lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:W Virginis variable

message: Sentences like '...this star is 1.5 magnitude less luminous...' are slightly ambiguous, since a lower numerical value in magnitudes means a higher luminosity -- a brighter star. I hope the sentence 'The luminosity of W Virginis stars are less than Cepheids (about 1.5 mag)' is clearer than 'The luminosity is about 1.5 mag less than Cepheids'. At least on other pages on the internet there are some unclear sentences if you don't know what it's about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.211.39.71 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in sentence on relative brightness 

message: Edwin Hubble measured the distance of M31 by applying the period-luminosity relation to Cepheids that he found in M31. The relation had been discovered by Henrietta Leavitt in 1912, while observing Magellanic Clouds. The relation, however, was not calibrated then, because the distances of Magellanic Clouds were not known. The relation was later calibrated using nearer Cepheid variables in the Milky Way. As Walter Baade showed later, the variables used for calibration, were Population II Cepheids, or W Virginis variables; and the Cepheids found by both Leavitt and Hubble were Population I Cepheids, and these are brighter. Using the relation calibrated for W Virginis variables to calculate distance of a classical Cepheid leads to too small distance. JTMnen 15:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population I/II Cepheids
Talk:Queensmead School

message: More topic headings, an infobox and refs.... as very new article. Welcome Victuallers 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assess for Schools
Talk:Westerlund 2

message: Removed the last sentence in the article's body as it repeats the two stars' sizes. Rotten Venetic (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  80 + 80 solar masses  

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:NASA Unveils Celestial Fireworks as Official Hubble 25th Anniversary Image.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 21, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-05-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:NASA Unveils Celestial Fireworks as Official Hubble 25th Anniversary Image.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon
Talk:Wolf 1061

message: Neither of the reference links for this star work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.74.214 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference links

message: In  last March,  added information about a newly-discovered planetary system around Wolf 1061.
Except … I think this is the wrong star.
name  	RA           	Dec         	const	type	mag  	notes
GJ 628	16h 30m 18.1s	-12d 39m 45s	Oph  	M3.5	10.10	Wolf 1061
GJ 682	17h 37m 03.7s	-44d 19m 09s	Ara  	M4.0	10.95	2 planets
Earlier today, someone editing from an anonymous IP address deleted the section on the newly-discovered planetary system, which triggered an automatic tag designed to detect vandalism; with no edit summary to explain the deletion, it looked very much like the hundred or more such cases of random deletions that occur every day, and I reverted the change, restoring the section.  But after checking on the details of the discovery, it seems that the deletion was appropriate.  The new planets were discovered around GJ 682; Wolf 1061 is GJ 628, with the last two digits transposed.  So that's one “oops” for Astre and one for me.  I've deleted the mistaken section (again).
 Unician ∇  09:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_1061c 
74.216.14.113 (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong star 

message: The lead gives the rotational period as both most likely longer than 100 days and 89.3±1.8~ days.  According to the lead, the habitable zone lies between 0.11-0.21 AU and 0.09–0.23 AU. According to the planetary system section, it  extends from approximately 0.073 to 0.190 AU. The latter is a very significant difference, as one planet is either in the zone or not depending on which is correct.--Klausok (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The planetary system section's habitable zone of 0.073 to 0.190 AU habitable zone was calculated using older data based on the star's temperature and luminosity, via the Habitable Zone Calculator hosted by the University of Washington site (http://depts.washington.edu/naivpl/sites/default/files/hz.shtml). If you feed the newer data for temperature and luminosity for the star, an updated temperature of 3342K and an updated luminosity of 0.0102, which is the same data used in the paper quoted for the habitable zone in the lead of this article, you then calculate a habitable zone that extends approximately from 0.105 to 0.205 AU and that is much more similar to the boundaries defined in the lead to this article. So, Wolf 1061 c is very near, but not quite within, the habitable zone boundaries and therefore is probably too hot to be a habitable planet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.82.221 (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies
Talk:X-ray binary

message: I think we should not create types or acronyms with wikilinks to non-existent articles, unless we can at least give a reference to the external literature that defines the type.  Otherwise we run the risk of creating an endless network of cross-references to imaginary or redundant classes of objects.  Maybe a good test would be to try the acronym, or type words, out on Google, and make sure that we get a serious number of hits? Wwheaton (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Types

message: I think we should try merge more of the 'types/classifications' of XRBs into one page, otherwise we have a series of stud articles, e.g. supernova lists the 1a,1b, 1c etc. models, that reflect what we currently understand about those objects. Anthony Rushton (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but let's have redirects for the more important subclasses, to the main article?  Wwheaton (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifications 

message: For an x-ray binary, for example, might one have accreting mass, both gaseous and even eventually of a liquid core, being drawn off toward a compact object (ss433 x-ray binary?). Might one have a resultant residual solid fused iron core fission reactor? Might it constitute the residual object for an eclipsing x-ray binary? Has it's x-ray profile (from the core?) been largely unaffected? Might radioactivity, versus just an iron core, have a differential effect on x-ray signature? Might this apply to all stars, even our sun, if the outer layers were stripped off? Do all stars have a liquid (fusion) core? Might a white dwarf (misnomer?) just represent the solid iron fission core of, for example, a preceding red giant? A fission core, detectable in infrared, that lasts essentially forever? Fusion, most efficient for a liquid core; and fission turned on, and most suitable, for a solidified core? SRM book at tmmalm.info.66.41.229.140 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of an eclipsing object for an x-ray binary?
Talk:Book curse

message: In the section on mediaeval curses, the following text and quotation appears:
According to the British Library, a Monk from Rochester took the 'Anathema' so far that he condemned the entire community if his book was stolen or damaged.A volume of Aristotle’s Physics from the monastery of Rochester by John, prior of Rochester: whosoever steals this book from the monastery, conceals it, or erases this inscription, he incurs the curse of ‘Anathema’ for one long year from the Priory and the entire community of the Chapter of Rochester.
The quoted curse clearly states that the thief will incur a curse from "the entire community" — but the text claims that the curse "condemns the entire community".  I don't see any way to ciorrect this while keeping the text and quotation of any interest.  I've moved the text here.  Any comments?
Incidentally, in the same section this text appears:
Since Nabu first used his own name to invoke a book curse, this practice has evolved.  Using the book owner’s name has changed from medieval to modern times as a way to mark ownership of books. After the invention of the printing press, to protect books, hand-written book curses evolved into printed bookplates that were pasted to the front covers of books, usually styled ex libris, then to the owner’s name.
“Book Curses.” (2016). The American Bookbinders Museum. Retrieved November 27, 2019 This practice has changed again back to using handwritten names on the interior front cover of books.
This rather broad brush, and offers no supporting evidence.  It seems to be an extrapolation from some people's custom to a general  practice. Bibliosporias (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding of a curse 

message: In Czech, a common book curse is: "Kdo tu knihu ukradne, tomu ruka upadne" ("Whoever steals this book, may his hand fall off") ; perhaps in in part a superstitious curse, and in part originally a serious threat of a medieval punishment of amputation of a limb for theft. Example of ex libris with this warning: . A more creative curse is attested: "Kdo ty knihy ukradne mně, bodaj měl tolik zimnic, jako je v Praze pivnic." ("Who steals these books from me, may he have so many fevers, as there are pubs in Prague".)  - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Book curses in other languages
Talk:Xi Andromedae

message: I tried to clarify the sentences that had said, "John Flamsteed did not designate this star Bayer Cha. as number 46th of Andromeda in his star catalogue and atlas. He wrongly designated "ξ" for his 49th of Andromeda (Bayer's "A" And)." It's a rather confusing situation. I'm not quite sure how to cite this, because it borders on original research. Compare Uranometria images 51 and 52 (page "V") to Atlas Coelestis image 38. Then compare Éphémérides des mouvemens célestes (which is where the Flamsteed numbers actually come from), on this page. I also found a note in the preface, p. xxx of Éphémérides: "Il y a une Etoile A d'Andromede dans Bayer, qui n'est point dans Hévélius & Flamsteed ; on pourroit croire qu'elle a disparu." ("There is a Star A of Andromeda in Bayer, which is not in Hévélius or Flamsteed; one might think that it has disappeared.") Ardric47 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bayer/Flamsteed naming confusion
Talk:Alice Henry

message: MOS:JOBTITLES seems fairly clear that occupations are not proper nouns and ought not be capitalised. Is there some reason why you capitalised them in the infobox with this edit?
Likewise there seems to be no reason for adding the trailing comma in the list of occupations. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Accidental collateral damage from the cleanup effort from your semi-automated incorrect category edits, as inevitably is going to happen sometimes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalisation of occupation
Talk:Harry Beitzel

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.surfersaccommodation.com.au/surfers-accommodation-articles/1993/4/9/harrys-home/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 
Talk:F-type main-sequence star

message: Nor even yellow-white.  They're white, as are G stars.
: There's a nice article about the color of the stars here. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These aren't even the true (actual apparent) colours, but the conventional ones. G-type stars are yellow-white, not yellow, and F-type stars are white, with A-type stars being blue-white. See stellar classification article. --81.84.174.249 (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the context of stars, 6500K would be considered pure white, and certainly not yellowish. 83.94.214.38 (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

text: 6000 K (G0) is yellow-white. 6500 K (F5) is white. 7000 K (F1) is white. 7500 K (A9) is turquoise-white. 8000 K (A6) is turquoise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtadesse (talk • contribs) 18:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Source?  Lithopsian (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Summary from many different ones, both in books and online.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtadesse (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  F stars aren't yellow at all
Talk:Edward Berwick

message: I think this Edward Berwick is the Mr. Berwick who lived with Dionysius Lardner and was his pupil whilst he was waiting to get into Trinity College Dublin. He is mentioned in the Lardner divorce papers in the House of Lords and there is a letter to Lardner from Walter Berwick in the Wellcome Institute which mentions him. Any more information would be useful.
See http://annaarmstrongmartin.books.officelive.com/default.aspx 
Anna Martin
annaarmstrongmartin@live.co.uk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna L Martin (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Zeta Andromedae

message: That image was actually nice and well suited for it's purpose! First of all, the image is not cluttered by faint stars that make the image hard to recognize, the bright ones are very marked and the lines are pretty standard lines on Andromeda. I would prefer sky maps like that on WP. Said: Rursus (☻) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice image!

message: CHARA array and Talk:CHARA array has some more info on ζ And. Said: Rursus (☻) 22:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CHARA array

message: The B and C components hasn't their own SIMBAD page anymore, and the D can is definitely not related to the star. I'm not sure if I can get rid safely of the table and the dead links, let me know if I can do it... or someone could make those changes before me. Psyluke (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there are three companions, and a table is a nice way to display them without spending paragraphs on it.  Not the greatest template though, and it could do with some better refs (like that exist!).  Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Components section
Talk:Zeta Aquarii

message: I'm too lazy to update the article right now, but here's a paper (Tokovinin 2016) that discusses the binary nature of ζ Aqr A, as well as giving parameters. Loooke (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple system 
Talk:Josef Rheinberger

message: ... was surprised to see him in that list, given that he was born in Liechtenstein and died in 1901. ELSchissel (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th-century German composer?
Talk:Zeta Centauri

message: According to Allen, Al Tizini's "Alnair" refers to the star labelled ζ in Bayer's Atlas, which is NOT modern Zeta Centauri, but Alpha of the Southern Cross. It corresponds better with its placement in "the Centaur's Belly". Therefore the information about Zeta's proper name is incorrect. Szczureq (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper name?
Talk:Zeta Draconis

message: I find that a surprisingly small diameter for a giant star. SuperJedi224-(Internets!) 23:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Zeta Geminorum

message: Requesting that a quick facts section be added directed at students with research projects on astronomy pages.
: If I understand your meaning correctly, I believe this was satisfied with the infobox. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

message: There is an Arabic salad with this name.  Consists (at least the one I had) of slices of tomato in a sauce that looks like water, but is hot enough to put Chinese mustard to shame.  Perhaps an entry plus a disambiguation page?  tham153  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:50C6:4600:D0D4:6CF8:ABE1:1BC0 (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested possible article in this name
Talk:Osgiliath

message: Not the subject of multiple independant secondary sources as required by WP:NN and does not have any real world content as clarified by WP:FICT [[Guest9999 22:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placed Notability Tag 

message: This factious city is clearly based on Constantinople and it's fall.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.226.66 (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And?
Lolinder (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Constantinople
Talk:Alnitak

message: According to naming conventions, this star as an accepted common name (Alnitak) as well as, obviously, Zeta Orionis. The name should be under which is more widely used.
*WRT Google hits:
*Alnitak + star = 17700
*"Zeta Orionis" + star = 4910
On google scholar,
* "Zeta Orionis" + star = 69
* Alnitak + star = 87
Therefore it would appear Alnitak is the more commonly used name. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Requested a technical move of this page. Metebelis (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  (chuckle) four and a half year reply...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of this article  

message: The passage "the Alnitak system was found to be almost twice as close" is not at all well written; "half as distant" would be a better way to phrase it assuming that is what was actually meant. -68.68.131.252 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity

message: The article switches at least twice between 700 and 800 light years distance.  We should pick one, preferably with a recent citation, and stick with it.  Any thoughts?
Dspark76 (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This? XMM-Newton observations of ζ Orionis (O9.7 Ib), 251 parsec, 800 l.y. and more, I think.. --Kirk39 (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Validation of the new Hipparcos reduction (2007) gives parallax = 4.43mas, distance = 225pc = 736ly. The distance in the XMM-Newton paper comes from the older, original Hipparcos reduction (parallax = 3.99mas). I will update the article using the newer data and make it consistent. Metebelis (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance: 700 or 800 LY? 

message: Why does the infobox give three different luminosities, and three temperatures (two of which are the same) for this star? Bazonka (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luminosity and temperature 
Talk:Artemis Fowl: The Time Paradox

message: I believe the release date is wrong as it has already been the 19th of jan 2007 and the 6th book is not released.
WSITY 01:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: - obviously out in UK already. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I count that as a reliable source, so go ahead and change it. That was surprising. IceUnshattered (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err... actually, WHSmith.co.uk lists publish date as 07/08/2008, which, UK-style, would refer to August 8th, 2008. Also, Puffin Books itself lists publish date as August 7, 2008.  - going to change back to August 7. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: -shrug- Fine with me.  IceUnshattered [ t ] 14:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: You can ask the publisher. As the header says: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.". Calvin 1998 (t-c) 22:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: And I repeat my message: talk pages of Wikipedia articles exist solely to bring up issues with the article and coordinate construction or improvement of the article. They are not forums to discuss strange things about the books (there are plenty of forums out there to do it on), or to debate whether the book makes sense, or anything of that sort. This is Wikipedia, discussion is limited to such. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 19:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly why we've set it to August 7th. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 05:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The UK version? (the US version came out mid-July...) Calvin 1998 (t·c) 08:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date

message: The Time Paradox redirects here, but there's a book which bears the same name by Philip Zimbardo, which should really have the link when it's been written :) Just thought we should bear it in mind... Malick78 (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Time Paradox redirect
Talk:Witchery (film)

message: That cover is from the other film called Witchcraft, start of a series that just reached part 13.
Enda80 14:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Witchcraft cover

message: I don't think we should use a cropped image as the poster. It gives the idea that it's how the poster looks, while an uncropped one has more useless info, but is more accurate to being what we claim it to be, which is the poster. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Poster
Talk:Alan Kohler

message: Most of this article has been cut and pasted from .Quaidy 05:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Russell E. Dougherty

message: Would an interview with Russell Dougherty from 1986 be useful here as an external link? Focus of conversation is nuclear weapons policy. http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_F6DE7DF6F42F4DDB81097FCD3FB8110D and http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_121D6C2B62A84413B3DA7166A069EC55 (I helped with the site, so it would be conflict of interest for me to just add it.) Mccallucc (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to interview on nuclear policy?
Talk:Across Five Aprils

message: Needs infobox, ISBN, image, characters, etc. Karen | Talk | contribs 05:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Editors: please keep any reference to the band by the same name out of this article; it is not a disambiguation page, but is specifically about the book. If anyone writing about the band can satisfy notability standards (the deleted version was not even close), please start a page at Across Five Aprils (band). Thanks. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not the band

message: I added to this article, but I have not been able to find a suitable picture of the book cover.  It would be great if someone could add one to this page. --CariannaF 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This page gives a publication date of 1986 but also lists it as having received awards in 1965.  Which is right? Ralphmerridew 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication Date? 

message: "Across Five Aprils. Across Five Aprils is often considered the first YA novel.' - By whom?  (1960s seems awfully late to me, so I think this assertion especially needs a reference.Kdammers (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed