lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Eddington luminosity

message: Where is the reference to Eddington's original paper? 129.21.81.116 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Original

message: The following assertion is dubious, and I have removed it:
: "Note that contrary to the standard misconception, the Eddington limit does not require spherical symmetry. Indeed, this limit is utilized for nonspherical systems such as accretion disks."
The spherical approximation is commonly used, but it is always understood to be an approximation only. When the actual geometry of accretion discs is taken into account, it is found that the results can differ considerably from the classical value. See Heinzeller and Duschl(2006). Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: This article Brightest neutron star yet has a multipolar magnetic field gives another possible mechanism for superluminosity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetpen (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superluminosity
Talk:Protoplanet

message: The definition of a 'protoplanet' gives a size and mass range much larger than the Main-Belt protoplanets given as examples. — kwami (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: With so much Fe-Ni on the surface, it seems pretty likely that 9 Metis is also the core of a disrupted protoplanet like 16 Psyche. Its article at least appears to say so. Double sharp (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, added Metis (sourced). Double sharp (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  asteroids
Talk:Polytrope

message: It appears that this concept is related to polytropic processes in thermodynamics.  It would be an interesting addition to one or both articles to expand on this relationship. David Hollman (Talk) 21:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Polytropic processes

message: The equation P = K \rho^{((n+1)/n)} appears to me as a contradiction to P\,V^{\,n} = C (see Polytropic process). Since V = m/\rho the second equation becomes P\,\rho^{1/n}=C', and thus, in my opionion, the first equation should simply be P = K \rho^n. Or is the n here different from the one in the related article?--SiriusB (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula correct? 

message: In the “examples” section, it is stated that red giants have fully convective cores. But that is not the case. Stars on the red giant branch have convective envelopes and inert helium cores. 2A04:CEC0:10CE:E38A:CDD5:60FB:4322:1C5C (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RGB stars do not have fully convective cores
Talk:S-process

message: The problem is that red giant stars where the S-process occurs are not necessarily more massive than the sun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this process produces all the elements up to polonium, what about the elements after polonium? 23191Pa (chat me, but mind the alphas!) 05:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Radon and Polonium are not stable and are likely to decay before the s-process can push it along so the line stops at lead.  You need the r-process to go further. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed red giant
Talk:P-process

message: Is one to assume that "p-isotope" means an isotope created through the P process? It's not very clear, and google mostly turns up references to phosphorous isotopes. --Belg4mit 06:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This will depend upon the context.  Usually an upper-case "P" stands for phosphorous, and a lower-case "p" stands for a proton.  So, a "P isotope" is likely to be an isotope of Phosphorous, where as a nuclei made through the p-process may be called a "p-process nuclei."  So, I would say that calling something a "p-isotope" to mean an isotope created through the p-process is sloppy language.  Particularly because there are many names for nuclei, such as isotope (same number of protons (Z), different number of neutrons (N)), isotone (same number of neutrons (N), different number of protons (Z)), and isobar (same number of total protons + neutrons (A)).  So, discussing a p-process nuclei as a "p-process isotope" is not at all clear, because the p-process creates many different nuclei with different number of protons, and so using isotope here is not the correct choice.  Conversely, saying a "P isotope" meaning an isotope of phosphorous is correct language, because stipulating that it is phosphorous fixes the number of protons as Z=15.  I will review this article and attempt to make this point more clear if I can. DAID 01:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And besides, google is a beast. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  p-isotope 

message: I did a lot of editing to the article tonight, as part of my project to expand, update, and correct wiki articles relating to nucleosynthesis.  Below I am posting this article prior to my re-write, incase anyone wishes to compare the two versions, or revert the wiki back to its former state. I have neglected to include the unchanged things like references header and categories.  I removed detailed discussion of the rp-process and X-ray bursters because I have recently updated those wikis, and the only references to those here should be when they specifically relate to the p-process.
DAID 06:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Large scale editing

message: Some examples of atoms created via this process would be good. 118.92.182.109 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples ? 

message: Now there is a page describing p-nuclei, giving a list of the p-nuclei and also summarizing the possible nucleosynthesis processes. I have extensively rewritten this p-process page to properly reflect the current status of research and the historical context, and to make it fit to the p-nuclei page. (The previous version was talking about the gamma-process which is now separately covered on the p-nuclei page.) Confusingly, also the scientific literature also mixes different uses of the term "p-process". I tried to explain this in the introduction. --TRauscher (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite
Talk:Stellar dynamics

message: I think the article needs to slightly reorganised somewhat, so I created a new section. The main (indeed, only) reference is  Will C Saslaw: "Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics: Stellar Dynamics", but this is not so bad.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ema--or (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging article
Talk:Normal star

message: A disambiguation or so. There is no term "normal star", but it is referring to some ordinariness in comparison to deviations. A provisional list:
Oddballity        	Normality
Carbon star       	Oxygen star
Variable star     	Constant star (?)
Peculiar star     	Normal (composition) star
White dwarf       	Fusor (?)/Non-degenerate star
Multiple star     	Single star
Fast-rotating star	Slow-rotating star
... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The future of this article
Talk:Chemically peculiar star

message: I'll make a search whether the four classes have any pronounceable kind of names. Articles for each of them would be a possible future. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 07:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hgmnstar ... ! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 07:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Yellow boxfish

message: the yellow boxfish i an iteresting fish--REDTMR (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

message: Fish 185.166.24.25 (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurd 

message: Fi 185.166.24.25 (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurd
Talk:Hernando Molina Araújo

message: I find the article very incoherent, and the general structure of the article is confusing. The article needs major rewriting, and it needs to be thouroughly editted. Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book)  02:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Issues 
Talk:Terrestrial gamma-ray flash

message: I have managed to cross-reference most of the papers cited with the inline references, with two exceptions:
; Inan et al. 1996
: Umran Inan published quote a few papers in 1996: which is the correct one?
; Carlson et al. 2010
: Who is "Carlson", who are his friends, and which paper is this supposed to be? I wondered whether it might have been the 2010 by Dwyer et al but there is no "Carlson" listed thereon.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I am merging a bunch of details here from the Lightning article. They may not integrate very well, so feel free to edit boldly! Melchoir (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged details from Lightning article 

message: The lede says, "TGFs have been recorded to last 0.2 to 3.5 milliseconds, and have energies of up to 20 MeV." 20 MeV is the energy of an individual photon, known as "photon energy." The total energy of an entire gamma-ray burst would be something much bigger, possibly measured in some other units such as Joules. Just to put this into context, when people receive linac photon treatment for eye- or brain-cancer, the machine delivers photons with energies of 4-25 MeV. In gamma-ray astronomy, 30 MeV is the usual dividing line between LE (low-energy) and HE (high-energy) gamma rays. The point is, 20 MeV is a totally normal normal for an individual gamma ray (or "high-energy photon" as it is known in medicine). Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  20 MeV? 

message: Pretty much every single paragraph in the "Other research" is already covered in the appropriate sections in the main body of the article.  It looks to me like almost all of it an go away.  Thoughts? --Dan East (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other research 

message: All three of the illustrations of proposed mechanisms show cosmic rays triggering the RREAs. However, the article text (including the captions for those illustrations) does not mention cosmic rays even once. So, are they involved or not? If they are, the text should mention them; if not, the illustrations shouldn't show them as apparently necessary. ← PointyOintment ❬t & c❭  06:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are cosmic rays involved?
Talk:Zevatron

message: Is this in reference to that 2004 study, something else, etc. ? ---User:EI_C
::When I read it I assumed that yes it was in reference to the 2004 study and modified the article to reflect such. I am not an expert though and can't say that it wasn't a consideration before or after 2004. Please, if you're not happy with my change then _of_course_ just revert. Hopefully if/as the article fills out, this will become clearer.SneakyWho am i (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Recently"
Talk:Oxford United Stars F.C.

message: Does this club have some sort of formal link with Oxford United of England?  It seems an odd name for a Northern Irish team to have chosen if there was no connection, plus they have the same Ox on their badge as the English club..... ChrisTheDude 14:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi, I'm confused. What is the full name of the club. I keep getting mixed uses of Oxford Utd and Oxford Utd Stars and I just want to clear things up once and for all. I'm even more confused now that the IFA has released the fixtures for round one of the Irish Cup and it has BOTH OxUtd and OxUtd Stars playing in different fixtures. Thanks DarthJoeyJoJo (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They're two different clubs. Mooretwin (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford United or Oxford United Stars
Talk:Photographic magnitude

message: I have just made an update and have rewritten the article of the tag requested. (Now removed,) I've have fixed / added various broken or new links heres. I have corrected several syntax or context errors. 
New errors may have been accidental introduced and may need corrections. 
Next step is to add the cites to support the new text, else it looks like original research, but it is a step better than what was replaced. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: New Bold Attempt and Significant Update
Talk:Rossiter–McLaughlin effect

message: Perhaps there should be a section on what the effect might mean, e.g. the presence of a planet and its direction of revolution. Grassynoel (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation
Talk:Critical ionization velocity

message: There are many definitions for the term "critical velocity" and as such it is incorrect to assume that it only means "critical ionization velocity". It can also mean the speed of sound at the throat of a rocket or the velocity at which a liquid transitions from laminar flow to turbulent flow. Therefore I recommend that the redirect be removed and only when other articles exist, to which the term "critical velocity" applies, should a disambiguation page be created to assist in directing users to the desired definition of "critical velocity". Dr. Morbius (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical Velocity should not redirect here.
Talk:Institute F.C.

message: Has been sacked, so no reverting please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.247.235 (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Liam Beckett
Talk:Moyola Park F.C.

message: Hello fellow editors, 
I'm trying to add the image to the page using the already-available image filename found in the other language versions of the page. Currently in the infobox's code, I've written this: | image    = . It's the same name as what you see on the Lietuvių version, with translations of course, so I'm not sure what's going on. I've tried with and without the 150px bit. Would anyone be willing to add the logo to the page?
Complete turing (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transplant image from other language 
Talk:Felsite

message: Felsite in my experience is used to describe fine-grained extrusive and intrusive rocks of broadly granitic (i.e. felsic) composition. Examples of intrusive felsite include - the Loch Ba Felsite and the Geysers plutonic complex. Le Maitre refers to felsite as a  microcrystalline rock of granitic composition, without any comment on its occurrence. Mikenorton (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only volcanic?
Talk:Gravitation (astronomy)

message: "(In fact, these calculations have been described as "totally wrong", and the agreement of Neptune's actual position with its calculated position an "accident" [1]. However, this was due to human error, not a flaw in the law of gravity.)"
Well, the link that this cites is dead these days, and the site is Spanish, so I can't really check to see if it's just been moved.  Without a working citation, it strikes me as tremendously unlikely to be true.  What are the chances of someone making some 'totally wrong' calculations, and just happening to find a new planet where they expect it, in the enormously empty space that is the solar system?  Further, was just one of these guys 'totally wrong', or both of them?  I'm taking it out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.176.188 (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally wrong?
Talk:Flux tube

message: "parallel to them" -- them?  What "them" ?  I would fix this except  I know absolutely nothing about flux tubes!  brain (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguous/ingrammatical 

message: The Gluon page directs here for description of Color Flux Tubes. The restriction on this page to magnetic flux tubes is inconsistent with the link on the Gluon page. 198.203.213.6 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Magnetic Field 

message: A lot of the information here seems to be straight plagiarism from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2006MNRAS.365..727C  and https://www.carroll.edu/kcline/Papers/Cline-Brummell-Cattaneo-ApJ-2003.pdf
It should probably be reverted or rewritten. Lehasa (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you clean it all up?Or not? Would like to access some of the sources. Very important information. 206.85.129.29 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism
Talk:Rp-process

message: Much of the material covered in this article is also relevant to the wiki on X-ray bursts.  I would like us to consider how we can best integrate this material. DAID 10:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rp-process vesus X-ray bursts

message: I revised the sentence which claimed that lighter isotopes of Tellurium are thought to be stable and added the comment that
they could potentially be proton-bound.  A quick visit to the National Nuclear Data Center's chart of nuclei  makes it apparent that 105Te is already quite far from stability itself.  I have little justification for including the possibility of lighter Te isotopes being proton bound, however I believe it is justifiable seeing as the proton drip line is territory on the frontier of nuclear physics.  While the presence of theoretical thermonuclear reaction rate data  (for example: ) does not necessarily indicate a nucleus is bound, it does indicate that physicists believe an isotope might have some finite lifetime.--Potentialwell (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tellurium 
Talk:Nuclear astrophysics

message: In the "Future work" section, it is not clear to me what is the meaning of "Although the foundations of the science are bona fide, there are still many remaining open questions" (Good faith influences the number of open questions? Is this saying that there would be many more open questions if we regarded the whole nuclear astrophysics field as trash, and that we are not just because of good faith assumption?). I prefer to wait for an English mother tongue, but I would simply cut the sentence to "there are still many remaining open questions".
Similarly, "While impressive, these data were used to formulate the theory, and a scientific theory must be predictive in order to have any merit." is a general statement that, put in the context, may be misinterpreted. The next sentence, "The theory of stellar nucleosynthesis has been well-tested by observation and experiment since the theory was first formulated." seems to be there mainly to counter the preceding one. Again, I do not feel to be a proficient enough speaker to handle this (in a better way than simply deleting the sentences).
--Effervescenza Naturale (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bona fide" and "while impressive..."
Talk:Amorphous carbonia

message: Is it really likely that carbonia could form in the *interior* of a gas giant? Consider the effect the presence of any water would have on solid silica - the self-dissociating nature of water would likely rip the carbonia to shreds. Now, considering that all the gas giants are abundant in supply of hydrogen, what are the odds that oxygen will find its way to making carbonia, without somehow having made water in the meantime?
That statement strikes me as pure speculation, and likely wrong at that, but if someone can at least provide a citation to anything peer-reviewed, or any sort of evidence (or counter-argument) I'd love to leave it as it provokes thought to be sure. Zaphraud (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gas Giant / Massive Planet?
Talk:Bond albedo

message: Pluto is a Dwarf Planet not just a planet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.172.219 (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Pluto (Dwarf Planet)

message: There's a "dubious" tag that claims "Geom. albedo can be >1, as shown here for Enceladus|date=August 2012". This has been re-wording to make it clearer, and the tag removed.
Eteq (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Albedo >1

message: The formula is practically useless since it doesn't give the function I(\alpha). How is someone supposed to find the phase integral? Sir Cumference π 19:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This formula serves not for giving I(\alpha). I(\alpha) is derived from observations. Stas (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is anyone supposed to derive such a formula empirically? Sir Cumference π 01:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: From measuring brightness of the object on different phase angles. Look Phase curve (astronomy). Stas (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phase integral
Talk:Absolute horizon

message: This article is wrong, or at least very incomplete/oversimplified. For example the Kerr solution has multiple horizons which have different meanings to different observers. This article implies that there is one true horizon, and this is flat-out false. linas 05:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I splatted on single-sentance disclaimer: See, however the articles on ergosphere, Cauchy horizon, the Reissner-Nordström solution, photon sphere, Killing horizon and naked singularity; the notion of a horizon in general relativity is subtle, and depends on fine distinctions. as a short-term fix to the problem. linas 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: In general relativity, an absolute horizon is a type of horizon that defines a hypervolume of spacetime in which events cannot causally reach outside observers.
In general relativity, an absolute horizon is a type of horizon that bounds a hypervolume of spacetime containing a non-zero set of events that cannot causally impact events outside the horizon.
In general relativity, an absolute horizon is a type of horizon that defines a causally null hypervolume. A causally null hypervolume is a hypervolume that contains events that don't causally contribute to any event outside the hypervolume.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.223.203 (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we know?
Talk:Richtmyer–Meshkov instability

message: can this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn6kwWmUtSU be an example or its a different effect?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.86.84.178 (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:K correction

message: What is the unit of D_L?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.182.3 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! I've moved your comment into a new section to keep things together. In the article I've now defined DL and its units, and added a sprinkling of wikilinks to boot. --  Newty  23:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units of D<sub>L</sub>
Talk:Afterglow

message: Though WikiPedia is not a collection of images, I believe my added image improves the encyclopedia by giving a better view of what afterglow looks like. CindyT/P/C 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added picture 

message: I left some remarks on the talk pages for both Alpenglow and Belt of Venus, so please see those as well if you're interested..  The use of alpenglow here isn't right, and the article is quite confusing as well.  One can mention Rayleigh Scattering without all this confusing stuff about high energy and high frequency light, and there is no backscattering in alpenglow, as I described in the other talk pages.  Lastly, what is with the mention of the planet Venus being the brightest "star" visible opposite to the belt of venus?  That's just nonsense..  Venus can be visible or not, depending on the position of its orbit about the sun.  The Belt of Venus is there every day, at the anti-solar point, but Venus need not be.  Not to mention it is already confusing to try and make sure these two uses of "venus" are distinguishable, there is no need to bring the planet into the discussion incorrectly.  Unless anyone objects, I would like to take out all of the references to alpenglow, do a bit of a better job explaining that this has nothing to do with the planet venus other than that they were named after the same deity, and make the language a little more comfortable to read.  Thoughts?  Comments?  HappyDa (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove references to alpenglow
Talk:FC Qizilqum Zarafshon

message: Club's name is Qizilqum Zarafshon. --81.95.228.219 08:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename