lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Pitch (music)

message: I was hoping to find out when it became possible to associate a frequency with a pitch. The idea that sound is vibrations of air has been around for a very long time, but when did it become possible to associate an actual number of cycles per second to a pitch? BruceThomson (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Beyer 1999 it was Marin Mersenne (1588–1648). Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: pitch is a perpetual property of sound
That allows their ording on an a frequency-related scale 102.89.34.202 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  About  

message: Rather than pitch being a synonym to frequency, it is instead a perceptual phenomenon? And each "pitch" (i.e. each perception of a sound) has an assosciated frequency? I am so vastly confused. How am I supposed to understand pitch if it's not objective? Qsimanelix (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a real problem, isn't it? Some other people have been troubled by such discrepancies throughout history. Remsense诉 19:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to learn the basics of music right now, and this is not helpful. I need an explanation of music, for newbies like me. Qsimanelix (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not as good as it could be, but this is a real distinction that is important to make. I am not sure how it should be best presented, but remember that articles are meant for a general audience and not tailored how-to guides. I don't think we have an Introduction to music theory article, sadly. Remsense诉 19:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitch is not the same as frequency?
Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories regarding Jews or Israel

message: It is hard enough to deal with the issue of antisemitism in a responsible way on this page without having to deal with Arab bashing. Deleted:  "Ironically, the first images on the news from the Middle East after the 9/11 attacks were Arabs cheering and dancing in the streets in celebration of the collapse of the towers." Dubious claim. Has no place on this page. --Cberlet 00:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab bashing
Talk:Sifaka

message: I have searched the internet and i found no recordings of the shi fauk call in the internet. i found the different calls
of 2 species but no recording with this typical call and even david attanborough and bbc had nothing about the alarm call..
can you give me a link where i find the recordings about this call?Saludacymbals (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I know someone with a recording of the call (for the Coquerel's sifaka), but they have been slowly working to convert their lemur recordings from tape to digital.  I haven't asked them about it in a couple of years.  Eventually I plan to post some, but I've been busy, too.  The call is hard for anyone without specialized equipment to record well (without catching background noise) because it is fairly quiet.  Sorry.  – Maky « talk » 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Any recordings of the "shi fauk" call?

message: As stated in WP:UNIT “In science-related articles: generally use only SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, and specialized units that are used in some sciences. US Customary and imperial units are not required.” PlanCartesien (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: General animal-related articles are not truly science articles. Materialscientist (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who? Zoology isn't a science? PlanCartesien (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of them extend beyond zoology and cover various general topics, i.e. I would not class them as science article. This is debatable, but I would advise you to stop removing unit conversions, at least from animal-related articles, until reaching consensus. Materialscientist (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is debatable. But WP:UNIT is quite clear on the subject and should serve as a guideline until a consensus is reached. PlanCartesien (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to examine our animal-related WP:FAs, which are our most scrutinized articles, and see the opposite. Materialscientist (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Materialscientist.  On top of that, regardless of WP:UNIT, offering conversion helps ordinary readers relate better with the material.  – Maky « talk » 14:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Ah yes, let's have conversions because not everybody is familiar with the metric system. The name of the game is to inform. courtesy goes both ways. Peter Horn User talk 19:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Units

message: A good photo here - Lemurbaby (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Already uploaded, but more from the series have been uploaded, too.  – Maky « talk » 23:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: pic
Talk:Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star

message: In the paragraph on first jet vs jet combat, under Korean War, it is stated "On 1 November 1950, a Russian MiG-15 pilot, Lieutenant Semyon F. Khominich, became the first pilot in history to be credited with a jet-versus-jet aerial kill after he claimed to have shot down an F-80. According to the Americans, the F-80 was downed by flak." without a reference to support this claim. While later the paragraph reads "One week later, on 8 November, the first American claim for a jet-versus-jet aerial kill was made when Lieutenant Russell J. Brown, flying an F-80, reported that he downed a MiG-15. Soviet records claim that no MiGs were lost that day and that their pilot, Senior Lieutenant Kharitonov, survived by pulling out of a dive at low altitude." which is sourced twice, first for the claim, then for the dispute. The first claim, if unsupported by reference, should be removed. Zandovise (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Jet vs Jet Kill
Talk:New Jersey Turnpike

message: So, apparently sometime last year the NJDOT/NJTA petitioned for and was approved by AASHTO to redesignate the eastern spur of the NJ Turnpike as I-695, as the western spur is the sole roadway now signed as I-95 to encourage I-95 through traffic to avoid the more local traffic along the eastern spur (and because the I-95/I-80 interchange is physically structured with the eastern spur principally feeding to/from I-80 while the western spur continues directly as I-95 to the GWB. Subsequently, our description here of the eastern spur being the real I-95 and the western spur being 95W is outdated. oknazevad (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Oknazevad Can you post sources? Jason Ingtonn (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a copy of the AASHTO committee report. oknazevad (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx for this, they didn’t mention a timeframe this will happen in, did they? I think when/if the change occurs we work on revising it, but until then have a brief paragraph in the history stating plans for this change. Jason Ingtonn (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

text: @Oknazevad, @Jason Ingtonn If you would like to edit articles about roads, I recommend going to AARoads Wiki ([wiki.aaroads.com]), as there has been a recent attack on the USRD project by some of Wikipedia's "gurus". With the future of the project uncertain, road enthusiasts on Wikipedia decided to relocate to the new Wiki.Needforspeed888 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'd rather not abandon this place and make its coverage as best as it can be. I don't know "attacks" you're referring to, but the idea that roadgeeks maybe have gotten lost on the weeds of excess detail does not seem out of the possibility. oknazevad (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going to need updating.
Talk:Chlorine

message: The redirect Kloreen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  141Pr {contribs} 18:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Kloreen]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Note 1 is mistranslated. Helmont did not call the gas "carbon dioxide" but "gas sylvester." The chemical composition of carbon-dioxide had yet to be discovered. This needs to be clarified as the current translation suggests that Helmont knew the chemical composition of carbon-dioxide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.218.182.26 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistranslation of Note
Talk:Champs-Élysées

message: Is there any compelling reason to list famous streets of other cities? The if there's any rhyme or reason to the selection process, it isn't made evident. As a New Yorker I have to wonder why Fifth Avenue instead of Broadway, Madison, or Mercer? jameslucas (" " / +) 13:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—5.145.248.187 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the coordinates a bit; but, frankly, the coordinates you've given above are only a matter of meters from the ones that were in the article. Deor (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  coordinates 48.869614   2.308133 

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—45.116.232.3 (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem anything wrong with the coordinates in the article. Since you haven't provided an explanation of what you think to be in error, there's nothing that can be done to address your concerns. Deor (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 

message: Who’s Theo? In the first paragraph 67.6.26.112 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theo?
Talk:Henry I of France

message: I removed the fantasy drawing painted in the 19th century which is not an authentic image of the king. It is only the "artist"'s imagination. Nobody knows what the king looked like. The first king of France whose features were accurately carved in stone was Saint Louis. The first king of France whose features were accurately recorded in painting was John II the Good. There exist no accurate images of any king of France before Saint Louis, and certainly no paintings before John II the Good. There's no point in adding an inaccurate image to the article just for the sake of adding an image, especially when it could mislead uninformed people. Hardouin 00:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantasy drawing 

message: Can someone fix the ancestry chart so there is no space between it and the content preceding it, and so that it remains within the bounds of the left margin and the  basic information box/coat of arms image on the right?
69.125.62.77 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry and Other Formatting 

message: Please see Talk:Henry III of France#Why the anglicized "Henry"? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry versus Henri 

message: Under the section, REIGN, the 4th paragraph begins, "In 1051, William married Matilda,..."
HOWEVER; under the section, "MARRIAGES," the first paragraph says that Matilda DIED prematurely in 1034 - 17 years before she married Henry?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.138.183.190 (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting dates of marriage of Henry I of France to Matilda 

message: Can Someone Reply? Sauidward (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you uploaded the image you want to add to Wikimedia, so we can see what you have in mind?  This manuscript is from 300 years after the fact, so it isn't exactly contemporary. The question is then whether it adds enough to merit the space, given that as the page now stands the infobox is longer than the text of the article, and adding a picture will exacerbate the situation. Agricolae (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I Add Henry Image From Saint Denis Manuscript
Talk:RISC (disambiguation)

message: ----
See also Talk:RISC
Does anyone really use the term "Reduced Instruction Set Code" ?
I don't think so. So I deleted it from the disambiguation page.
It redirects to RISC, just like
Reduced Instruction Set Computer.
-- DavidCary 02:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: The link from the list to Reduced instruction set computer redirects to Reduced instruction set computing. Therefore I think it would make more sense for the list to link directly to the latter. --trevj (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: --Trevj (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduced instruction set computer
Talk:Crass

message: Dave King has recently died, according to Steve Ignorant on Facebook(!) so look out for obituaries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave King 

message: Clara Elliott has written the following book Strangulation blues: abattoir noises and some other desperate lines: post-punk poems & exorcism, 1978-1985, which was published after her death (unknown publisher and year). It was also translated in French by Sylvain Courtoux and published in France in 2010 by Al Dante.
As it's not clear, I'd like to know is this lady has been singer of Crass for a short period. Thanks in advance for providing us with some more info.  and if she's been a member of the group, I'd thank the person who would accept to add some lines in the feature about her and her book. --Bibliorock (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clara Elliott 

message: This article has not been maintained since its Good Article nomination a decade ago. It relies on a number of sources that no longer pass muster, namely unreliable sourcing and blogs, while there are 10 sources in the bibliography currently unused. Would anyone be interested in cleaning this article up, or should it go to Good Article reassessment? czar 11:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup
Talk:Superpower collapse

message: The two superpowers of the second half of the 20th century, the USSR and the USA underwent tremendous political change during the decades before and after the turn of the century (2000).
The changes in the USSR occurred most dramatically during the 1980s, with the most dramatic event being the destruction of the Berlin Wall, while the changes in the USA occurred during the 2000s, with notable events being the grassroots democratic protests against the World Trade Organisation meeting in the Battle of Seattle in Dec 1999, and the crime against humanity which occurred on 11 September 2001 in New York and sparked off vast, irrational overreactions by the government leading to anger and popular pressure for regime change. 
In both cases, improved communications and many-to-many networking technology combined with grassroots struggles for basic human rights in contributing to major political changes, which initially seemed minor, but in fact were very deep-rooted.
----
Battle of Seattle?  Please.  -- Zoe
----
How about the fall of the British Empire? That's probably not considered a "superpower collapse", but it would be worth mentioning even so, since, technically, it was. -- Sam
:Two problems with that, one, the term “collapse” suggests a sudden and complete breakdown of a superpower into a weakened country - the “collapse” of the British Empire and the dwindling influence of Great Britain as a superpower wasn’t atoll a collapse but instead slow and steadily decline over many years in absolute power it had as a world dominator, and two, the decline wasn’t unlimited due to the fact that the UK does still currently retain power of many overseas territories and also remains powerful in that it is both the sole/main regional power in Europe and a great power globally.
:The USSR fits the “collapse” criteria well, but I don’t think the UK or the British Empire can be referred to have collapsed because of the long time it took to dissemble the empire and because of the UK’s ongoing military, economic and (still relatively) influential standing in the world - thus using “collapse” would not really be appropriate as the country has never really been on its knees. 
:My opinion at least.81.111.222.205 16:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superpower collapse 

message: The Mongol Empire (1206-1368) should be added as an ancient example of superpower collapse. It spanned the majority of Eurasia and was the largest contiguous land empire in history. -Artanisen (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add the Mongol Empire
Talk:Philip VI of France

message: Shouldn't this be under Philip VI of France? -- Zoe
:Yup - I moved it. --mav
----
Why is it "ironic" that his wife was the brainy one?   Molinari 11:16, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It says that Joan the Lame was the daughter of Robert II, Duke of Burgundy, and that is footnoted. But I think the Joan's true parents were Otto iv, Count of Burgundy, and Mahaut, Countess of Artois. Her sister Blanche married King Charles IV. Philippe's elder brother, King Louis X, was the one who married Marguerite, daughter of Robert II, Duke of Burgundy. However, the link to Joan says that her father was Robert II, so I am confused!.1f2 (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing Joan the Lame with Joan II of Burgundy. Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Parents of Joan the Lame 

message: I was looking through Wikimedia and found charters of Philip VI of France, Charles V of France, and Charles VI of France. They all have the kings seals but they also have what looks like signatures beside the seals. Are those the signatures of the kings? ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 19:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatures of medieval kings of France
Talk:Douglas Adams

message: Within the article, it is stated the Douglas died at both 49 and 59. This needs urgent revision and fact checking 49.199.242.215 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see where Belson is described as dying at 59, but I don't see where Adams is. Can you clarify? Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting statements regarding death 

message: Can we get a proper bibliography for Adams?  Split it off into a "Douglas Adams in media" article or something, but this article is missing a lot of stuff (novelizations of his scripts, etc.) that should be documented *somewhere* and has TV credits under both "Works" and "TV writing credits". It's sloppy and unfortunate. 128.151.71.7 (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography
Talk:Dial House, Essex

message: I'm very tempted to revert to the 2015 text of the article, as the current text is a bloated, unencyclopedic, and unsourced PR piece. Copy editing this text would take forever. Any opinions? Yintan  02:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone, refs, it's a mess 
Talk:Glasses

message: :I made an edit earlier to correct what I find to be just misleading.
Joseph Needham was a scholar from many decades ago, with limited resources saying, and I quote “It has sometimes been stated that the invention of spectacles was Chinese. This (may, in part) have derived from a paper by Laufer. Digital page 152 https://web.archive.org/web/20160823000519/https://monoskop.org/images/7/70/Needham_Joseph_Science_and_Civilisation_in_China_Vol_4-1_Physics_and_Physical_Technology_Physics.pdf
He was clearly admitting speculation that some believed the Chinese made the spectacles because of one manuscript. He never even said that he knew that with full certainty that this manuscript was the very and entire reason why people were saying it.
Also, Britannica contradicts the Wikipedia article. It credits the earliest recorded comment on the use of lenses for optical purposes to Roger Bacon in 1268. Who was also the first European to describe in detail the process of making gunpowder. The Brtiannica also states that around 1268, "magnifying lenses inserted in frames were used for reading both in Europe and China at this time, and it is a matter of controversy whether the West learned from the East or vice versa".
Britannica typically askes updated actual experts in the field to write in their encyclopedia unlike Wikipedia, no offense. And so they are a very reliable and professional source so should the Britannica information about the early history of glasess be added in or not?
https://www.britannica.com/science/eyeglasses 49.180.18.15 (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made an edit on Joseph Needham and also Britannica info contradicts current wikipedia page 

message: If there's a list of what materials are used typically for glasses frames, where's the list of typically used lense material ie glass, poly-carbonate. 101.182.26.66 (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the list of lense material types? 

message: Hi everyone I saw a brief discussion about this document by Kepler. In this article I was wondering is there any  brief documentation what this document is so important and what is the importance is in the field of optics in the 1500's?
thank you TeddyRooFan1! (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paralipomena by Johannes Kepler  

message: There seems to be a contradiction in the article about the date of the introduction of temples, with the 18th century mentioned, but an El Greco in apparent contradiction to that.~~---- Richard Comaish (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temples 

message: The subsections Yellow-tinted computer/gaming glasses and Blue-light blocking glasses appear to contradict each other. The former states  while the latter says  (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 03:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction?
Talk:Stroke

message: The stroke emergency words should be changed to emergency medicine in the specialty section i guess.2404:8000:1027:85F6:A140:91BB:6B11:B462 (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong noun 

message: correct dampening to damping 68.205.142.176 (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had reworded the sentence Thanks,  –Davey2010Talk 19:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2023 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kmdavis7 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse
Talk:Orange juice

message: juicing is the act of getting a orange and extracting the juice from it to form orange juice 2405:6E00:E3D:6200:2834:294F:493C:4D83 (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... so what is your proposal for changing this article? Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  juicing
Talk:Bromine

message: Making it read the appearance box is Brown-reddish liquid instead of Brown-reddish. 2001:EE0:4BC6:DB70:8C60:E4FE:CDA3:8239 (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the liquid and the gas phases are dull reddish-brown. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add some information about its appearance. 

message: The Applications, Other Uses sentence  "...and it was removed from over-the-counter sedative products like Bromo-Seltzer, in 1975" should be changed to "... and sodium bromide was removed from..." because Bromo-Seltzer never had elemental bromine.71.230.16.111 (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: SSSB (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor correction