lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Universal extra dimensions

message: Why "old large dimensions"?  I've never heard that, so I changed it to "large extra dimensions".  Sorry if anyone objects. HEL 02:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: to distinguish from Randall Sundrum model "large extra dimensions" which are not that large at all, but can be microscopic. The Randall Sundrum models have matter which warps the extra dimensions, making it sometimes seem in bad coordinate systems that the extra dimensions are no longer finite-size.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.173.27 (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Old large dimensions"? 

message: ADD model is not considering universal extra dimensions as the RS model for example. In ADD the SM particles are confiened in the 4 dimensional world as we know, only Gravitons propergate in these extra dimensions (all)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.61.12.70 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ""Large :D" difference between Universal extra Dimensions and ADD model "? 

message: I've removed the sentence "Like any other class of models with large extra dimensions, these models violate obvious constraints from neutrino masses, proton decay, and the total absence of other nonrenormalizable interactions," because it lacked any references. Considering that there is considerable work on UED with respect to neutrino masses and proton decay, it would seem this strong statement is incorrect. The last condition doesn't even really makes sense, considering UED is an effective field theory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.47.104 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of obvious constraints 

message: Someone should add to this page what the main phenomenological impact of extra dimensions is: Kaluza Klein states.
I removed the completely false statement that direct collider searches exclude compactification scales below 1 TeV. This was obviously written by someone who doesn't know how hadron colliders work, or what a parton distribution function is. The direct searches at the Tevatron or LEPII exclude below 200 GeV at best. Electroweak precision measurements give the best limits. I've added this information but not the citations --- I'm not terribly familiar with how to do that in Wikipedia. These limits are easy to find on the arXiv. Someone should add the references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certain (talk • contribs) 00:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General recommendations for clean up / R^-1 Limits
Talk:9M119 Svir/Refleks

message: Can somebody include a translation of the name(s)?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say what? 

message: There is no citation for the armor penetration value given by the article. My sources say 700-750mm in RHAe, minus 50mm for conventional ERA. That is a big difference and a relevant one. The article is basically good but probably too arcane for layman.
Jon Chin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.71.63 (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: Reflex was older and extremely costly (only used for T-80s) and thus they developed svir for T-72s which was much cheaper, lacked automization unit 9S517, target acqizition unit 9C536. Svir uses 1K13 "Neman", which has 4km range and does not allow to shoot while moving. I'd go so far as suggesting splitting article in two, weapons are related in function but that's it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.108.225 (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Svir vs Releks 
Talk:RUR-5 ASROC

message: I am thinking the number of ships ASROC is installed on should be reduced, with the US navy having less than 100 destroyers and frigates, but I am not sure how many are carried on allied ships. SeaphotoTalk 00:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The box mountings on JMSDF Asagiri are ASROC launcher forward and Sea Sparrow aft--Indra313 (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASROC Matchbox Mounting on Asagiri(DD158) 

message: ASROC missile should redirect here to this article.98.67.168.208 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASROC missile 

message: ASROC missile should redirect here.98.67.168.208 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASROC missile 

message: Republic of China operates a number of Knox class, and the ASROC system is still operational on those ships.  The MK-16 is loaded with a mix load of ASROC and Anti-ship missiles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:2180:7D9:3046:CD43:F417:BD16 (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROC 

message: This article uses the past tense, when the missile is still used by a number of navies.
ROC Navy 
ROCS Fong Yang (FFG-933)
ROCS Fen Yang (FFG-934)
ROCS Lan Yang (FFG-935)
ROCS Hwai Yang (FFG-937)
ROCS Ning Yang (FFG-938)
ROCS Yi Yang (FFG-939)
Japanese Navy
JS Shimakaze (DDG-172)
JS Asagiri
JS Yamagiri
JS Yūgiri
JS Amagiri
JS Hamagiri
JS Setogiri
JS Sawagiri
JS Umigiri
JS Matsuyuki
2600:6C5E:2100:EF7F:BE97:AF4:3223:40B5 (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RUR-5 ASROC is still in use. 

message: In the History section, the initials ASW seem to stand for Anti-submarine warfare in the first paragraph, and for Anti-submarine weapon in the second. It would seem beneficial to rephrase the whole section so as to eliminate the ambiguity and to eschew the RAS syndrome. Noliscient (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-submarine weapon weapon ? 

message: Claim that USCG Hamilton-class WHECs were equipped with ASROC is unsourced, and I have removed it. Indeed, here is a reliable source that they were not so equipped, at least as of 1985: 
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1985/october/surface-warfares-weak-leg 149.101.1.117 (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  USCG
Talk:Olive Tree Bible Software

message: This article has been deleted twice before and still clearly has no notability. What is it going to take to salt this article/editor/s until there is clear evidence per WP:RS of any notability? Flowanda | Talk 08:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was slapped with a "speedy delete tag", which was changed to a PROD during its initial creation.  It then went to AFD, where the result was "No consensus". Where is the evidence to support the claim that  it was deleted twice? jonathon (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous deletions and notability
Talk:9K111 Fagot

message: I moved this page back to 9m111 Spigot, initially thinking it was vandalism. I don't know if this is actually it's official name or not (google does return plenty of results) but every article I checked that linked to it refered to it as Spigot.
:AT-4 Spigot is the NATO reporting name. 9M111 Fagot (Фагот) is the actually the Russian name for the missile/system. Since the article title is using the Russian designation then Fagot would be correct. Megapixie 04:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think NATO uses Spigot instead of Fagot O.o  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.239.143 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's the NATO reporting name convention - "S" names for surface to surface missiles. Vechs (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spigot or Fagot 

message: why is the only reference to this Weapons as 9K111 the title and the rest are 9M111?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow Onion (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  9K111?? 

message: In the infobox:
Muzzle velocity	80 m/s (180 mph; 290 km/h) at launch
186 m/s (420 mph; 670 km/h) in flight speed
What the heck is "muzzle velocity in flight speed"? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muzzle velocity
Talk:9M113 Konkurs

message: I've decided to clarify the naming of the Iranian copy, by ways of simply going by what the manufacturer calls it. 
Doing so may/will assist in clarifying the naming of this missile.
MarkusContagia (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying the illusive Tosan, Towsan, Towson, Toophan etc. 
Talk:9K112 Kobra

message: The accuracy data linked to this missile system is unsupported by references, a bold statement that the weapon system is 80% accurate is unsupported. The source of this information should be provided, in order that readers can refer back to it and evaluate how the weapon system was evaluated, in particular what were the test parameters. Unless the accuracy data is evidenced I will delete it within 1 month. 
Use of RT as a source of information is questionable, RT is a media outlet, (setting aside it's relationship with the Russian government and therefore it's independence )reference to it could be used in the research phase where it could be used to point toward a primary source of information, provided that the journalist author cites their sources. 
Zakalwe101 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Accuracy International AW50F

message: I think an image of the rifle would be appropiate, to show there is a major difference into how it looks in comparison with the other variants of the Artic Warfare rifles.
This image would do, I'm just going to chase down a copyright for it from the website author. 
--Tom of north wales 22:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got permssion, uploading now --Tom of north wales 09:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image needed. 

message: AW50F doesn't need a separate page. The difference between the regular AW50 and AW50F is just a folding stock. Treat the AW50F as a variant rather than something completely different. Separate pages don't exist for other firearms simply because there's different butt-stock ie para-variants etc. 124.171.27.152 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to AW50
Talk:Anti-submarine weapon

message: Is it correct to call "Hedgehog" as a depth charge mortar? I was under the impression that the hedgehog munitions were contact weapons and were not triggered by hydrostatic changes.KTo288 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hedgehog

message: In another of Clay Blair's books, Hitler's U-Boat War, the author mentions that although the HMS Westcott was equiped with hedgehogs, it did not have the opportunity to employ the weapon against the U-581. If this is true, the first sinking would have to go to another encounter.
Jayman435 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First hit by hedgehog 

message: :Category:Anti-submarine weapons is itself a category within :Category:Anti-submarine warfare. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Anti-submarine warfare]] ''vs.'' [[:Category:Anti-submarine weapons]]  

message: The torpedo section here claims that "The first successful homing torpedo was introduced by Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine", and that  the United States introduced its Mark 24 mine (FIDO) "After capturing several of these weapons".</br>
I don’t know where the latter idea comes from, as there are no references in this section at all, but according to the article on the German T4 Falke (the first, and not particularly successful German version of an acoustic torpedo) it was first used in action in March 1943; while the American FIDO started development in 1941, and was first used just two months after the Falke. So It's unlikely that Falke had any bearing on the design of FIDO; and as the former were only used on three occasions, it's unlikely any examples of Falke were captured before FIDO became operational. Can anyone shed any light on this? Xyl 54 (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acoustic torpedo
Talk:Delta Squad

message: Is this delta squad was created after US Army Delta Force ?!!!--Max Mayr 10:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta force 

message: Who compared Delta Squad to TMNT? Chefgonenanners! 18:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparrison has been removed. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TMNT

message: I remember reading on Wikipedia a couple of years back that Sev was picked up by the 501st, and his voice was used in one of the Battlefront games, has this been changed in the storyline?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.202.174 (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RC-1207's fate

message: I miss their role during Star Wars: The Clone Wars. For Example: Season 3 Episode 13: Monster. There's nothing about Delta Squad during the Clone Wars.... 
Please Change that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KLL3RN00I3 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's ''The Clone Wars''?
Talk:Thorne–Żytkow object

message: There was a meeting on "Exploration of Thorne-Zytkow Objects" held at the American Astronomical Society 238 this week; invited speakers included Kip Thorne and Anna Zytkow.  I was also privledged to be one of the invited speakers, and was one of the team members involved in the identification of HV 2112 as a TZO candidate.  I think it's fair to say that none of us are sure that TZOs even exist---theoretically they should!---but theory isn't quite good enough to allow us to unambiguously separate TZOs from super-bright AGB stars (which are not expected to exist, but might).  The consensus was that HV 2112 remains the most viable candidate but we have several other objects that we plan to study which also appear to be possible candidates.  For now, "candidate" is a fair description.----MassiveStarGuy
The paper referred to for HV 2112 is named "Discovery of a Thorne-Zytkow object candidate in the Small Magellanic Cloud" (emphasis added), so should this entry really be in the "confirmed" rather than in the "candidates" table? -- Theoprakt (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good candidate but not confirmed, particularly since there appear to be abundance anomalies that are not predicted by theoretical models of TŻOs. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  candidate or confirmed 

message: A new paper was recently published on ArXiv with different (to whom? I'm not sure) predictions for a TŻO's spectroscopy (more 44-Ti oxides, less heavy nuclei), and consequences for the observational astronomers and what they report/ argue. 
It's probably too close to the "bleeding edge" for going into the page itself, but worth noting for those who follow the topic. Link : https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.07337.pdf ; it's cited to come out in MNRAS, so when that comes out someone (not me - thrice bitten; always shy) will need to make up a REF for it. Make of it what you will.  AKarley (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArXiv 2023/05 paper
Talk:BL755

message: The bomblet is not contained within its SAFU, the SAFU is contained within the tail of the bomblet, three steel wire catches hold the bomblet closed until released by being dispensed, the bomblet then springs open. Once open tail is open to airflow and the wind turbine in the tail rotates the SAFU mechanism and arms the piezo electric fusetrain. The two major revisions of the bomblet are the original coronet tail and the later parachute tail. The center is not extruded, the individual bay manifolds are investment castings which are stacked together to form the core. BL755 remains dangerous for very long periods because it has no timer, battery or capacitor. It will detonate on the slightest disturbance. If dropped too low it will arm after coming to rest, thus leaving a highly dangerous and delicate anti personnel minefield. Chann94501 (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

message: "A central extruded aluminum skeleton provides seven bays long by seven bays around, each containing 21 submunitions (147 total)." - Seven bays long by seven bays around by 21 submunitions equals 1029 submunitions. Does the article mean to say that the aluminum skeleton contains seven bays, period? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Total Submunitions
Talk:Bounding mine

message: "Because they are designed to be buried[...]"
This is wrong. The M67 / M72 Area Denial Anti-personnel Mine (ADAM, as well as the ex sovj. POM-2 are good counterexamples.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.252.176.132 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Empire of Atlantium

message: I created this missing sub-page to fix a missing redlink at Talk:Empire of Atlantium; the content being taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&diff=next&oldid=5618678.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:L16 81mm mortar

message: It's also used by Australia, although I think they give it their own F number.
'Entered service in 1970s'?  Really, in that case the one I saw being used on active service by the Brit Army in 1966 must have been an illusion - I blame the additives in the tea.
Nfe 03:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

message: Certainly used in action in Rhodesia in the 1970s.  But I wonder whether it was a different model - they had been refurbished in South Africa.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.221.75 (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhodesia 

message: I do believe that these are in use with the Norwegian army. Anyone who knows for certain? Spearman (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norway 

message: * For some reason the effective range is listed as further than maximum range. I don't have acess to a source right now, but that's wrong on the face of it and needs to be fixed..  BoonDock (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max/Effective range
Talk:Background count

message: This stub is limited in scope and is covered in the Background radiation article. Would it be better if this article redirected to the background radiation article instead? JHobbs103 (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has now been changed to a redirect. JHobbs103 (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Should this stub redirect to the [[Background radiation]] article?
Talk:Chain gun

message: A chain gun is NOT a "type of machine gun".  As is mentioned (slightly in error) in the article a machine gun   operates by using energy from the fired cartridge to operate the gun. A chain gun does not do this.
   Then the article says machine guns are recoil operated.  Most sub-machine guns are but most machine guns are gas operated.
    The gun does not eject "cartridges" unless there was a fail-to-fire, it ejects casings.  A cartridge is a COMPLETE unit; casing, primer, powder, bullet.
Hotdog Leather Shop (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical errors 

message: 84.113.18.216 (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely useless drawing which shows exactly nothing of the specific chain gun mechanism
Talk:Coaxial weapon

message: How come that a parallel weapon is called coaxial weapon? To me a 'coaxial weapon' must be a (practise) barrel mounted inside the main barrel. KjellG (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They already share two axis, namely the Z and (X or Y) axes, since they (generally) always rotate identical to the main barrel, and are generally mounted directly adjacent, either vertically or horizontally. Coaxial cable, which is what you're probably trying to reference here, is better thought as concentric than simply coaxial, as it's coaxial on all three axes, instead of at least one, as the definition requires. (blame it on the english language I suppose?) --71.9.106.176 (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In accordance to your definition any other weapon on a tank would be coaxial - they would share x-,y- and z-axis with the chassis. I would like so see a good reference to coaxial weapon. The German article has a reference to a rifle. Here a second barrel may be mounted inside the larger caliber main barrel. In which case the two barrels are coaxial!, but not in the sense of this article. A second ref. decribe a rifle again with two barrels, but they are interchangable and the one not used is stored in the stock. By coinsidence the barrel in operation and the stored barrel happen to share the same axis, but again they are not 'coaxial'.KjellG (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaxial? 

message: I am concerned about the assumption in this article re: use of coax as a ranging machine gun.  A reference would be nice.    From my extensive searches it appears this ranging concept comes from miniature wargaming and not from actual historical references. Tractics first used this concept in its modern rules supplement (correctly), but the notion has infected many rulesets since. 
The Centurion tank and T55 experimented with ranging mgs but this tech tree withered.  The pictured T-26 wouldn't have used its coax as a ranging weapon, would it?  If there's any historical reference to the assertion, leave it; otherwise remove it.--Etzel33 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Reference
Talk:Dual-purpose improved conventional munition

message: Is anyone has data on the weight of M77 and M85 submunitions?
All I could find on this topic is the weight of M85, which turns out to be 296 g or 292 g (I did not find any data on the weight of M77 at all.) But if we take the weight of M85 = 292 (296g), the result does not make sense, specifically: the M26 projectile is equipped with 644 M77 submunitions. We do some simple calculations and get: 644 x 292g = 188048g = 188.048kg. This is the weight of submunitions only, without taking into account the weight of polyurethane blocks, fuse, explosive charge and case. At the same time, the weight of the warhead indicated in various sources ranges from 154 kg to 156 kg, which does not agree with the calculated total weight of 644 M77 submunitions.
For the M26A1, there is no data on the weight of the warhead at all (or at least, I did not find it). But by the same calculation, we get the total weight of 518 M85 submunitions: 518 x 292g = 151.256kg, which is somewhat closer to the 154kg -156 kg indicated by sources, as the weight of the warhead of the M26 projectile (but not M26A1 or A2). But the M26A1 warhead should a priori be lighter than the M26 warhead.
The weight of the M85 submunition does not agree with the weight of the M30 warhead projectile (404 M85 submunitions): 404 x 292 = 117.968 kg, while the M30 warhead should weigh 91 kg (as well as the warhead of the M31 projectile).
Who has any thoughts on this, or maybe other information on the weight of the M77 and M85 submunitions? Rasenn (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight of M77 and M85 submunitions
Talk:Stabilization

message: I changed Emergency medical technician to Search and Rescue Techniciens (aka SARTech.) due to the fact EMTs in Canada are not trained to keep care of a patient for any extended length of time that I am aware of. Unless they have specifically taken a Wilderness First Aid course on their own time. Their job it to move fast, and let the hospital provide long term care. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EMT's trained in Wilderness First Aid ?? 

message: I added in the meaning of the TOP unsigned comment to the Article. It seems ready to be  to me. but I dont think I can get to it tonight. If a gnome dont do it, then I will return in a day or 2 to do :) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  After the previous edit .....
Talk:Žemaitė

message: fantastika. tai ka vadoveliuose jau neber zemaites normaliu nuotrauku? --217.147.37.67 15:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled