lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Halimeda

message: Should mention contributes a significant proportion of carbonate sediment deposits. E.g.  Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  sediment 

message: os.org/science-updates/making-sense-of-the-great-barrier-reefs-mysterious-green-donuts 
"Making Sense of the Great Barrier Reef’s Mysterious Green Donuts", 9 MAR 2023
"On the outer shelf of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR), under 20–50 meters of water, lies a broad expanse of giant green “donuts.” These seafloor circles, each several hundred meters across, aren’t the result of a rogue offshore baking experiment. Rather, they consist of the remnants of countless generations of green calcareous algae from the Halimeda genus. The green color comes from the current generation of Halimeda living atop these bioherms, as scientists call this type of mounded deposit with a sunken center."
Interesting  article with new research. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Halimeda study in Australia's GBR
Talk:Ostreococcus

message: What does it mean free-living in this context? Does it mean that there are non-free-living eukaryotes smaller than this one? Cosmi (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Cosmi, there are smaller intracellular parasites.Gorton k (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free-living 

message: The taxonomic classification given here conflicts with that in the NCBI taxonomy (see  and ). Specifically, the Ostreococcus genus is placed in a different, sistering class of Prasinophyceae, Mamiellophyceae, under the same order as specified here Mamiellales (i.e. it looks like the order was moved into a different class). Additionally, the Ostreococcus genus is placed directly underneath this order, sistering the Mamiellaceae family, rather than as a descendent of it.
So the question is, in each case, which source is right? I'll email the NCBI and ask for comment, as the article itself seems to have quite a bit of supporting evidence for the given classification... Ah, looks like the phylogeny section of the Prasinophyceae page clarifies that the class is (or was) paraphyletic. I guess we should just correct the lineage here? --Dan Bolser (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing the classification of Ostreococcus to our attention. We follow Marin and Melkonian (2010) in placing Ostreococcus and related genera, such as Mamiella, in the newly created class Mamiellophyceae, which corresponds to the clade 'prasinophyte clade 1'. As you state, the Prasinophyceae are highly paraphyletic, and correspond to all of the earlier diverging green algal lineages that exclude the well supported 'higher' chlorophyte classes: Chlorophyceae, Chlorodendrophyceae, Ulvophyceae and Trebouxiophyceae. A complete reclassification of the green algae is on our 'to-do' list, but currently the classification is in a state of considerable chaos. We are hopeful that a better, formal classification will emerge with the completion of the Green Algal Tree of Life.
--Dan Bolser (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomic classification
Talk:Core inflation

message: Does anyone know where I can actually find the experimental Consumer Price Index for the Elderly in an actual percentage. DOL (US Govt) does not actually have published on its sight--supposedly according to their site they have followed it since 1984?Kaised1 07:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

message: Fixed the citation problems.  Converted all refs to new format.  Added a "Recent numbers" heading for recent data already in article, which probably should be expressed as a table.--John Nagle 18:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed citation problems 

message: Would`t be a better definition :
Core inflation is a measure of inflation which excludes the items with the highest inflation rate e.g. food and gas.
So, according to the FED, food and gas are not core Personal consumption expenditures ! 
What does that kind of official definition (of core inflation) say about the decency/honesty of todays america ?? 79.210.104.232 (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better definition ?? 

message: According to http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/01/26/federal-reserve-abandons-core-consumer-price-index, the Fed announced on January 25, 2012, that it would henceforth use "the deflator for personal consumption expenditures, which is the broadest measure of prices in the economy. The Fed made a fundamental policy change in moving away from the concept of core Consumer Price Index which excludes food and energy, as its key inflation measure." 
Could someone please update this article to reflect this change -- or explain why it does not need to be changed?  I'm not an economist, so it would not be easy for me to get all the nuances right.  Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer used by the Fed
Talk:Cryptogam

message: This article specifies that cryptogams only included vascular plants. Moss is not a vascular plant, and lichens are not plants at all.
Maybe the introduction should read "A cryptogam is any non-motile organism which reproduces by spores." I believe there's an even better word for "an organism that grows in/on its food," but can't seem to find it. Anyway, introducing the page that way allows the non-plant content of the page to make sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jergling (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the word "vascular" should be dropped from the first sentence. I will be bold and do that. But, to quibble with your quibble, your proposed definition will not work. It is best to understand the cryptogam concept in terms of the science of its day. The word "plant" has had, and still has, many meanings. The Wikipedia article Plant gives three different definitions of the taxon "Plantae" in current use today. And please remember that until the 1950s, the Plant Kingdom included the Fungi, the Bacteria, and all the Algae, many of which are indeed motile. (Algae included all one-celled species that photosynthesize, as well as some multicellular seaweeds.) Euglena, for example, was in the Algae (if you were a Botanist) or in the Protozoa (if you were a Zoologist).
  Solo Owl   (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some quips with the language
Talk:WBFN

message: Could you consider playing these 2 Songs on the Radio? 
Made to Fly
Song by Colton Dixon
All Joy No Stress
Song by Rhett Walker 
We Listen to FAMILY LIFE RADIO 
MORNING NOON AND NIGHT. 
WE ENJOY THE STATION 
FM 101.1
AM 1400
Thank You 2601:401:8280:72E0:20DD:799F:A991:2DD (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Music 🎶
Talk:Curt Polycarp Joachim Sprengel

message: Title of the article should be: Curt Polycarp Joachim Sprengel (the current version misspells Joachim as Jaochim); name verified with LC authority file (which uses the form Kurt for his first name, but also cites forms with Curt published during his lifetime)--FeanorStar7 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title
Talk:Carl Peter Thunberg

message: You guys will need to re-write the article from scratch when you see the new research from Marie-Christine Skuncke.
Looks like she just wrapped it up (and will presumably publish in Swedish before English?) but there is clearly an untold story here (with all the gory themes of racism and imperialism writ large) that none of the prior researchers have wanted to tell.
Watch out for her next work:
Marie-Christine Skuncke
Professor of Literature, Uppsala University
Non-resident Long-term Fellow for Programmes in Eighteenth-Century Studies and Intellectual andLliterary History, and for Collaboration with the Clark Library and the Center for Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Studies at UCLA.
[...]
During her stay at SCAS, Skuncke will work on Linnaeus’s pupil Carl Peter Thunberg (1743-1828), especially his Japanese voyage and its reception in Europe, as an example of Eurasian encounters in the late eighteenth century.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.97.48 (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New research forthcoming on this very subject 

message: ?? Cliffewiki (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --217.149.174.148 (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any relation to the modern-day Greta?
Talk:Ludwig Reichenbach

message: Something happened to this link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tusbra (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:WBCT

message: Per the WP:Disambig page, "If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary." Since the radio station call letters are the primary identification and the acronym for a canal restoration society in Wiltshire, England is a secondary identification, a hat note is sufficient and requires no more steps than would a disambiguation page for people seeking the society. - Dravecky (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for deletion of disambiguation page

message: Back in 1971-72, I was listening to WJFM "nine-thirty-seven" playing automated country, and such stuff as Danny Davis and the Nashville Brass.  The station called itself "500,000-watt WJFM" as I remember.  It was rather interesting how I had three country stations to choose from:
*This 500,000-watt FM from Grand Rapids;
*A 50,000-watt FM from Coldwater;
*A 500-watt AM, "Whittle" (WITL) from Lansing on 1010.
(Since most FM's are 100,000 watts maximum, and most AM's are at least 1000 watts, it was rather a curiosity to find these three stations all starting with 5 in their transmission power, all three playing country music to boot.)
I hit it just right to catch their great, but low-rated country format on WJFM, while I was in school in the area for two years.
Lytzf (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WJFM in early 70's 

message: https://goo.gl/maps/bxwfM6vmfswdy31U6 24.231.168.175 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  the broadcast tower location is at 42.63202570509133, -85.53770114514398
Talk:The Folklore Society

message: Can someone mark this as a stub? I stuck it up because at least two different versions of the name were already in use. Ffetcher 07:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: I suggest that the inclusion of the definite article (i.e. "The") violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name). Should the 2012 move be reverted? Schwede66 09:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title
Talk:Rosicrucian Order Crotona Fellowship

message: I've been studying some of the material published by the ROCF, including some of the plays and part of the correspondence course. I'm in two minds as to whether this counts as Original Research: they're publications I could reference, but the only copies I can find are in the special collection donated when the society folded. Any ideas? Ffetcher 07:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Physcomitrella patens

message: I propose merging knockout moss to this page as that article deals exclusively with this moss, and the ease with which knockouts are generated is one of the main reasons why this moss is used as a model organism. A merger would improve the Physcomitrella article and keep the information from the knockout moss article. Having a separate article for knockout moss is unnecessary as it applies only to this species, and there is no need for separate articles on knockouts of all possible organisms (knockout E. coli, knockout Bacillus sp., knockout XYZ). The principle and rationale is adequately covered in gene knockout. Knockout mouse is probably ok because of the extremely high relevance, but I don't think an article for every possible organism is required.129.67.74.57 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Assumed silent consensus as this is probably uncontroversial. I think the information fits well and really improved the article. 129.67.74.57 (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Flying Fish Cove

message: Why are we talking about flying fish cove.We are supposed to be talking about Christmas Island! 2001:BB6:710A:BD58:39C1:EB3C:E2EC:8A2D (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chritmas Island 

message: tuhsdjyaskjURWYhyjw,aevlkqJWrEWHVYL'OETIVUOKEHJNGEWAKLYGJIA,WYKLG;CYPKJINGTKL,LYWAK.I9GOKCL,YOWA;LJG.T;LVPOKOPLPL 2001:BB6:710A:BD58:39C1:EB3C:E2EC:8A2D (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  jmkl,'l.'l;oiu8hnu8jiokpl[;'][poj kl'./ 

message: The location dot for Flying Fish Cove is not within the borders of the map shown on this page (currently: Mainland Australia). The dot is floating in space, overlapping the text of the article. Can someone update to a different map? 208.95.234.57 (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map
Talk:Metzgeriales

message: The article on Blasiaceae lists it in its own, recently formed order, Blasiales. Some other sources support this, but most sources I could find still place this family under Metzgeriales. Can someone with a better knowledge of bryology perhaps help?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.154.116 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent phylogenetic work indicates that Blasia is actually basal to the Marchantiales, and is not a member of the Metzgeriales clade.  It has therefore been moved to a new order. I've added references to the Blasia and Blasiales articles, and placed a note on this article as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blasiales? 
Talk:Schistostega

message: USDA lists Schistostega as being in it's own order, Schistostegiales. Should it stay classified under Dicranales? https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=SCHIS5  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbdfar (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schistostegiales
Talk:Equisetum giganteum

message: I've removed the following text because the citations that support it are poor (the second one is broken). Please feel free to restore if reliable replacement garden information with reliable identification of the plant can be found:
  
Equisetum giganteum is cultivated as an ornamental plant, used in water gardens and containers.PlantFiles: Giant Horsetail (Equisetum giganteum)  It requires consistently moist soil, and grows in diverse climates.Gardening.eu: Equisetum giganteum—Giant Horsetail
Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed statements based on poor citations 
Talk:Equisetum arvense

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Equisetum arvense fertile spore-bearing stem - Keila.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 8, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-07-08. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Talk:Yokohama Chinatown

message: Although the area is no longer host to a significant Chinese population, think the category isn't necessarily exclusive to current Chinatowns. I think either way the category is useful for discovering these kinds of topics. If you disagree feel free to remove it, but I think it's nice to have toobigtokale (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinatowns in Japan category
Talk:Iceland moss

message: Iceland moss is not a fungi, it is a lichen. Are lichens covered by the Wikiproject fungi thingey? Or is that a mistake?
In any case, it definitely needs to be expanded. What are its uses? It's history? I look forward to seeing this page grow. 
--Nefabit 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone else find the first sentence a bit strange? 
"Iceland moss is a type of lichen.." - lichens are algae (mosses) together with fungus, and I've seen this type of lichen referred to as "Iceland lichen" which makes more sense (as it is a lichen, rather than a moss).
Any ideas on this? Should I move the page to "Iceland lichen" instead of leaving it at "Iceland moss"? ¬ jujimufu (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moss vs Lichen 

message: Link 1. leads to a 404 error; i looked around Plants for a Future but only one reference to Iceland moss, just a source for the 'plant'.
Link 2. has lots of recipes but none that refer to Iceland moss.
Here are some health links:  http://www.emedicinehealth.com/iceland_moss/vitamins-supplements.htm
                             http://www.herbal-supplement-resource.com/iceland-moss.html
                             http://www.purplesage.org.uk/profiles/icelandmoss.htm - this page has a good bibliography for the info presented
Originally posted by suzeikew (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I moved this text from the main page.  It was most likely meant for the talk page 
Talk:Land mass

message: Whats with 148,939,063.133 km² !? No calculation can be that accurate down to 0.133 km² what bull!
Is it probably accurate to at most km², 10s of km² or more likely 100's or 1000's of km².
No citation either!? 
I suggest rounding it to 148,939,000 km² given global warming, ice sheet melting (more that 63km² would have been lost when that big chunk of the West Antartic ice shelf spilt off and melted lately and giving rising sea levels and shrinking land mass therefrom thee figure can only go down!? Any takers, any arguments!? Mattjs 07:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made it a redirect. -- Scientizzle 07:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SURE! BUT WHERE DID THE FIGURE GO NOW BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT I CAME HERE LOOKING FOR!!!??? DESPITE ITS IN(I.E. OVER)ACCURACY IT WAS STILL USEFUL! Mattjs 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, check this. -- Scientizzle 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah like I said put a figure back in accurate to only 000's of km²! OK!? Mattjs 08:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy and decimals!? 

message: I reverted Scientizzle's redirect to landmass, because they are two different things. Land mass is an area of land's mass, whereas landmass is a landform. --AdamSommerton 12:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Rock tripe

message: Is there an Umbilicaria esculenta? Badagnani 06:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Umbillicaria esculenta

message: Isn't "Umbillicaria" spelled incorrectly? Badagnani (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Was this genus formerly Gyrophora? Badagnani (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it Gyrophora dillenii = Umbilicaria mammulata Sjschen (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Gyrophora''

message: I am considering putting up some articles on the species in the genus; would it make more sense to have this at the genus page then?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.160.140.194 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However you want to do it. We can always change it later. Putting info on selected species here could work, for a start. We're really in need of editors such as yourself who have expertise and interest in this subject. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Umbilicaria''
Talk:The Who Tour 2006–2007

message: In Reno, on the first stop of the 2007 leg of the tour (Feb. 23), they played "Relay" instead of "You Better You Bet". (There may have been other differences; I didn't take notes.) They extended "My Generation" with a MG-like riff and some singing by Daltrey. That included a verse or two from "Cry if You Want", and some other stuff I didn't recognize. -- B.Bryant (not logged in because I don't feel like messing with the new e-mail b.s.)
==Tampa, March 13==
I was there, I can say that that crowd was NOT understanding when Pete ran back out.  They were BOOING the man who wrote the songs they came to hear.  A few of us were understanding, but the majority weren't.--Alexrules43 15:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set list 

message: I was there, I can say that that crowd was NOT understanding when Pete ran back out.  They were BOOING the man who wrote the songs they came to hear.  A few of us were understanding, but the majority weren't.--Alexrules43 15:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tampa, March 13

message: I added a reference to the troubled concert of June 11, 2007 in the ancient Arena of Verona (Italy), interrupted by a massive rainstorm, reprised over 1 hour later, interrupted again because meanwhile Roger lost his voice, and finally played under the still pouring rain with Pete on vocals and Roger singing only here and there. I put links to a couple of videos on Youtube documenting Roger leaving the stage midsong when he realized his voice had grown cold, and the last song when he definitely killed his throat :). It was a great show anyway, I was there and took tons of rain. Feel free to correct my english. - Asprusurd  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.184.165.5 (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verona 11.06.2007
Talk:Isoetes

message: In the description part, I add more information and explanation for how to distinguish taxa of isoetes. Moreover, i found a image in the Wikipedia community which is the megasporangia of quillwort under the microscope. I think it can be helpful for some audiences if they don't have any pervious impression for megaspores. In the classification section, i add more details for some species. For Isoetes brevicula that don't have any basic information in Wikipedia, i create a new article for them. Actually, a lot of species of isoeste need to improve their introduction or description. I focus on the habits of some species such as  Isoetes histrix. I provide a extra link in the end of the article. This extra link is reliable resources that provided by a professional institution. This website have good explanation and classification for isoetes. Because the isoetes is a rare species thus the distribution is hard to collect all together. Moreover, some species are already extinct, so audiences need to know how to find the information by go through the textbook or archaeological material. This website gives detail for the distribution and current situation for multiple species. In the classification section, every time i add the habits for the species, i must provide a reference for it, and all the reference are recent resources. With the development of the discover of isoetes, some resources aren't reliable for public anymore. Finally, i check all the reference list and remove the unworkable link. —Guan1789 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 November 2018‎ (UTC)
: Please format your comment so it is readable and not a wall of text.--Kevmin § 06:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, do NOT remove other editors comments from talk pages, its against wiki policy.--Kevmin § 16:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Summary  

message: I plan on adding a small section detailing reproduction in Isoetes and distinguishing it from other lycophytes, spore-bearing plants, and seed plants. I will post a draft of the section here on the talk page if anyone has comments or suggestions. --Ptero-ADH (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction