lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Interface (matter)

message: Phase boundary is a concept of equilibrium thermodynamics. Interfaces also exist out of equilibrium, e.g. in artificially grown thin films. Therefore I will remove the tag that proposes merging these two stubs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsda (talk • contribs) 08:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: No merger with [[phase boundary]]
Talk:Trimer (chemistry)

message: I believe it is an example of Reppe chemistry, but without sources, etc., it is not helpful. In any case, I don't think this example is the best example of a trimer. Should the article not discuss something along the lines of a dimer, polymer? --Rifleman 82 13:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: Ene reactions specify a class of organic reaction which the information in this article may or may not include. Hence the hypenated suffix is used. -- Mountainninja (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  -ene instead of ene 

message: It is nice to have the simple definition alongside the technical. Makes learning much easier. 75.118.246.34 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you to whoever added the simple definition.
Talk:Strain (chemistry)

message: I think it might be helpful to include an explanation of how strain energy affects HOMO/LUMO FMO diagrams. Thoughts?
Thanks! -Verazzano
Verazzano (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Strain energy

message: I highly recommend editors to consider consulting "Advanced Organic Chemistry Part A: Structure and Mechanisms" produced by Francis A. Carey and Richard J. Sundberg about Advanced Organic Chemsitry. They usually devote a chapter on conformational and steric effects.
Zyvov 02:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carey and Sundberg
Talk:Atom transfer radical polymerization

message: I know that the initial development of ATRP is disputed between Mitsuo Sawamoto and Krzysztof Matyjaszewski, both published papers relating to it in 1994.  Would it not therefore be fair to credit Matyjaszewski as well as Sawamoto?
--Mothball (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit for Matyjaszewski? 

message: Would it not be better to have the main article under Atom Transfer Radical Polymerisation and have ATRP_(chemistry) redirect there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothball (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATRP or Atom Transfer Radical Polymerisation? 

message: this is a great start, but, like most science articles on wiki, it is to complex - this article could be made much more simple and much more accessible by removing some jargon and being more explict, eg the first figure - what the heck is P and R and so forth - there needs to be a legendCinnamon colbert (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: great start

message: Added some ATRP variants; some with broader applicability or differentiating features. Feel free to expand if you have more knowledge of these things.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.68.191 (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Variants

message: Hi, I honestly think that the dashes in the title aren't really suited. I'm working on this reaction in my PhD and it's written nearly nowhere with dashes. Anyway, I'm going to update the whole page next days, I only hope that my English level will be sufficient. Marcookem (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename request II 
Talk:Burn rate (chemistry)

message: I came here looking for what symbol it typically has in equations, so it might be a useful piece of information to include.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.196.206 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: symbol

message: The article stated that a sample burning at over 247 m/s detonates, which is wrong. A substance detonates if the reaction is driven by a supersonic shock front. The velocity of detonation is not related to the speed of sound in air, but to the speed of sound in the detonating substance. 83.254.151.5 (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burn rate over 347 m/s does not imply detonation
Talk:Kali River (Uttarakhand)

message: There has been a lot of fierce opposition to the Pancheshwar dam in the region.
For more on the debate, see this external link:
Do we need another big dam?
This page should be merged with the Mahakali River page, which has been substantially expanded with latest factual information to bring out all aspects of development in the basin in Nepal and India. The external link stated above is factually incorrect in many ways. The DPR for PMP is still not ready, since many aspects of project parameters are still undecided.Hence, it is suggested that a controversial paper be excluded from an enclopedic page in Wiki.--Nvvchar (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pancheshwar dam

message: Note:  Project Banner with Uttarakhand workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article  falls under :Category:Uttarakhand or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article  --  TinuCherian     (Wanna Talk?)   - 13:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Uttarakhand workgroup Addition 

message: See: Kalapani</br>
Also see: Sarda River,with which merger has been proposed</br>
The article mentions that the location of origin of the Mahakali river is Lipu-Lek at Kaalapani in the Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand, India. The mentioned location (Kaalapani) is currently a disputed boundary of Nepal and India (and China?). I think its location cannot directly be declared as being in India but necessary research is also needed.</br>
To note:</br>
1) Sugauli Treaty of 1816 shows Kalapani as a Nepalese territory.</br>
2) Survey of India 1850 and 1856, includes Kalapani an being within the territory of Nepal and NOT in India.</br>
3) Later editions of Survey of India (Survey of India 1879) include Kalapani as being within the Indian territory.</br>
Please see to adressing this NPOV issue.</br>
@Shirsakbc (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality
Talk:Abundance (chemistry)

message: Surely, "in abundance" can be used to explain the reduction of effective reaction order, but if the differentiation between "in abundance" and "in excess" stated in the article is established, why is the latter more frequently used in that very context? Besides, of the eight pages in the article name space that link here, only one, Bjerrum plot, uses the term in the stated sense.
Apart from usage, the differentiation itself shall show up in textbooks. However, the Google-Books search for "order reaction"|"reaction order" "in abundance" "constant"|"not change" "excess" yields only a dozen results, nine of which are in German and do not contain the term. Of the remaining three, two are editions of Thomas M. Devlin's Textbook of Biochemistry, who uses the term in the sense of this article but does not define it, and one uses "abundance" quantitatively ("the difference in abundance"), as does the only source referenced in the article ("arsenic ranks 51st in abundance"); User:PhilKnight inserted it as reference for "in excess", in 2009, together with the moresources tag.
I suggest to delete this article. Bjerrum plot could link to Rate equation#Pseudo-first order. --Rainald62 (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it an established term?
Talk:Internal conversion (chemistry)

message: The first paragraph of the Examples section which discusses quinine sulfate fluorescence being quenched by halide ions is _not_ internal conversion, this is in fact _external_ conversion (as the deactivation pathway is the result of forces or molecules _external_ to that of the fluorophore molecule). I suggest that this paragraph be removed or replaced with a more fitting example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.216.49 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Nileshwaram

message: Happy to note that Nileshwaram has finally been upgraded to the status of a municipality. So now this article will need special attention. Attention Nileshwaram Wikipedians, Pls provide one skyline image of the Nileshwaram town and update the articles demographic attributes such as current population, literacy percent etc.
Thanks...
AruNKumaRTalK
 07:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nileshwaram as Municipality 

message: I have removed references on multiple occasions to a hill station named Konnakkad that is stated to be  from Nileshwaram.  To my mind, this means that Konnakkad is in no way related to Nileshwaram, but apparently one editor feels differently.  To avoid an edit war, I invite anyone familiar with the topic to chime in and say whether a 35 km distant hill station merits mention here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Konnakkad 

message: The list of notable people should, by Wikipedia conventions, be restricted to people who already have a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people
Talk:MEKO 140

message: "13:46, 13 July 2007 Jor70 (Talk | contribs) (2,437 bytes) (This is not true, ARA call them corvettes not frigates) " 
Jor70, thanks for the review and correction. You're right, they're classified as "corvettes" as can be seen in the official ARA webpage (see references/links in the article). I become aware of my error today (the words "frigate" and "corvette" were transposed) but couldn't correct it timely. I've added the corrected paragraph minutes ago. 
What is not clear to me is the reason and goal of your second ammendment on the same day. Your rephrased paragraph does not sound equal to the original one I've wrote. (just to learn about "Wiki-Style", I'm not saying the ammendmen is not right). 
Regards, 
DPdH 05:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I changed the lead to reflect the article is about the MEKO 140 in general and mention Argentina only in the variants section. I know is the only current user but I think is more neutral that way and we are not repeating the same text that is already under variants --Jor70 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: oppose This article is about a specific ship type project, its derivatives, and its technical characteristics (modularity, etc), as known to the builder (Blohm & Voss); while the other (Espora class frigate) is about a class of ships in service, as known by the user (Argentine Navy).  Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with ''Espora class'' article  
Talk:22nd Street station (Caltrain)

message: This is getting a little in the weeds, but I don't think it's useful to claim a connection between Caltrain and Muni Metro here. Because Muni is at 20th and 23rd, and Caltrain at 22nd, it's four tenths of a mile to walk between the stations; the vast majority of actual transfers between the lines are at 4th and King. (Because 23rd is mostly industrial, locals would also be more likely to transfer at 20th if they were using 22nd Street.) It certainly shouldn't be shown as a hub on templates like ; the hub icon is for connected station complexes like 4th and King. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. Removing the hub icons. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muni Metro connection
Talk:Burlingame station

message: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Burlingame_Train_Station_circa_1900.jpg
:File:Burlingame_Train_Station_circa_1900.jpg
Hi there, on our photograph of the Burlingame Train station (far right, lower end) you have an incorrect caption for the date. That photo is at least c. 1910, because in 1909 the arcade in the foreground was built, so it is impossible that the photo was taken 10 years before. Considering the palm tree was planted around 1901, and was really a baby palm, I'd guess it is circa 1915.
Best-
Jennifer Pfaff
Burlingame Historial Society President— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B281:AC0:AD4B:4352:B8DB:F67C (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burlingame Train Station + History 

message: https://twitter.com/GoCaltrain/status/887022768625115136
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE9WSCEVwAAOhPM.jpg
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic
Talk:Stanford station

message: This is by most standards the least significant station on the route; however, if we are covering all the stations we should probably cover this (or else decide where to merge in).  It should be beefed up with some historical info.  I note that trains were stopping there as long ago as 1922 (Stanford Illustrated, October 1922, 24(1): 21).  However most of the stuff is primary material which we shouldn't really be using. It also seems that at times special trains would run non-stop from San Francisco to the stadium station. Note when hunting that the stop has often been known as the Stanford Stadium station. --Erp (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove or not?
Talk:Katal

message: This thread http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/chem/2180/Origin-of-the-SI-Unit-Katal at natscience.com has some pointers as regards the etymology of "katal". 212.84.103.144 (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The katal is invariant of the measurement procedure, but the numerical quantity value is not and depends on the experimental conditions. Therefore, in order to define the quantity of a catalyst, the rate of conversion of a defined chemical reaction is specified as mols reacted per second.
What is meant here? Rewrite? 178.38.108.161 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makes little sense
Talk:Kalyug (2005 film)

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499041/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl and http://www.simap-project.org/download-kalyug-movie-2005-dvd-mp4-divx-dvdrip.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
File talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion – Death & Rebirth (1997 film) poster.jpg

message: Image reduced and Purpose and Resolution edited per FU guidelines.  The current source link is kaput; I've got a new one here but I don't know if a site like this is permissible for a source link. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 06:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Orsellinic acid

message: The following text was added to the article, which I'm copying here in case anyone wants to follow up:
citation to J Chromatog 511 needs to be revised because that paper makes no reference to crystals of orsellinic acid nor its melting point.  In fact, the text never specifically mentions orsellinic acid: it simply appears in Tables I, II & III.  
Marbletan (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential error in text
Talk:List of Pokémon (281–300)

message: These lists are clearly being merged from the individual Pokemon articles as decided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon. -WarthogDemon 06:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the question above, I tagged the article due to a misunderstanding.  The speedy delete tag should not have been added due to a decision made by WikiProject Pokemon to combine individual Pokemon articles into groups of twenty.  Useight 06:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Is This Db-tagged? 

message: These new changes tell absolutely nothing about Pokemon! It was bad enough that simple things like the height and weight were completely removed, but even basic information is being left out in favor of this garbage! Just look at Gardevoir alone, paragraphs of perfectly viable information have been totally cut! This new format is utterly pathetic.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.12.53 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly viable for who? Individual pokemon are not notable enough to warrant their own articles, it's hard enough to make a list of 20 notable enough. What do you suggest to fix this other then adding in gameplay information or in universe information? What do you suggest we add to the list to make them notable? SpigotMap 18:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if theres one thing I come to wikipedia for, it most certainly is a removal of information. it's lovely!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.67.17 (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case you're on the wrong place. Use Bulbapedia, it's linked at the bottom of each page. Game info and anime info shouldn't be too specific, which is what the articles did make them. TheBlazikenMaster 17:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I Think They Should Be Split Up Like This: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_by_National_Dex_number cal05000 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is horrible!
Talk:Tube (container)

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 06:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-07-16 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: I was wondering how a tube of toothpaste is made, can anyone help me? 2001:B07:6473:37B:F11E:79A4:66EB:23FD (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  how is it made?
Talk:Section line

message: I think so. There's a whole story to written about section lines, and there are a lot of farmers that would think this. I couldn't believe I couldn't make an internal link to it, so I wrote it. I'll be working on it, and thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanabozho (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable?
Talk:Faà di Bruno's formula

message: I went through the calculations of this paragraph and there seems to be a sum over k missing in the coefficient c_n. Plus a confusion I have about the coefficient in the composition of "exponential"-like series, cf. https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4283116/92038  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noix07 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal power series version

message: In the paragraph of special cases of application of Faà di Bruno to get the reciprocal, I think f(x)=1/(1-x) is ok but g(x) is given as just g(x) = -ogf(x), where ogf(x) is the ordinary generating function one wants to (multiplicatively) invert, also called the reciprocal generating function. But it should have been g(x) = 1-ogf(x), so f(g(x)) = 1/ogf(x) and it equates to Faà formula. Note the lacking 1 term for g(x). This is clearly put in https://unapologetic.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/inverses-of-power-series. Jesuslop (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reciprocal generating function 

message: It would be useful to know more about the Faa di Bruno polynomials. They seem to be known as Faber polynomials
although F di B's precedence is assured.
John McKay  
129.199.98.69 06:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faa di Bruno polynomials 

message: The number of derivative-symbols for f',f, f' seems to be messy.
~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Druseltal2005 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in "explicite example" 

message: I've some serious interest in how this formula looks like for some F(x(z)) with the result of F being a scalar and x being a vector and z being an even larger vector (larger number of elements). In the end I want d^nF/dz^n but I want to avoid having to carry so many derivatives (since the number of elements in z is larger than the number of elements in x).
Thanks to everybody contributing here!  
--ExcessPhase (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this is the vector form of the formula that you're looking for? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  request 

message: The article is truly bad because, neither in the introduction nor anywhere else is it stated what f and g are.
They are obviously some kind of functions. But what is their domain? What is their codomain? What if anything is assumed about f and g?  (Certainly they seem to be assumed differentiable to all orders.)
But none of these things are mentioned in the article, so it is entirely unclear what functions the formula applies to.
: Then help to fix it... Also sign your comments with the four tildes. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible article
Talk:South Wales Railway

message: Just added a note to the Template Talk page for the diagram about the absence of Lydney, which needs correcting by someone who knows how to do these things (ie, not me). Patently there will also need to be changes to the number of junctions shown into the Forest of Dean as well. Cheers. Johnlp (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lydney
Talk:Peter Katin

message: I have deleted this as there appears to be no authoritative confirmation for the moment. It was indeed referred to on BBC Radio 3 (twice), but nowhere else. The reference to the Friends of Radio 3 Forum was only reporting what had been said on Radio 3, and was therefore secondhand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioan Dyfrig (talk • contribs) 09:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I too heard this on R3.  I don't doubt that it is true, but it's necessary to wait for more reliable information on the exact date of Mr Katin's death before posting formal text here.  The tributes in the papers will follow in due course, but once the exact date of death is established, it would be valid to cite the In Tune broadcast date as the source. DJRafe (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You got in just before me! Thanks. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  References are duly cleaned up.  Since we now have formal print obituaries, that is why I removed the Friends of Radio 3 Forum reference (chat boards don't really qualify as references in any case, in general principle). DJRafe (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death announced 

message: The article says he was educated at the Whitgift School, South Croydon; however in the interview with David Wright (see References) he himself says he was educated at private schools in Balham, Caterham, East Grinstead and Clapham. --rossb (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the correction (having consulted PK himself; I appreciate this doesn't count as evidence, but the correct version has a source, whereas the incorrect statement about Whitgift school was unreferenced.--rossb (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 
Talk:Cedar Grove, Shreveport, Louisiana

message: I'm doing NPOV tag cleanup. Whenever an NPOV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. Jjdon (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag