lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:SN 2005cs

message: Is there a reason this is past tense?  I know most things in the night sky happened ages ago, but if it is still visible, I think it should be in present tense Mwv2 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This has long since faded from sight. A proper use of the present tense would be in reference to the supernova remnant—RJH (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  past tense 
Talk:Snowflake Cluster

message: Much of the text in this article appears to be copied directly from the Spitzer Space Telescope news release. The entire article should be rewritten, although a better choice might be to delete this article altogether since this object is part of NGC 2264 which is covered in a separate article. The "snowflake cluster" is probably not sufficiently noteworthy to justify its own entry separate from the article on NGC 2264. Aldebarium (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the obviously plagiarised material.  I actually only commented it out since it is not copyright and a small amount of work would make it usable.  There isn't much left, and none of it is cited.  I wouldn't object to a merge - a redirect with this name would be quite enough.  Although at this point, NGC 2264 itself is hardly more than a stub.  Lithopsian (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks. A merge & redirect sounds like the right approach although I don't know how to do it. Aldebarium (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy for anyone.  Edit NGC 2264 to contain anything you want to say about the Snowflake Cluster.  Then blank this article and turn it into a redirect page (just copying another redirect may be easier than reading all the documentation, the syntax is very simple).  That's being bold, but not especially bold given that there is almost nothing left here.  Alternatively, you could add tags to this page and that to start a merge discussion, which could be quite a lonely thing on a sparsely-watched article like this.  I'd just go for it, things can always be put back if there are objections.  Lithopsian (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism?
Talk:Ensign Ro (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

message: Just thought I should mention that I removed a reference to an "Ensign Ro" assimilated crewman killed by Picard and cannibilized for parts during Star Trek: First Contact. The assimilated crewman Picard killed and cut open to remove his memory chip to find out what the Borg were doing was Ensign Lynch, if I recall correctly.Charbroil 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is unclear to me why the Admiral, who seems to blindly believe the Cardassians' claim that the Bajorans are behind the attack, and who also seems to want to appease the Cardassians no matter what, would want to send Ensign Ro on a secret mission to supply the Bajoran terrorists with weapons. I couldn't find any explanation to this apparent contradiction in the episode, nor in the article in its current form. If anyone can find sources regarding that and add something about it to the article it would improve it greatly, in my opinion. 188.169.229.30 (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Old post, I know, and not really what talk pages are for. Nonetheless, I will respond: I believe the idea is that he doesn't think he can interfere, so he's secretly helping the Bajorans fight instead, not realizing that the Cardassians expect exactly that, and will use it as an excuse to go after the Federation. — trlkly 07:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why would the Admiral want to give the Bajoran terrorists weapons?
Talk:Star chart

message: I came to this article to find out how many degrees the star chart "shifts" each day. The answer is about one degree a day counterclockwise. This needs to be added to the article. It should also be noted that the sky only appears to shift because of Earth's movement around the Sun. It's an APPARENT shift not an actual shift.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustynyfeathers (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: additions

message: Hi. Here's another star chart I found. Should it be added? The site also has other astronomical simulators. It gives you a star map for a given city. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: currently returns 404 Object not found. --Eltener (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  links 

message: I want to learn about the stars.Where do I go?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.143.166 (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  stars 

message: The article should contain, or link to, something about the projections used in mapping the spherical heavens onto a plane surface.  But what? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projections 

message: Does the Nebra sky disc count as a star chart? If so, it would possibly register as one of the oldest ones.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.170.47 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest star chart 

message: This is something that could be explained in more detail in this article. Something to do with map projections, I assume. Ahiijny (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are star charts often divided into two circles? 

message: Re; "The Pole Johannes Hevelius finished his Firmamentum Sobiescianum star atlas in 1690." The problem with this is that the Wikipedia article devoted to Hevelius gives the date of his death as 1687 Did he finish this work in heaven? TheScotch (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. TheScotch (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date discrepancy
Talk:Westbourne House School

message: I don't understand what I need to do to not have this page deleted.  We will not gain any commercial advantage from this posting and I have tried to make it as informative as possible.  What more do I need to do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Gibb (talk • contribs) .
:Please see the deletion discussion for advice. Article inclusion is based on notability, not simply on commercial interest or lack thereof. --Dhartung | Talk 05:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Stellar nursery

message: I think that this article should be joined with the article called "Molecular Cloud". What do you think? Bjorn9800991 17:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Join article 

message: I think the one sentence in this article should be merged to molecular cloud and this page redirected there. This article provides neither context nor references for why the term "stellar nursery" is distinct from "molecular cloud", and I don't think it is. (I bother to propose the merger rather than just doing it because there was some anonymous opposition to the merger last year.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 12:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no opposition, I completed the merge. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Sub-brown dwarf

message: (inserted for readability Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's lots of confusion regarding "planets". As regards to IAU, they've not done any important contribution to terminology outside the solar system, so we can simply stick to the terms that the scientists independently coin themselves. "Planemo" just means "planetary mass object" no less no more. Any super-jovian planet, lesser planet and other "SSSB sized boulders" out there may actually be called "sub-brown dwarfs", but since there's already the term "planet" commonly used for bodies of size Jupiter or less, I guess the common practice will become to use "sub-brown dwarfs" as a technical term for super-jovian planets. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: (random heading)

message: The article claims:
:A sub-brown dwarf is a gas giant that is not orbiting a star...
which is not in source provided. The source claims that a "sub-brown dwarf" is a free-floating object, with mass less than 13 Jupiter masses, giving the additional "(or whatever name is appropriate)". Such as f.ex. a blob of gooey matter is a "sub-brown dwarf (or whatever name is appropriate)".
First: gas giant points to planets. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Not in source provided

message: What (stellar) spectral classes can a sub-brown dwarf have, if this concept applies here at all? I would have expected Y "or below", but ULAS J003402.77−005206.7 is a possible SBD of spectral class T9. Vice versa, can "proper" (deuterium-burning) brown dwarfs have spectral class Y?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spectral class? 

message: I have proposed a three-way merger between this article, free-floating planet, and rogue planet.  See the rogue planet talk page for discussion. Kevin Nelson (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged "Rogue planet" and "Free-floating planet" under Rogue planet, see Talk:Free-floating planet for more info.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliff12345 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed three-way merger - Not agreed - Other two merged 

message: This article should be removed because it basically states the same thing as the Rogue Planet page, and also because this term "sub-brown dwarf" is not used in research papers.  The objects referenced on this page are generally described in research papers as "Free Floating Planetary Mass Objects".  The Rogue Planet page does a much better job defining these types of objects.  Your thoughts?  Martin Cash (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "sub-brown dwarf" could be describing some infrared observations - whereas "planetary mass object" might relate to microlensing observations. If so, the different techniques (and hypothetical objects) could be discussed in separate articles ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is duplicative
Talk:Subdwarf

message: My spectral DB lists the spectral prefixes (sd), sd and esd. To find: some source explaining them. It is probably just three levels of subdwarfyness, where esd stands for extreme sub-dwarf. Said: Rursus (☻) 20:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which database is that? Bruddl (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: (sd), sd, esd

message: I suggest to include a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdwarf_B_star in the Hot subdwarfs section. Text would not need to be changed, it could simply use the "Subdwarf B stars ..." occurence at the beginning of the fifth phrase of the section.Bruddl (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot subdwarfs: link to Subdwarf_B_star
Talk:Messier 63

message: I suggest that the title of this article be changed from "Sunflower Galaxy" to "Messier 63". "Sunflower Galaxy" is an unofficial nickname that is rarely (if ever) used by anyone other than novices to the hobby of amateur astronomy, and could be applied to any number of other objects.74.60.209.109 (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree entirely. "Messier 63" would be an unambiguous, formal name. TowardsTheLight (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Aldebarium (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I've applied for a WP:RMT per consensus. Praemonitus (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

text: — IVORK Discuss 22:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested rename
Talk:Supergranulation

message: The size scale of granulation may derive, from the balance, between buoyancy vs. viscosity, the latter being inversely proportional to the horizontal granule size scale, which represents the length scale over which velocity shear (between ascending & descending plasma) is spread, per Newton's formula. 66.235.38.214 (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Against that, the grouping of ascending parcels of fluid, and descending parcels, into cells, may minimize viscous drag.  Perhaps the size scale is set by time-scale of heating at depth, heat dumping at altitude ? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Tau Aquilae

message: .      Sept. 2016, On the wiki diagram of star constellation Aquila, when you search for star tau (τ) αquilae then there is a red circle that corcles nothing?! But the star τ is correclty labeled on diagram.
       Although xi (ξ) αquilae is not labeled and when you search xi aquilae, then the wrong star is red circled! . 
  Barnards Star (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to rectify the issue by using a different positioning template that has demonstrated better consistency. Praemonitus (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong stars identified by red circle!Ex tau aquilae
Talk:List of Rayman Raving Rabbids minigames

message: Someone was saying this article pertains only to a few people.  I beg to differ.  This game is played by many people, and it is slated to come out on multiple systems, not just for the Wii.  I don;t think it is inapporpriate to discuss the contents of a video game here.  This item could almost be conisdered a list, therefore, at worst, I think this article could be merged with the Raving Rabbids main page instead of a separate article.  But it would be a shame to delete the content of this page completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.156.188 (talk • contribs) 
: I've just removed the proposed deletion notice, per what you said.  I think this article would do well to list its information in a table and/or to provide more of a description of each minigame (just not to a game guide level of detail). --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion / relevance
Talk:Tau Boötis

message: "It is also listed as a suspected variable star. However, the star is not variable." 
That might make sense to an astronomer, but it's confusing to me.  Was it once suspected, but has now been shown to be otherwise? And where is/was it listed?  Maybe someone who knows can just fix up the wording. 4.248.218.96 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.  I read that line several times and still don't understand how it can be suspected to be variable, but not be variable.  198.232.29.99 21:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the second part of that statement because it also made no sense to me.  The star is listed in several catalogs as a possible variable star and I even found a journal reference regarding measuring its variability.  I could not find any sources which cast this into doubt let alone showed that is was non variable.  If someone finds one and wishes to cite it...  Bobprime (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  a confusing line 

message: It would be cool. Also, a chart that tells you where you can look up and see it, depending on the time of the year. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Available?
Talk:List of bus routes in Suffolk County, New York

message: This list should also include the Patchogue Jitney Buses. And if Port Jefferson had the ability to keep their bus system around, I'd like to see them included on this list too. ---- DanTD 04:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patchouge Buses should be added 

message: No where does it say on any website that the suffolk clipper is the S110. Should we change this? RES2773 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure it's not dated info? ---------User:DanTD (talk)  02:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now it's confirmed that S110 was an old name for Suffolk Clipper (http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=212939). This is what I get for being away from Long Island. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  02:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, I changed it from "sometimes known" to "formally known." Would you mind adding a reference? (P.S. I'm in nassau so I never see it anyway!) RES2773 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffolk Clipper = S110? 
Talk:Mythopoeic Awards

message: I don't know why a bot removed the "literary awards" category but it very much describes the Mythopoeic Scholarship awards if not the Mythopoeic Fantasy awards. LynnMaudlin (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And removed by a human. Is there a reason that "literary awards" shouldn't be part of this page? The Mythopoeic Scholarship awards aren't a sub-category of fantasy awards.... LynnMaudlin (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary awards removed by bot, restored by human 

message: At first glance i didn't see many repeat winners, but noticed more and more as i composed this new section. Fantasy Awards only, winners only, and even that may benefit from another pair of eyes, or more. 
Diana Wynne Jones was a finalist six times, five in the Children's section. After my experience with winners, it would be foolish to say anything about that in the article. --P64 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winners of multiple awards 

message: Currently the lead section ends with a hatnote template that displays
The lead should try to explain the name of the society in a way that links the genre article inline. --P64 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved that cross-reference to section See also where it literally belongs. The word should appear in the body of article, however. --P64 (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythopoiea (genre) 

message: "Acceptance remarks" from 1998 to 2012 are available online (bottom of page). Judging by 1998 and 2012, these are short but more than thankyous and acknowledgments; some will be valuable in writer and book articles. --P64 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptance remarks online 
Talk:Tau Sagittarii

message: I'm not necessarily questioning the truth of whether the star is the closest visible one to the "Wow" source area, but I am wondering what the readership is supposed to make of that. My question is whether it's meaningful enough to justify making the readership, or a significant fraction of it, assume that Aliens. Live. There. We provide the thinnest skeleton of facts, they will supply the wishful thinking. Geogene (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on the Wow! Signal
Talk:Tau1 Capricorni

message: SIMBAD does not list the designation "Tau1 Capricorni" for this star. Unless a source for this name can be found, the article should probably be moved to 13 Capricorni. Since the star does at least have a Flamsteed designation, implying that it was discovered before 1850, I've removed the notability tag from the article. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Kostjuk shows it, as does this paper.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Talk:Tagyeta

message: Since there is no other "Taygeta" (the Pleiadian nymph is spelled "Taygete"), why isn't this article simply called "Taygeta"? And by the way, why is the star's name spelled differently? Some mention of Taygete should be in the article. Paul August ☎ 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taygeta vs [[Taygete]] 

message: I spent some time tonight editing the opening section to make clear that this is a triple star system. In the 'Info Box' the article lists appropriate data for Aa and Ab, but B is not mentioned at all.
However, in the 'Properties' section, there is data on the distance in arc-seconds between the binary A's and B (and it is quite a distance in orbit!) and the type of star for B is also mentioned.
It seems to me that B should be mentioned in the Info Box, with its Mass and Luminosity, as well as the diameter of its orbit. We could also, in the body of the text, place mention of the orbital period, which would be quite large, I suspect.
All the best,
James
203.150.126.116 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I had to revert your edits.  19 Tau B is a more distant star, not gravitationally related to the spectroscopic pair.  The previous version was more correct, if somewhat misleading.  "Double star" is not the same as "binary star", instead referring to a pair of "dots on the sky" that can be seen but may or may not be related.  Probably a complete section going into the details would make things unambiguous, then could be summarised in the lead.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

text: About your original question, obviously no orbital data.  However, basic physical data is available if you want that in the starbox.  Also things like parallax and magnitude.  There is always a balance between mentioning all the nearby, but often unrelated, stars that have been listed as "companions" and turning the starbox into a table of all the stars in a patch of sky.  Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is data for (Taygeta) 19 Tauri B available?
Talk:Darren Naish

message: I know this is a touchy subject; but I think TetZoo's pretty notable as is (granted, the layman probably doesn't know of it, but Wikipedia's to educate as well as inform, after all.), plus it is run by a credible person, and a couple of posts have become legitimate scientific papers (as well as it's covering of a wide array of topics), so _maybe_ we could make an article out of it? Just an idea, of course. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless Darren Naish's own article grows to gigantic proportions, I don't see any compelling reason why we need to have two short articles about essentially the same subject. Naish pretty much is Tetzoo. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tetrapod Zoology...

message: and other editors have added a lot of overly detailed information that appears to be from  fan's point of view, predominantly sourced by primary sources (e.g. Naish's own work or affiliated websites). This risks running afoul of WP:NPOV, and WP:PROMOTION. Per WP:PRIMARY: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Dr. Naish has his own websites, blogs, and social media accounts to publicize himself: Wikipedia should not serve that role. Encyclopedia articles should not merely showcase subjects, but contextualize how they've been received by secondary sources.  I've trimmed some needlessly detailed info: not every paper published needs highlighting. When the majority of references are primary or affiliated sources, that's an NPOV issue. I would urge Hypnotosov to draw more heavily from independent, reliable, secondary sources, e.g. news articles that address Naish's research and writing, beyond merely asserting they exist. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: also, subjective phrases like "The con also features Darren's (in)famous quiz, which is fiendishly hard." is a personal opinion, and has no place in Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  trimming the fluff
Talk:Theta Aquarii

message: Stellar classification is different in the main body of the article than it is in the info box. Someone might want to check this out. T@nn 08:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox data is all cited and corrected now, so it should be good. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)