lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:(n-p) reaction

message: *"Most (n,p) reactions have threshold neutron energies below which the reaction cannot take place[,] as a [consequence] of the charged particle in the exit channel[?] requiring energy (usually more than [1] MeV) to overcome the Coulomb barrier experienced by the emitted proton."
That description seems backwards. The Coulomb barrier pushes an approaching proton away from the nucleus until it gets close enough for the stronger nuclear force to pull it in. The nuclear force would hold onto a "departing" proton until it gets far enough away that the repulsive force is stronger.
What happens when the (n,p) reaction "cannot take place"? Does the neutron just bounce off? Does a different neutron get knocked off? Does a proton get partially "emitted" and fall back in? Immediately or after a delay?
*"The (n,p) nuclear reaction 14N (n,p) 14C is an exception to this rule, and is exothermic – it can take place at all incident neutron energies."
That seems to lack details. Even an ice-cold neutron kicks out a proton, so capturing the neutron must impart enough energy to knock out the proton. Does the proton get ejected immediately or after a delay?
And why doesn't the incoming neutron simply attach and not eject a proton, given that nitrogen-15 happens to be stable. (15N is the rarer of the two stable N isotopes (0.337%).)
- A876 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues
Talk:Nucleon spin structure

message: The other article is an obvious coatrack.
הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So write it. Add a good content and throw all crap away. There are two articles now, and both are equally an unintelligible trash. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I tried to improve the spin crisis. The spin structure article may be extended by experts familiar with the latest findings in this field. Vk1987 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Proton spin crisis]]
Talk:ISOLDE

message: Should the name be changed from On-Line Isotope Mass Separator to ISOLDE (or ISOLDE facility)? It would make more sense given that the facility is always referred to as ISOLDE. The page on the CERN website is also titled ISOLDE. What are the thoughts on this?
Madeleinehales (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change to ISOLDE
Talk:Porites

message: The following information may be useful for inclusion or reference in this article:
*Porites Pinking http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/reef-monitoring/coral-diseases/hcd-gbr-08.html
*Notes about sequencing the Genome of Porites coral  http://genome.wustl.edu/ancillary/data/whitepapers/Porites_lobata_WP.pdf (PDF)
*May be of interest to some : The complete genome of a Porites porites mitochondrion http://www.bch.umontreal.ca/ogmp/projects/other/genbank/DQ643837.txt
Tug201 12:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Information to add
Talk:Sigrid Hjertén

message: -Is it only me but is the use of tenses in this article slightly off? 
193.77.19.223 16:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: :Fixed. Michaelas10 (T|C) 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Only things that were first published in the US can use the 1922 or earlier PD criterion.  I don't think her paintings were produced or published in the US first, were they? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD status of images - questionable? 

message: According to the page's present version, the artist died after "a botched lobotomy" - which doesn't justify the first-paragraph statement that the cause of her death was a "fatal psychiatric illness" [sic]. I've reworded the latter and revised its piped link. -- Deborahjay 08:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fatal illness"
Talk:Nils Dardel

message: Note that the von Dardel works on Commons are up for deletion ; Commons goes by copyright laws of country of origin so they seem not to be copyright expired until 70 years after artist's death.  Someone might wish to upload an image locally here to en:Wikipedia under fair use or perhaps PD within US only. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images
Talk:Discretionary trust

message: Footnote 1 seems to imply that a family trust (in Australia) is the same as a discretionary trust. I think that a family trusts are a subset of discretionary trusts, where the beneficiaries are family members. There are tax penalties if distributions are made to non family members. They are quite common in Australia, so I think there should be an article on them (or at least a stub). One source: .
But, I don't claim to be an expert on them (not having done any Law).
--RobBrisbane 12:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea myself - I only put the footnote in because the article on Trust Law implied (under its description of discretionary trusts) that such trusts were referred to as "family trusts" in Australia.  But if that is not strictly accurate, it would make sense to remove the footnote. Legis 13:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, the article begins 'in British and Canadian Law', but discretionary trusts have an important role in Australian law too. It would bve great if some Aussie tax law expert could look over this article and Ockerify some parts of it... 116.212.202.58 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Family Trust

message: if this is a specific legal concept in these countries it should have a page explaining it, right? Like all the Latin phrases that have such pages. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:EBD5:90F0:22E0:3387 (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "vulnerable to attachment by the trustee" mean? 

message: HA! is there a source for this, at all? Keep in mind that avoiding taxes is a large part of bankruptcy. Taxes don't get paid because there is no money it's all "in a trust" 2604:3D09:D78:1000:EBD5:90F0:22E0:3387 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  despite their original source of popularity (tax savings) having diminished in most countries. 

message: Seems like this section was filled out just so it could be filled out. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:EBD5:90F0:22E0:3387 (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is protecting from divorce creditors really different from protecting the property from creditors in general.
Talk:Ōmiya Station (Saitama)

message: Despite three separate failed attempts, I cannot figure out how to edit the platform details in "Station Layout" without totally screwing up the format, so can anyone help to change the details here?
The details here (and on the Jp Wiki article) differ from what is published in the JR Timetable and also disagree with what I have witnessed myself at the station.
The main error is that platform 11 is used by down Takasaki/Utsunomiya/Shonan Shinjuku Line trains. I'm not sure which platforms are used for the up/down Nikko services, but actually I don't think these need to be included unless we are also going to include mention of other named trains that stop here (Hokutosei, Cassiopeia, etc.) The Narita Express is specifically mentioned in published platform information, so should be left in here too.
DAJF 01:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Station Layout inaccuracies
Talk:Peccei–Quinn theory

message: If somebody has the time, please completely rewrite this article. The third paragraph is especially wrong (it's a global symmetry then it's a gauge symmetry?). A PQ symmetry is an approximate U(1) global symmetry that is spontaneously broken. The PNGB is NOT eaten, it's the axion! The final paragraph is also mostly incorrect. The a*trace(F wedge F) term is always mass suppressed, no if and is also not the relevant term (the theta term is F*Fdual). Is there any way to at least flag the article so that nobody takes it seriously until it is rewritten. You can say "disputed" or whatever, even though it's just verifiably inaccurate.75.54.230.92 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

message: So I went ahead and completely rewrote the article, this time actually describing the details of the PQ model. I also moved it to a Start category although maybe it should go to a C-class category? Idk, I'm new here to Wikipedia editing. The thing is, the PQ model is itself rather quite simple, in the sense that it is founded on things that have their own articles (strong CP problem, instantons, anomalies, etc) so its not like this article needs to be long. It does not even need to be very mathematical, although one could expand on the axion-fermion sector, among other things. But that is somewhat tangential to the CP problem, and one can simply go into the literature for it. It's a question of balance for Wikipedia: should it be tediously comprehensive or easy to read. 
As for the invisible axion models: these are a simple modification to the PQ model (hence why I think that they belong in this article rather than in their own article), since they only change the scalar sector. But their mechanism for solving the strong CP problem is essentially exactly the same. (Lonewolf709 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Rewrite
Talk:PICO

message: Numerous interwiki links are linking to WIMP instead of PICASSO… shouldn’t it be considered at two different things?
— MetalGearLiquid  [chat] 12:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange interwiki 

message: The article needs a fair bit of a rewrite.  Some history on PICASSO (droplets in a gel, allowing long run-times between recompressions, but limited active volume) and COUPP, and the design improvments incorporated into the merged PICO experiments currently operating in SNOLAB. Haven't got the [[wit:round tuit|]s yet. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization required...
Talk:Pomeron

message: Somebody wrote that the definition of pomeron on this page, a Regge trajectory with particles lying on it, is "outlandish". Maybe it is sort of arguable, because I don't think that any actual particles are definitively established to be on the pomeron trajectory, but there are candidates. The problem, as I understand it, is that there is mixing between quark vacuum condensates and pure glue vacuum condensates, so that identifying a glueball is difficult. That's an unfortunate thing--- it makes the trajectory  appear more mysterious than it would be in a pure glue world, where you would think that there would be clear spin 0, spin 2, spin 4, spin 6 particles etc. on the pomeron. But I don't think it's a lie to say what it says, even though it is a simplification, because it gets the main idea across. Perhaps there's a way to say it better.Likebox (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family of particles-- Outlandish? 

message: There is a link to a list of unsolved problems_in_physics and under it a box with what seems a formulation of the currently seemingly unsolved question whether there are observable particles in the pomeron trajectory. I clicked on the link and opened the list of unsolved problems in phyiscs, but didn't find this problem in this formulation anywhere. I thought the box text is a quote from that list. So I would either completely remove the box or add the problem (if it still exists) to that list. Otherwise, it is confusing.Elimik31 (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not included in list of unsolved problems in physics 

message: At present, Reggeon is a redirect to Regge theory. But the word 'reggeon' doesn't occur in the Regge theory article. I propose that Reggeon should redirect here to Pomeron instead. At least there will be one hit on 'reggeon' in the article text, and a search for that word will also find the title of Eugene Levin's 1998 paper. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Reggeon]] 

message: Aren't odderons a special kind of glueballs? And how about the pomeron? Is reggeon an old synonym of pomeron? See :it:Glueball#Voci correlate --Ernsts (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glueballs
Talk:Proton Synchrotron

message: Rewriting the article. I am still working on "operation" and "findings and discoveries", "see also" and "external link". Will update later. 
Idastorehaug (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I want a complete lecture on it 39.43.110.149 (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Scythia Minor

message: Ghirlandajo, the current version which created in (why did you call it "cleanup"?!?!?!?) is flawed. First of all, it says that the greeks opened colonies and started to do commerce with the Dacians, Celts and Scythians. Well, by the seventh century BC, the celtic invasions hadn`t even started, so you not only removed the part which talked mentioned the celtic invasions, but the edit containes serious anacronism, albeit that the bulk of the celtic invasion of 279BC didn`t actually went to the eastern Balkans (hence by mentioning of the celts as "inhabitants" you are kind of streching it), but to south, where they created a temporary kingdom by conquering and overlaping the Oddrysian one, and from where the later went to Anatolia - Galatia). As for the Scythians, in the 7th century they had just started to appear in the Middle East, and only later, in the 5th century they appear heavily in Greek sources, and not in Scythia Minor. As for the Dacians, the best term would be thracians. The greeks, based on the resemblence of language and culture with the people whome they knew are called "Thracians", and whome they knew from Thrace which neighboured Greece, concluded that the population they encountered are Thracians. Only later do these thracian tribes start to be differentiated, and the term "Getae" (Dacians) appear (which were sometimes called, guess what... yes, scythians). Greier 12:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some old note
Talk:Range (particle radiation)

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Beam energy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 17#Beam energy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Beam energy" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:MG J-type

message: There was a version of the MG J1 open four seater with a 6 cylinder 1087 cc cross flow twin su. My father owned one of these from the late 1940's until the early 1960's. The registration number was AG0335. Or was it an MG L1 ?? Comments/suggestions welcome. Tony Erwood.
:I think it is safe to say that if he had a J-Type with a six cylinder engine is was not original. Contact the MG Car Club with the registration number and they should tell you more about it, even if it still exists. A link is on the main MG page. --Malcolma 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Roman pot

message: This article doesn't tell you anything about a Roman pot, except that it's used in particle physics and is located close to the beamline of a collider. It's like an article about disc brakes only saying that they're on cars, close to the wheels. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought disc brakes were the round things on the brake pedal...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, what's a Roman pot?
Talk:Semileptonic decay

message: Is the decay example correct?  The discussion of Kaon oscillations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon#Oscillation) tells us that the K0 decays to positrons in semileptonic decays, while the K0-bar decays to electrons.  That seems correct:
In the quark model, the K0 is d s-bar, and the s-bar decays to u-bar which, combined with the d, gives a pi-. Charge conservation requires the lepton to be a positron rather than an electron.
References: Wikipedia pages Quark, Kaon, Pion.
Because of past experience, I lack sufficient confidence to correct the reaction myself.
Johnm307 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Decay Example
Talk:Sfermion

message: I'm not sure if the way that sparticles are referred to is a bit misleading also.  On the page it's said that sfermions are the hypothetical superpartners of fermions.  It's true that they are the superpartners of fermions, what is "hypothetical" in some sense, is the theory of SUSY altogether.  However, once the SUSY framework is invoked, it is a true statement that sfermions are the superpartners.Dgiraffes (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Helmuth Koinigg

message: After the fatal accident the race went on and wasn´t stopped. A tarp was put over the demolished car, the body of Koinigg still in the seat and his Head (still in the helmet) behind his body. Only after the race his corpse was salvaged out of the wreck.
pictures of the acdcident (warning: consider that the pictures are very disturbing.)
https://picasaweb.google.com/Koinigg/HelmuthKoiniggAlsoHelmutKoinigg19481974Formula1#5036169534010863426
https://picasaweb.google.com/Koinigg/HelmuthKoiniggAlsoHelmutKoinigg19481974Formula1#5036169439521582850
https://picasaweb.google.com/Koinigg/HelmuthKoiniggAlsoHelmutKoinigg19481974Formula1#5036169525420928818 
 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foozy7 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of detail is ghoulish and totally unnecessary. Anyone wishing to see this stuff can find it anytime through other channels. It serves no useful purpose and has no place on Wikipedia. WP:OM Flanker235 (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  sad detail
Talk:Split supersymmetry

message: the technicolor link directs to the television technology  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.232.49 (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

message: I cannot find any citations for this quote by Sheldon Glashow on Google Search other than from this Wikipedia page.  It would seem to be either apocryphal, a misquote, or a paraphrase.  Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "half of the particles have already been discovered"
Talk:John Dawson Dewhirst

message: Maybe this can be used somewhere, but it was right at the bottom, under the external links, and I wasn't sure what to do with it:
"John Dewhirst's confession and death was first revealed during 1979 by ABC News (U.S.A.) in its nightly, national, evening news program. ABC News producer Edward Rasen, subsequently provided more details in a January 1980 story in NOW! magazine of London, England, which subsequently was reprinted in NOW! Australia." 86.132.140.171 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Following text removed from bottom of article page
Talk:Ben of Howth

message: Central group:
 Black Linn, highest point
   (Ben of Howth adjacent)
 Shelmartin, second highest point
 Dun Hill
Also:
 Muck Rock (Carrickmore), Howth Demesne
 Carrickbrack, towards Sutton
 Kilrock, north east
See standard references, such as Weston St. Joyce, and maps.
109.188.204.246 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peaks of Howth Head
Talk:Primary tumors of the heart

message: Other useful references:
     
  
1. Bjessmo S, Ivert T. Cardiac myxoma: 40 years' experience in 63 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997 Mar;63(3):697-700. PMID: 9066386
Lam KY, Dickens P, Chan AC. Tumors of the heart. A 20-year experience with a review of 12,485 consecutive autopsies. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1993 Oct;117(10):1027-31. PMID: 8215825
Ksheka 12:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: I removed what was written in diagnosis (both sentences!). It does not follow that cardiac CT and echo are good tests for diagnosis.  Maybe echo is good for myxoma, but is cardiac CT particularly better than cardiac MRI?  Definitive diagnosis would likely rest on tissue biopsy.  Need references, if possible. Ksheka 02:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnosis...
Talk:High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider

message: wat  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.206.195 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  atw 

message: Will the SLHC be able to handle adjectives? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: So...

message: The article says 10^35 cm^−2 s^−1. We're missing an actual luminosity unit here.
72.241.44.72 (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a luminosity unit. --mfb (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luminosity units have to be wrong. 

message: According to BBC News, High-Luminosity LHC upgrade has already started: .  What will happen in 2026 is the start of the runs. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Some civil engineering. Not an upgrade of the actual accelerator. --mfb (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The upgrade started by digging the cavities needed for the new hardware. The point is that the update is not planned for 2026, that is when it should be finished and operational. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrade has started 

message: Article talks about options for 4X luminosity and proposals for 10X luminosity - What has been decided/approved/funded (when) and what is the timeline ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was decided
Talk:Fortunes of War (novel series)

message: Some idea of when the novels were written and published and/or when they were produced on TV might have been a good idea!
--82.4.221.60 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date it! 

message: Since  The Great Fortune  is unreferenced, and as such fails at Wikipedia:Notability (books), I propose a merger here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose The books were written and published separately and only later grouped in to trilogies and series. To include all the books in the summary series article would be over long and cumbersome. Lumos3 (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[ The Great Fortune]]