lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Lockheed P-38 Lightning

message: In my opinion, some of the sections under noted pilots are too long and go out of scope, particularly the Charles Lindbergh and Antoine de Saint-Exupéry sections. The first paragraph of Lindbergh's section has nothing to do with the P-38 at all! Should we trim those sections, and how much should they be trimmed if so? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are pilots who got high scores on the P-38 and are associated with it. There are also a few pilots who are associated with the P-38 for other reasons. For the former it is sufficient to cover where and when they flew and what they achieved. For the latter, a bit of context to establish what they may be better known for is valid. That said, if they have a Wikipedia article then full details are a click away and so trimming to the essence can be performed. I would avoid subsectioning as unnecessary and adding clutter to the contents list at top of page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noted pilots 

message: In the Operational History section on Africa and Italy, too much of the section is focused on losses and shortcomings of this fighter. I'm not saying we shouldn't report the poor showing there, but I'm not sure we need to keep hammering the point home... 173.73.128.63 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The material you are discussing was even more "anti" when it was introduced by User:Gian piero milanetti in November 2019. I reorganized the pros and cons to make it more readable, and less of an attack on the P-38. The main point is that American fighter tactics were completely idiotic until Feb 1943—it was not the fault of the P-38. All that to say I'm not in favor of a further reduction of the negative facts. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-P-38 Writing? 

message: Version says:
"The 474th operated out of bases in France, Belgium, and Germany in primarily the ground-attack missions until November–December 1945."
As the war ended on 8. May 1945 in Europe, does this refer to a post war stay on the air-bases or is this a typo? 2003:E5:3F0C:7000:F892:7195:60E0:777F (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: Can you please published about the comparison of Lockheed P-38 Lightning 2 and North American Aviation P-51D Mustang , I would be grateful to you . Archangel Oxcart (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison about 50s planes 

message: From the lede:
: The P-38 was the only American -fighter aircraft in large-scale production throughout American involvement in the war, from the Attack on Pearl Harbor to Victory over Japan Day.
From Republic P-47 Thunderbolt variants:
: [P-47B] an order for 773 production aircraft had been placed almost two years before on September 13, 1940.
: [P-47N] The final P-47 rolled off the production line in December 1945.
Granted, the first is not specifically about production, but I doubt that Republic would just sit on that order for more than a year. --91.5.107.77 (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious or vague Statement in Lede
Talk:Frequency response

message: Frequency response is often used to describe the performance of audio-related devices, however, it is also often used to describe the performance of, for example, coaxial cables, category cables, video switchers, wireless communications.  All of those examples operate well into the gigahertz range.  Subsonic examples could include earthquakes, electroencephalography (brain waves).  This article should touch on all major disciplines where a frequency response measurement is often used. Snottywong 14:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Perhaps you'll want to add to or reorganize my changes. Binksternet 16:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio frequency response

message: This article implies that the phase response is part of the frequency response.  While they are often seen next to each other in specs and whatnot, I think the frequency response and the phase response are two different things.  Phase shouldn't be mentioned in this article.Snottywong 14:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. Frequency response and Bode plot are for me the same thing: Magnitude AND phase plot together. If you want to be more specific, you could say magnitude/amplitude or phase plot. User:Nillerdk (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Phase response and frequency response go hand in hand. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  Right. The output test sinusoid of an LTI system is changed by the way the LTI system responds to a given frequency.  And it does so in only two ways: Gain and Phase.  That is why they are both included when mentioning "frequency response".  And in specific situations, one can refer to "gain vs. frequency", and "phase versus frequency". Ohgddfp (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Phase Response

message: There is a merge banner suggesting full frequency response is merged with this page. I'd suggest simply deleting FFR - it's a very subjective definition (what's the full frequency response of an RF amplifier?), largely meaningless. Unless I'm missing something? GyroMagician (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger (with [[full frequency response]]) 

message: I don't understand how you can have a function of jω (like what would y(2x) = 5x mean?), but this is often written this way.  What's the difference? 71.167.58.9 (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  H(jω) vs H(ω) 

message: In the current version, this section opens with "in electronics this stimulus would be an input signal." - this seems a bit lost and maybe belonged to older text. Ok to remove? Vapor57 (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Applications
Talk:Mega-

message: This should be moved to mega- and get a  tag.  See Talk:Micro for rationale. — Omegatron 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: From a previous version of the article: "The metric  tonne is 1,000 kg, so it is in fact this unit that should be called the megagram."
:Yes, and so what...? What does that have to do with non-standard usage of mega? --Wernher 03:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On metric tonnes

message: How popular of a belief is it to think it's okay to use mega- for a million as if it belonged in the Greek numerical prefixes article (that is, to use it as if it were a general numerical prefix rather than just an SI prefix)?? 66.245.120.241 02:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I don't know of (m)any cases where that is done (e.g. making a word such as "megagon", meaning a "polygon with a million sides" [cf, for example, hexagon] — if that was what you meant? --Wernher 15:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity of mega- as general prefix (not SI) 

message: Greek is not descended from Sanskrit.  The closest analogy is that they're cousins:  Greek is (if memory serves) the oldest well-attested language on the 'centum' side of the Indo-European (IE) family of languages, and Sanskrit is the oldest well-attested language from the 'satem' side.  Please read the articles on Indo-European languages for an in-depth explanation.
The basic gist is that all IE languages are descended from a common ancestor language (dubbed Proto-Indo-European or PIE), for which there is no written evidence.  Words in PIE are reconstructed best-guesses based on examining similarities between modern IE languages, and how the sounds of words have evolved over the past two thousand years, and working backwards to derive common 'ancestral' words, along with their hypothetical meanings.  Any unattested word (word that there's no written evidence for) derived in this way must be prefixed with an asterix *, to show that we can't be certain it existed.
:So then why did somebody say it was? 74.38.32.195 00:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of 'megas'
Talk:Emphasis (telecommunications)

message: Pre-emphasis and de-emphasis articles very briefly describe the same process called "emphasis". There's no point in distinct articles, as it's much better to describe the whole process in all the details only once. --GreyCat (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the usages of the different specialties should be preserved as usual in the merger process. The right article name is the "Emphasis (telecommunications)" which is the present article. The other names should redirect to this one, where the distinctions should be explained. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Can anyone insert some kind of explanation as to what's meant by the filter time constants and what they imply for the actual filtering e.g. in CD pre-emphasis? When I convert them into frequencies (assuming they're the cycle time of a full wave), I get 20kHz from 50us - obvious enough, that's the usual CD frequency band cutoff, above which a sharply rolling-off low pass filter is applied - but then 66.7kHz from 15us, which doesn't really make any kind of sense for a recording medium where the maximum recordable frequency is 22.05kHz (and the sampling rate itself is 44.1kHz), or a filtering system where we measure roll-off in decibels per decade (so 20Hz, 200Hz, 2kHz, 20kHz... 200kHz?) or per octave (2.5kHz, 5kHz, 10kHz, 20kHz...). Is one of them meant to be -10dB and the other -20dB? 0dB and -23.3dB? And how does that at all relate to an emphasis filter that you'd expect to operate over the range of human hearing, and particularly over approx the 3kHz to 20kHz (or maybe 6.67k to 20k?) range than the ultrasonic...?
Though it's only really given for the little used CD schema here, it would be nice to have a general explanation as I've also seen the microsecond notation used for tape and vinyl emphasis or frequency response definition, and it made about as much sense with those too (though ISTR them being much lower frequencies, to the point that they barely covered the telephony band?) 51.7.16.171 (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assumption about the cycle time is wrong. If you compute the reciprocal, you end up with angular frequency. You have to multiply the time constant by 2 times pi before doing the reciprocal in order to get the traditional cycles per second frequency readings. So you end up with about 3.2 kHz resp. 10.6 kHz – both well below Nyquist’s limit. -- Pemu (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time constant explanation?
Talk:Fairview

message: Sorry, but this page would go on forever if it listed every street, road, close or terrace called "Fairview" - hence removal of this item from the list.  If there is a particularly important Fairview street (road, etc), then this should probably have its own article to merit inclusion in a list like this. Jimbob muppet 21:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairview road
Talk:Enemy of the people

message: I think each country should get their own individual section so it won't have these awkward segmentations. puggo (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections 

message: Wittes and Rauch:
When Trump tweeted about taking “NBC and the Networks” off the air (“Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked”), congressional Republicans were quick to repudiate … left-wing media bias. In a poll by the Cato Institute, almost two-thirds of Republican respondents agreed with the president that journalists are “an enemy of the American people.”
To be added. Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump section proposed addition 

message: :Some commentators tried to link these comments to a mass shooting at the offices of a newspaper publisher in Annapolis, Maryland, that took place only days later, on 28 June.
While it is certainly true some commentators tried to link Trump to the Capital Gazette mass shooting, with time it has become apparent that this particular shooting is not connected to Trump and involves a troubled man who had a long-running dispute with the paper.  I would like to suggest that we should consider removing this statement. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove the sentence, because it was the case that a connection was drawn, but I added to it that the incident turned out not to be related, with cite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 Capital Gazette mass shooting 

message: Class enemy should redirect to class war. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. But then the target article must defne the term. - Altenmann >talk 14:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "class enemy" redirect here?
Talk:Kathy Griffin

message: While the article strongly indicates that Kenny Griffin has died, why doesn't it say so explicitly, one way or the other, like it did for Joyce Griffin dying in 2017 and Gary Griffin dying in 2014 ?98.149.97.245 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a line in the Personal life section. I’m not seeing the year or cause of death readily but maybe someone else can find it. He was estranged from the family and possibly homeless as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenny Griffin
Talk:Cathy

message: How about adding a picture? ThumbFinger (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: How can the character of Zachary be aging slowly if his parent-characters met in an online chat? That's hardly been possible for long enough for Zachary to be a teen already (I mean, conceivable but unlikely in terms of the extensiveness of online chat to be sufficient to appear in a comic strip with the expectation people would know what it was). Obviously, other characters must age slowly but that one clearly ages either normally or rapidly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.176.103 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Error re: Aging

message: It seems to me the list of books for the Cathy Comic Strips stops at 2000. Is this correct? Did the publisher just stop publishing books? Or is the list incomplete?
99.53.169.153 (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick perusal of Amazon does indeed make it appear that she has had no books of chronological strips published since 'Shoes.'" Struck me as odd too - but since she's well past her prime, and arguably exponentially less funny since her 1976 inception, not entirely surprising. - AgentSeven 04:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Books

message: I seem to remember that Cathy was a mascot for Weight Watchers possibly in the early 90s.76.214.41.110 (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight Watchers

message: I love the drawing style...it's so simple and uncomplicated...Is there a name for this in cartoon tech terms???  Mt grandchildren draw in this fashion...and they have no formal training...what is it????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.98.226 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What style of cartoon is this drawing style?

message: Found this article heavily vandalized, could someone check info and correct? CFLeon (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism
Talk:Meddle

message: I'm leaving a comment here because these seem to be the silly things that start edit wars ... but, anyway, I don't think the release date of 31 October 1971 is correct. Firstly, the citation given (Povey 2007 p. 150) doesn't say that, but gives 30 October as the date. Secondly, the first date was a Sunday; LPs didn't get released on Sundays. The other sources do indeed differ on the UK release date, with another source (Blake 2011) being deliberately vague and saying "November". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date
Talk:Relics (album)

message: At some time, there also was a CD release available that contained 8 additional tracks, see e.g. http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/pink-floyd/2#i60 http://www.freecovers.net/view/0/38c4fe7ade7492f08c39f73547875254/front.html http://www.freecovers.net/preview/1/38c4fe7ade7492f08c39f73547875254/big.jpg Was that a bootleg? BNutzer (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those pics are definitely pirate editions. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Release with bonus tracks? 

message: The cover shown here, :File:Pink_Floyd_Relics_1971.jpg is not the original cover but the MFP reissue - the magenta title (outlined in black) first appeared with this version. The original, on the Starline label, has the title in white, outlined in black like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original sleeve colour 

message: "see emily play" is not in true stereo because the original master tapes were wiped at EMI. Saemikneu (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake stereo?
Talk:Atom Heart Mother

message: FYI  The inter-wiki linking of uncommonly used words to thier definition is documented on meta and it is also good practice to assist readers whom may not be familiar with their meaning. :-D --:GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴⍨talk 20:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen that done before in an article, and I don't think the word is that unusual. , do you know anything about this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  acrimoniously DEFINITION?
Talk:The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

message: Article currently has numerous citation needed tags.  You think you'd be able to assist in getting these resolved? Otherwise I'm going to take it to GAR. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I can probably fix all these, but I am busy pretty much all weekend and I'm struggling to think of a free evening I've got to check my book sources and fix everything up. I do intend to do it at the first possible opportunity, though! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll check out the other Floyd GAs as well and report back if they need tweaking. I unfortunately have no Floyd material so I can't be that much help. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No probs. AFAIK the ones I personally took to GA should be alright, though stuff does occasionally slip through when I'm not keeping an eye on them, plus I've got better at writing and presenting stuff in the last ten years anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a quick look, and there is far more unsourced and unverifiable content than what's just tagged, a bunch of fan sites (which should not be used in a GA; often received wisdom by fans has been contradicted by official sources years later), some sources are not formatted correctly, and there's a general feeling that I probably should have watchlisted this and kept an eye on it. I'll see what else I can do, but if you want to send it to GAR (with the intent of getting wider support), that might not be a bad solution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN concerns
Talk:Animals (Pink Floyd album)

message: the final sentence of the article's intro says, "It initially received mixed reviews, but gained more favourable reviews in later years, and is considered one of the band's best works."
Does this not require citations?  2600:6C40:667F:E9A9:568:21A:11EA:2F11 (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro - citations needed? 

message: In the Packaging section, nestled between two paragraphs (actually, what should be at least three paragraphs, above, and one below) is this non-sequitur:
During the Isles of Wonder short film shot by Danny Boyle and shown as part of the Opening Ceremonies of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, the camera zooms down the length of the River Thames, from a small spring in the countryside all the way to the Olympic venue. During the fly-by, a pig can be seen floating above Battersea Power Station.
It's (first-party) cited, but nevertheless one might note that it's not actually about the Animals album or its packaging at all. It's the sort of random trivia that, if anything, belongs in a "References" or "In popular culture" section — or it would, if those weren't discouraged in general. But them being discouraged doesn't mean these things should just be inserted into the rest of the article instead. FeRDNYC (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out-of-context trivia 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Animals (Pink Floyd album) →  – I decided to look into why this album is so specifically disambiguated, and I saw that while there are multiple albums called Animal at Animal (disambiguation), there are only two plurally named Animals without a definite article preceding it, this and an album by the band This Town Needs Guns. Between the fact that page views for the Pink Floyd album are in the thousands for the last month alone, while the TTNG album only managed around a dozen per day in that time, Googling "Animals (album)" almost exclusively brings up results for this album as well as eponymous releases by the band the Animals (which contain the definite article in them, establishing the distinction immediately). To me, this seems like the WP:PDAB in this situation. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 January 2024