lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Body composition

message: This article, as written, is misnamed. I expected to find the elemental composision (percent carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, iron, etc.) and molecular composition (percent water, lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, etc.) 67.172.182.35 05:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed, link at top now directs to the right page Morecromulent (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is misnamed 

message: Can someone, possibly Emptybone, please explain why a picture of a torso is added to this article? (Lean body.JPG) The physique is unimpressive (is not a "lean muscled human body"), and does not show anything directly related to body composition (ie: being measured with fat calipers, in a tank for bioelectrical impedance analysis etc.). I fail to see how either of the two pictures recently added improve the article in any way.    --Yankees76 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Pictures Unrelated to this Article 

message: Rather than redirect here there should be an article describing this technique OR have a more detailed description on this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.154.90 (User ) 20:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: air displacement plethysmography

message: "This article is about fat, bone, water and muscle content of the human body."  not about health. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved Rathfelder's comment into its own section. For clarification on what Rathfelder means, see this section on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Health category

message: While some readers might well expect that "body composition" refers to the chemical composition of the body, in exercise physiology labs "body composition" refers to the quantification of the fat and lean components of the human body.
However, in discussing the methods used to measure body composition (fat & lean body mass) the article did not address the most common method used, "underwater weighing".  I edited the article extensively to inform about this method.
Fatdunker (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is appropriately named
Talk:Beta Ceti

message: :...dark corner of the sky.
What form has space to have corners? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it's not meant to be a geometric statement, although perhaps it may be taken so by the pedantic. Rather, it's a common phrase, equivalent to "little known", that can be used in statements such as a "dark corner of the mind" or a "dark corner of the world". Regards, RJH (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Eehh??
Talk:Mandy McElhinney

message: Went to school ball with Anne McGiness we were on same table Dino Mariano 49.196.182.203 (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  School friend 

message: , in this edit you changed birth_date from "1970-09-09" (September) to "9 October 1970", with no edit comment. Was the change in month intentional or an error? IMDb says 1 (first) September 1970, which doesn't help. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date
Talk:Marie Hoy

message: येस  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.67.80.128 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Rhys Muldoon

message: Could someone who knows, author perhaps, have a look at and fix up the first line of this section. Wodawik (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatre section 

message: The entry "On 24 November 2007, Muldoon helped Labor Candidate Maxine McKew to oust the sitting member for Bennelong, former Prime Minister John Howard" seems a little too brief to convey what he actually did here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.116.63.170 (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life
Talk:Beta Hydri

message: What is meant by relatively bright?  And nearest for that matter?  If Beta Hydri is relatively bright, isn't, for example, Beta Carinae even brighter while only 8° further from the pole.  While I have no reason to suspect the accuracy of Stellarium, it hardly qualifies as a reliable source.  87.114.28.138 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: good points. removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearest and relatively? 
Talk:Beta Scorpii

message: I think the 3.9" separation between A and B Scorpii is wrong. See here https://www.stelledoppie.it/index2.php?iddoppia=64939 (BU 947). This contradicts reference [9], but agrees with real life. My telescope can split a 3.9" separation easily, but I see nothing...
Can someone check it? Should I go ahead and just correct it?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2801:B0:B0:103:181:56E8:32A5:699E (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know where 3.9 came from.  It isn't in the WDS now so I changed the article.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It came from "Binary Star Orbits. IV. Orbits of 18 Southern Interferometric Pairs", The Astronomical Journal, 140 (3): 735–743. But is wrong nonetheless. By the way, I corrected another instance of the wrong value. Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2801:B0:B0:300:7153:756C:B1CE:7F91 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Beta Scorpii AB Separation

message: How can Beta Scorpii and Omega Scorpii share the name Acrab? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll speculate that name may have been used in the context of naming body parts of a scorpion. Hence Omega Scorpii is named Jabhat al Akrab, which supposedly means "[The] forehead of the scorpion".—RJH (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Omega Scorpii
Talk:Dan Radakovich

message: Content borrowed from NCAA Wiki: Dan Radakovich. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 
Talk:Beta Trianguli

message: A person in IP 168.223.11.232 wrote:
Beta Trianguli . . ., sometimes called by the traditional Latin name Deltotum or the Greek Deltotron [sic.], as the constellation resembled an upper-case Greek letter delta (Δ) to the ancient Greeks and Romans.
in the old revision of this page at 03:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bay Flam is 100% correct. Beta never had such a name. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ハァ？
Talk:Beta Trianguli Australis

message: The redirect Betria has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Betria]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Beta Virginis

message: Is there a reference for the Einstein / Speed of light reference? Benjicohn (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement in the article is plainly incorrect. The 1922 eclipse was used to confirm Eddington's 1919 findings that supported Einstein's general relativity theory. (See tests of general relativity.) The speed of light had been reasonably well established by that time. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed of light

message: How about a section for references to b virginis in literature? Poul Anderson. Tau Zero as a starter. Plewis (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See Stars and planetary systems in fiction#Beta Virginis (Zavijava).  Lithopsian (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In literature
Talk:Almirante Padilla-class frigate

message: I am not sure if this is really relevant, but I think the image of the Caldas (:File:Arc_fragata_caldas.jpg) is heavily edited. A legit image of the ship, but "beefed up" with the helicopter and the missile including smoke trail. --DavidDCM (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Caldas image
Talk:Pam Ann

message: This article seems to concern a female who plays female roles dressed as a female. The article also describes her act as "drag". In what way is her act drag? Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drag? 

message: Nothing justifying an encyclopaedia article. Everything justifying a personal publicity stunt.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.212.11 (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant publicity article 

message: for an ESL class? D-.  
Gimelgort (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was this written 
Talk:Escuela Colombiana de Ingeniería

message: The coordinates need the following fixes:
* (4° 46' 56", -74° 2' 38") instead of (4° 47' 0", -74° 3' 0")
201.244.96.86 (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: and thanks! Avicennasis @ 15:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 
Talk:B-type main-sequence star

message: To me it was a really, really bad idea to move this from "B-type main sequence star" to "B-type main sequence" because there is no such thing as a "B-type main sequence". The article name may now cause unnecessary confusion. It should have been discussed first. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad move 

message: One of the most important properties of B-type main sequence stars is missing: what is their luminosity? "extremely luminous and blue" in the current version is vague. Bkocsis (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  luminosity needed 

message: I would add that these stars transition to helium fusion more smoothly than solar mass stars, which experience a degenerate helium flash. 74.135.194.87 (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helium fusion
Talk:Boötes Void

message: Thanks to you, conttributors, this article has now been translated into FR:. Merci à vous. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: The first external "discover magazine" link goes to spam.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.158.24 (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it now goes to an Internet Archive page of what appears to be a digital copy of the original Discover magazine article. MichiganFarmerII (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: added by Tim May 5th

message: Both the original article and the archive.org links are not working. Should probably be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.32.251 (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discover Magazine Links (citation number 6) 

message: not obvious how to pronounce it.WisDom-UK (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation needed  

message: Found two reliable sources for Barnard 68 object that verify the brief summary of that. May be viewed as footnotes 8 and 9.
Also, there is a separate Wikipedia article already on Barnard 68 so nothing more really needs to be added on that topic from this page. 
Added pronunciation guide with link to Merriam Webster spoken guide. 
MichiganFarmerII (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Citation needed" 

message: "Reliable sources"/
"Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, are usually not acceptable as sources. These can include newsletters, personal websites, press releases, patents, open wikis, personal or group blogs, and tweets. However, if an author is an established expert with a previous record of third-party publications on a topic, their self-published work may be considered reliable for that particular topic." 
The reference to "Cosmic Voids, Much ado about nothing">"Cosmic Voids, Much ado about nothing" is a self-published page from an established expert; however, the page is unsigned so I feel that it fails to meet the criteria. In general, if the author of a source is unknown, it should not be referenced; in this instance there are plenty of sources that are written by authors who sign their work. The same issue arises with the page from Discovery Magazine "Filling the void - understanding the formation of the Bootes void in intergalactic space".  (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of reliable sources
Talk:Ys (anime)

message: Please state your reasons for placing article tags. Tcaudilllg (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Something doesn't seem right about this one; I think the series for the first game was split into two "books" itself, and the series for the second game is an entirely separate thing. 174.111.81.238 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Books"
Talk:Sega Pro

message: I removed the ISSN needed tag from the article since even with a subscription to portal.issn.org, I cannot identify an ISSN. My sense is one simply was not assigned, somehow. The magazine does appear to have existed (see ). Keesiewonder talk 01:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{ISSN-needed}}</nowiki>

message: More info is needed for the history, changes, content style of the magazine. Also final issue number needed and staff info. Nreive 14:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''''Sega Pro''''' History

message: Issue 27 (1993 Xmas issue) lists the editor as Nick Merritt and the designer as Simon Christopher. Chemical Engineer (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staff
Talk:Carina Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy

message: This galaxy is NOT "ESO 206-G220". That name is not recognized by either SIMBAD or NED. The correct name is ESO 206-G20. As an aside, the position given for this in SIMBAD is incorrect.  The image on the main page corresponds to the NED position.
I shall let this comment stand for a couple of weeks. If no-one else has made this correction by then, I shall do it.
Old_Wombat (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in ESO name. 
Talk:Cartwheel Galaxy

message: In the section "Observation data" the galaxy's receding velocity is specified instead of the redshift. I don't know how to correct it; maybe anybody does? The given source http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu states a value about 0.03 for z.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.181.163 (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redshift 

message: The article is misleading, in that it suggests that the two small galaxies are the colliders. However, the culprit is actually outside of the field of view, as indicated by radio observations: Example: http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/opo9636b1.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.181.163 (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colliding galaxy 

message: In the section "Structures" it says "...reforming spiral arms following the collision." while no collision was mentioned yet on the page. Then afterwards in the section "Evolution" it says that galaxy was formed by a collision. These should be switched around. 108.54.172.106 (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement about the collision was removed from the section "Structures". The description of the possible formation of the structures as a consequence of a collision in the section "Evolution" is adequate and sufficient. Uxh (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider Reordering Sections 

message: What is the smallest distance between bodies. In the Galaxy? 2600:1700:87E1:4F70:50EC:5312:AE52:A1DF (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distances between bodies in the Cartwheel
Talk:CH star

message: Did I really create this article? OK, it's content seems OK, AFAIK. But the name? It should either have been C-H with a hyphen, or less accurately, Carbon-Hydrogen star, which probably is slightly incorrect. ... said: Rursus (Bork, Bork!) 22:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many journal articles just use "CH star", so I think it's probably okay this way.—RJH (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

text: It is "CH".  Not "C-H" or "Carbon-Hydrogen".  It is a radical consisting only of a hydrogen and carbon atom, more formally called called either Methylidyne or Hydridocarbon although those terms are almost never seen in astronomy or spectroscopy.  So please don't any grammar zealots come along and start changing the name without bothering to understand the term. It isn't H2-O and it isn't Na-Cl, so it isn't H-C. Lithopsian (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Eehumm!??
Talk:Cha 110913−773444

message: In the paper I got the values for luminosity from, they wrote Log L/L☉ = -3.22. I wasn't sure whether Log was the natural log or Log10, but the value I supplied (0.04) came from assuming they meant the natural log. If Log10 was meant, then it should instead read 6 x 10-4 L☉. Benhocking 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely log to base ten. Natural (base e) log would have been denoted ln. This was fixed in the article years ago. Modest Genius talk 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luminosity 

message: Since Cha 110913-773444 is NOT a brown dwarf according to this article, OTS 44 should still be the smallest (better:lightest) brown dwarf known, shouldn't it? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallest 

message: Does anyone know how big this object's protoplanetary disk is? --JorisvS (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Protoplanetary disk

message: How is it possible to discover a Jupiter-size planet left in space, not illuminated by any sun? Does it radiate anything detectable? Thank you. - 92.100.170.169 (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way: the link to the page at exoplanet.eu is broken. The NASA link, however, is working, and they appear to say it was actually a dark star by its physics, unless I am mistaken... - 92.100.170.169 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sub-brown dwarfs can be detected by Infrared / thermal radiation. -- Kheider (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! - 89.110.12.84 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is that possible? 
Talk:Chris Moller (businessman)

message: It's out of date according to New Zealand Cricket - NZC Board. He's now Board Chairman and has other involvements.--DadaNeem (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand Cricket - NZC Board 

message: Hello All,  I have just moved this article from "Chris Moller" to "Chris Moller (businessman)" - this being done to disambiguate him from another Chris Moller - the architect who'd fronted Grand Designs New Zealand - whose article I've just recently created. As per MOS:DISAMBIG, there does not seem to be a need to create a disambiguation page. Aerohydro (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming of article
Talk:Chi Virginis

message: Does someone have access to the original source? Three times the radius would be extremely weird. Also, where would such a radius estimate come from? The planet has been detected by radial velocity measurements. I guess someone misunderstood the minimal mass of 3*M_jupiter and made "three times larger" out of it which then spread throughout the internet because it sounds great. A 3 Jupiter mass planet should have a size similar to Jupiter. --mfb (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of planet c 
Talk:Circinus Galaxy

message: I have not been able to find a definitive date for the discovery.  The article by K. C. Freeman et al. in A&A 55, p. 445-458 (1977), "A Large New Galaxy in Circinus" was received in 1976.  Neither that article nor the articles it references gives a precise date.  The galaxy seems to have been discovered on a plate made in 1972 (?), so we have endpoints, but not a precise date nor a specific discoverer. -- Elphion (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of discovery 
Talk:Comet Arend–Roland

message: Is it possible that we could put the picture linked to in the article? Poineuler (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 
Talk:Comet de Vico

message: I removed much of the content of this article, after a search for references had several conflicts with the content and each other.  Notability is shown, but the article needs to be improved with assistance of an expert who can wade through the references and create a well sourced article that is balanced. Jeepday (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed content
Talk:Comet Donati

message: If it was photographed, then surely any copyright on that pic is long expired.  Is the photo available anywhere? Mdotley 00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographed? 

message: What reference do you have that Comet Donati will come to perihelion in the specific year 3811?  Have you accounted for perturbations in the orbit? A barycentric calculation of the orbital period (unperturbed and with the comet currently outside of the inner solar system) comes up with 6.35E+5 days (or 1739 years).  Add that to the last perihelion date (1858) and you get a crude estimated return year of 3597.  I must revert you edit as unreferenced. -- Kheider (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next perihelion 

message: It looks like there are two ion tails and one dust tail. Is that correct? If so, why are there two ion tails?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E414:3A01:BCF7:EA8C:97FC:DF9D (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three tails?
File talk:EU visa lists.png

message: * switzerland is now in shengen space
* Monaco is include in French shengen space
: Update Switzerland!!! --Dima1 (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes

message: As many overseas territories are on the map, so should Tahiti & French Polynesia be. And it's not there or if it is it's the wrong colour - as opposed to other french overseas territories. The same is true about New Caledonia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.82.214 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake on Map

message: I believe Alinor did this map. Well its a very nice map. I don't know if you are aware though, but it seems that recently the EU came to a decision to remove the visa requirements for citizens of the Bahamas, St. Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda and Barbados . The link says their citizens will soon be able to travel without the visas, but it doesn't give any indication of a specific date.72.27.2.68 06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is based on the actual annex I/II lists of EU regulation 539/2001 (plus ammendments). The newsarticle states that "when .... treaty goes into force...." So it looks like Bahamas, etc. are still ot the annex-I list. Please search the EU site:  for updated lists. If there are such - please provide link so that someone can change the image appropriatry. Alinor 14:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update: Bahamas and some other Caribbean countries no longer need visas

message: Puerto Rico should be green, not grey, because Puerto Ricans are classified as US citizens, and thus would be entitled to visa free travel to the EU.--75.7.235.128 (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico 

message: I can barely see Puerto Rico on that map. Should it include a green dot? --Rdoger6424 (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico too small? 

message: What brown color represents on the map, there no anything in legend about it? It's either info about brown color should be added to the legend or it should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 11:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, are they countries that also need a visa for transiting? Eraserhead1 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brown Color
Talk:Ron Oden

message: The article goes from "he is openly bisexual" to "he is openly gay" to "he is openly bisexual". This needs to be clarified. © Tbhotch™ 19:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Bisexual/Gay