lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of Kamen Rider Den-O episodes

message: I can safely say that directory at the top of the article is worthless. "So much harder to navigate" without it? Scroll. You can do that, yes? The directory alone is an entire page long. That's unacceptable. This is a list concerning one single topic. There's no reason to have giant colorful headers like that, unless you can manage to do it without using navheadings. Howa0082 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there's __NOTOC__. You are being really condescending here. So we are utilizing a style that is different from the general WikiProject usage. This page is maintained by another WikiProject, even though it falls under the umbrage of a few others.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directory 

message: As well, those synopsis are too long. It doesn't matter if those are translations of the official TV Asahi site for Den-O, they're incredibly long. The Wikiproject: Television guidelines for episode guides are a line or two at most. Someone who's watched the series, please shorten them. Howa0082 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And they're guidelines. They're not bylaws.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, it's hard to cut these synopses down to that much content and still effectively describe the content of the episode, with a reference to the official website. Most other episode lists simply go off of the one or two sentences that they can get from the preview. I know the content is too much, which is what I've discussed elsewhere. It's better that the summary goes here instead of in the character biographies, where they had gone in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis
Talk:Robert Chambers (publisher, born 1802)

message: What currently seems to be missing from this article (or is it hidden somewhere and just terribly hard to find?) is anything about his private life after what is titled "Early life": nothing about his wife, his children (Annie Dowie must have been his daughter/one of his daughters, and Ménie Muriel Dowie his granddaughter), nothing about his death. I think it would be worth adding that bit. <KF> 00:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, of course, that this biography is far from complete. The problem here is that the sources that I have mention very little about his private and family life. William Chamber's Memoirs deals mostly with Robert's public and literary life, in addition to his relationship with is brother (the exception is his 'Early Life'). Millhauser's book focuses on the creation of and reception of Vestiges. Secord's book has the same focus as Millhauser's but with more updated research and a different approach to the subject. The one exception appears to be the book Man of Letters by Layman. It contains transcriptions of letters from Robert to his first wife, Anne Kirkwood, from a span of six months sometime before they were married. I have not, however, read this book yet. It also appears that he had a second wife later in life that died after 3 years of marriage, in 1870 (according to Millhauser). I have also read that he had 14 children with Anne, although I do not know how many of those lived to adulthood. Annie Dowie is mentioned in the Memoirs as one of his daughters (I re-read the section describing his death and there she is). I added a section concerning his death, but if anyone can assist in confirming the other facts of his private life that would be helpful. Albie34423 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot, and keep up the good work! <KF> 08:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used Google Books to search through the Memoirs and found two references to his first wife and their children - out of the entire book. I have added this information under "Marriage". Albie34423 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information? 

message: Does anyone know if there is a record of who wrote which articles for Information for the People. In particular I'm interested in who wrote the section on logic.  --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There probably is, but I don't know if that information has been publicized at all. If not, then it is likely buried somewhere in the W&R Chambers' archives. Albie34423 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship
Talk:Bellatrix

message: Very large star Abhishek Singh Rawat (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  its amazing size
Talk:Gamma Trianguli Australis

message: That value for the stellar radius is oddly large for a star of this type. Just sayin'. I did confirm that  is the value listed in the paper. Praemonitus (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The radius is large for an early A main sequence star, so is the luminosity and mass.  They all correspond to an evolved star, previously a mid-B main sequence star.  Gray (1987) did classify it as A1 III, but mostly it has been classified as main sequence.  Sometimes as chemically peculiar although Brandi (1973) explicitly says "not chemically peculiar". Lithopsian (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radius 

message: The redirect Gatria has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Gatria]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Phecda

message: Isn't this system a spectroscopic binary? This paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9901228.pdf) reports that finding. DrHacky (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty old, speculative even at the time, and has never been confirmed. Lithopsian (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

message: I was wondering if there was any mythology surrounding Phecda? 50.35.65.131 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like much solely about this star, but plenty about Ursa Major or the Big Dipper.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology 
Talk:Gamma1 Caeli

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Zeta¹ Antliae - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 15:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed, long long ago.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:X Caeli

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Zeta¹ Antliae - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 15:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support - reasoning seems to be borne out by a SIMBAD search, plus it avoids the rather ugly representation of the superscripted Bayer designation. 77.56.99.23 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:GJ 1061

message: Should we merge them with its star or keep them as separate articles? ExoEditor 23:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an RfC matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about the merge of  GJ 1061 d and c 
Talk:Remi Broadway

message: His role in The Wayne Manifesto might be enough, but here are some secondary sources to incorporate into the article just in case:  http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/remi_int.htm
http://fondfaithfultrue.blogspot.com/2007/02/remi-broadway.html
http://www.moviehole.net/news/4611.html Ichormosquito 09:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: on IMDB it has "Remi Broadway" listed as 
	Remi Broadway	... 	Rupert (unknown episodes). which is difficult to verify Apelike 14:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability concerns
Talk:AD Leonis

message: This article should probably be renamed to "AD Leonis" as that is the more common name in journal articles.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Done. Icalanise (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: AD Leonis

message: This article was previously rated as mid-importance, but was changed to low-importance by Lithopsian in 2018. Given the amount of dedicated studies of this star I think the mid-importance rating should be restored. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance rating
Talk:GK Persei

message: In H.P. Lovecraft's short story 'Beyond the Wall of Sleep,' the discovery of GK Persei is mentioned through the words of Garrett P. Serviss. This connection is also discussed on the relevant Wikipedia pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_Wall_of_Sleep#Inspiration, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_P._Serviss. As a newcomer, I would appreciate your input on whether it would be appropriate to include this information as trivia on this page. Br1 Ursino (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See Stars and planetary systems in fiction#GK Persei.  Most fictional references to stars are limited to this article.  Only mentions of significant cultural notability are included in the star articles themselves.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow! Didn't know about that article. Thank you Br1 Ursino (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Many star articles included see also links to that article, or short mentions in the body, but most were removed a few months back when there was an attempt to drastically prune Stars and planetary systems in fiction.  They should probably be included (possibly as a redirect such as GK Persei in fiction) again for stars which are mentioned there.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia: Lovecraft 'Beyond the Wall of Sleep' cites the discovery
Talk:Gliese 1

message: I suspect the age of 100,000 years listed in the Infobox is incorrect. Lexen et al (2010) give an age of "many Gyr". Praemonitus (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: According to the video by 'Kosmo' on youtube Voyager one will approach this particular star. I thought that was a cool fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.118.233 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool fact, but I think you have the wrong star.  See Gliese 445.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voyager one will pass by in 40,000 years.
Talk:Gliese 674

message: I don't think the phrase "unusually eccentric" need be applied to the planet's orbit.  0.2 is not much greater than Mercury's eccentricity, and many of these exoplanets seem to have fairly high eccentricities.24.168.74.214 (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; there are exoplanets with much higher eccentricities. Praemonitus (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Eccentricity
Talk:Gliese 229

message: In this revision, material which appears to have been copied directly from the SolStation website was inserted into the article. Since SolStation is copyrighted, I have reverted the article to the state it was in before this copyrighted material was added, per WP:CP. Icalanise (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem

message: This article states that Gliese 229B is too small to sustain fusion at a mass between 20 to 50 Jupiter masses.  Deuterium fusion is sustained at 13 Jupiter masses. See the brown dwarf article.
Ittiz (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct. The original author probably meant hydrogen fusion, and so I modified the text accordingly.—RJH (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual innacuracy? 
Talk:HR 7703

message: The au measure seems oddly high--12.49.89.195 (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? At a distance of six parsecs, one arc second is ~6 AU. Praemonitus (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: AU measure
Talk:HD 219134

message: Here's a table to clarify the designations used for this system's planets in different sources. The first column lists the designations used by Motalebi et al. 2015, the second column lists the designations used by Vogt et al. 2015, the third column lists the designations used by the NASA Exoplanet Archive as well as by subsequent papers. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: the Vogt et al. designations listed here are only used in the preprint version of the paper. The published version uses the same designations as the databases. SevenSpheres (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designations table
Talk:Great Comet of 1843

message: Uhh, in the details for the Piazzi painting, it has:
Created: 31 December 1842
Uhhh, how could that have been created in 1842 when the comet was not discovered until February 1843? 2001:8003:E490:7D01:D5D7:55D8:B590:E990 (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the caption of the image
Talk:Groombridge 34

message: I've just been looking through the information provided in the article about these Stars, but when I look at the external links listed as sources, the data doesn’t seem to match up. The article for instance only seems to be giving data for one of the pair, where it states that the Mass is 0.4 Solar masses and the size is 0.5 Solar radii. This in contradicted by the Solstation article  (which is listed as a source). That says that the first star has 0.486 Solar masses and 0.34 Solar radii, and that the second star is much smaller, at 0.163 Solar masses and 0.19 Solar radii. I looked through the other 3 pages listed as sources but couldn't find any figures provided for mass and radius, so I don't know where the current figures are coming from. I'm therefore going to place the Solstation info into the article (assuming I can work out these info boxes), as it has the data for both stars and seems to be more precise. --Hibernian (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: SolStation is a secondary source. It is better to track down the sources for the SolStation data and use those as references instead.—RJH (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data doesn't match sources 
Talk:HD 117618

message: Wittenmyer et al. (2013) demonstrates that an eccentric planet can be modelled as two low-eccentricity planets (this is in fact a known degeneracy). Nevertheless these orbital solutions are not widely-accepted and are misleading to the general reader. I have therefore reverted the article back to the accepted one-planet solution. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wittenmyer et al. (2013)
Talk:HD 12661

message: I'm upgrading this article's importance to "medium". Astronomers have an interest in this system due to its orbital dynamics. --Zimriel (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The field value is "mid" actually, and it also qualifies based on the number of scientific studies. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

text: A few astronomers, and hardly anyone else (ie. Wikipedia readers), are interested.  Back to low.  Lithopsian (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance
Talk:HD 129116

message: The article states that this object is a single star. However, the quote the author is referring to is an analysis of multiple stellar systems which again is based on a catalogue that lists multiplicities of three and above. It seems, binary stars are not included in there. There are other, older papers, that rather point to a binary star. As mentioned in Tab. 10 of https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJS...15..459G/abstract HD 129166 has variable radial velocities which points to a companion. Markus Nielbock (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is b Cen really a single star?
Talk:HD 150706

message: The planet HD 150706 b is currently unconfirmed (independent measurements failed to confirm its existence, as stated in this article and the HD 150706 b article). It is therefore questionable whether the planet article meets notability guidelines, as the information about this system is minimal. Instead of having multiple stub-level articles, it would be better to combine information about planet and star into one more cohesive article. Icalanise (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:HD 179949

message: HD 179949 should not be redirected by HD179949, it should be the reverse, the actual name is HD179949, and HD 179949 is just a "clarification" to the name, just an easier way to remember, in time this will be changed around.Please respond if you have any disagreements to this action. Thank you. Androo123 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly not the case, as can be seen by taking a look at SIMBAD - the guidelines clearly show a space between "HD" and the number. Furthermore a search of the literature clearly reveals that the form with a space is preferred.  131.111.8.103 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I tried to delete it but I was warned. I need an Admin to delete it. Androo123 (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to HD179949
Talk:Ocean Falls

message: We need to add more content about the swim team.  Their achievements are extraordinary for a town this size.  See https://www.swimming.ca/NewsArticle.aspx?newsid=3557  192.65.41.20 (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swim team 

message: The entire article is written in the past tense, however the town still exists.  "The harbor was .." should be "the harbor is". 
The town still exists, at least it did 5 or 6 years ago, it just has a lot fewer people than it used to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This was perhaps an error of a past editor. When you see something like this, please don't hesitate to click on "edit" and quickly fix it. Air.light (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past tense
Talk:HD 208487

message: I propose that the article HD 208487 c should be merged into this article: the planet candidate in question is not confirmed to exist and does not appear to be particularly notable, thus I do not feel it warrants an entire article devoted to it. Icalanise (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: support merge --mikeu talk 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:HD 4208

message: the article http://www.physorg.com/news65376545.html mentiones that in this paper http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604413 "Scharf finds that an Earth-sized moon could reach habitable temperatures about twice as far from the Sun as the Earth itself, under favorable assumptions." So its not clear that a moon system of this planet necessarely would be cold like the Jovian; this depends on enough eccentriciy of the orbits of such hypothetical moons, and there being a moon system that would make such eccentric orbits stable (like in the Jovian system). However, given the size of the planet, this paper http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7095/abs/nature04860.html would suggest its not likely such large moons would exist here (and they certainly need to be larger than tenth of the size of earth to have substantial enough atmosphere). Still this is rather speculative. --89.172.84.10 10:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: moons too cold?
Talk:HD 74156

message: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/01/09/researchers-find-a-planet-right-where-they-expected/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.74.254 (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet. I'm putting it into quotes until Baluev's concerns are dismissed, preferably not by Barnes's team. -- Zimriel (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this fourth panet?
Talk:HD 81101

message: At one time this star must have been quite prominent in the night sky. Assuming current luminosity, the brightness at closest approach was:
: m = Mv + 5(log10(dpc) − 1) = 0.51 + 5(0.83 − 1) = −0.34
which is brighter than Arcturus is now. Praemonitus (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Closest approach
Talk:HR 3803

message: The list of stars in the constellation Vela shows the name Marut for this star. Could someone of you (astronomers or amateur astronomers) give us more information about the meaning of this name? Is it a real officially recognized name or is it invented by someone who wanted to give it (this star) a name? DannyCaes (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not an official name.  Probably not invented by someone who wanted to name a star, but I don't know where it comes from and can't find any remotely useful information about it.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of this star: Marut?
Talk:HD 84810

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose IIRC either at WT:AST or WT:ASTRO it was determined that Latin-letter Bayer designations should be avoided due to the confusion introduced through them with the lower and upper case forms which on Wikipedia cannot be separated (unlike Wiktionary, Wikipedia does not allow separate lower case and upper case initial letters) "L Carinae" should become a set index page, like how many other Latin Letter Bayer designations are. "l" has additional problems looking like "I" and Ι . As we have a frequently used alternate designation without these problems, we can avoid those problems. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:HD 93129

message: In the article HD93129A is referred to as a supergiant, but according to the reference cited for the article ( http://jumk.de/astronomie/big-stars/hd-93129a.shtml ) it is a main sequence star. I find the same in the book "stars" by James Kaler from 1998. Both these suggests that it is the brightest known main sequence star, and Kaler makes a point of it being classified as a dwarf. So if there is any reference that can be cited that says that HD93129A has been re-classified as a supergiant, maybe it should be added, or else the text in the article changed. Anyone knows?    Tycs (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)