lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Multistatic radar

message: Have tried to flesh this out a little, hopefully now differentiating it enough from bistatic radar by touching a bit more on the data fusion aspects that are not an issue in conventional systems.
--Shaun 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job Shaun, but I'm still concerned about the overlap.  I would suggest that you edit the page down to focus only on the distinguishing aspects of multistatic radar versus bistatic - i.e. the fact there are multiple receivers and/or transmitters rather than just two, and that as a consequence additional data fusion is required.  It's OK to have advantages/disadvantages, but I think it's best to write this section as "multistatic radar shares all the advantages and disadvantages of bistatic radars, apart from the following unique factors:" and then address only those factors that are unique to multistatic.  Things such as counterstealth are already addressed for bistatic.  Otherwise, we risk having two articles that are duplicating content, in an incoherent fashion.  Thus this page should only address multistatic-specific factors and refer to bistatic for everything else.  It's not too bad now, but give Wikipedia a couple of months and it will have sprouted into a duplication of existing material...  Paul (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for giving it a look over Paul, I'll give it a bit of a restructure when I get a spare moment to try and further reduce any potential overlap.  I'd like to try and get some mention of data/plot association (and the issues when doing this with non-cooperative targets) back in there, as I think it's an important topic when trying to improve resolution (the automotive case being a good example). Probably how I covered this in the first iteration with the comparison to SSR etc wasn't really doing a great job at getting the main point across! Srdoughty (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  Finally got round to reworking it!  Srdoughty (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very good - like it.  Paul (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Lickilicky

message: I think it is worth noting that it is the only pokemon who gains STAB from Explosion, because it is the only normal type who can learn it.
Also, I think that Smeargle can't learn it, because Sketch can't sketch dead pokémon.
:Smeargle is not Relm.  Smeargle's Sketch only sketches the move - Relm's duplicates the monster. -Jeske (v^_^v) 00:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worth noting 

message: Can someone change the name? Thename has been proven on www.serebii.net
:Serebii fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -Jeske (v^_^v) 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that we discovered Magnezone and Luxio/Luxray's name on cards AFTER Serebii's list was brought up should have pretty much confirmed Serebii's list was correct, but I'm not Wikipedia, of course. :P It's only Pokémon, so normally I'd think we could let this slide (especially considering how much blatant fanon is on Sonic the Hedgehog pages when there's far more solid evidence for this) but whatever--that's just my two cents on the situation...mainly because I don't want the Japanese names to stick with me more than the American ones.69.125.196.147 03:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luxray wasn't on a published card...it was Magnezone and the Stage 1-2 starters.  But it's really just the rules.  You can wait six days anyway...—ウルタプ 04:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! I know it's the rules, I'm more or less just thinking out loud on a Wikipedia talk page, which I really shouldn't have done. It was more annoying when there were edit wars between the two names, and that's passed.Evan1109 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Name is Lickilicky 

message: Can someone provide a picture for this one?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.224.35.64 (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: There is two different names stated in the article, which name does it have?-~HJ [talk]@½-00:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Berobelt.  Any "Lackilickies" in the article are unconfirmed. -Jeske (v^_^v) 12:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ja, provided nobody c&p'd it as they did with Bibarel and Mothim. -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name?
Talk:Gorgias (dialogue)

message: In the revisions I made, I added more content to the introductory paragraph to give the reader a better foundation for the discussion about the dialogue.  I noted that Socrates is not simply setting “the rhetorician in opposition to the philosopher;” he is trying to define the essence of rhetoric, asserting that good rhetoric cannot exist without philosophy.  
When first reading the page, I was confused by the section headings.  I eventually realized that they were in chronological order, but as such, it was sometimes unclear how the headings fit into the dialogue, like the heading “Philosophy is a bitter draught,” for example.  Even after reading the section, I was unsure the significance of this title.  Is it a quote, and how does it relate to the dialogue? 
Because I did not want to delete the work of the previous authors by editing the current headings and their content, I added additional sections under the heading, “Major Themes.”  In this section, I discussed key issues in the dialogue that I feel were not adequately discussed, whether rhetoric is an art or a knack, the morality of the orator, the quest for truth, and the definition of rhetoric.  I would suggest to future editors that the headings be reconsidered.
Karatechop08 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Transcendent" was also a term used by Kant. It means erroneously considering a perceived object to be an unperceived object.Lestrade 20:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This article reads as if rhetoric is a good thing when it teaches philosophy, but my take on this text is that rhetoric is, in the main, an inherent flaw within all of politics, but can be utilized well in the one specific case of teaching virtue.  Socrates isn't so much as saying that rhetoric is good when combined with philosophy as he is identifying that rhetoric poses an apparent danger to any form of politics with the caveat that it can be utilized well if it teaches virtue.  He's basically suggesting that it's generally detrimental to society, though.  I mean, he thinks it can be good if and only if it teaches virtue, but, by in large isn't so.
I don't have a source for that, but it was what I was taught in my philosophy class, and, so, I don't think, an uncommon interpretation.    
Also, this article could use a section on what other texts this influenced or how it has been criticized.  Personally, since I'm particularly fond of it, I'm curious to see what other people to have applauded it have to say. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Slight Qualm with this Article
Talk:The Radiation Belt and Magnetosphere

message: Rename to "The Radiation Belt and Magnetosphere (book)"?
:This is a very incomplete bibliographic reference and should not be a stub for a "book article". There have been hundreds of books on the topic, so I doubt that this one is notable enough to deserve an article. I propose to delete this page (sorry, I do not know the corresponding template) Simon Chabrillat (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Mechanical wave

message: What are the 40 types of mechanical wave ?  The article shoud have a reference about this statement and a list of the 40 types should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.183.10 (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's 3 types of mechanical waves, not 40. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 types ??? 

message: "There are 40 types of mechanical waves; we have listed 3." Is this copied from somewhere?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.154 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was wrong, but its fixed now. This article still needs a lot of help though. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  we? 

message: There are actually more than 3 types of acoustic wave (and thus mechanical wave); see this page for example... Sanchonx (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than 3 types... 

message: Does anyone know what is meant when the author states, "surface waves(travels in clockwise circles)."? I believe it should be noted that a surface wave is merely a transverse wave that moves radial outward from a central point. (kglynn)
Yes, this really ought to be changed AS ABOVE is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.175.209 (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  SURFACE WAVES (circular wave fronts) 

message: Do transverse waves generally travel more slowly than longitudinal waves? Seismic waves says so. For a variety of materials, the article says. But are they all seismic materials? 129.132.211.13 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of transverse waves
Talk:John Keogh

message: Maybe it'll be interesting to create a redirect page. John Keogh is also an australian lawyer that patented the wheel... See: ,  and obviously Wheel.
*Interesting stuff.  Of course we've got hero of Ireland and kind of historical novelty, so there's no way to say that one is more known than the other.  What I'd suggest is that we go ahead and start John Keogh (lawyer) and then, at the top of this article, we put:
:This article is about the Irish independence campaigner.  For the Australian patentee of the wheel, see John Keogh (lawyer).
*At the top of the new (lawyer) article, we put a similar notice pointing here.  We're not supposed to have disambiguations if there are only two people by a name, but a disambiguating line is logical.  It might create more readership for both articles and greater awareness of both men.  Geogre 17:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Prince Edmond de Polignac

message: Please change the title of this article to: Edmond de Polignac. ("Prince" should be removed.) I believe it is the policy Wikipédia to not have titles in the names of articles, e.g. "Victoria of the United Kingdom" instead of "Queen Victoria" and "Rainier III, Prince of Monaco" instead of "Prince Rainier", etc., except as Redirects. This change is partictuarly appropriate because Edmond de Polignac is minor nobility. - - Unfortunately I do not know how to make this change. Amicalement, Charvex (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong about the way Wikipedia titles articles. Everyone gets their titles in their article name, unless they were a reigning monarch. I know, it doesn't make much sense, but that's just the way it is. - Outerlimits (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with that as a general statement of policy.  Also, how come his father, whose full name was Prince Jules de Polignac, 3rd Duke of Polignac, gets the simple Jules de Polignac as an article title?  --  Jack of Oz [Talk] 06:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Change Article Title

message: The headings in this article don't seem to accurate. For example, the majority of the headings are subheadings of "Birth and childhood", including "After Polignac's death". Since he lived to be an adult, the period after his death shouldn't be covered under his birth and childhood. Hyacinth (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings

message: Might be a good idea to have an illustration of the subject. A group picture with no caption explaining which member of the group is the subject isn't much help. Even if you put it up twice. Just a suggestion.68.178.50.46 (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations
Talk:Daniel Auber

message: It's not as clear cut as we make out (13 May 1871).  Sources seem evenly divided between 12 and 13 May 1871.  Some acknowledge the uncertainty by saying "12/13" or "12 or 13" May. This one says "Died 12 or 13 May 1871, Paris [register: 11 May 1871]" – I'm not sure what the 11 May reference means; his death couldn’t have been registered before it actually happened.   Anyone have any definite information?  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of death

message: Should there be a statement in this article pointing out that in Edgar Allan Poe's poem "Ulalume" there is a statement, "...by the dim lake of Auber....  The dank tarn of Auber...."  There's essentially no doubt amongst Poe scholars that he was referring to this composer.  Seems significant enough that it should be mentioned in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.106.82 (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence on Poe
Talk:Yangon International Airport

message: What of Mingladon airport, which was previously used? Chris 17:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mingladon airport

message: www.ygnia.com, under 'Website', is a New Zealand link--Smarkflea (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website
Talk:Mawlamyine

message: It's a very minor issue but I'm curious why we have the title Mawlamyaing. I know it's a closer transliteration than the current Mawlamyine, or than the traditional Moulmein, but do people use it? Andrew Dalby 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both transliterations (Mawlamyaing and Mawlamyine) are valid and perfectly fine, as they both have the same pronunciations in Burmese. "Mawlamyine" is closer to the actual pronunciation of the city's name in Burmese, but "Mawlamyaing" is more standard. "Moulmein" is a term the British gave to the city, and is not widely used outside of more dated English publications, because of its association with colonialism. --Hintha 03:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Mawlamyaing (the title to which you, I think, moved the article) isn't currently explained or used in the first sentence of the article. Don't you think this looks inconsistent? Andrew Dalby 17:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: In the first paragraph of this section, we are told that "Mawlamyine was the first capital of British Burma between 1826 and 1852" three times. Do you think a re-write of this section would help?Haynesta (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonial Moulmein (1824-1948)
Talk:August von Kotzebue

message: Note: unsourced POV stuff
Besides his plays, Kotzebue wrote several historical works, which, however, are too one-sided and prejudiced to have much value.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.249.234 (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I just tagged this article for improvement, as there are only two inline references, both for trivial statements, and the general tone of the article is confusing and assumes the reader is already familiar with the political situation of the time. It makes several grandiose statements regarding "liberals" that might be anachronistic (or not - I am completely unfamiliar with German history)
eldamorie (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement tags 

message: I agree the article needs a lot of attention, but I know nothing about Kotzebue myself. However, I do think there needs to be a reference to the extremely important use made by Jane Austen in Mansfield Park (1814) of Lovers' Vows, which is Elizabeth Inchbald's translation (published 1796; performed 1798) of Kotzebue's play Das Kind der Liebe (1780). Austen's clear opinion that the play is immoral, and her intensely clever dramatic use of the perceived immorality of the play within her own narrative, would make a useful paragraph under a heading such as "Contemporary opinions". Also, it would be very valuable if someone who knows about Kotzebue would tidy up the rather confusing and contradictory indications we find in the current version about whether Kotzebue was regarded as a liberal or as a conservative. (I think the current article is trying to say that his dramas were seen as sexually libertine, while his opinions were seen as socially or politically conservative, but that's rather a guess.)--MichaelHalls (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection betwen Kotzebue and Jane Austen's Mansfield Park 

message: There was quite a bit of it here. Specifically, I've removed:
"He possessed, as few German playwrights before or since, the unerring instinct for the theatre; and his influence on the technique of the modern drama from Scribe to Sardou and from Bauernfeld to Sudermann is unmistakable.
which is a bit over the top given the shortage of of citations. --Stfg (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorialising in the "Work" section 
Talk:Industrial fashion

message: this is an north-american phenomenon called "rivethead", not identical to the european industrial culture.
Fashion wise (at very least)theres no exceptional diferences and as this is mainly a fashion page...PreachanStoirm 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

message: There's no Industrial "fashion", because Rivetheads are anti-fashion. Taking about "fashion" in a counterculture obsessed with opposing mass culture is a paradox, to say the least. Musicaindustrial 15:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be deleted.
Talk:Charles Mathews

message: Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.
File:Charles Mathews by William Greatbach.jpg
File:Charles Mathews by Rembrandt Peale.jpg
Dcoetzee 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New files 
Talk:Lucia Elizabeth Vestris

message: In 2011 the user Olorin12000 disputed the statement of all secondary sources I know, to the effect that Madame Vestris played Camille at the Théâtre-Français to François-Joseph Talma's Horace in 1816/1817. According to this user "the mistake derived from a misreading of Talma's Mémoires where the actor recalls an episode in which a Madame Vestris - not Eliza Vestris, as she was born several years later, but Françoise-Marie-Rosette Gourgaud, who married Angiolo Vestris - played Camille to his Horace in 1785." The alleged source, however, Talma's own autobiography, just relates he had dressed as Brutus (and not as Horace) scandalizing Madame Vestris with his nude legs. By no means does such a source seem able to corroborate the user's writing that Lucia Vestris and Talma's interpretation of Horace "has never happened". It seems, on the contrary, an original research of his own, which appears to be totally groundless unless further sources are given.--Jeanambr (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Having Olorin12000 e-mailed me her sources, I have accordingly modified the article and removed the templates I had added. I hope some willing one may soon copyedit my poor English.--Jeanambr (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vestris and Talma 

message: An anonymous user's statement to the effect that Madame Vestris "only married again after her disastrous early experience with Vestris when the American authorities forced her to in order to allow her to bring her tour across their borders", appears inconsistent with Jacky Bratton's in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. According to the latter Vestris and Mathews just "married at Kensington church, having accepted a tour in America, under the management of Stephen Price, to repair their finances." The anonymous statement seems substantially unsourced, giving only a general reference to Pearce's biography (see here Pearce's actual statements about the marriage) and originally to Charles Molloy's book cited in the section "Further reading".--Jeanambr (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vestris's second marriage
Talk:Joseph Jefferson

message: The Winter Garden Theatre placed an advertisement in the New-York Daily Tribune on December 25th., 1860 for their 'CHRISTMAS NIGHT ENTERTAINMENT' starring Joseph Jefferson and the original advert can be viewed here on the fifth column of a page bursting with advertisements for many a well noted theatrical establishment of the day...MZionC (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rip Van Winkle Adaptation 
Talk:Laura Keene

message: What exactly is an Anglo-American?
Kidshare 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-American? 

message: Needs to be sourced, and controversy acknowledged. Vzeebjtf (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth-date 

message: The line, "She was forced to leave, however, because neighboring managers didn't approve of a woman running a theatre, so many 'accidents' started happening that prevented her from being able to run the theatre," for example, suggests either original research or a non-neutral point-of-view, since it isn't sourced. And examples of "accidents" are also needed to validate this claim. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient inline sources
Talk:Melville Nimmer

message: Calling Nimmer on Copyright "the definitive work" on US copyright law may be the consensus view, but it is probably not neutral and probably not true.  This fine treatise is the most-referred to resource in its field, and is held in high regard by almost everyone.  Yet assuming that there can be a definitive work on copyright, and assuming that Nimmer has filled this role, is overreaching.  See Ann Bartow, The Hegemony of the Copyright Treatise, 73 Cinn. L. Rev. 1-64 (2004).  She spells out in painstaking detail how Nimmer's personal points of view are often mistaken, due to his authoritative status, as SETTLED LAW, when they are not.  At the least, Bartow writes, the matter is "more nuanced and complicated than [Nimmer makes] them to appear." page 13.
Moabalan (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Georgetown U. law library thinks it is.  I've added the reference.  RossPatterson (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Mysterians

message: This movie could have in some way served as a minor inspiration for the Chikyuu Boueigun/Earth Defense Force series of games, especially in the name. -- Cronocke 00:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but that info would require some research and a source per WP:OR and WP:RS. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Inspiration
Talk:Moisture sorption isotherm

message: The articles talk of similar concepts, are they the same thing? If so, should they not be merged?-Localzuk(talk) 17:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this the same as [[Sorption isotherm]]

message: this article needs an example graph to illustrate the meaning of the words. IMHO 79.66.218.118 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  example graph
Talk:Mariah

message: Mariah is a female given name of Middle Eastern ancestry. It is thought to be a variation of the name Maria, which is a Western World version of the ancient Hebrew name Miriam. This name may also be related to the Hebrew place name Moriah. Although "Mariah" and "Maria" differ by one letter, the proper pronunciation of the former is "mah-RYE-ah." It is a Gaelic variant of Mary, meaning beloved, loved, or star of the sea. It can also mean bitter. -- Prima facie, that looks like a contradiction to me. Kdammers (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin? 

message: I went ahead and edited the article, fixing up certain parts of it, but I decided to keep the part that mentioned that Mariah was used in Great Britain since the 1500s. Does anyone have any verifiable source for this before I or someone else removes it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B11D:E703:B893:1BFA:A305:20A0 (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest usage of Mariah