lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Radio-quiet neutron star

message: In accreting neutron stars maybe the 2nd most powerful radio emissions are caused by a positron-electron jet from the star blasting thru outer material such as an accretion disk or cloud (the most powerful radio emission probably is being in line with the poles). The radio quiet runaway stars listed in the article don't have accretion material and thats probably why they are radio quiet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.208.238 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That would mean that any radio pulsar would need to be accreting, wouldn't it? Well, that's apparently not the case. --Mtu (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories 

message: Geminga is a well-established pulsar - it's only radio-quiet above a certain frequency.  Should it really be in the list? --182.239.130.177 (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewing the reference that you give, I concur. The main article for Geminga still claims it to be radio-quiet, but doesn't cite sources more recent than 1992, so your reference from 1998 appears to obsolete that. I'll remove Geminga here and try to fix the main article with your reference. Thank you for bringing this up! --Mtu (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geminga? 

message: The last paragraph is oddly oblique. Instead of describing a radio-quiet neutron star, it describes a pulsar. The reader is left wondering what sort of relationship between axis of rotation and magnetic poles would result in "pulsars which do not pulse in our direction." The only configurations I can imagine that would not appear as a pulse to us are, first, magnetic and rotational poles coincident and the axis at right angles to our line of sight; and, second, magnetic poles at right angles to the rotational axis (i.e., lying somewhere on the equator) and the rotational axis aligned along our line of sight. But then, I'm not an astronomer and that's why I'm looking it up in Wiki in the first place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.125.95 (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old discussion 

message: I think its better to say: "radio-quiet neutron stars may simply be pulsars which do not POINT in our direction" then "radio-quiet neutron stars may simply be from pulsars which do not PULSE in our direction".
I'm content to leave it the way it is now but don't understand why some think PULSE is a more accurate word.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.208.238 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "point"? or "pulse"? in our direction
Talk:Rho Aquilae

message: I'll leave this for someone else to tease out definitively, but I just wanted to note that according to "", (cited on the bottom of the page), it actually crossed over in 1999, not 1992. TachyonJack (talk)
:I found, and added, a second book citation for 1992.  I did see one for 1993, which doesn't fill me with confidence.  My own calculations suggest the boundary was crossed almost exactly 7.5 years before Jan 1st 2000, so that would be in the middle of 1992.  The calculations are not trivial though, because the constellation boundaries in 2000 are not straight along RA and Dec lines and I don't have sufficiently accurate positional data for the star for the original 1875 equinox.  Still, the proper motion is high enough that I'm fairly confident about 1992.  Lithopsian (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1992 or 1999
Talk:John Scotus (bishop of Dunkeld)

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose move as proposed - see below. Tevildo (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:Authigenesis

message: I'm wondering if this would be better placed in Category:Mineralogy.
This page needs more information, it could be just a copy and paste job from this link: 
http://www.answers.com/topic/authigene
I have no experience editing or citing here, so i cannot do it. 
Thanks Chazparky 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

message: — Assignment last updated by MethanoJen (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Environmental Sciences
Talk:Ross 154

message: I put an updated value of the radial velocity from the recent PCRV catalog. It is more consistent with Garcia-Sanchez et al. results on the closest approach of Ross 154. Space velocities are calculated accordingly to the new radvel value. --Yigor (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Cited data updates are appreciated.—RJH (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radial velocity 
Talk:Ross 614

message: The infobox apparent magnitude figures for Ross 614B come from the Gatewood study, Table 9, "COMPARISON OF ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDES". Absolute magnitudes, not apparent magnitudes. That's why the same 16.17 figure was used for both absolute and apparent magnitude. So those numbers have to go.
The harder question is, how should I document the right answer? The Gatewood study doesn't directly specify apparent magnitudes. In addition to absolute magnitudes, it also has "TABLE 6" "MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCES OF THE COMPONENTS OF ROSS 614", that is, the magnitudes for each wavelength specified as a difference between Ross 614A and Ross 614B. So I added the differences to the values given for Ross 614A. Those values don't match SIMBAD exactly, but that problem occurs for most star articles; perhaps SIMBAD is updated more often than Wikipedia. I don't know if it's kosher to use Gatewood as a reference when all it shows is the difference from the previous column. But almost any answer, including blank space, would be better than leaving the absolute values that were there before. Art LaPella (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining my edit
Talk:Lake Afrera

message: * And needs to be reverted. It is preposterous to delete the very widely known and common name of a lake to a name used only in the Italian language. This is English Wikipedia. —Loginnigol (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent move of this page is a breach of Wikipedia rules 
Talk:Marion Ravenwood

message: Hey guys, DON'T MENTION PLOT ELEMENTS FROM THE UPCOMING MOVIE HERE.  I just deleted a major one.  Thanks for ruining the movie!
:So don't read the article.  Emperor001 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPOILERS 

message: The "Appearances" section desperately needs some better real world context.  Where does it say 1926?  In what book or game does it reveal where Marion moved to NYC or tried her hand at journalism? hbdragon88 (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-universe 

message: Shouldn't this article be Marion Jones as she married Indy at the end.  I know it's a spoiler, but if people are smart, they won't go to the articles until they see the movie.  From the day the fourth film came out till the day I finally saw it, I avoided all Indiana Jones articles so that I wouldn't accidently read a spoiler.  Emperor001 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any proof that she took Jones' last name?  We can't assume that she would automatically take it. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence of the article itself says Marion Jones.  Besides, for this time period, when would a woman not take her husband's last name.  It's a logical assumption.  We would more than likely need proof that she didn't take his name.  Emperor001 (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I forgot that this took place in the 1950s. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Move

message: I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C  20:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject Open! 

message: The article mentions her appearances in the comics, but then the section called Appearances only mentions films... She's anyone know which comics she's in?
AncientSwordRage (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding comic appearances
Talk:Alcmaeon of Croton

message: Dumping some sources so I don't forget: Variously described by modern scholars as Father of Anatomy; Father of Physiology; Father of Embryology; Father of Psychology; Creator of Psychiatry; Founder of Gynecology; and as the Father of Medicine itself. There is little evidence to support the claims but he is, nonetheless, important.
J8079s (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: — Assignment last updated by Realscientist414 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton
Talk:Eye for an Eye (Danny Phantom)

message: Where did Eye for an Eye on January 20,2007 
-Mrsanitazier January 22,2007 7:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
*On Latin American channels. It was aired there first (as well as Infinite Realms) for some reason. There's no American release date so far as if this writing for this episode. Neo Yi 03:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 20
Talk:Melissus of Samos

message: What is ref DK192A14?--User:Brenont (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: Why is Melissus called the third and last member of the Eleatic school when he was born before Zeno? Philgoetz (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third?
Talk:SN 1885A

message: ...that S Andromedae was really within the Andromeda galaxy and not part of the Milky Way?80.141.182.110 (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a question worth asking. Parallax measurements? Rothorpe (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These types of supernovae always have the same absolute magnitude. When you know that and you measure the apparent magnitude, you can then calculate the distance. The Andromeda galaxy is too far away to measure its parallax. 80.101.212.102 (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Right, thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we know... 

message: The sentence "found (...) that M31 was not a gas or dust cloud, but an "island universe" or galaxy" seems to be utterly wrong. Simon Singh writes in his Book "Big Bang" just the opposite: when there was the debate whether M31 was a dust nebula inside our galaxy or far outside, the supernova was an argument in favor of the "near nebula" hypothesis. Otherwise the star would have to have a brightness that people believed to be impossible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.67.214 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I support that assessment. They thought it was an ordinary nova. Only when Leavitt's and Hubble's observations proved it to be an extragalactic object, the "nova" became an enigma, and the basis for the "discovery" of supernovae. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong interpretation 

message: In the intro of the article it is stated that the supernova took place inside the Andromeda Galaxy. On the other hand, in the infobox it is stated that the event took place in the constellation Andromeda.
Well, these two are not the same. It's true that Andromeda galaxy is inside the Andromeda constellation from the Earth perspective. But Andromeda constellation is inside the Milky Way galaxy itself (its brightest star is just 97 light years far from the Earth).
So which is true to say? The supernova took place inside the Andromeda galaxy or inside the Andromeda constellation? Aminabzz (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get the idea that the Andromeda constellation is "inside" the Milky Way?  Constellations are merely an area of the sky as observed from the Earth; objects within that area may be at any distance and still be said to be "in" the constellation.  Hence the Andromeda Galaxy, and by extension everything in the Andromeda Galaxy, is in the Andromeda constellation.  How could it not be in the Andromeda constellation?  Lithopsian (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say Andromeda Galaxy isn't in the Andromeda constellation. Aminabzz (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You said "Andromeda constellation is inside the Milky Way galaxy itself".  Wrong.  You then extrapolate from that mistake to say that the supernova is either in the galaxy or in the constellation, but not both.  Wrong.  Any further questions?  Lithopsian (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andromeda galaxy or Andromeda constellation?
Talk:Satellite galaxy

message: Hi all, 
As a heads up - this page will be edited for a graduate class over the next month (Nov. 2010), so any changes made externally during this period may not be saved. Thanks.
A533jcis (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing Page

message: Perhaps this article could discuss how satellite galaxies are formed? (Whether it is by capture, by getting tidally separated from another galaxy, or by formation in parallel?) Also, it could discuss how a galaxy is determined to be a satellite and not just a passing member of the same group. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion
Talk:SCR 1845−6357

message: This page and List of nearest stars both list SCR 1845-6357 A as a red dwarf. However, both the Nasa link at the bottom of List of nearest stars and Template:Nearest systems say that SCR 1845-6357 A is a late-M class brown dwarf. Which one is it? Adeptzare3 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mass measurements for component A are still approximate, so it could be either. All we can really be sure of at the moment is that it's somewhere in the vicinity of the hydrogen-burning limit.--203.57.211.237 (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Red or brown dwarf?

message: Using a discoverer constellation designation SCR 1845-6357 would be Biller Pavonis or Biller Pav. Astredita (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discoverer constellation designation
Talk:Scutum–Centaurus Arm

message: The junction of the arm with the bar appears to be in Scutum, the location of RSGC1 and 2. (The glorious Scutum Star Cloud is not in the Scutum arm, but in the intervening Carina–Sagittarius arm.)  What features belong to Centaurus?  Are there any features one might actually see in visible light, or is this whole arm essentially invisible behind the other arms? -- Elphion (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it called "Scutum–Centaurus"? 

message: Vụ nổ siêu tân tinh 1987A có mang theo các dải vô tuyến nén đến Trái Đất của    chúng ta  không ? 14.189.60.214 (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Đóng góp 

message: Can you be more specific on stars???THANKS
😊 162.154.210.210 (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  O.K.🌌 I study the stars and don’t understand this
Talk:SDSS J090745.0+024507

message: Anyone have redshift measurements of this body? Just wondering. If so, perhaps it could be added/referenced. Mgmirkin 15:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redshift?

message: What is its distance from the Earth?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.160.244 (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Distance
Talk:Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal

message: Sextans A ( as known as UGCA 205 ), is a dwarf irregular galaxy,
Sextans B ( UGC 5373, DDO 70 ) is also an irregular galaxy,
The Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal is a dwarf spheroidal galaxy and there is also a galaxy calls Sextans C.
these are four differents galaxies and I don´t approve the merger, instead I recomend a new article call The Sextans Galaxy Group —Preceding unsigned comment added by  200.8.148.31  (talk • contribs) 
:As far as I can tell, the Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal is a different object from Sextans A, so I removed the merge template.  Please do not create a "Sextans Galaxy Group" article, as the galaxies mentioned above do not form a group of galaxies by themselves.  Instead, some of them are members of the Local Group.  Dr. Submillimeter 14:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion
Talk:Shapley Supercluster

message: RA and DEC anyone?  VelociraptorBlade (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: RA = "Right Ascension", DEC = "Declination" coordinates.  Apparently this article was updated with the data.  Right ascension 13h 25m; Declination −30 Degrees 0' 0".  --roger (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What does this mean? The link takes us to a page on “the” Universe, which is presumably the only universe identified. I’m not an astronomer or expert, but as someone familiar with the English language and quite skilled in writing, this makes the proposition that this supercluster is in a universe “near” us nonsensical. This is either a term of art in the field and thus either needs an article in Italy itself and a new redirect, ideally, or the sentence that it is from a “nearby universe” should be deleted or rephrased. 2600:1011:B01F:5702:546A:267A:3900:9475 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the area of the universe that is near us, not another universe. CMD (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearby universe?
Talk:Sher 25

message: David Sher is a graduate of the University of Toronto where he obtained both his B.A. (1959) and his M.A. (1960). A scholarship from the Australian National University made it possible for him to continue his education in the southern hemisphere, working at Mount Stromlo Observatory. He received his PH.D. in Australia in 1964. He spent the next two years in Groningen, doing further research at the Wetenschappelijk Iedewerker, Kapteyn Astronomical Laboratory and in 1960 was appointed to his present position as an assistant professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Source: Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 1968, Vol. 62, p.113
 --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: David Sher
Talk:Queen Anne High School, Dunfermline

message: More content (history? alumni?) and especially references needed. Try and cut the lists and write in prose. Dahliarose 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assess
Talk:Sigma Canis Majoris

message: Umm...if it is K4III then it isn't a supergiant really...? These spectral type refs are pretty old....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 2008 isn't so old for an MK catalogue.  Simbad still shows K5Ib, but then it (allegedly) used to show M1.5Iab. I don't always understand Simbad's criteria for picking the preferred spectral type.  Skiff gives a mix of K4III and K5-7Ib results.  The luminosity is very high for a giant, but that really is old, I'll have a look for something newer.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Spectral classification

message: Suggestions for pronunciation from Barry Blake. I know it's OR, but since there's nothing published we don't have anything else to go on. The sound equivalents Blake suggests are all pretty standard for the era, so it's a common-sense interpretation even if you don't believe I contacted him. "u" is /a/ (/u/ would be "oo", as in 'Boorong') except when initial, when it's /ju/. An "r" may or may not be an /r/-type sound, since Oz is ar-dropping. "ite" was likely heard as [ait] (or [əit]), which would almost certainly be Wergaia /atj/. Initial /ŋ/ was generally omitted in transcription in this era. Wergaia stress is was on the first syllable, with secondary stress likely on the third. (See Reid's Wergaia Community Grammar and Dictionary.) So, assuming no initial /ŋ/, anglicization would be  (full vowel in 'gun'), though  would also be close. Blake suggests an initial /ŋ/ for the Wotjobaluk form "Urnugunite", in which case the Boorong form should have an initial /ŋ/ too, but that makes no difference for the anglicized IAU form. — kwami (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation
Talk:Sigma Draconis

message: What are the nearest stars to Sigma Draconis and how far away are they? -- Needscurry 13:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stellar neighbors

message: In the infamous "Spock's Brain" episode of Star Trek (original series 3 episode 1) a ship launched from the frozen sixth planet of the Sigma Draconis system disables the starship Enterprise and steals Spock's brain.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Sigma_Draconis_VI
: This topic is covered by the Spock's Brain article. Praemonitus (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Star Trek Reference

message: Sigma Draconis is also an album of a metal band Sacriversum
:There is no wikipedia page for Sacriversum.—RJH (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Music album
Talk:Sigma Librae

message: An update for certain physical characteristics of this star/system is requested by someone who knows their way round astronomical databases better than I do! The IAU's list of approved star names gives a component specifier to Sigma Librae for the name Brachium together with a Washington Double Star catalog identifier. Both imply this is a multiple star system and the WDS gives it as a physical binary. Both the WDS and SIMBAD give the spectral class as M2.5III, not M3/M4 III. (SIMBAD does not identify it as a binary.) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated to the newer spectral type, which is minor.  This star is listed in the WDS with a 16th magnitude companion over an arc minute away.  Simbad either missed it or considered it too trivial to consider as a double star.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical properties update requested
Talk:Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

message: Why does 'Waitangi Day' have a section in this article? Waitangi Day has its own page and is not related to this Act at all. The related legislation is the Waitangi Day Act 1960, Waitangi Day Amendment Act 1963, New Zealand Day Act 1973, and Waitangi Day Act 1976.
Te Karere (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: well spotted, I've removed this. I'm guessing this was a legacy before Waitangi Day had its own article. --LJ Holden 06:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waitangi Day
Talk:Richard Freeman (cryptozoologist)

message: Doctor3uk, you appear to be Richard Freeman, in which case your edits to this page should be approached differently.  First, Wikipedia discourages autobiographical edits (see Wikipedia:Autobiography).  If you are a person who warrants a Wikipedia article, other people will take the initiative and write about you.  If you feel you must write about yourself, it is doubly important that you cite reliable, third-party sources to your contributions.  Your recent edits are not cited and appear to be original works, which are prohibited by Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:No_original_research).
The other edits on this page also seem to be highly autobiographical.  I would suggest you leave edits of this page to other people.  If you want to contribute information to it, the suggested method is to propose the edits here in this Talk page and let other editors move them into the article if they deem it appropriate.
Schlegel 21:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research & Autobiography 

message: I found a book that mentions Richard Freeman and some of his expeditions but I don't have full access.
"A Menagerie of Mysterious Beasts: Encounters with Cryptid Creatures" by Ken Gerhard ISBN: 9780738749273 Contrawwftw (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source(s) 

message: Here's the sources brought up in the AfD. The two in the middle were found and read via The Wikipedia Library.
:* 
:* 
:* 
:* 
Hopefully they prove useful for anyone who wants to expand/rewrite the article in the future. SilverserenC 19:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources found during AfD discussion