric value". Similar discussion found on pg. 80, and a few other pages. Tfr000 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  some misconceptions in this article
Talk:Orbital plane

message: Pfffttt!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.179.110 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What a wimpy article

message: The second sentence, first paragraph says "All of those orbits [of every planet, comet, or asteroid orbiting the sun] line up with each other making a semi-flat disk called the orbital plane". All of them orbit in the same single plane? I don't know much of anything about the solar system but that sounds incredibly improbable. That's what it sounds like the author is saying though. If that's not the case this sentence should be changed to something like "Each of these orbits lines up with itself making...". Someone with a clue about astronomy should edit this article for clarity and/or accuracy. Unfortunately I am not such a someone.
Cfwschmidt (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Semi flat" is correct: as solar systems (or galaxies) evolve from a 3D ball of gas/matter, collisions between the particles means that momentum in most directions cancels out, leaving a spinning, almost-flat disk. I don't think that this is an easy concept, but helps to understand why most of the planet in our solar system are in almost the same orbital plane, spinning in the same direction. One of the usual video-sharing sites has several nice simulations showing this, of which that by MinutePhysics is one. Klbrain (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading? Or am I just dumb?
Talk:Bi-elliptic transfer

message: The intial diagram doesn't seem to make much intuitive sense. It actually looks as though more delta v would be needed to make such a small change to a circular orbit using the bi-elliptic transfer illustrated, compared to the Hohmann transfer. Sketching out the later example to scale looks much more sensible, (if perhaps a little unwieldy). Nonetheless, would it be worth making the diagram match the later example's figures?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.96.243 (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial diagram counter-intuitive?

message: I removed a "reference needed" tag since the results can be easily obtained by simple algebraic manipulation of the vis viva equation included in the article. Dauto (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference needed 

message: The delta-v expression for the third impulse, as it is right now, produces a negative value. While this may be correct in the sense that the third burn is a reduction in speed (accomplished with a retrograde burn), it might be misleading if one wants to compute the total delta-v expended during the transfer, for in that case one must remember the switch the sign of the third delta-v before adding it to the first two. Do you think it would be clearer if we give the *positive* value of the expression instead, and specify explicitly that the burn is to be done retrograde? Meithan (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third delta-v negative 

message: I think listing negative Δv's in the table of the example may be confusing, as a reader might think that the negative values are to be subtracted from the others in order to obtain the total. I would suggest listing all values as positive, and letting the color alone indicate the direction of the burns (i.e. whether prograde or retrograde). –Meithan (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminate negative Δv's in the example? 

message: I would like to see a derivation of those numbers in the article, and what the exact (in terms of radicals / exponents / fundamental constants etc) values are. Grassynoel (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  11.94 and 15.58
Talk:Osculating orbit

message: Orbital elements says that a perturbed orbit can be modeled as a series of osculating orbits.  It would be nice if this article explained how this is done, and provided some diagrams to illustrate. -- Beland (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion request

message: Is the central body assumed to be fixed or is the motion defined relative to the barycenter?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.231.115 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central body fixed?
Talk:Amyl

message: The only sign of a core topic is the etymological relationships, and since NAD this is not a term that (like Fuck and Nigger) has aspects justifying an etymology-/usage-focused article. The title should become a Dab, and the sections become Dab-entries and in some cases stubs.--Jerzy•t 03:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerzy, agree. Marked as dab. Widefox; talk 09:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakup 

message: Hi, . Can you elaborate on why you tagged this page for clean-up? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , as you've no doubt seen from the history this has unilaterally been converted to a dab by me, and we still have an incoming link and a niggling doubt that there may be an article here that's been lost in the conversion. If another pair of eyes agrees with this as a dab, then the see also needs slimming. Regards to your good work, Widefox; talk 07:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up tag
Talk:Proper orbital elements

message: Is really "Proper elements" a concept used by astronomers? Does it mean "any Kepler orbit that gives a better long term fit then the osculating one"?
Strange concept! Should possibly the article be removed?
Stamcose (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of the concept does seem to be supported by a scholarly reference. -- Beland (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete?

message: It would be nice to see a diagram illustrating the various quantities, and perhaps how they differ from standard orbital elements. -- Beland (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram request
Talk:Tisserand's criterion

message: Shouldn't this be capitalised as Tisserand's criterion? Double sharp (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Sources for this article:
J.M.A. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics
G. Beutler, Methods of Celestial Mechanics  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.120.209 (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Robin in other media

message: Is there a large body of reliable sources for Blake being assumed to be a nod to Robin?
Not just the odd comments, but something substantial.
- J Greb (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Knight Rises 

message: Jason Todd makes his debut in Batman akham city, not as Red Hood but as The Arkham Knight. The Red Hood persona apparently doesn't exist in the Arkham game series and is never mentioned in this game (this is according to the flashback given in the game itself wich shows how Jason was driven into Hating Batman, by a then-still-alive Joker)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.28.189.227 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video games category error
Talk:Shaximiao Formation

message: I guess the Ziliujung Formation is  in Chinese, but there are no Google hits for "" and "" on the same page. Wikipeditor 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 组 is better. (""大山铺" "自流井组") --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ziliujung 

message: seems to mean “layer” – is the Chinese name of the Dashanpo paleontological site ? There's only a single Google hit for that term. There must be a more widely used term, but what is it? Wikipeditor 03:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing this is an English encyclopedia huh? I'm just following info I've gathered from various sources. Spawn Man 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dashanpo Formation" in Chinese 

message: Doesn't having Dashanpu redirect here & then having a link to Dashanpu on this page bend the space-time contiuum in some way? Argh! A black hole! Spawn Man 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ergh?

message: I don't think so. The word would be 大山铺组, but it is not (really) in use. --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a word "Dashanpu Formation" in Chinese?

message: I've read that Upchurch (1995) considers Sanpasaurus a basal sauropod (see also thesis by Philip Mannion). Would it make sense to admit that Sanpasaurus is a valid basal sauropod and not a chimera rather than wait for better material from the Sanpasaurus type horizon?
Upchurch, P. 1995. The evolutionary history of sauropod dinosaurs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, B, 349:365-390.68.4.61.168 (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanpasaurus 

message: Is it officially "Dashanpu Group" now? Someone please check. Also, the literature calls the Shaximiao Fms Upper Jurassic, not Middle. David Marjanović (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: the literature calles the Lower Shaximiao Fm Middle Jurassic ( ~ Callovian) and the Upper one Upper Jurassic ( ~ Oxfordian). I still haven't come across "Dashanpu Fm" in the literature. David Marjanović (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're right, the term Danshanpu seems to be used as a locative nerm, never as a stratigraphic term. In that case, what should the article be renamed to? I think probably reformatting the article to refer soley to the Shaximiao Formation is best Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formations can't contain formations 
Talk:Public interest

message: I have removed the tag calling for more citations (placed in 2009?)after making the following revisions to this article: I removed portions of the article that did not have citations. In the "public interest law" section I supply citations, add a bibliography, and expanded the section by discussing other countries. Rprecht (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: Somebody (anonymous) decided that they didn't like the article so they deleted it by removing all but two lines. I put it back. I guess they thought it wasn't in the Public interest!---LymanSchool 01:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: This page should be completed. It seems difficult to talk about public interest without mentionning Mills' notion of utilitarism  11:43, 30 April 2009 82.45.133.150 (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Utilitarism

message: The entire lede is: "Public interest is "the welfare or well-being of the general public" and "appeal or relevance to the general populace: a news story of public interest".[1]"
That's the two part dictionary word definition, which the article rightfully does not cover (part 2).  I will correct to: "Public interest is "the welfare or well-being of the general public".[1]"  Obviously this still needs work. 
What we are talking about is "the common interest," not "a common interest, nor common interests." I notice that "the common good," a near synonym is not mentioned.  I wonder why? ("A common good" and "common goods" likewise have utterly different definitions.)  
(I now put even my minor and obvious edits in Talk, since the Elitist Wiki Bully Club now blindly reverts all non-Club member changes without comment.) Cheers!  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:46C:990E:60AA:8D90 (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the Lede section.
Talk:Micky Moody

message: Too much pseudo rock journalism style here, and not enough references.  Please cut the NME type speak, and edit in a more neutral and encyclopedic feel.  There are also excessive red links, that frankly do not appear to be going anywhere.  Overall, it is presently more of a fan site / Facebook than Wikipedia.  Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Big Ten Conference football individual awards

message: This may have potential to be a Featured List. All it would take is a little "wikifying."--NMajdan•talk 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured list?

message: I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback from New Page Review process
Talk:Minnie Tittell Brune

message: A dispute is going on on my talk page.  A user has deleted internal "see also" links to other pages, such as "actor" and "celebrity".  I contend that it is ok to go from the particular (this article) to the general, and my rebuttel to his argument that WP doesn't permit this is 
Because scholarly encyclopedias tend to have longer, essay-length articles (not the quick entry style of an Encyclopedia Britannica), you must use the index volume to find all the places your topic is mentioned.
That description of an Encyclopedia is in What is a Scholarly Encyclopedia? (for Art, or any Subject). I believe that Wikipedia goes beyond Encyclopedia Brittanica because its articles are written in some cases by scholars and therefore gets treatment somewhat along the lines of a scholarly encyclopedia.  JohnClarknew 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Did Minnie Tittell Brune return to Australia after she left in 1909?  Anybody help with that? JohnClarknew 10:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question
Talk:Standard candle

message: The section on "Eclipsing binaries" uses relative descriptions of time: "In the last decade ... Recently".  This isn't a good idea, as it means the article ages badly. It would be much better (and more future-proof) if it gave approximate dates instead. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How bout, "since the 1990s"? Sagittarian Milky Way 06:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Recently"

message: I think that the last paragraph is incorrect; however, I am not an expert. My understanding is that:
- The Population II Cepheids, or W Virginis variables, have lower luminosity, than the Population I, or classical, Cepheid variables.
- The distances in the Milky Way had been measured using W Virginis variables (and RR Lyrae variables, also Population II stars).
- The extra-galactic distances had been measured using classical Cepheid variables.
- When W. Baade discovered the star populations, only the extra-galactic distances were affected. The distances in the Milky Way were not affected.JTMnen 07:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population I/II Cepheids 

message: In order to further developing this article, it may be a good idea to include an extensive section on measuring cosmic distances. I think this section should discuss each of the significant methods, along with their respective strengths and weaknesses (in terms of accuracy and range). Here is a candidate list:
* Trigonometric parallax
* Variables: Eclipsing binary, Cepheid variable, RR Lyrae variables, Novae
* Planetary nebula luminosity function
* Globular Clusters (via main sequence curve)
* Tip of the red giant branch
* VLBI: Radio jet proper motion
* VLBI: Maser proper motion
* Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
* Surface brightness fluctuation
* Tully-Fisher relation
* D-sigma relation (ellipticals)
* X-ray burster
* Brightest cluster galaxy
* Type Ia supernovae
* Gravitationally lensed quasars
* Gamma ray bursters
* Coalescing massive black holes
These can probably be sub-grouped by range. Is there anything else I need to include? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measuring distances