lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Texture (chemistry)

message: This is one of those embarrasing inconsistencies that helps isolate fields of science & mathematics. Geologists refer to the crystalline texture of minerals as their size only (not orientation), and the texture of rocks as the difference in sizes of minerals. What is defined as crystalline texture here is known as 'fabric' in rocks (natural crystals). Geologist (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps 'Crystalline' is too broad? 

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: page moved.  Andrewa (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Texture (crystalline) →  – All materials are not crystalline in texture. They can also be amorphous. Hence this article name should be have '(chemistry)' in it, since it is discussing texture of materials as a chemical property, or rather a physico-chemical property (since it is also studied in physical chemistry) —CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 06:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 May 2022 

message: On 4 December 2006, 13:12 (UTC), a bot named‎ Peelbot (talk) (contribs)‎ added this article to the above physics articles category, whereas I believe that is a chemistry article, more precisely that of physical chemistry, since texture as a physicochemical property (crystallinity or amorphousness) is studied in solid state and also in materials science, which is subdiscipline of inorganic chemistry. I hope this article is moved into correct categories, and I can help in doing so when consensus is reached. Thank you —CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 07:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrectly listed in <nowiki>[[Category:Start-Class physics articles]]</nowiki>
Talk:1970 French Open

message: atp site says tournament was held 4.5.-17.5. 1970.
this page says 27.5.-7.6. 1970.
who's right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.107.135 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline of the tournament
Talk:Ray Quinn

message: I knew I'd seen him somewhere before. He looks like the kid on the Yellow pages advert and Eddy Munster too. Derbydave 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Many newspapers actually referred to him as one of the Munsters, so i'm just wondering if a tabloid nickname is appropriate to be included if it can be referenced? I won't include it myself, but wondered what people think? Sky83 (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Munster references 

message: rayquinnworld is a fan site, and the owner (user Mandy16) continues to add it to the infobox, in a very unprofessional manner. just cos her site is listed on Quinn's myspace, does not make it an official site. if it was at all official, i'm sure Quinn wouldn't mind proving it. other artists do this, so Quinn could to. Mandy16 if you can't code on here properly, don't bother! 77.97.18.22 (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  fan site 

message: I am the owner of Ray Quinn World,and I apoligise if I have gone about things the wrong way,it wasn't my intention to do wrong!!.I set up Ray Quinn World in November because Ray's official website was deleted and I thought he deserved a new website as he has many fans,that were very dissapointed that the website was deleted.Ray Quinn himself does know about site as does his management company,and it is also being used on Ray Quinn's myspace at the moment.Apart from Ray Quinn's myspace,this is the only website and forum where fans can chat about Ray,and find out in depth about his career and work.Please can I ask permission for Ray Quinn World to be included in the links section of the article page,thank-you--Mandy16 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: oppose - i have been the one that was removing it every time you added it, before someone else removed it again. i also added the above comment here. it's a fansite, and shouldn't be listed here. i found this hidden comment on another artist's wiki page - Please do not add fansites.  Wikipedia is not a link farm. - i hope you get the idea. if we let you add your fansite, everyone else who has a fansite, myself included, would want their site put as a link, and we'd be over run. the fact ray quinn apparently only has one fansite has nothing to do with it. i know the artist i have a site for only has one other major fan site, and we're not listed here. we're not doing this for the fun of it, i believe it really is against wikipedia's guidelines to have fan sites listed. on a side note, your site does need some major work. i notice that you delete any comments that you don't like, either towards the site or ray, and really, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, free speech and all that, so you should take note of these, and let them be. you've got to take the good with the bad!! i think with that bit of work, it'll be a decent site! 77.97.18.22 (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I add my website to the the article page
Talk:Mucor

message: There was a an episode of "Ripley's Believe It or Not" where a man had a growth of Mucor in his sinuses, and thus had to have a large portion of his face removed. I was wondering if we should add this to the article since it seems pretty substantial. I have a video clip on the portion on Ripleys for more reference.
I suggest someone adds this.  I was looking for more information on this because of the same source the first person cited. 63.100.44.98 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Specific Popularized Human Victim

message: M. amphibiorum typically infects amphibians, but in 1993 was reported from Tasmanian platypus (http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/485). Might be an interesting point. youcantryreachingme 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mucor amphibiorum infects platypus
Talk:Thermal flywheel effect

message: Since there hasn't been any discussion on the merge in the months since it was tagged, and this article was simply a mention of thermal mass or specific heat capacity as applied to buildings (which that article is already mostly about), I performed the merge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darekun (talk • contribs) 13:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Thermal mass merge
Talk:C4.5 algorithm

message: All machine learning algorithms can overfit, and C4.5 is no exception. 
It would be useful to point out when C4.5 works well and where it does not. 
Since c4.5 so heavily relies on IG (information gain), the difference in class distribution priors between Train and Test is a MAJOR determining factor for how well this algorithm will work on new (test) data. This is crucial to using the c4.5 and should be stated clearly in the article. Agreed?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.132.62 (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Advantages and Disadvantages

message: I believe I've considerably cleaned it up.  However, I don't usually edit Wikipedia pages and it could probably be brought up to speed Wikipedia-wise
Weston.pace 22:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article and the restatement of ID3_algorithm should be replaced with an explanation of the improvements offered by C4.5. From the article:
* Choosing an appropriate attribute selection measure.
* Handling training data with missing attribute values.
* Handling attributes with differing costs.
* Handling continuous attributes.
What does C4.5 do in each of these areas? Details about the implementation are useless! --Beefyt 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of improvements 

message: J48 redirects to this page, though this article doesn't mention it.. are there significant differences between C4.5 and J48 or is J48 no more than a Java implementation of C4.5? Thanks, Simeon87 (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: J48 is a Java implementation of C4.5, Release 8, the last free release of the algorithm before Quinlan moved to C5.0 Jdoucett (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  J48 algorithm 

message: What does the last base case mean? ("Instance of previously-unseen class encountered. Again, C4.5 creates a decision node higher up the tree using the expected value.") 
How is that even possible? A more detailed explanation is required.
The listed pseudocode is only a basic decision tree induction algorithm but not the C4.5 algorithm (if you check the source you'll see that kotsiantis didn't describe the C4.5 algorithm in any listing). I'm not sure if it was planned to just list a general decision tree induction algorithm, if so it would be helpful to note this in detail.
--B.eberhardinger (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudocode doesn't describe the C4.5 algorithm 

message: I have never heard of "c5.0" prior to this article, has anyone else? 
CERTAINLY "c5.0" is not deserving of 10% of this article, and should be AT MOST, reduced to a footnote about alternatives.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.11.140 (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  C5.0: NPOV: recommend deletion 

message: There should be a paragraph about the significance of the C4.5 Algorithm and its usage in Data Mining. I will try to add some info whenever I can but this is just a suggestion for improvement.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph about significance
Talk:1974 French Open

message: I noticed that the national flag displayed under onny parun is wrong, an Australian flag. Although Onny played with an Australian partner, dick crealy. Onny Parun is New Zealander, please put in a New Zealand flag, and tip lose the six pointed stars. 49.224.94.151 (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  national flag correction for only parun, winner men's dbles 1974
Talk:List of Moscow newspapers

message: What's the criteria of inclusion in this list?--Planemo 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Verifiability. `'mikkanarxi 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many hundreeds of newspapers in Moscow.--Planemo 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria of inclusion
Talk:Three-body force

message: Three-body forces are currently needed to model e.g. deuteron-proton scattering if thinking about it as 3 nucleons - neglecting quark structure.
Are there any hints if they would be still needed if considering quarks instead?
What happens with proton and neutron quark structure when they bind into deuteron? We know it has large electric quadrupole moment - couldn't it come from shifting of śome quarks? (maybe resulting in 3-body corrections?) Jarek Duda (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would we still need three-body forces if going down to quarks?
Talk:Tokamak à configuration variable

message: eg divertor ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need dates and details of upgrades 

message: Real-Time Control of Tokamak Plasmas: from Control of Physics to Physics-Based Control 2011 - lots of detail - Rod57 (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could mention real time control of the plasma
Talk:WEST (formerly Tore Supra)

message: Why have they only achieved 195 sec or 390 sec pulses rather than the 1000 sec designed for ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What progress 

message: and more details on the superconducting toroidal magnets (1988-?)
and more detail on the WEST upgrade itself. - Rod57 (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more detail on what achieved before the WEST upgrade
Talk:Torricelli's equation

message: Does anyone knows what "d" and "d_i" are?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.237.106.70 (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

message: The original derivation given was far too complicated imo, I have replaced it with a much simpler and cleaner one. Error792 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivation
Talk:Superheavy element

message: If 118 is supposed to be i the same series as the noble gasses, what's it doing in the transactinide series? Zaphraud (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The chemical series can overlap each other: the earlier transactinides are also transition metals, and the noble gases are also nonmetals. Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, given the immense instability that permeates the series, "transactinides" is probably more of a primary category for these elements than "transition metal", "post-transition metal", "metalloid", or "noble gas" would be. After all, most inorganic chemistry texts I have seen cover the elements beyond Lr (the last of the actinides) all together, instead of with their respective groups. Double sharp (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: (The exception is Holleman and Wiberg, BTW, and even then only for Rf–Cn IIRC.) Double sharp (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does it end where it does?

message: "Chemistry gentleman Glenn T. Seaborg"?  How do I get this title?
Brad (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps a bit informal?! 

message: I'm writing a binder of elements and I'm noticing that my superheavy section is quite bare. Is there any super heavy element compounds that we know of? Porygon-Z (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, some chemistry is known till Hs, and somewhat sketched out for Cn through Fl. You'll probably have to wait a while for much more. Double sharp (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compounds 

message: It described lawrencium as the "heaviest" actinide. I changed that to "last" actinide. An element with a highest atomic number is not necessarily heavier. Thorium, uranium, and plutonium ar each heavier than their immediate successor (protactinium, neptunium, and americium respectivly); if you go by the mass of the most stable isotope. Okay? We don't know whether lawrencium is really the heaviest actinide; as the most stable isotope of nobelium, and that of lawrencium, hav probably not been discovered yet.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In general people (ab)use "lighter" and "heavier" to mean atomic number rather than relative atomic mass. But I'm fine with this change for clarity. Double sharp (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lr
Talk:Trininite

message: I'd like to mention that I did come from a Wikipedia link on the banana page to this page. Also the banana page mentions Russian Trininite so it is quite likely that Trininite can be produced in other areas by nuclear explosians
Dryeo 05:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: What's the difference between Trininite (this article) and Trinitite (link)? They seem the same to me. Furthermore, the external link  in this article links to a page about Trinitite, not Trininite.
To attract attention of experts, I'm gonna add mergeto and mergefrom templates to this and the other article. If the articles are about different topics, please just remove the templates. Thanks. --Avayak 08:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trininite vs. Trinitite
Talk:Triuranium octoxide

message: How come that U3O8 is a yellowcake, when yellowcake is made FROM U3O8 (and UO2)??? Yellowcake is mainly (NH4)2U2O7 and not U3O8.......Eudialytos (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this is a common point of confusion: Yellowcake is simply a colloquial name for "Uranium Ore Concentrate" or UOC, which can take many chemical forms depending on the source of the ore material and the mining and milling steps used to extract uranium from the mineral. The name Yellowcake comes from the face that one common form of UOC is, as you mentioned, ammonium diuranate, (NH4)2U2O7, but other common forms also exist, such as U3O8 (which is green-black). I hope this clarifies the matter ;-) Patrick A Burr (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellowcake?!?!?!? 

message: The last section fo the article, Bond Valence Study, has no reference, and appears to be the conclusion of a single study. Also, it appears to me that the summary does not reflect the true results of the study, as the first sentence is inconsistent with the rest of the section (if the box contained a single U atom, rather than a U3O8 crystal structure, it would not be possible to ascertain the oxidation state of the two uranium species in the crystal by population analysis, Bader charger or other similar method). Patrick A Burr (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing reference for Bond Valence Study
Talk:Twin Quasar

message: This article seems to contain not so much information on the Twin Quasar but on MECO. I am going to delete large part of the article, just having a link to MECO article ought to be enough. To be honest, to me it looks like an attempt to "enhance the image" of MECO theory. I respect your interest in whatever theories you are interested, but it's not a good reason to copy-paste MECO description in unrelated articles. 89.103.91.47 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the duplicated material and inlined a couple of links. Tim Shuba (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: You could just have restored the original explaination on _why_ the MECO claim was made for the Twin Quasar. 76.66.198.46 (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not duplicate MECO article here! 

message: See this discussion at WT:ASTRO#Twin Quasar about the recent renaming and revision to the notation format used in this article. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion was archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_12#Twin_Quasar. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin Quasar v Twin QSO 

message: Hello, There are 2 figures for the distance of this: 7.8 Gy and 8.7 Gy. Which one is the good one? Yann (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance 
Talk:Twisted nematic field effect

message: I plan to do the following changes :
1) It is not anymore true that TN-LCDs are largely universal in portable electronics.
In the introduction I want to add: Today, a number of alternatives exist such as IPS-, AFFS- and VA-LCDs as well as OLEDs.
More details will be given in the section Commercial development: Organic Light-Emitting Diode Displays (OLED and AMLED) are becoming a serious contender, replacing LCDs in some smartphones, digital cameras and laptops computers. There is more demand than OLED manufacturers Samsung, LG and Chi Mei can produce in 2011. In addition, TN-LCDs have disadvantages in touchscreen portable devices compared with other LCD technologies that are less sensitive to pressure.
2) In section Patent battle the statement This is believed to be the first fully functional twisted nematic LCD ever made is not correct. 
A GRUEN wristwatch was equipped with a TN-LCD and introduced in 1971. Also, an experimental TN-LCD was shown in operation at the IEE Conference on Displays, Loughborough, UK, in Sept. 1971.
Grapplang (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 2011 

message: The article states, "A voltage of about 1- V is required to make the crystal align itself with the field". What is V? Or did I miss something? And why does no current flow? Is the material between the electrodes a nonconductor? I'm good at math, but know little about electronics. (The bad formatting of the formulas is deplorable -- the symbols should, at the least, be italic. I could fix it, but I have other resolutions for 2012.) Eall Ân Ûle (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 − ''V'' 

message: The article speaks of 1V to drive LCDs which suggests a DC voltage, but one vendor I've found says driving with a DC voltage will cause electrochemical degradation within their displays so you're supposed to drive them at about 30--90Hz:As is the case with conventional LCDs, in order to prevent irreversible electrochemical action from destroying the display, the voltage at all segment locations must be caused to reverse polarity periodically so that zero net DC voltage is applied ... [T]he drive frequency should be chosen to be above the flicker-fusion rate, i.e. >30 Hz. Since increasing the drive frequency significantly above this value increases current demand by the CMOS drive electronics, and to prevent problems due to the finite conductivity of the display segment and common electrodes, an upper drive frequency limit of 60-90 Hz is recommended.http://goldenviewdisplay.com/driving_LCD_display.htmlI am not expert enough to know if this is true for all TN LCDs or not. Can someone confirm? DLeonard (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can confirm the quoted reference. TN-LCDs (as well as IPS-LCDs) have to be addressed with AC voltages as described.--BBCLCD (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternating current device
Talk:Bootstrapping (computing)

message: Really need some grammatical overhaul. "Bootstrapping is not so magical"... really now?
129.118.97.73 (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

message: :Historically, bootstrapping also refers to early computer program development which has been obviated by emulation software now executed in pre-existing computers. Bootstrapping in program development began during the 1950s when each program was constructed on paper in decimal code or in binary code, bit by bit (1s and 0s), because there was no high-level computer language, no compiler, no assembler, and no linker.
Unsure here why the page mentions emulation (use of one system to step through instructions intended for some other, dissimilar machine) but does not mention cross-compilers (compilers which run on one type of computer but generate code which only can be run on some other dissimilar computer - for instance a desktop PC being used to compile code for embedded controllers or personal digital assistants). I'd suspect that creation of a cross-assembler or cross-compiler would be one of the first steps taken when trying to get some new and fully-incompatible processor to do anything useful. --carlb (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cross-compilers?