lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Knudsen number

message: A decent reference is Bird's DSMC text: http://www.knovel.com/web/portal/basic_search/display?p_p_id=EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY&p_p_action=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_struts_action=%2Fext%2Fknovel_display%2Fview&_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_bookid=3566&_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_Page=1&_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_SearchTermA1=Knudsen&_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_searchWithinBook=true&_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_searchType=basic&_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_sistring=null&_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_ststring=null 134.84.44.247 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: Mean free path formula does not match with the formula used on the linked page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.228.253 (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mean free path formula does not match with the formula used on the linked page
Talk:The Love Album (Westlife album)

message: How can that song not be on the album?  Heard the version where their dads were singing that (originally by Frank Sinatra), and I so enjoyed it.202.180.98.76 10:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: That's Life
Talk:World egg

message: I'm against merger. World egg is a survey of ancient myths about the origin of planet Earth. Cosmic egg is a colloquial expression regarding a contemporary scientific theory of the early universe. There is a musical group called Cosmic egg. Bizarre as it may seem, perhaps Cosmic egg may need a disambiguation page one day. Alastair Haines 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger suggestion

message: Their upcoming album, Cosmic Egg, is actually named after a Yoga position. So, pretty much nothing to do with this cosmic egg. I'm takin' 'er out, if no one has a problem with it, as it really has nothing to do with this. Browniesforme (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Wolfmother tidbit thing.
Talk:Einstein (unit)

message: introduced the idea of light quanta, now called photons, in a 1905 paper. I was under the impression that Plank had introduced that idea.  Einstein simply showed that Plank's theory of light quanta explained the photoelectric effect Nik42 (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but it's Planck. JIMp talk·cont 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Planck introduced the idea that the energy of thermal radiation was absorbed or emitted in discrete amounts, which he called quanta. Planck knew light to be a wave, so the idea of it consisting of quanta would have been absurd for him. It wasn't something Planck suggested. Bobathon71 (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein's vs Planck's contributions 

message: I struggled a bit to find any references to the einstein in the standards literature, to no avail. I think it may never have been in any standard, but rather existed as a “folklore” unit, but I am not really sure about that. Here is a page which calls the einstein “A unit used in photochemistry, mid-20th century”. Even better, it cites a reference for this: “The mole is sometimes given the special but unnecessary (see Section 3.4, page 18) name 'einstein' in the particular case that the specified elementary particle is a photon...” (M. L. McGlashan.
Physico-Chemical Quantities and Units. The Grammar and Spelling of Physical Chemistry. London: The Royal Institute of Chemistry, 1968.
In summary, as it appears the unit is commonly used even today, the article is needed, but the non-standard status of the unit should be emphasised, along with a recommendation to use the mole instead. I am almost tempted to do the edit myself, but feel it is a bit outside my expertise. Hanche (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Moles are a useful unit. Joules are a useful unit. This unit is not useful because (1) it has two definitions and (2) each of those definitions is redundant with one of moles or joules. Those are well-defined, standard units, which should be used instead. 130.126.255.118 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a standard unit
Talk:List of reactor types

message: *Gaskernreactor :de:Gaskernreaktor .Mion 18:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other types

message: I propose merging this page into Classification of Nuclear Reactors as the two pages contain nearly duplicate material. Mark 08:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to merge both with Nuclear reactor technology since they all have similar content.Ultramarine 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Category talk:Graph invariants

message: There are slight differences between these, but it is quite difficult to make all of this clear and to know how (and if) the article should distinguish them.
* an invariant is a function assigning some isomorphism-independent value
* a property is of logical order (may be satisfied or not). Bollobás uses the term for collections of graphs (the property is identified with the collection of the graphs satisfying the property)
* a graph parameter is, according to Lovász and Sós, a function defined on finite graphs, invariant under isomorphisms (it is a simple graph parameter if it is only defined on simple graphs)
pom 18:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invariant, property, parameter
Talk:Jacobson density theorem

message: this has nothing to do with jacobson bourbaki theorem, which redirects here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.197.134.197 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think actually the two are fairly related.  Jacobson describes them together, and are both about using endomorphism rings for a Galois theory of algebras.  The density theorem has wider applications, so is covered independently in many texts. Certainly the wikipedia article does not talk about the Galois theory at all. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacobson-Bourbaki theorem 

message: I have just added a good deal of information to this article - a strong lead, good motivation section, proof, topological characterization, and consequences in mathematics (which should be a huge section but at present is not (I will improve it later)). Any comments are welcome. --PST 03:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After doing a quick review of literature, I've found that phrasing things in terms of "linear operators" seems to be a quirk of Isaacs, and is not very prevalent. In fact I couldn't turn up a single hit agreeing with Isaacs, but that may because I wasn't looking in the right discipline.  Including Jacobson's original paper and text, Herstein, Rowen, Lam, Lang, Lambek, Faith, and Anderson-Fuller all use "linear transformations" or "endomorphisms". While using "linear operator" isn't incorrect, I think trading out "linear operator" will improve the article by bringing it in line with (a majority of?) textbooks. I'm hoping to do this sometime in the next few days. Rschwieb (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements to article 
Talk:VFA-101

message: This article starts off saying the squadron is based at Oceana and then a few lines later states it is at Eglin (which is, in fact, correct).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.160 (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: misleading lead-in paragraph

message: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/12/07/why-the-navy-will-deactivate-an-f-35-squadron-next-year/
and
https://doni.documentservices.dla.mil/Directives/05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20Services/05-400%20Organization%20and%20Functional%20Support%20Services/5400.2276.pdf
Sammartinlai (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  to be deactivated 

message: VFA-101 needs a separate page as the unit borrowed the name, insignia and traditions of the disestablished VF-101. According to the US Navy, disestablished or decommissioned units do not get reactivated. They are a separate entity. It's like naming your son, John Wayne or your daughter Ginger Rogers. They may talk, move and dress up like them, but they are NOT them, despite the name. Once a unit in the USN gets disestablished it is gone forever. 121.216.206.238 (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  VF-101 and VFA-101 are not the same squadron
Talk:Rangely, Colorado

message: Rangely, Colorado is home to one of the larger and older oilfields in the USA -- shallow wells drilled since 1907, and a huge Weber-Sands deep field (originally 465 mile-deep wells) drilled in the 1940's.  Field is still producing, under the auspices of Chevron-Texaco and its predessors since being unitized in 1957.
There is much information available about this place on the Town of Rangely Museum sub-website within the town's overall website; a couple of books have been written on the subject too (ie, "The Raven at Rangely", Bud Keeney, mid-1990's), but they are hard to obtain and there is no reference to this interesting facet of this town (and its history) on the present Wikipedia article.
I am new to writing articles for this venue and would prefer someone else do it.  Any takers?
Thank you...
(Alright4MEH (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rangely, Colorado 

message: This article could be much longer. I know because I live here. I would do it all on my own but I am a new user and am probably not the best article writer. (Actually almost certainly not one of top million. :)  )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmerkInYourEyes (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs to be longer
Talk:Seguin I of Gascony

message: Hi! I was comparing articles of earlier kings of Navarre and dukes of Gascony. Were you the one who wrote, in this page of Seguin, that "He was not, as has been alleged from time to time, the forefather of the Jiménez dynasty which ruled the kingdom of Navarre (905–1234)"? I'm kind of interested in this matter and I would like to hear your reasons. Not that I don't agree, but I'm curious. I was hoping that it could have been some real agnatic connection between Jiménez dynasty and the Gascon line (just like many of the viscounties of the Pyrenean border), and Seguin would have been the perfect candidate, being contemporary of Jimeno el Fuerte, the mentioned ancestor. I'm just asserting that chronologically, the theory doesn't have problems, and the same goes for the names used by the monarchs. For what I know, the name Sancho, for example, appears in an Iberian monarch for the first time within Jiménez dynasty of Pamplona (Sancho I of Pamplona), and it has only prior known use in the Gascon line of dukes. The same goes for the name Jimeno, which first ocurrence may have been that same Jimeno el Fuerte, and only seen in Gascon dukes as Seguin.
However, you wrote the sentence I cited in the beggining without sources, and I would like to hear your explanation, please (and, if possible, the ones who "alleged" and where they went wrong). I would like to thank you in advance. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mhmrodrigues, this was added long ago, but the notes at the bottom give you a clue. If you disagree, I would suggest you make a sourced proposal. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seguin and the Jiménez family
Talk:Gas-filled tube

message: I noticed that the article didn't mention voltage-regulator tubes. So I added a very brief subsection to Gas-filled tubes in electronics. I thought about putting this link in the hatnote "This article is about ..." (template:about) but I decided that VR tubes, being basically an obsolete technology, aren't important enough to go in a hatnote. Oaklandguy (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added very brief subsection on voltage-regulator tubes with link to article 

message: What colors do tritium, radon, or the halogens (flourine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine) glow when electricity passes through)? I understand radon is limited to laboratories because its short lived nature makes it impractical for commercial use.  Yet there's no word on tritium or any halogens and no picture of radon. Flourine is quite reactive and the other halogens are already colored, so does that make a difference? 74.135.194.87 (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd missed the part about tritium and about the halogens last night. It wouldn't let me edit the comment. 74.135.194.87 (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no picture on here, though, of tritium, radon, or the halogens being electrically discharged. 74.135.194.87 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tritium, radon, and halogens
Talk:U.S. Route 340 in Virginia

message: The renumbering of SR 340 to SR 12 was in 1935. 08-1935-02 includes "Route 340 with 3 wires #6 TOT 115-230v, about half a mile east of Stuarts Draft, Augusta County" and 10-1935-01 includes "Route 12, 6.0 miles north of Greenville". Then SR 12 became US 340 in 1953. 03-1953-01 24 includes "old Route 12 in Clarke County being no longer necessary for uses as a primary highway" and 11-1953-01 includes "Route 340, Bridge and Approaches South Fork Shenandoah River - Near Grove Hill, Page County". --NE2 18:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

message: 2 things:
1) I would do something to identify that Waynesboro is an independent city, not a county.
2) The entries in the Mile column can be derived from the AADT documents that are quoted. Although, doing this can be quite tedious. --Tim Sabin (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mileage in Junction Box 

message: US 340 has a small piece in Loudoun; I think the junction box should reflect this. --Tim Sabin (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loudoun County 

message: The proposed merge with US Route 340 goes so far against normal practice for highway articles that I'm just deleting it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion
Talk:Carnatic Sultanate

message: Zulfiqar Ali Khan was dispatched by the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb to initiate the Siege of Jinji in 1690 after it was captured by the renegade Maratha leader Rajaram. He was soon after appointed as the first Nawab of the Carnatic, Zulfiqar Ali Khan then besieged and defeated Rajaram on and off there for eight years until the year 1698 and firmly established Mughal rule in the region.http://www.san.beck.org/2-9-MughalEmpire1526-1707.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.82.177 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Zulfiqar Ali Khan

message: First of all, Congratulations for everyone who has started this article and have done good work to improve it so far. I just have some suggestions and I dont have the sources available to me to read and correct it myself.
To start with, citing a "The Hindu" article is probably not a good idea. A book or an article or a reliable website should be great. Secondly, the article says Zulfikar Ali Nawab was appointed by the Mughal empire for his defeat of Marathas. There is some ambiguity about this information. The article should probably mention about the Marathas, that is if it is the same maratha dynasty who are ruling Tanjore during 1674-1855? which maratha king they founght with and additional informations. Thanks and good luck for improving the article. vcpk (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Establishment of Arcot Nawabdom: Maratha defeat

message: What it's called: 'Arcot State.' Implication: it's about a state in India. The subject highlighted in the intro: the 'Nawabs of the Carnatic.' Implication: it's about a line of ruling princes in India, which is indeed what the article appears to deal with (further ambiguity: is 'Nawab' the title of the princes or the name of the dynasty?). These should probably be two separate articles. Side note: the current style of the intro, 'the Nawabs of the Carnatic ruled...' etc., seems to me to be stylistically bad. I'm a relatively new editor, but it seems to me Wikipedia articles generally begin with the style 'X is A,' which in any case is much easier on the ear and much more user-friendly, especially to someone not already knowledgeable about the article's subject, than the 'X does Z' style used here. King Gus (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article about?
Talk:Belize City

message: How r u 170.52.132.149 (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idk 

message: This article had a use mdy tag (dated April 2015). This is not correct, as Belize uses dmy dates, so I removed this tag and added the use dmy dates. Additionally, I added a use Brit Eng tag, but a use Oxford spelling tag may also be appropriate. (Asdfjrjjj (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  dmy dates, British English
Talk:Joule heating

message: === Power ===
How about including that I²R is the same as IV, equal to power?
—DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for new material 

message: How about including that I²R is the same as IV, equal to power?
—DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power 

message: I have added more information about applications of ohmic heating for food processing. This includes benefits, limitations, and ideal food products with some theory behind them.
Isaacsrach (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food Processing 

message: The variable U is introduced and nowhere in the article is it defined.
I suspect it is alternating Voltage. If such is the case either use V(t) or Vrms or define U somewhere.
"P(t)=U(t)I(t)}
where t is time and P is the instantaneous power being converted from electrical energy to heat."
P and t are defined, but not U. I is defined earlier in the article. Mcrodgers2 (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternating Current 

message: I think we can add an image to the top of this page to illustrate how the joule heating can damage electrical parts.
I found this pictures, but I am not sure if the damage in these cases is caused by joule heating or not:
File:Defekter Stecker mit verzinnter Litze.jpg
File:RCTT-1-BURNT-1.png
File:Burned stove socket.JPG
Can you verify them to find the most appropriate one or can you propose another one? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I think of Joule-Lenz heating as producing, not releasing, heat.
-- Joe (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "releases" versus "produces" 
Talk:Delhi Public School Dwarka

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was NO MOVE.  As noted below, the appropriate action in this case would be merge and redirect, which was done by User:Duja on 30 November. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
* Oppose - this cannot be accomplished by a page move. If it is considered that a separate article is not appropriate then a further AfD is the way to go. TerriersFan 04:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:Unaweep Canyon

message: Glaciation in the Paleozoic (Permian Period) can not have cut the Unaweep Canyon. Triassic and younger formations  were deposited in near-horizontal layers on the top of a fairly smooth granite surface, and could not have been deposited in such a manner if the canyon had already been cut.  Glaciation, if it occurred at all, must have been post-Triassic and possibly Pleistocene. 
Sheer granite walls characterize the canyon. A number of cirque-like features occur high on the south side of the canyon and are suggestive of glacial action. However, if the canyon is actually V-shaped below the deep valley fill, then glaciation is unlikely. 
Rivers much larger than the present-day Dolores and Gunnison flowing through a faulted and jointed terrain likely are most responsible for this spectacular canyon. Just as the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon as the plateau around it arched and rose, the Unaweep rivers cut through the Uncompahgre Plateau. The granite-sediments contact as can be readily seen from the road that runs from Highway 140 north on to the Uncompahgre Plateau.
Geraldtray--Geraldtray (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Theories of Origin
Talk:Salvatore Martirano

message: The result was: No merger --B. Wolterding 14:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposed (Salvatore Martirano Memorial Composition Award) 

message: http://www.jaimeoliver.pe/courses/ci/pdf/martirano-1971.pdf    1971 progress report, includes schematics of SalMar Construction
https://archive.org/details/hardwaredesignof677fran/page/30    Designer Sergio Franco's 1974 thesis, with slightly updated versions of the SalMar schematics.
Rick  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.223.5 (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional links 
Talk:Probabilistic context-free grammar

message: These grammars have applications way way beyond RNA analysis, yet this document makes it seem like RNA is the only use worth mentioning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.30.126 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the word RNA on every line? 

message: I have never heard of "SCFG", and I hear constantly about "PCFG". I strongly believe the latter to be the canonical name. --95.36.55.89 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.85.114.9 (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

text: If this is the case (I notice this edit swapped SCFG for PCFG), then the article should be renamed? --Amkilpatrick (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

text: It hasn't been done because no-one has been bold enough to list the technical move request at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests. I've now done so. Klbrain (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done, I note. Klbrain (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why stochastic rather than probabilistic? 

message: In the general article on Syntax there was a fairly large and technical comparison of SCFG with traditional PSGs. It didn't really belong in the general article. I moved it here with a pointer AndrewCarnie (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paste in from Syntax 

message: Why is this article under Philosophy? Surely linguistics would be a better category. (But I suppose all subjects reduce to philosophy in the eyes of philosophers.)
--84.9.77.220 (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The goal was to put items under category:Formal languages into the logic wp. However, some articles that are more closely related to mathematical logic don't fit. This one doesn't seem to fit either philosophical logic, or math logic. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't belong under formal languages, which are languages guided purely by form, since for a PCFG probabilities also count. It belongs under NLP / computational linguistics. --95.36.55.89 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy? 

message: Reference seven is precisely the same as reference one.  But this text does not seem editable or at least I don't know how to do it. wgoetsch (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in references
Talk:Decibel watt

message: I would imagine dBW is not log10(P in watts) but rather log10( (P in watts) / 1 watt )
seems silly to take the log of a number that has a unit - the argument of log should be unitless.
: correct, and it's also no Power (measured) in dBW, but some dimensionless quantity, cf. percent. 91.15.129.26 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)