lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Music of Latin America

message: Reggaeton was originated in Panama, Not Puerto Rico. Reference " El General"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:EC00:A685:4C3B:E4D0:3CB4:B008 (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reggaeton 

message: Should be replace to the ones from . Solidest (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre infobox shouldn't be used here 

message: — Assignment last updated by Isha0323 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Black American Music

message: Can you help me i will report this tomorrow 112.208.232.78 (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is for reporting
Talk:Timeline of Solar System astronomy

message: You have forgotten to include a more important name than Kuiper,  namely
Kenneth Edgeworth a european who did in 1940s  predict a much larger comet
resercoir than Kuiper.  The Kuiper belt ends at about 45 AU whereas  
Edgeworth's goes out much further to say 1500 AU,  I am Dr. Wm. Greig, at perfect_renga_master@hotmail.com     There is a lot of nonsense in the astronomical world today.  I am a consilienist,  I have a background in astrophysics but i have a low opinion of astronomers who are such sticks in the mud about gravitation and their silly  Oort cloud.  Send this to Ann Druyan.
No one predicted the Kuiper Belt. Not Kuiper, not Edgeworth, not Whipple, not Fernandez, not anybody. There were many competing theories as to what lay beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto, and some came close to predicting the reality, but no one accurately predicted what was actually there. As to whether or not the Oort Cloud is "silly"; well no one knows if it exists or not but I haven't heard any other theories for the presence of long term comets. Have you?Serendipodous 18:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EKO 

message: There are some pretty astounding claims made about Indian astronomers in this timeline; I'd like to see a cited reference for anyone before Newton discovering the law of universal gravitation, particularly when his individual Wikipedia article claims that the said discoverer believed the Earth did not move. There is a big difference between noticing that heavy things fall (Aristotle did that too) and formulating a law of gravitation. Serendipodous 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gravity?

message: Aside from New Horizons' KBO flyby in '19, there's nowhere else to go. The Dawn flyby of Pallas has long been cancelled, and while returns to all the major planets between Mercury and Jupiter are in the works or actually on their way, there are no plans to go anywhere else. We are unable to go to any Kuiper belt objects or dwarf planets like Eris, or any of the major asteroids. Preliminary exploration of the Solar System is for all intents and purposes OVER as of '19. The possible discovery of life on Europa would be amazing and all, but that isn't a primary encounter, but a follow-up. Ericl (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No current planned missions, maybe. But exploration is hardly 'over' then. It's a weird thing to say/include. --JorisvS (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The End of the Journey
Talk:Timeline of knowledge about galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and large-scale structure

message: In the list of events and discoveries, there is a lack of consistency in the punctuation separating those items.
Some end with a period, some a comma, and some have no punctuation at all !
Myself, I lean toward the ‘period approach.’ 
Any guidelines or perspectives here ?
TIA.
  - - RayBirks (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation separators

message: The link "IRAS_F10214%2B4724" is not understood by Wiki.
Tabletop 10:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those were replaced by IRAS F10214 plus 4724 back when we had that technical limitation, but now "plus signs" work in names, so IRAS F10214+4724 can exist as an article name. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed 

message: Hello, just to tell you that this has been translated into french. And to thank you to all the contribvutors of the origninal in EN:. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translated to FR: 

message: Although this timeline seems mostly very reasonable, the entries referring to Gudehus seem like vanity editing.  These contributions are real, but not of the same level of significance as the rest of the timeline.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.202.215 (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: Should information about this study be added to the timeline? Are there other articles to which information about it should be added? It's currently featured in 2020 in science like so:
Astronomers announce spectroscopic confirmation of a web-like structure containing galaxies and dark matter around, and likely fueling, a quasar at an age of the Universe of 0.9 bn years, which contributes to an explanation of how such supermassive black holes could have grown rapidly so early.
From the study:
Our finding lends support to the idea that the most distant and massive black holes form and grow within massive (>1012 M⊙) dark matter halos in large-scale structures and that the absence of earlier detections of such systems is likely due to observational limitations.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility of study "Web of the giant: Spectroscopic confirmation of a large-scale structure around the z = 6.31 quasar SDSS J1030+0524"
Talk:Timeline of stellar astronomy

message: Babylonian astronomers (I do not have specifics) recorded temporal stellar observations in star charts many years before Hipparchus. I do not have specifics, but the Babylonian star charts were dated back as far as the reign of Hammurapi. These charts specified more the time intervals of when stars were present or when they were not as opposed to the geometric data of the ancient Greek astronomers. 
Quintus Twig (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Early stellar astronomy
Talk:Timeline of knowledge about the interstellar and intergalactic medium

message: Copyright Permission to modify and distribute this and other timelines originally developed by Niel Brandt have been granted to wikipedia. 
See Talk:Timeline of transportation technology
----
"Timeline of the interstellar medium and intergalactic medium" moved to "Timeline of theories and knowledge on the interstellar and intergalactic medium" (compare Timeline of the Universe). - Patrick 21:48 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
----
Proposal to move this to: "Short history of theories and knowledge on the interstellar and intergalactic medium given as a compact list of important fact about their discoveries and their elaboration"
:I vote for -- looxix 22:20 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
::I suppose this is ironic, and you mean that the current name is rather long. In that case I suggest that you come with a serious proposal. The original name was misleading. - Patrick 22:27 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
:::Yes the name, like the one of other timelines, is misleading, but now it is ridiculously long (for me the old one was not so bad). -- looxix 22:43 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
::::I expected to learn how the medium developed in the past 13.7 billion years and will in the next billions of years. - Patrick 22:48 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
:::::What do you think of: Timeline of knowledge about interstellar and intergalactic medium ? -- looxix 23:19 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
::::::Okay, with "the": Page "Timeline of theories and knowledge on the interstellar and intergalactic medium" moved to "Timeline of knowledge about the interstellar and intergalactic medium". - Patrick 01:07 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
:::::::If it's both interstellar and intergalactic, shouldn't it be media? Tuf-Kat
::::::::I am not sure. Perhaps it can be considered one medium, that exists in "two places". - Patrick 01:20 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
:::::::::If it's considered one medium, it would be shorter to say "Timeline of knowledge about the interstellar medium". (If one is between galaxies, one must also between stars, right ?). -- DavidCary 22:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Timeline of biology and organic chemistry

message: I am author of a college biology textbook and am fairly well shocked at the exclusive focus on molecular and biochemical aspects of biology in this timeline. If you aren't going to include any organismal biology, including evolution, ecology, taxonomy and physiology, I think you need to rename this entry. Otherwise, may I add some entries?    Eperotao 20:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline excludes a lot of biology 

message: Doesn't wikipedia demand that everything be cited?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.31.248 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sources?

message: The year of Jan Baptist van Helmont's tree growing experiment is given as "??". It should be given at least as a "circa" date. c. 1630? c. 1640?.--ospalh (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan Baptist van Helmont 

message: The following material was added by user Jagged 85, who has gained notority because of his attempts to rewrite history, trying to make medieval islamic scholar seem more modern. Recentrly an RfC was done to try to stop him writing more lies. He agreed to change his attitude. But soon afterwards he got busted for sockpuppetry.
As you shall imagine, his action have proved seriously detrimental to the credibility of the enciclopedia, as this two articles show:
*Presentism in the service of diversity?
*Did Alfarabi really invent sociology?
Therefore I´ll remove all the material dealing with the islamic scholars and check it. There´s a big chance that half of it is wrong.Thanks--Knight1993 (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious information 

message: Diocles of Carystus is listed in this article as living c. 100 BC, but in his own article as living in the 4th century BC. Can someone please confirm which is correct? Cheers! bd2412 T 14:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency with [[Diocles of Carystus]]
Talk:Timeline of astronomical maps, catalogs, and surveys

message: Copyright Permission to modify and distribute this and other timelines originally developed by Niel Brandt have been granted to wikipedia. 
See Talk:Timeline of transportation technology
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes for a proposal on standardizing pages of astronomical surveys.  --zandperl 02:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

message: Is this one worth adding to wikipedia?
* Aug 29, 2000 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/873365.stm
* Aug 9, 2000 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/871930.stm
NevilleDNZ 12:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  14,500 BCE star map? 

message: * Jab 21, 2003 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2679675.stm
Also mentions some early lunar calendars. NevilleDNZ 12:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  30,500 BCS star map?
Talk:Liechtenstein

message: "..., Liechtenstein regards the Federal Republic as an important partner, ...". The link is badly chosen. It points to an article about the general concept of a federal republic (of which there are many), but implicitly means the Federal Republic of Germany. "The federal republic" is colloquial shorthand jargon for Germany in the German-speaking world and cannot simply be translated to English without context in this fashion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantômas19 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Republic 

message: This paragraph in the "Principality" subsection of the "History" section is a bit confusing:
"Modern publications generally attribute Liechtenstein's sovereignty to these events. Its prince ceased to owe an obligation to any suzerain. From 25 July 1806, when the Confederation of the Rhine was founded, the Prince of Liechtenstein was a member, in fact, a vassal, of its hegemon, styled protector, the French Emperor Napoleon I, until the dissolution of the confederation on 19 October 1813."
With the abdication of the HRE in August of 1806, it would mean that there was no gap, at all, between the obligation to one suzerain (the HRE) to the other (Napolean). In fact, between 26 July and 6 August, it would appear that the prince was technically under suzerainty to BOTH powers. The Confederation of the Rhine was little more than a puppet state in which Napolean was the head of state and appointer of its head of government. Would someone who is more familiar with the country's history edit this paragraphy for clarity? Criticalthinker (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording
Talk:English plurals

message: The Wiktionary entries indicate that hose is uncountable (for 2. A stocking-like garment worn on the legs; pantyhose) while pantyhose or its synonym tights are plural only.
Yet, Collins Concise English Dictionary shows both "hose, hosen" as the plural forms of hose, and seems to imply that it's also a synonym of hosiery ("stockings, socks, and tights collectively").
According to  Microsoft® Encarta® 2009, (panty)hose is a plural noun itself as is tights or oats (the e and unlike, say, "sheep (plural sheep)" or hose in its meaning of "flexible tube", which shows the usual plural hoses.
All this information is at odds, so it's impossible to know what pair "hose - hosen" the article is referrring to. --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Panty)hose 

message: According to the entry of letter e; therefore, is this then a regular plural formed from -es? --Backinstadiums (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  the plural of the name of the letter e is ees; the plural of the letter itself is rendered E's, Es, e's, or es. 

message: The article states that 'alumni' in anglicized pronunciation is the same as 'alumnae' in "Italianate" pronunciation. This is not true. It is in classical, not Italianate, Latin that "alumnae" would sound the same as English "Alumni".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.220.61 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni and Alumnae
Talk:Frankfort

message: Frankfurt, the name of two cities in Germany, of which "Frankfort" is the English translation
When is Frankfort EVER the English translation of Frankfurt?  The town in Kentucky is just a different place.  Frankfurt is what I have ALWAYS seen for both places in Germany. -- Zoe
:Try  for a 1911 use. --Henrygb 19:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Barium

message: I see a lot of references in the literature to a "Barium Aluminate" that's used as a gas absorber in vacuum tubes. Apparently the barium on the surface binds with stray oxygen atoms, then the aluminum steals them, refreshing the surface for more absorption. There is no page for "barium aluminate", and I can't find a reference to the chemical formula for it. Anyone got a good reference?
Riventree (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barium aluminate?

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Barrium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Barrium" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Buryum. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Buryum" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: In the article, there is the reaction:
:8 BaO + BaAl4 → Ba↓ + 7 BaAl2O4
The correctly balanced version (assuming the chemical formulas are correct) is:
:8 BaO + BaAl4 → 7 Ba↓ + 2 BaAl2O4  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmerjake (talk • contribs) 05:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-balanced reaction 

message: 45680 Kritsadakorn Kaewkham (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID_0x906E9
Talk:Virus

message: * Specific text to be added or removed: Among RNA viruses and certain DNA viruses, the genome is often divided up into separate parts, in which case it is called segmented.
* Reason for the change: Poor writing style
* References supporting change: n/a
Thanks, 73.68.184.188 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit request: "divided up into"->"divided into" 

message: "The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that caused the pandemic of covid disease is an example of a novel virus." to "The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic [...]" for proper capitalisation and sounding more natural than "covid disease". thank you for filling this out if you do -- 2403:5807:7862:0:914E:BAA5:1B08:7F81 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion which I have incorporated. - Graham Beards (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor edit request under "novel viruses" 

message: i want know that what is submicroscopic 106.205.32.249 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Too small to be seen with an optical microscope. Graham Beards (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submicroscopic 

message: "In addition, some microorganisms are grazing directly on viruses, which can make up a significant amount of their nutrition. Also larger organisms like appendicularians and sponges can feed on viruses, but only make up a small part of their diet."Grazing on Marine Viruses and Its Biogeochemical Implications Hipporoo (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested addition to the article
Talk:Psychedelic rock

message: Shouldn't the Mothers of Invention, Freak Out! (1966) be included somewhere here? Just because Frank Zappa did not take LSD does not mean his music (and the cover art on the record) was irrelevant to psychedelia. WiLaFa (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if a reliable source discussing psychedelic rock recognises Freak Out! as significant to the genre, then the answer's probably yes. JG66 (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freak Out!  

message: "Arnold Layne" is mentioned as a single from March '67. Surely "Purple Haze", released the same month, is a far more significant recording. 205.178.88.119 (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  no mention of Purple Haze?
Talk:Art Nouveau

message: FTA: ‘Designers often created original styles of typeface that worked harmoniously with the image, e.g. Arnold Böcklin typeface in 1904.’
Maybe it would be nice to have a little gallery of Art Nouveau (inspired) lettering and typefaces here. Art Nouveau is well-known for its distinctive lettering, so I think we should showcase that.
I got here because of Desdemona, but I'm also thinking of Elefanta, Warszawa, Gatsby, Abaddon, Christina Torre's typefaces, Rivanna, Maigret &c. I realise most of these didn't exist as typefaces at the time, because a lot of custom lettering was done, but you get what I mean.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lettering / typefaces 

message: Specifically, the second paragraph of the section "[f]urniture". I think the sentence starting with "[o]ther notable furniture designers..." would be a good place to split it. Could anyone please tell me if this is a good idea? Thylacine24 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph that needs splitting
Talk:RAF (disambiguation)

message: Hmmm.  Am I wrong in assuming that 95% of the people who type in "RAF" are looking for the Royal Air Force?  Shouldn't we go on the principle of least surprise and have a link to the disambiguation page from Royal Air Force?  What say ye?  StarryEyes 22:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I too support the above suggestion. I have implemented the changes:
*RAF redirects to Royal Air Force
*Royal Air Force has a redirect notice at the top, "RAF redirects here. For other uses, see RAF (disambiguation)"
*RAF (disambiguation) now contains the other uses formerly listed at RAF. 
Mark83 16:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You are of course right, I was wrong.  I somehow failed to check the talk page, sorry for that. Maikel 16:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What matters in the English language version of the Wikipedia is what most English speakers think of when they read "RAF".  Although there are lots of English as a second language speakers on the European continent, they are far fewer in number than those first and second language speakers in the British Isles, North America, Australasia, South Asia, the Middle East, Anglophone Africa and elsewhere.Greenshed 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the opinion that three-letter acronyms ought not automatically redirect to a specific topic but instead be disambiguated. I think that's what will cause the "least surprise". See, for example, IKB. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I don't agree, you might want to propose that as policy on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Greenshed (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect?
Talk:Biological evolution

message: How about moving the bulk of the evolution article here? That way, evolution will be a disambiguating page, and biological evolution will talk about changes in organisms over time. Ed Poor, Monday, June 24, 2002
That's what I tried to suggest, but I got told that evolution means just biological evolution and that the evolution page was not allowed to be about evolution because it's about biological evolution only.   Feel free to help, if you have the energy. I have a massive headache from all this nonsense.  I get the strong feeling that there are people in the Wikipedia community who consider the community to be closed to the public and will do whatever it takes to chase people away who try to make things better. :(
Thanks for the good suggestion, by the way.  Even though I have already suggested it, it's still a good suggestion, in my opinion... and at least it wasn't rude and didn't involve deleting hours of hard work.
DonaldKronos (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That 'good suggestion' was made 12 years ago.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Space

message: At the end of the first sentence of the Phylosophy of Science section, the tag to jump to Newton's Principica goes to the wrong article. Please correct it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.176.154 (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for noticing and letting us know.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Label 

message: I thdesy sыtыy golodnogo ne rathoomeet  .. и наоборот  .. 176.59.194.29 (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space of Information  ..  

message: We should mention how space always has instantaneous electromagnetic field intensity due to local charges and passing photons, and gravitons. It resists field intensity seeking a neutral state over time. Also charges are able to resist spatial neutrality moving slower while holding both position and electromagnetic field intensity over significantly longer times whereas photons and gravitons must oscillate between extremes and move through space at light speed. Consensus Cheat (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical properties of space