lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Rotational frequency

message: There is difference in relation between tangential velocity and rotational velocity definition in speed and Rotational speed
Here V=2πrω, in speed angular velocity V=rω
62.128.45.194 (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

message: I've replaced the first paragraph by sourced information, but most of this article (which needn't be long or complex) needs writing per (simple) sources with standard notation.
Do we even need this article? it's just angular velocity multiplied by a constant; it coul dbe a redirect to angular velocity, or revolutions per minute, dealt with in a sentence there. Pol098 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs writing, or redirecting

message: I recommend that we redirect it to Angular velocity --CaliViking (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should not exist. This is just angular velocity

message: Rotational velocity redirects here, but this page did nothing about it, so I took the liberty of adding a second definitional lead: 
Similar to the relationship between speed and velocity in linear motion, rotational velocity combines rotational speed with a direction vector. For a spinning top, the direction vector can only be clockwise or counterclockwise (conveyed by the sign of the rotational velocity) whereas for a rotating sphere there are two directional degrees of freedom in specifying an oriented axis of rotation, and the sign of the velocity (speed) will correspond to the direction of rotation with respect to the oriented axis. 
I'm a dangerously amateur physicist, but surely this is better than having nothing at all, if only barely. — MaxEnt 21:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotational velocity redirects here 

message: Edit: FALSE ALARM. I hadn't noticed that page angular velocity already exists, given that rotational velocity redirected here instead. I fixed the redirect to point there with a for hatnote here. 
See also my comment directly above. 
It occurred to me after a few more edits that it's actually easier to situate angular velocity on the angular momentum page. It should still be mentioned here on the way by, but I think the redirect is better there. 
If redirected there, in my opinion this should still qualify as a bold lead item, as I have now rendered it here. 
Will notify foreign talk page as well. 
For myself, I'm just passing through, leaving a few breadcrumbs in my wake. — MaxEnt 21:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move of redirect for angular velocity to angular momentum
Talk:Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement

message: the article, as currently written, is very anti-agreement. the only pro-agreement line is followed by "citation needed". I cite that as evidence of breech of NPOV. 74.14.16.208 05:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to try and bring balance to the article by including other sources and other points, provided they are all properly cited.  I don't have time right now but will go over the article for POV language later on, and I'm aware that that may not be enough to bring balance.  However disinformation, even if cited, is still POV, from either side, as is promotional language.  This is a hot-button issue for those who know about it, on either side, so likely it will be a struggle to write a properly encyclopedic-in-tone article and keep POV at bay; but one of the main Wiki axions is "So fix it".  Useful comparisons might be with other articles of the same type; I'll see if I can come up with a list (and many of them may be POV, too, on either side).Skookum1 (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV
Talk:William Rimmer

message: The text is labelled as containing Public Domain text (at the bottom), most parts are based on Encyclopaedia Brittanica (EB section on William Rimmer). Obviously it would be better to rephrase the whole article in own words and with more sources (it has only 3 original sentences), but why do you think, the Wiki text is a copyvio? (the match with the family history site is a false positive based on this evidence) The non-free tag seems invalid as well, the content is PD and both images are also PD due to age, although their image information could be a bit more detailed. Removing the tags for now, if necessary please re-insert them and clarify. GermanJoe (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help desk request and tagging possible copyvio and non-free material
Talk:Royal Society of Edinburgh

message: Most of the pages that link here are articles on Fellows, and a good many of those link through FRSE (piped or directly), so I think it facilitating to put "Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh" in bold near the top.  This allows those unfamiliar with "FRSE" as a title, running across it in an article, to click the link and quickly grasp its meaning. ENeville 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh" 

message: We need some sort of criteria for the list of notable fellows. I think having a wikipedia article isn't enough to be "notable".
I don't think being a university Vice-Chancellor is enough by itself, either, especially compared with the Nobel laureates etc on the list. I've removed Brian Lang and Muir Russell, neither of whom have noteworthy intellectual achievements to their names (Russell was a civil servant and Lang was a failed social anthropologist).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenSutherland (talk • contribs) 20:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable fellows 

message: I think it's poor that titles like  "New Philosophical Journal" redirect here and are not received with any information. Redirects should be meaningful. In any event, that journal (early 19th C.) was significant in its day, and its founder and editor Robert Jameson was significant in promoting geology. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to nowhere 

message: In his contribution of 13:28 23 July 2017, TiMike asserted in the first introductory paragraph that "As of 2017, it has more than 1,660 fellows", but sadly gives a link to the list of fellows for the Royal Society (of London), not the Royal Society of Edinburgh.  We could revert to the previous figures, which used a newspaper article as a reference.  However, those figures might not be any more accurate, while certainly being more out-of-date.  The best answer, I think, is to ask the Royal Society of Edinburgh to correct this themselves, which I will do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil J Ross (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Fellows
Talk:Barye

message: This unit might be confused with the Bar.  I think that it is useful to include a conversion to bar, to make it clear that they are not the same thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.147.74 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

message: I have never seen this symbol. It does not appear in ref. 1. Conflicts with the rule that the symbols may have uppercase start only if named after a man/woman. 151.29.59.56 (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  symbol
Talk:Glenn Graham (athlete)

message: According to Olympic.org and gbrathletics.com/ic/ogm.htm this athlete is called Glenn Graham but according to databaseolympics.com his name is Glen Graham does anyone now for sure which is correct.Waacstats 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspapers from the 1920s all spell it like Glenn. —holly  {chat} 22:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Édgar Chamorro

message: I question the statment "...descendent of four of Nicaragua's past presidents."  I'm not sure of his place in the family tree, but no direct line has more than two presidents. James J. Peterka 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this was probably just a reference to there being four Chamorro presidents, with Rosendo Chamorro not being counted because he was only a brief acting president. I'll be changing the article to reflect that. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Screw theory

message: With the statement "Four parameters are required to fully define a screw motion" are you implying that is it possible to describe a rigid body movement only with four parameters? That's really not the case! By the way, a screw is defined by six parameters: four to describe a line (ISA), one to specify the pitch and one to specify the amplitude of the movement (the angle).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lplaus (talk • contribs) 12:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four parameters 

message: I ran across a paper ("An Algebraic Solution to the Problem of Collision Detection for Rigid Polyhedral Objects") where it says "It is well known that there exists a screwing [describing the motion of the body]".  This wikipedia page is the only thing I can find discussing screwing motion though, and it's not all that clear.  I get lost after the section "Twists as general displacements" with the notation used.  The only symbol I'm familiar with is R^n.  My math background isn't lacking, so I'm guessing the section was paraphrased from another source that explained the notation earlier in the work?
Could someone either expand the Twists as general displacements section down, or link to something online that also discusses screwing motion?  --Numsgil (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The writer may be referring to A.T. Yang (1974) Calculus of Screws which is in the bibliography of this article. More details and possibilities are found in the article dual quaternion. The writer should have said "well-known in algebraic mechanical engineering" for more precision. One does not yet find this material integrated into common mathematical texts, except those found on WP.Rgdboer (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Well known" 

message: The article mentions dual scalar without any reference to dual numbers, which appear to be the same thing. Intellec7 (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Dual Number vs Dual Scalar

message: The square root of a dual scalar needs to be defined (as in |S| = sqrt(S dot S). Also scalar multiplication with screws has not been explicitly defined but it's used in the definitions of the screw dot product and cross product. This is probably guessable, but should be explicitly listed. 20:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Basic Concept Definitions

message: The  concept of orthogonality is used in robotics to investigate the mobility of robots. No energy exchange between twist and wrench screws and environment <=>  mobility not restricted.
If a wrench screw and a motion screw are orthogolal un this meaning, only the SUM of energy exchange is zero, but not single parts like torque and rotation. It seems that if any summand  of energy is not zero, there is a restriction.
Since recipocal screws are importent in robotics, this concept should be discussed in the article.
Frank  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.251.90.98 (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reciprocal screws
Talk:Technical atmosphere

message: Is anyone actually worried about confusing a unit of atmospheric pressure with a unit for enzyme catalyzation? That's not a real concern that the two units are too closely identified. Context from wherever the measurement came from will determine which unit is being discussed. I know that's not scientific, but it's also not worth mentioning here. No one is going to ever confuse these two units. 130.45.43.153 (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Talk:KRWB (AM)

message: Why was an article created for KRWB as a stub? And I don't think it should be listed in the AM radio in Grand Forks template, since it doesn't even come in in Grand Forks. At least if you make an article, put some more information in it.--milk the cows (Talk) 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grand Forks was the closest market. And why not create an article? It at least shows that the station exists. --Sable232 00:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add more information
Talk:Celebriphilia

message: The title is misspellt, please fix
Done. AgentPeppermint 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

message: I am not sure that I need to argue this. This article really appears to be entirely original research, and if its not, it doesn't look like it fulfills any quality of a wikipedia article, notability, attribution, etcetera. Lotusduck 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: One "reference" is I think not enough to save this. It's an external link, and I don't think it's authoritative, or even incredibly serious. Redirecting to stalker.Lotusduck 23:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given the circumstances 

message: This is a separate enough subject from stalking to make a redirect to it wholly inappropriate. In fact, redirecting a paraphilia to an act that is largely considered criminal could easily be seen as prejudicial. I would rather see this article deleted completely.
VeltisZaebos 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm not sure we should have an article about this, but we really shouldn't redirect this to stalking. I've redirected it to Paraphilia for now. --Conti|✉ 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalking?
Talk:Feynman's Lost Lecture

message: The sentence about Kepler's first observation being logically implied by his other two is ambiguous. I cannot understand these three observations in any other way than the three laws on planetary motion, but the third law in the form as it is presented today already talks about major axes, i.e., ellipses. Perhaps in Kepler's original formulation this is different, but in any case this sentence should be formulated according to what Feynman actually shows, which I cannot access, however. Seattle Jörg (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kepler's ″observations″ 

message: — Assignment last updated by Lzepeda12 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: 4A Wikipedia assignment
Talk:Coriolis field

message: This article does not clearly state the point at all. It mentions not a single word about a nonrotating frame of reference behaving like a rotating one in the presence of a Gravitomagnetic field with a coriolis force existing as a real force. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole article unclear 

message: I mean, what is the solution to the vector first-order ODE (or in which book or site can I find it?):
 \vec \omega \times \frac {d}{dt} \vec r = \vec g 
ω, g are constant coefficient, not dependent on the variable t.
I call it Coriolis equation, sinice the first member is half of a Coriolis field.
I know that if k is the unit vector of ω, j the u.v. of g, i is defined jxk:
 \frac {d}{dt} \vec r (t) = \frac {|\vec g|}{|\vec \omega|} \hat i(t) + v_b(t) \hat k(t) 
But then how to integrate it? 
 \vec r (t) = ? 
Can I pivot on the Poisson relations even if the problem is not apparently the standard rotation one?
Can I assume as a choice on frame of reference:
 \frac {d}{dt} \vec r (t) =?  \, \vec \omega \times \vec r
Thank you in advance, --95.238.61.51 (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the kinematics under a constant Coriolis field?
Talk:Elastica theory

message: I've added a reference to a tech report I just published on the history of the elastica (which will become a chapter of my PhD thesis). I'm happy if people adapt that into this article, but probably won't have much time to do it myself. Please feel free to contact me for access to original figures, etc. Raph Levien (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

message: I don't know much about elasticas, but I have read that, subject to certain boundary conditions, they minimize the integral (with respect to arclength) of squared curvature. 
I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can add this very basic fact to the article. 2601:200:C000:1A0:9D8C:6088:2CD0:DAD3 (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical principles omitted
Talk:Lunar theory

message: Why no mention of Lagrange, who shared the 1772 Paris Academy Prize for work on the Theory of the Moon? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lagrange? 

message: This article doesn't clearly discuss tidal acceleration, which has been an important part of lunar theory since it was noticed by Halley in the late 17th century.  A clear presentation of how this long term secular perturbation relates to other aspects of lunar theory seems appropriate. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidal acceleration 

message: Is it worth mentioning barycentric coordinates (astronomy).  i.e. when was the barycenter of Earth-Moon first reliably/reasonably known?  Did that help in the development of lunar theory?  I dont know the answers to those questions.  Sorry if this isnt relevant. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barycenter 

message: I think that relativity began to appear in the calculations in 1984.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.50.217 (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: About 6 centimeters are involved, in the distance from the Earth to the Moon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.50.217 (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativity 

message: There should be a section on how far into the future and past lunar calculations be extended accurately, and how this has improved as lunar theory has been refined in recent years.  I notice that the Celestial Mechanics page seems also to be uninformative on this important point. However some information can be found in List of future astronomical events.CharlesHBennett (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long term accuracy 

message: 7-14-1969 with Haley's comet 1835 to 1910 ad. 209.216.186.195 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  nf-1
Talk:Deputy Director of CIA for Operations

message: This article had the most recent deputy director Kimber. What needs to be updated? ManofWarandPeace (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated

message: I started this page and was fortunate to find a list of nearly everyone who's served as DDO. If anyone knows the names of Directors between Thomas Twetten and James Pavitt, please update the article. Thanks.
Also, when I get around to it, I will put successor boxes in the relevant director articles. If someone knows a quick and easy way to do it (or wants to take it upon themselves) great. Alcarillo 22:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Need someone to start stub pages for DDOs that currently don't have articles, and include DDO information on the ones who do. Alcarillo 22:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One more thing -- I deliberately refrained from using wiki links on all the dates and years in the chart. I think it makes an article harder to read and doesn't really add to the value of the information. Alcarillo 22:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of DDOs

message: This is a fairly new wikipedia development since I was last active. I tried to investigate category policies in order to tag them to this article, but frankly there's way too much to wade through. Does someone know a quicker way to locate categories appropriate to an article?
Off topic: I personally think wikipedia is getting unecessarily complex and cumbersome, but anyway that's a topic for the old WP Village Pump, which I don't think exists anymore... :D   Alcarillo 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization
Talk:Bauschinger effect

message: I do not believe this belongs under Classical Mechanics.
Looks like metallurgy or materials science. 
JohnAspinall 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yaa its look like ...mechanical metallurgical  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.144.10.114 (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The professional term seems to be "Mechanics of materials" or "Strength of materials" --BjKa (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub, yes; Classical Mechanics, no.

message: Bauschinger effect seems to be ratcheting. Perhaps "ratcheting" should be included in the article as a supplemental term. I find that terms like this function well as descriptors which simplify explanation and provide for visualization. Mike P. Abell 20:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting from an FEA Manual: "[some mathematical model they use] accounts for the nonlinear Bauschinger effect, cyclic hardening, and ratcheting." This wording seems to imply that those are three separate effects. (LS-DYNA Keyword User's Manual (Version971), Livermore Software Technology Corporation, May 2007) --BjKa (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bauschinger effect = ratcheting?
Talk:Roberval balance

message: This article is currently Roberval Balance, but it should be Roberval balance. It was renamed to cap-B in 2006, but balance is not part of a proper name. Encyclopedia Britannica uses Roberval balance. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/505608/Roberval-balance. So does Merriam Webster. http://visual.merriam-webster.com/science/measuring-devices/measure-weight/robervals-balance.php Glrx (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance should not be capitalized
Talk:Geomechanics

message: I have expanded the objectives of geomechanics in the petroleum industry and added key components of reservoir geomechanical modelling. I think it's also worth adding more details about geomechanics in geotechnics (objectives, methods) and history of the science.  GistFactual (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reservoir geomechanics
Talk:Grim Reaper (band)

message: Is this Lee Harris the same one from Talk Talk?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.76.14 (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Slip (materials science)

message: 1. The referenced link (^ a b c Van Vliet, Krystyn J. (2006); "3.032 Mechanical Behavior of Materials", [1]) is dead. --Aphexer 13:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, as per the definition of the burgers vector, |b| = (a/2)*|<110>|. It is not a typo. Note that the straight brackets represent the magnitude of a vector. b is the burgers vector and <110> is a direction vector with a magnitude of \sqrt{2}. So: |b| = \tfrac{a}{2}\sqrt{2} = \tfrac{a}{\sqrt{2}}  Aimlessdrive (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Prussian Academy of Sciences

message: Her article say Juliane Giovane was the second female member, but who was the first? --Aciram (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First female member?  
Talk:Britalus rotary engine

message: I do not believe this belongs under Classical Mechanics.
Looks like mechanical or automotive engineering.
JohnAspinall 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed:  Changed classicalmechanics-stub to engineering-stub (There is no engine-stub or motor-stub or mechanics-stub, etc.). Hu 04:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub, yes; classical mechanics, no. 

message: The Carnot cycle applies to all heat engines, not just internal combustion engines. Biscuittin (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carnot cycle 

message: It is described in the patent as an "external combustion engine" so I have categorized it as such. It appears that fuel is burned in a single combustion chamber before entering the power cylinders so I think it is a type of hot air engine. Biscuittin (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category added
Talk:Tensometer

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-08-2 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: What is the relationship of this to strain gauge? Isn't there an instrument used in medicine (knees and elbows) spelled this way? DCDuring (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Strain gauge]] 

message: The stub should be merged into universal testing machine  which is the same thing but more complete.  Pkgx (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge