lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:C/2006 M4 (SWAN)

message: There has been a lot of erroneous information. First the comet was discovered in SOHO images, not confirmed. The confirmation came from Rob McNaught in Australia who recovered it after an intense search. Second, although the osculating eccentricity is larger than 1 in the inner solar system, the future (or proper) eccentricity is smaller than one. This can easily be seen when asking for the orbital elements a the [Minor Planet Center]. Thus, the comet retains in the solar system. Osculating perihelion eccentricity is never a good indication whether a comet leaves the solar system or not! -172.183.150.218 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comet details 
Talk:Patricia Bay

message: From Patricia Bay (Greater Victoria) → Patricia Bay. There is no page currently at Patricia Bay, therefore no need for disambiguation. A google search for Patricia Bay excluding terms wiki, BC and British turns up ~4,500 hits. A similar search which allows the terms BC and/or British in the page turns up ~26,000 hits. I do not doubt that there are other Patricia Bays out there (eg: Nunavut), nor people named Patricia Bay. However, at this point they do not have articles named after them—so there is no need for disambiguation. - DigitalC (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move
Talk:Comet West

message: *"possibly for the first time in 500,000 years" was added on 24 March 2006 by IP 66.82.9.33
*The orbital period of 558kyr was added on 17 November 2006 by IP 149.164.162.170
*The infobox was created on 2 June 2007 (with incorrect perihelion distance) by IP 200.8.148.31.
-- Kheider (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit history notes 
Talk:Crab Pulsar

message: The values of mass and radius given in the table are based on reference [3]. However, the corresponding arXiv article is actually not about mass and radius estimates for the Crab pulsar. As far as I can see, it only assumes standard values for M and R, namely 1.4 M_solar and 10 km, and compares it to X-Ray observation to get information about the cooling behavior. In conclusion, the given values are just typical reference values for neutron stars in general, and do not represent any special estimates for the Crab pulsar. Either a different reference should be given, which really shows that these values are estimates for the Crab, or the values have to be removed.
Furthermore, it is inappropriate and misleading to express the radius in terms of the solar radius.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.swift.hempel (talk • contribs) 13:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Both this article and the one on Crab Nebula assign a definite value to the star's diameter, when the sources merely state the estimated diameters of typical neutron stars. The reference (#3) in Crab Nebula points to a web page that says 12 miles (20 km)  but is itself referenced to a source that doesn't mention it. Doing a little digging, I figured out what it should have linked to (on the Chandra site). Sure enough, it said neutron stars are 12 miles (20 km), not this specific one. NASA used to say "the size of Manhattan" but now the use the phrase "no bigger than Manhattan." I found one source that said 100 picoarcseconds, but with no indication of how that figure was derived (maybe just an assumption). Working out the math (assuming a distance of 1999 parsecs) it comes out to about 29 km. So maybe we should find out if anyone is capable of measuring anything as small as 100 picoarcsdeconds (0.1 nanoarcsecond). Until then, we should remove these misleading statements. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given values for mass and radius 

message: I can find several periods for the Crab pulsar but I haven't unambiguously found the first published period. I think the article should cite the first accurate measurement in the history section and the most accurate modern measurement in the introduction. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Period citation 

message: @ Moruk10 (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  355 milyon 592000 newtonluk çekime sahip
Talk:D-type asteroid

message: From the page for P-type asteroids:
"P-type asteroids have low albedo and a featureless reddish electromagnetic spectrum. It has been suggested that they have a composition of organic rich silicates, carbon and anhydrous silicates, possibly with water ice in their interior. P-type asteroids are found in the outer asteroid belt and beyond."
This is the same language, word for word as the description of D-type asteroids. It appears that someone has made a mistake here.
Also, Bill Arnett's "Asteroids" page lists three types of asteroids but does not include either the D or P type. It also mentions that there's more than one classification system. This article needs to address these questions.
Kevin Langdon 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:D Centauri

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: not moved. Clear consensus against movement of pages in this discussion. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 (talk)  23:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose Many of the most famous variable stars, such as R CrB, R Leo, etc, use the uppercase letter variable designation. On the other hand, the lower case single letter designation is seldom used, I believe.   I think that the single uppercase designations should be retained as article titles, and the single lowercase names should be renamed to HD xxxxxxx or HR xxxx, depending on which shows up most frequently in the papers listed by SIMBAD. PopePompus (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Is this really a problem?  Are any of the lower-case versions actually best-known by their Bayer designations?  Some at least of the upper-case versions certainly are, for example R Centauri.  Sending readers off round the houses in this case would be most unhelpful, 90% of people looking for R/r Centauri want the variable star.  There are hatnotes if, for example, someone types in "d  Centauri" and unexpectedly gets "D Centauri", and that's exactly why we have hatnotes,  If any of them are best-known by designations other than Bayer then by all means move them.  It is common practice where there isn't a primary topic at the Bayer designations (and in a few cases where there is!) to have a set index page, for example A Velorum.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not demonstrated that any of the uppercase ones are best known by the Bayer designations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose I already checked out the most common designations for Y y or γ Centauri; the most common was using Y Centauri rather than the Henry Draper catalog number. Also "y Centauri" was much less used, and γ Centauri just looks the same, but is different, but often shows up as a scan error as y rater than the gamma. But I do support the idea that the HD entries should be redirected to the letter articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 April 2023
Talk:Delta Boötis

message: Removed "Printseps" from the list of Other Designations. It's possible that this may be a misspelling of "Princeps," but no reliable reference includes that name for δ Boötis. q.v. WikiProject Astronomical objects talk
Badken (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

message: Stellarium labels Delta Boötis as Thiba.  
GenacGenac (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and designation
Talk:Delta Cancri

message: From Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning which is an unreliable source. Citation needed but not Allen. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Arkushanangarushashutu?

message: Another problem binary. The WDS entry lists a discovery code of 'TOK 3' for A. A. Tokovinin with an observation date of 1982, but I don't see the star in those referenced papers. The Eggleton and Tokovinin (2008) say it is a single star. Hartkopf and McAlister (1984) do list this as an unresolved binary. I'm not sure how to resolve this, so I'll just leave this as a note. Praemonitus (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two optical companions, or one double optical companion if you want to look at it that way.  The suspected binary companion is mentioned in , but the observation is described as unreliable.  The title of the work is a bit garbled and it has also been listed as  which I couldn't find.  TOK 3 incorrectly indicates part I of the series which doesn't mention this star?  Nothing since, which seems to have been taken as meaning it doesn't exist.  Lithopsian (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Binarity
Talk:Tim Stevenson

message: The article implied that Stevenson and his partner got married soon after Canada legalized same sex marriage.  Canada legalized same sex marriage in 2005, and they were not married until 2012, so obviously, it was more than the law that was holding them back.  I have added the years in the statement so that the issue is clear.John Paul Parks (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Correcting Misleading Statement

message: Although I am not able to see what info was in the sources that have dead links, he does not seem to be mentioned in the good sources as having been involved in this controversy. 
Can someone with more knowledge of this event 
* explain how the subject was involved and to what extent, and 
* provide a source that confirms his involvement? 
Guinness323 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources specifically mention his involvement.  Pull up the hardcopies of the ones that no longer have online listings.  Among the ones that are listed online, one sample is  which states, "“Who are all these f--kin’ ... who are these hacks man? Are they ... they NPA (Non-Partisan Association) hacks?” Robertson said to Couns. Tim Stevenson and Heather Deal after chambers were cleared during a break between late-night sessions on Thursday. Robertson, Stevenson and Deal went on to mock and laugh at the list of speakers who called for greater transparency in the selection of a 12-person committee that will advise council on rezoning the West End."  According to the sources, Stevenson went on to mock and laugh at the list of speakers, etc., and was as such part of this major controversy.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Microphone Controversy
Talk:Delta Cygni

message: This star is noted as The North Star.
At declination +45 this cannot be so. The North Star (by definition) sits at declination +90.
124.181.107.67 (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Delta Leonis

message: Hi, Based on my sources distance to Zosma is much more longer, because 82 ly, not 57.7. Can somebody check this information? 
Artafinde
77.254.13.72 (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Distance

message: The red circle is in the wrong place and is a separate image from the star map. It needs to be moved right to d Leonis. I have no idea how to fix this. Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Place
Talk:The Gate of Heavenly Peace (film)

message: Since the talk page does not have the discussion mentioned on the tag, nor, as far as I can see, in the entries which were deleted, should we remove the tag? ch (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. The tag says "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved", but there is no dispute on this talk page. The complaining editor should have explained his position with at least one sentence.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  REmove the neutrality tag? 

message: I find it ambiguous whether the film was referring to the people throwing Molotov cocktails as the radicals, or if it was referring to people who just had more anti-government approaches, or people like Chai Ling. Can somebody who have seen the film explain? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "radicals"
Talk:Ninian Park

message: According to rugbyleagueproject.org two international rugby league matches tookplace at Welsh White City Stadium in Cardiff; Wales' 15-39 defeat to England on Wednesday 14 November 1928, and Glamorgan/Monmouthshire XIII's 9-39 defeat to Australia on Wednesday 11 December 1929. Which stadium is Welsh White City Stadium? Could it be Ely Racecourse, Maindy Centre, or Ninian Park, etc? Best Regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Welsh White City Stadium
Talk:Delta Scuti variable

message: The article incorrectly claims, that He ionization increasing, leads to lower opacity 24.143.65.75 (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

message: Huh? What's V? Please add a parenthetical remark.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.32.33 (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have linked "V" to the colour_index article which explains the nomenclature. George Dishman (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnitudes in V 

message: The article first states ".. becomes more ionised, which is more opaque." which ties up with ".. the star has highly ionised opaque helium in its atmosphere ..". However, it goes on to say "The energy .. causes the helium to heat up, expand, ionise, become more transparent .." (my emphasis). It can't ionise any more if it is already fully ionised, and if only partially ionised, further ionisation would make it more opaque according to the previous sentence. My understanding is that once fully ionised (He++), the expansion on heating reduces the opacity but can this wording be clarified by someone more familiar with the details of the mechanism.
George Dishman (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This self-contradiction is still in the article, 12 years later. I've tagged it and added a maintenance template. Modest Genius talk 11:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm by no means an expert, but the reading I've done suggests that the helium is ionized when the star is at its smallest and hottest, but when at its maximal radius, the helium is de-ionized, which makes the helium transparent. I can make the necessary edits if the explanation is satisfactory? Patchworkpieces (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

text: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2110/2110.09806.pdf <- This is a decent source for that, I think. Patchworkpieces (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

text: It seems likely to me that the high heat of the opaque helium would cause it to rise rapidly. Then when it reaches the top and expands, it would cool and become transparent again. This could lead to a convection cycle which is more powerful than normal hydrogen convection. Thereaverofdarkness (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent contradiction in the text
Talk:Delta Serpentis

message: "refers to an asterism which is represent eleven old states in China which is marking the right borderline of the enclosure"
100.15.127.199 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  careless gobbledygook or bad translation?
Talk:Delta Ursae Minoris

message: Since the article says "Yildun" is an official name for the star as of 2016, should the introduction say that it is "also named Yildun" rather than "formerly named Yildun"? Strait (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "formally" which is not the same as "formerly" and in many ways is stronger than "also named".  Lithopsian (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yildun
Talk:Delta Velorum

message: The article cites Eker et al. (2014) for a "mean separation of 90.61 AU".  With a period of 45.15 days, that can't be correct, and I can't find that data in the cited paper.  They do give a semi-major axis of 97.915 solar radii (about 0.455 AU), which looks much more reasonable. -- Elphion (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbit of the eclipsing binary 

message: The page for [Vela (constellation)] references that Delta Velorum is possibly a quintuple system, giving the following explanation:
Delta is actually a triple or possibly quintuple star system located around 80 light-years from the Solar System. Delta A has a magnitude of 1.99 and is an eclipsing binary composed of two A-type white stars (Delta Aa and Ab) which orbit each other every 45.2 days and lie 0.5 AU from each other, with a resulting drop in magnitude of 0.4 when the dimmer one passes.in front of the brighter. Delta B is a 5.1 magnitude yellow G-class star of similar dimensions to our sun which ranges between 26 and 72 AU away from the brighter pair, taking 142 years to complete a revolution. Further out still, at a distance of 1700 AU, are two red dwarfs of magnitudes 11 and 13. If they are part of the multiple system, they take 28000 years to complete an orbit. 
This is the source provided: http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/deltavel.html
I don't feel qualified to confirm or refute anything here, but I'll leave this talk comment up in case anyone is curious. Eiis1000 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just wrong.  The source is outdated and the two "red dwarfs" are unrelated background stars, both more luminous than the Sun.  However, this paper finds that HIP 43797 is a co-moving companion.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quintuple System
Talk:Dwarf elliptical galaxy

message: The article says there are only 3 dwarf elliptical galaxies in the Local Group. However, according to the [Local Group] article, most of the galaxies in the Local Group are dE or dwarf spheroidal galaxies. (The table lists M32 and M110 as elliptical, but they are both dwarfs.) I count about 16 dE types in the table (from dE0 to dE5).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsa (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there seems to be some confusion between dwarf spheroidal galaxies (dSph) and dwarf elliptical galaxies (dE). I would guess the Local Group article uses oldish data. And it may also occur that for a while there was only three known dE:s in the Local Group, so that also this article uses oldish data. To make matters much worse, the articles on NGC 147 and NGC 185 says that NGC 147 and NGC 185 are dSph, so that the section Example herein refers to false facts. This article is in a grave need of rewrite. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on the Local Group seems to be correct. This one needs rewriting. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of dE galaxies in the Local Group
Talk:Dwarf galaxy

message: The list included in the article seems redundant, at least to me. People looking for dwarf galaxies can click the category and find them all there. __meco (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a short list of examples is appropriate to illustrate the subject matter of the article, but it might be a good idea to thin this one out (half a dozen should be sufficient, e.g. spiral galaxy has only 5 well-known examples and elliptical galaxy has only 7). Cosmo0 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be split off into an article of its own... 70.51.11.14 (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the list? 

message: Just a quick note to let everyone know.  The Astronomy 533 graduate astronomy class at the University of Michigan is updating a small number of astronomy-related wiki pages, this is one of them.
The page will be significantly changed; please feel free to have a look when it comes online in mid-December.  EFBell (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Upcoming major edit

message: I created M59-UCD3 because I thought it notable being the densest galaxy to date.  there are now a number of them but I'm not sure about whether I should add all of them as separate articles or just notable ones?  Also, these galaxies are readily visible on a number of photographs.  M59-UCD3 is visible on the M59 infobox picture.  I can lift the picture from here  or create one myself but I don't like the low resolution of the M59 picture.  thoughts?  --DHeyward (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NASTRO for guidance. A list of ultra-compact dwarfs may be more appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultra-compact dwarfs
Talk:Kingdom of Meath

message: Would it be possible to add the pronunciation here? Alarichall 06:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: Looking at the discussion above regarding renaming (I'd have voted against FWIW), it came to me that no matter how many Google books hits there may be, kingdom is not a very good word to use here. (Yes, there are lots of other articles for which the same objection might be raised. And if I ever get round to it, I'll raise the objection there.) Note also that there is a list of Kings of Mide, for what it' worth. 
Perhaps the better title would be Mide, a topic which could incorporate both existing articles (and more besides, if anyone were ever minded to provide the material). Angus McLellan  (Talk) 02:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still the wrong title? 

message: What is the source for Christianity not being the (main? official?) religion of Meath until the 700s?  Christianity had existed in Ireland since at least 431, and the country was exporting missionaries by the 500s.  Even if there is evidence of Meath being predominantly pagan until the eighth century, which I doubt, the term "druidism" is still strange and should probably be changed to Celtic Polytheism ComradeKublai (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Druidism until the 700s? 

message: There is too much unexplained Irish nomenclature here that badly needs context.  A short example:  
The Uí Néill assumed the ancient titles of Kings of Uisnech in Mide and Kings of Tara in Brega and claimed a cattle-tribute, the Bóroma Laigen, on the Laigin. The Uí Failge, under Failge Berraide, were finally expelled from the plain of Mide with the battle of Druim Derg in 514.
What is a "Laigin"?  The "Uí Failge" appear out of nowhere; how could they be expelled if they never arrived?  What is "the plain of Mide"? - we have not been introduced to a plain in this description of "Mide".  Deeper question:  What is the significance of any of this, e.g., "claimed a cattle-tribute, the Bóroma Laigen", or "the battle of Druim Derg"?
This is not encyclopedia-quality writing. Zaslav (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptic
Talk:Dwarf spheroidal galaxy

message: The third paragraph:
:Recently, as growing evidence has indicated that the vast majority of dwarf ellipticals have properties that are not at all similar to elliptical galaxies, but are closer to irregular and late-type spiral galaxies, this term has been used to refer to all of the galaxies that share the properties of those above. These sorts of galaxies may in fact be the most common type of galaxies in the universe, but are much harder to see than other types of galaxies because they are so faint.
needs clarification.  In the first sentence, what does "this term" refer to, dwarf ellipticals or dwarf spheroidals?.  At the end of that sentence, what does "those above" refer to?  What is the relationship of dwarf spheroidal, dwarf elliptical,   elliptical, irregular, and late-type spiral galaxies? --R. S. Shaw (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph needs clarification 