lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Lockheed L-100 Hercules

message: Merge this with the Lockheed C-130 article. It is after all the same aircraft. Roger 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I believe its a mistake to base the L100 specs on the C130H. AFAIK L100 production was over and done with well before the C130H was developed. The first model L100 was in fact basically the C130E minus millitary bells & whistles. Two subsequend stretches resulted in the -20 and -30 subtypes with the original model sometimes retroactively called the -10. I found this page of specs for the L100-30 (the most built subtype) on Safair's website: http://www.safair.co.za/index.php?option=3&id=1&com_id=61&parent_id=48&com_task=1 They will have to be reformatted to fit the way its presented here. Unfortunately I don't have time to do it right now. Roger (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was not a mistake.  The C-130H specs were copied straight from the C-130 article.  They need to be updated.  The Airliners.net (originally from Frawley's Civil Aircraft Directory) page has basic specs. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean by "mistake" is that the L100 is not the same as the C130H, it is in fact based on the C130E. Anyway the cite I provided has the actual specs for the L100-30. Roger (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right to use the C130H stats to fill in "gaps". I've just found out that the L100-30 fuselage stretch from the original L100 is the same as the C130H's stretch from the C130E. Safair gives a different empty weight 34 545kg (76 000lbs) for the L100-30 (probably reflecting civilian equipment fit versus military). Safair page also gives a MTOW take-off distance (1300m at sea level) and landing distances at various altitudes at maximum landing weight (135 000 lbs / 61 235kg): Sea Level - 4 800 ft; 1 000 ft - 5 000 ft; 2 000 ft - 5 200 ft; 3 000 ft - 5 300 ft; 4 000 ft - 5 500 ft; 5 000 ft - 5 700 ft. Roger (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, thanks for updating the specs. I wasn't able to do that after adding them because of some persoal issues I had to take care of. - BilCat (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications
Talk:Chesterfield railway station

message: Currently, in the external links sections where it shows the preceding and following station the Newcastle-Reading line is not shown, and on the Derby and Sheffield Train stations it does not show Chesterfield either. According to the cross country timetable https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/media/1622/may-17-blue-book-v3-web.pdf , it shows that trains on the Newcastle-Reading route do stop at Chesterfield during peak times and some evening trains. Shouldn't then it be the cast that the route is shown in the external links section, just with a limited service note? That would make more sense given some of them do call at Chesterfield.
82.27.242.159 (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newcastle-Reading Route 
Talk:List of bomber aircraft

message: Why aren't fighter/bombers listed here?  Perhaps, this list should be called Strategic Bombers rather than just Bombers.
The Stuka is listed but not the Me-262, the first jet-powered fighter/bomber.  (The British were designing a jet fighter of their own and actually had them into a production, tho, like its German counterpart, it saw little action.)   Originally designed as an interceptor/fighter, Hitler insisted it be modified to carry bombs (as he did most German fighters).  A very fortunate thing for the Allies during Overlord!
If there's an article on the Me-262, I'm going to add it to the list of German bombers.
PainMan 20:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighter/bombers, wherefore art thou? 

message: It is a fairly simple question with a rather complex answer!  There are many different types of bombers such as level bomber, torpedo bomber and dive bombers.  Also some aircraft are classified as attack aircraft but are technically bombers.  So far there isn't any differentiation to the bomber list.  Idsnowdog (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a bomber?

message: There is an RfC discussion on numbers of aircraft built in lists. You are invited to join in. Please do, as an editor has been attempting to add or restore them here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on production numbers in lists 

message: The Fokker F-27 maritime isn't a bomber, it's a patrol aircraft.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.64.155 (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fokker F-27 maritime 

message: Following this discussion on the Aviation WikiProject talk page, this list is to be reformatted to the "general" format as specified at WP:AVILIST. Note that the general format now retains the count of numbers built. If you have any objections to the format in principle, please raise them in the linked discussion. If you believe that this list should be an exception, please seek a local consensus on this talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List format
Talk:Downcycling

message: Which is it? Was the term coined by William McDonough and Michael Braungart, or were they first used by Reiner Pilz of Pilz GmbH and Thornton Kay?
The latter has an earlier date, so it may be the more correct version.
TWCarlson 07:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting statements 

message: Plastics are not limited to downcycling.  Hydrocarbon based plastics as opposed to halogenated plastics like PVC or PTFE have can be part of a Cradle to Cradle cycle   as they can be thermally decomposed in an oxygen free environment in one step. This process enables capture an reuse of the hydrocarbon monomers or atoms.
Susten.biz (talk) 12 March 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 03:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. I replaced this example with the well documented example of secondary steel recovered from scrap cars. Guillaume Majeau-Bettez (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Analogy

message: Waste or otherwise worthless materials have no quality or functionality.  The very concept of "downcycling" appears to be non-existent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.89 (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition makes no sense 
Talk:Andrew Trim

message: This text is straight from the party Web site ; that text may be in public domain, but that's not asserted. This s/b rewritten. (It reads pretty promotional now, too; you should try to align it with WP:NPOV. --Graham 09:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  added copyvio 
Talk:Roy Masters (rugby league)

message: In Sydney, RL is known as football and soccer is known as soccer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.218.93 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 26 August 2006.
This is a Sydney centric article about a Sydney personality, therefore as most people seeking it will be from Sydney, it should reflect commen usages in Sydney. Therefore league is football and soccer is soccer. An appropriate link explains this for non-Sydneysiders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.218.93 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 26 August 2006.
:It does not matter what is said in Sydney, but rather Consensus. And Consensus follows the Naming Conventions and the naming conventions name articles Rugby League and Football (soccer). That is the answer to what we should call the respective sports, any other name just leads to edit wars which we plainly should not be having. Jpe|ob 10:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Football - Soccer - Naming Conventions

message: The justification for 60.225.218.93's revert of Roy Masters (rugby league coach) is not valid. The said "aggressive editing" is in line with WP:BB and is merely following the WP:MOS. Please do not revert pages without discussing them on the talk page, as this is a process of Consensus, not pushing one point of view. Jpe|ob 10:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unjustified Reverts
Talk:Rugby League War of the Roses

message: Does anyone anticipate a return of the Origin Series once the Tri-Nations is discontinued?  Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 09:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I personally like Yorkshire-Lanky matches in any sport but it seems that most rugby league fans do not. The RFL don't want to promote anything that reinforces the idea that rugby league is only for Yorkies and Lancastrians.GordyB 11:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return?
Talk:Maha Vir Chakra

message: I love that this article includes a picture of the award, and a template listing of all India's military/political awards. But the text is somewhat short. Is there anything more that can be said? LordAmeth 13:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: The image is a mirror of how the medal is supposed to appear (white on left, orange on right) Myopia123 (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it.Myopia123 (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I noticed that BSF personnel such as Ram Krishna Wadhwa (No 195 in the table) is from the BSF are part of the table. 1, 2
While the rank helps identify most of the forces, the general reader will have difficulty identifying cases such as this. This can be marked somehow. DTM (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query
Talk:Milkshake! Summer

message: There are no references in this article, and even the official website has nothing about a Milkshake! Summer programming block. I don't think its worth having as a separate article and therefore redirected it to Milkshake! and added a line in that article that Milkshake Summer is broadcast on weekends from July through autumn. That line may not be accurate but I'll let others decide whether it should stay or go. -Killian441 (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirecting to ''Milkshake!''
Talk:Bala S. Manian

message: It's not clear if this guy is notable.  I was also surprised at the surprising similarity of the username of the user who started the article and the name of the subject of the article.  And that the user has only edited this article.  -Easytoremember 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks entirely self-promotional.  Submitting for deletion. MartinezMD (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I declined the A7 speedy deletion request as there is a credible assertion of importance or significance (which is a lower threshold than notability). Please initiate an AfD discussion if you believe the individual does not meet notability criteria. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was listed in the large backlog list.  That's where I came across it.  I still think it meets speedy deletion, but if you disagree, lets go through the standard process.  I don't see any significant research breakthroughs listed from Mr. Manian.  He seems to be an engineer/businessman, but that alone shouldn't make him the subject of an encyclopedia article.  The references are all just resume items and minor biographies.  Where is the notability?  A lot of people have a graduate degree and have a couple of businesses, does that mean we should make an article all of them?  I don't think that's sufficient. MartinezMD (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this needs to go to WP:AfD if you are concerned that the individual is not notable. PROD is for uncontroversial deletion requests only, as another editor above has challenged the assertion that there is no notability then it should go to AfD for a full discussion. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

text: That was my error.  Used the wrong tag.  I'll make the appropriate corrections.MartinezMD (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific

message: We are no longer SSC San Diego; as of October 1st we have been commissioned as SSC Pacific.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.253.49.6 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The name of this facility will be changed to Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific, effective Feb. 19, 2019. On that date the article should be updated and the article title moved. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Feb 28, Wikipedia's Teahouse received a request from User "NIWC" to implement the Wikipedia article name change. Done. and article revised to reflect replacement of SSC Pacific with NIWCP. David notMD (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Funny that there was no announcement or ceremony. But it is a secretive kind of organization by nature. AFAIK their big facility on Pacific Highway doesn't even have a name on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename
Category talk:Auto parts

message: I would like to request a category for Automobile Anti-Theft technologies and or parts. I don't know how to do this yet, I read the write up but am not sure I entirely understand it. Thanks for any help! Lsjzl 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automotive Anti-Theft Devices 

message: Suggesting rationalization of categories :Category:Auto parts, :Category:Automotive engineering, :Category:Automotive technologies. I'd do it myself when I got the time but I don't know if the universe will live that long.Gzuckier (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  technology, parts, engineering?? 

message: For consistency with the other "Automobile" categories. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to [[:Category:Automobile parts|Automobile parts]]?
Category talk:Automotive technologies

message: Suggesting rationalization of categories :Category:Auto parts, :Category:Automotive engineering, :Category:Automotive technologies. I'd do it myself when I got the time but I don't know if the universe will live that long.Gzuckier (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The notion of 'automotive'xxx seems to have swept up just about anything with wheels so I've been slowly migrating the non-automobile articles to vehicle-related parent categories. I expect the remainder would truly relate to automobiles. --Hooperbloob (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  technology, parts, engineering??
Talk:Low-level waste

message: I thought that radioactive waste was classified as "low level" "medium level" and "high level".
Low level defined as waste mostly suspected of beinng contaminated or contaminated at such a low level that a few hundred years would be enough for decay. ----This is not true. Every spectrum of radioactive isotopes, from Plutonium, to Americium and Neptunium, are present in Class A, B and C.  Its a matter of concentrations.---- The problem would be that an alpha (or beta) emitter would not be detectable inside a thick rag but could be deadly if ingested. (Alpha and beta emitters have very short reach (and usually life) and are only dangerous if inhaled or breathed) ----Pluonium is an alpha emitter and is deadly if inhaled and possibly ingested.---- 
Medium level defined as waste with long life and at dangerous concentrations. Examples would be reactor components, fuel  casings and such. -----This is called Class C or Greater Than Class C  GTCC in the US----
High level defined as spent fuel, very dangerous for a long time.
At least in Sweden they burn burnable low level waste in pure oxygen, check the flue gases for radiactivity (easy in gaseous form) (and sometimes dissolve the ash, check the fluid in thin layer) and can verify that there are no radioactivity in the waste. Seniorsag 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition? 

message: Some sources are here they're not easily accessed directly from the site navigation but were found by google:
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0407.shtml Belgium
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0408.shtml Canada
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0409.shtml Chine
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0410.shtml Finland
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml France
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0412.shtml Germany
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0413.shtml Japan
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0414.shtml Russia
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0415.shtml Spain
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0416.shtml Sweden
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0417.shtml Switzerland
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0418.shtml UK
AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operations by country 
Talk:Transferable belief model

message: I have just created this introductory article on a research topic that, I think, is very promising. I read a few papers on the Transferable Belief Model and it seems to me a valid alternative, for some cases, to the broadly known Probability Theory and to the often overestimated Dempster-Shafer theory.
I rewrote the article to reflect the fundamental historical reason why P.Smets developped the TBM. Think the DST article needs improvement too.
HDMinh 193.51.120.172 14:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

message: Does anyone know enough about this to say that this is actually distinct from the Dempster-Shafer theory, as opposed to just saying that all possible combinations of outcomes should be considered within that theory. It looks as if most of the publications reaached via the "external links" involve someone called Smets and I am not clear that the 2 references I added to the article are by independent sources. So just how "notable" is this topic? It doesn't seem to stir much interest from editors. Melcombe (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of notability 

message: This article seems to be written exclusively for people that already have extensive understanding of the subject and terminology. It could use an introduction that better explains what it is to the layman.   Andacar (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not very clear 

message: I added a few inline-citation for the paragraphs I added or changed. For the two remaining paragraphs (Zadehs example and open world assumption) I'am not exactly sure about the source publications. It might be Smets and Kennes, 1994 as well. I would suggest removing the maintenance template "lack of inline citations". What do you think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgree (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of inline citations
Talk:Polmadie

message: General historical and transport information is lacking.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: I had always understood Polmadie to mean foxhole. Poll madaih. 82.21.140.174 (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology
Talk:Reverse logistics

message: Desing guru John Thackera, in 'In The Bubble', mentions a form of Logistics used to reduce waste and miles, instead of to increase speed to market.
This seems like a related topic.   'Closed-loop logistics' is the term he uses.
In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World - could be a reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.136 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Amazon is a company that is famous for their excellence in reverse logistics. Roughly one third of Amazon's order are returned. Since they have such a high number of orders returned, it is crucial that this part of their supply chain runs just as smoothly as the front end. The product can be thought of as in limbo while in the reverse logistics stage. The product is not making any money for the company while in this stage. Amazon tries to bring the product back to life by fixing, repackaging, or discarding the unit. Other online retailers who haven’t focused on their reverse logistics strategy may never bring that unit back to life. This would be a complete loss for the company. Minimizing these risks by not only tactically, but strategically viewing their entire supply chain as a closed loop, amazon has created a competitive advantage especially when compared to other online retailers. Amazon has created value for their customers and shareholders with this unique skill set. It would be beneficial to add a section on their strategy and execution since it is such a vital part of their business.   
A revision of the writing using the information from Global Logistics Assessments Reports Handbook Volume 1, International Business Publications USA, 2011 may be considered. It seems that the writing in the Wikipedia article is too similar to the original article and a paraphrase would be better suited. This use of close wording is violating one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. This pillar emphasizes the importance of proper editing, citations and plagiarism. These comments were made while keeping all Five Pillars of Wikipedia in mind with special emphasis on; Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. These suggestions were made with the intent of improving this particular Wikipedia article and good faith was assumed on the part of the original author. Parmetaa (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon
Talk:Saltcrete

message: --Alex 09:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

message: The article is written in abominable English betraying an understanding of the language that is so low, that it must be questioned whether the author could even understand the content of the sources from which the content was supposedly extracted. Deletion candidate!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.62.166 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely rework article
Talk:Scrubber

message: Is there an article about stripping?  Can we link to it?  (a wikipedia/google search led to strippers, as in poles and thongs etc.) 66.25.230.32 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Stripping (chemistry).  —QuicksilverT @ 06:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about stripping? 

message: I suggest the mercury removal section to be merged with the Mercury removal technologies (not available yet in Wikipedia) and removed from this article. The Vindictive 15:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: This section only contains one source, which is unverified and therefore unreliable.--Just James T/C 10:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and it's also not NPOV and is off-topic.  The entire section should be removed. —QuicksilverT @ 05:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This section provides no FACT. Wikipedia was not setup to document biased individual's opinions. I have deleted it on these grounds. --124.186.161.97 (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The global warming section

message: here's a source on the effectiveness of various simple bases in wet scrubbing of nox and uhc pollutants.  173.14.238.113 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  wet scrubbing
Talk:Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway

message: Signifying original stations in bold only is not accessible - some people may have DOS-style monitors, or be hearing the page through an aural browser. We need to use a more explicit signifier, such as an asterisk, or using the word "original" in brackets after the station's name. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility