lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:The Isle of Dread

message: This article has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that articles on role playing games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. Such topics should be moved to a gaming wikis or fansite.
A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that RPG articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture - Wikipedia is not a game guide.--Gavin Collins 14:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see plenty of content of value to people who are not actually playing the game. Your tendency to use boilerplate language that doesn't apply to the particular article you're tagging isn't helpful at all. Rray 15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can see valuable content, kindly edit out the rest of the game related content. Then I will have no grounds to mark this article out with "boilerplates". --Gavin Collins 15:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to edit the article yourself, thanks. It doesn't seem like you do any actual editing of articles here though, which is unfortunate, because you could probably actually contribute something useful rather than just making incorrect comments and labeling articles inappropriately. There is no rush to do things here, so you should take the time to make sure that when you label something, that you label it accurately and correctly. Your comments on this article indicate that you didn't take the time to understand it before commenting on it and templating it, which isn't helpful. Rray 00:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gavin, "kindly edit out the rest of the game related content" isn't a very logical comment, given that this is an article about part of a game, and thus logically the content will be game-related.  If what you mean is "game guide content", as your initial comments suggest, I don't see any of that in the article.  Pinball22 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article for Deletion

message: Why is this article tagged as a Greyhawk Module and a Greyhawk Location?  The inclusion of the first Known World/Mystara makes it pretty conclusive that Isle of Dread is NOT part of the World of Greyhawk campaign setting?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.12.37 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was marked that way because the Isle was used as a location in the Savage Tide adventure path.  That doesn't really make it a Greyhawk location per se, though. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was included as a "Greyhawk" module in 3.5 edition of D&D.  It appeared in Dungeon Magazine.  Of course now in 4e it is an island in the Feywild. Web Warlock (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags
Talk:New Worlds Mission

message: The two are clearly the same idea - same person in charge. Looking at the external links and Google results for each, it looks like "starshade" is just a descriptive term and "New Worlds Imager" (or "New Worlds"?) is the proper project name, so merge into this article. Sho Uemura 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Starshade]]

message: ...what happened to this project? --AndersFeder (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA funded the New Worlds Observer project with $3 billion in Feb 2008.--AndersFeder (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIAC closed down... 

message: The Aragoscope is an intriguing idea, but how would it be aimed? If the shade and the telescope are thousands of miles apart, then turning the telescope just a little bit would require the shade to move great distances. Or would it just point at whatever happens to be in front of it? I don't know how useful a scope like that could be, especially since its orbital motion would blur long exposures.
Even if the shade and scope remain in precisely the same orbit, their relative positions would drift over time unless they have engines to keep them in place. The engines and fuel would greatly increase the launch weight, and thus would also increase the cost of the mission. It seems like maintaining a precise alignment with a distant telescope over time would be incredibly difficult even if they can't be aimed. 
And even if it's somehow feasible both to move the shade and to ensure it would still line up correctly with the telescope, the orbital dynamics would change. One part would be closer to the sun and/or the earth, so it would move faster than the other. 
Is our technology advanced enough to compensate for these problems? There can't be much room for error, since the alignment probably has to be precise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.4.239.249 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aiming the Aragoscope? 

message: Aragoscope redirects here, but this proposal is clearly, and specifically not an Aragoscope as the petals around the edge are specifically designed to avoid the diffraction of light into the central axis.  I propose removing the redirect and making a specific page for Aragoscope. Medconn (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demerge Aragoscope
Talk:Nonlinear Schrödinger equation

message: How can it be said to be "a nonlinear version of Schrödinger's equation" if it doesn't even describe the same thing as the Schrödinger equation (which is what I guess is meant by "Schrödinger's equation")? That makes no sense to me. —Kri (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the claim that it was a nonlinear version of the Schrödinger equation; I replaced that with that is is a nonlinear partial differential equation instead. —Kri (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A nonlinear version of Schrödinger's equation"?
Talk:Optical window

message: I agree with merging the relevant bits of this article to atmospheric window, but there is content here that wouldn't fit there.  The use of 'optical window' in the context of tissue optics in medical physics wouldn't be mergeable.  If we had a larger article on tissue optics then a merge there would be appropriate, but until we do, we should probably keep at least that part of this article.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would make it pretty much a disambiguator, right?  Sounds good.  Jim.henderson (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. Merge the three articles on atmospheric windows into a single article, keep the medical usage here (with a dab link at the top), and move the optical component to Window (optics).--Srleffler (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger to [[atmospheric window]] 

message: The term optical window is an umbrella term including the "spectral optical window" (UVB, visible and near IR spectrum that passes through the earth's atmosphere), the "technological optical window" (material that allows certain wavelengths to pass) and the "medical optical window" that already has its own page (near-infrared window in biological tissue) and probably should not even be included in this article. So, the way I see it, the page should be split into two parts, the one being the optical window (spectrum) and the other the optical window (optics), because now it is an umbrella article which is quite hard to define or understand; to be honest, it was quite hard for me to understand its content at first...  --L'OrfeoGreco (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: update: The problem was fixed (some months ago) and now there's window (optics) and optical window. L'OrfeoSon io 22:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be split into two pages
Talk:Winker Watson

message: Boarding schools were commonplace amongst Dandy readers in 1961, but by the 1980s had suffered a large drop in popularity (but are now enjoying a considerable revival as people seek to educate their children in supposedly more enlightened surroundings)
Er, really? Unless anyone can cite statistics showing that the comic was predominantly read by toffs and aristocrats, I would object to the notion that "boarding schools were commonplace amongst Dandy readers in 1961" :-) Just because a fictional Dandy character lived in that world, doesn't mean it was reality for the majority of Dandy readers. (The obvious modern example would of course be Harry Potter.) 217.155.20.163 00:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Winker's record and Status as 'uncaned'::
In some of the earlier strips it was pointed out that Winker was the only boy in the school who had never been caned. Did he actually keep this record? (79.190.69.142 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The inclusion of the “probably” makes that assertion seem awfully like original research; I would have thought that it was equally likely that Winker and Tim were based on Jennings and Darbishire, for example, but I’d not be able to back that up, so would avoid it unless there was evidence.
As for the comparison with “Just William”: most school boy fiction maintains the age of the protagonists - Billy Bunter doesn’t age, and Jennings and Cº have multiple cycles of terms through the seasons, but age not nor are ever advanced to the next form. Furthermore William’s adventures, although he is school age, don’t take place in school (as far as I recall), and Winker doesn’t have a gang of identifiable characters, a family setting, or much - if any - life out of school, so that further makes a comparison of the characters seem like a bit of a blind alley. Jock123 (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Probably” modeled on the Greyfriars stories and on Harry Wharton…?
Talk:Bill Orban

message: I doubt very much that 23 million copies were sold to the Canadian public. There are only 31 million people in Canada today. Perhaps it was 23 million worldwide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.211.136 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Dave and Steve's Video Game Explosion

message: I'm not certain why the warnings are still here considering that source articles are listed already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.114.117 (talk • contribs) 00:42, November 29, 2006
* I agree. Valrith, please comment on why the tags cannot be removed. Vessels42 17:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Compression (physics)

message: This article has overlapping content with other pages and work is needed to identify where and how overlapping topics are addressed differently on these pages and how/where/whether they reference each other.
*Tension_%28physics%29 
*Strength_of_materials
*Continuum_mechanics
*Stress_%28mechanics%29 
*Strain_%28mechanics%29 
*Compressive_strength
*Tensile_strength
Sustain4people (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Compressibility is also not mentioned in this article. Jarble (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to other physics articles

message: If you type "incompressible surface" into Wikipedia, you get a math-related page.  If you type in "compressible surface", it redirects to this (non-math-related) page.  I suggest that either Compressible surface become a disambiguation page, or a link to Incompressible surface be given at the top of this page (since "compressible surface" redirects here). Adammanifold (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirected from compressible surface 

message: "Physical compression is the result of the subjection of a material to compressive stress, resulting in reduction of volume." Adding compression to an expanding material will merely slow the expansion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOrbeck (talk • contribs) 23:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget items that expand when compressed AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compression and expansion can occur simultaneously.. 

message: This article is linked to from Rarefaction as its "opposite". This article states the opposite of compression is tension and does not mention rarefaction at all. Continuity?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.115.195 (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rarefaction is not the opposite of compression 

message: If the forces are inward, parallel, and balanced (equal), but not and alligned (on the same line), will there not be either a rotation, a shearing, or a twisting deformation, as opposed to the pinching deformation in compression? Or does "balanced" mean "equal, parallel, and alligned"?  In any case, we should define "balanced", since it has many meanings, often in the same field. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allignment, inward, equal, parallel forces
Talk:Piezoresistive effect

message: J. Bartholomeyczik, I appreciate that you are studying the piezoresistive effect, and I'm sure you obviously understand the material, but it is one thing to include images from your thesis in here; quite another to cite yourself as a reference for more information.  Interested readers with access to IEEE's resources should search there or find papers that are highly cited (by NON-wikipedia sources).  Citing your own works is generally considered vanity on Wikipedia, NPOV, and is frowned upon in the community.  Good luck with your thesis. Jwigton 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Jwigton, my thesis has been done for quite a while and I am not working in the field of academia anymore. I have added the reference using my username login not trying to obscure the source of this just because I wanted to reference to the source I took most of the information from (there was no pizeoresistive Effect in Wikipedia until I added it).  The article was checked  and modified by quite a few people before and nobody seemed to object. If it is not good wiki style to reference my own work being the source of some the information or not, plaease excuse that. Julian Bartholomeyczik 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia is not for self-promotion 

message: The "three valley" and other things mentioned do not help in clarifying the relation between Resistivity and Stress on a semiconductor. Please hyperlink these terms to relevant articles in wiki or expand the explanation here.
--Ankurtg (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of Piezoresistive Effect in Silicon 

message: I am not quite sure, but I think you left out one of the most important parts of Gauge Factor. Namely, in the case of piezoresistive materials resistivity \rho of the material itself is not constant. Therefore piezoresistive term should be added to GF:
K= \frac {d\rho} \rho + 1 + 2 \nu
and \frac {d\rho} \rho is piesoresistive term. --FERcsI (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gauge Factor equation correct? 

message: Hello! im doing a little work on gauges.
I have found in a source (Pallas - Areny) that the piezoresistive effect applies to metals as well, whereas this article states the contrary...
any ideas?
Please contact me if you have an opinion on this.
Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracheschreck (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piezoresistive effect ONLY on semiconductors?
Talk:Planck charge

message: The claim in the text:
"From a classical calculation,[3] the electric potential energy of one Planck charge on the surface of a sphere that is one Planck length in diameter is one Planck energy."
appears incorrect to me. I did the substitution as a check, and found that one Planck charge uniformly distributed on a charged sphere is one halph a plank energy (since there is a factor of one halph in the electrostatic energy). can someone verify this for me?
Pjbeierle (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Claim

message: Why this part was deleted?195.47.212.108 (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you have been creating a large number of articles along these lines that appear to mostly be your own take on the subject, rather than material that has been published elsewhere. While the additions may be perfectly correct from a factual point of view, they'll still violate Wikipedia's "original research" policy if they're your own synthesis of available material. Wikipedia:Articles for creation is a rubber-stamp process, not an endorsement from Wikipedia. They mostly count on you to have already read the relevant policies on what kind of articles Wikipedia is trying to include, and the WP:V and WP:RS policies on how to include appropriate references to show that what you're including is appropriate (via citing appropriate published sources). I respect your efforts, but the type of article you've been creating might be more appropriately hosted on your own web site than in the encyclopedia (the encyclopedia's strictly a "secondary source", meaning every idea in it has to have been published elsewhere first). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually wikipedia is a tertiary source WP:WITS, incorporating widely accepted results, typically those that have been published in review articles or books for the subfield in question. So some primary and secondary source material, even if published in reputable journals, may represent a contentious position not appropriate for wikipedia. Dark Formal (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Electromagnetic Resonator 

message: In that nice big 3-or-4-equals sign equation at the top, could we add an expression showing the Planck charge explicitly in terms of ke, in addition to the expressions we're already showing there?  (I.e. we already show the Planck charge in terms of ε0 and α, so why not also show it in terms of ke?)  --Rogermw (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulomb constant
Talk:Bilge Khagan

message: "Bilge is even better known, however, for advising his successors that the power of the T'u-chüeh came from their nomadic life and that to settle in agricultural communities on the Chinese border would weaken them" (Britannica 2006). Pelase refactor if you feel like it. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I feel that Tonyukuk should also be mentioned in this article. (Not only his stelae but rather his position as chancellor.)Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tonyukuk 

message: His name is accepted widespread as Bilge Khagan. Khagan is the most accepted form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khagan Please correct the name of the article. Sbasturk (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bilge Qaghan is the common name in English language. You can easily control it with google books. Takabeg (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

text: No it is not. FYI Khagan is not a name but a title of imperial rank. Maybe you should check the WP page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khagan . After your Google research if you still think Qaghan is more accepted form please feel free to change it again or start a discuss in the article 'Khagan'. (Google search results for Bilge Qaghan: 27600 Results. For Bilge Khagan 1100000 results.)Sbasturk (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Articles in wikipedia themselves, and normal google search are not Identifying reliable sources. If you want and you can prove that the common use should be "Bilge Khagan", you can request move. Takabeg (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Of course Google searches are not a reliable source. But I just want to make you notice that Bilge Khagan is a more accepted format. Although they are not reliable 1100000 vs 26000 search results mean something to me. Anyway I listed some more reliable sources here. Please take a look. Btw I know there are also books containing his name as Qaghan but as I mentioned before, Khagan is widespread for example WP also has this title in this format.--Sbasturk (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the article

message: "They killed him and made him Bilge khagan.[4] His name literally.." 
Come again?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.131.2 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  reign section 
Talk:Tachibana clan (kuge)

message: I removed the following passage:
:The lineage, however, may go back even further, to Tajima Mori, a Korean who, according to legend, introduced oranges, called tachibana (橘) in Japanese, to Japan in the first century CEFrederic, Louis (2002). "Japan Encyclopedia." Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.. 
I'm not sure what kind of misunderstanding is involved here. I checked Kojiki, Nihonshoki and Shinsen Shojiroku but none of them claims that Tajima Mori 田道間守/多遅摩毛理 was the ancestor of the Tachibana clan concerned. There cannot be a genetic relationship between the relatively new clan of imperial origin and the mythical figure whose legend was placed in distant past. --Nanshu 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as you're obviously more familiar with the original sources than I am, I certainly won't argue with you. Though, it doesn't need to be explicitly stated in the legends for a later scholar to say "gee, there was this legendary figure who introduced tachibana oranges into Japan. And there's a noble family oddly named after, of all things, oranges. Maybe there's a connection?" Right? LordAmeth 09:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tajima Mori
Talk:Spooksville

message: tiles as from front of book 24 in series
--Urythmic 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I linked that book since I will make the article, so PLEASE no 1 revert it. Thanks. --Hi, I'm a Scooby-pedian! (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  #13. Creature in the Teacher
Talk:Second polar moment of area

message: I removed the expand tag {my removal}-- as I see the article as complete.  It has the definition, describes the relation to moment of inertia and area moment of inertia and has an example.  If you want to re-add the tag, please explain what it is that you think is missing. Nephron  T|C 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand tag

message: Just wondering why anyone has not written that polar moment of inertia is also known as polar second moment of area ? In Mechanics of engineering materials PP. Benham, they use it all the time. Just wondering.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.64.203 (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar second moment of area
Talk:Polynya

message: I don't understand why the modifier "non-linear" is included in the definition. Perhaps it can be omitted. Ordinary Person 03:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: non-linear?

message: As I understand it, one of the forces involved in the second type of polynya, called a Latent Heat Polynya, is "Katabatic wind", and not just "wind". I therefore included the term Katabatic in the text, where it already linked to Katabatic wind. IsFari (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Katabatic wind

message: The only thing the article has to say about it is, It is an open question as to whether the polynyas of the Arctic can produce enough dense water to form a major portion of the dense water required to drive the thermohaline circulation.  This implies that it is settled that Antarctic polynyas do drive it. It should be stated explicitly, along with what that has to do with global weather. Then add that thermohaline circulation may be adversely affected by a lid being put on an Antarctic polynya by a vast iceberg.
--Pawyilee (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  thermohaline circulation 

message: The plural form "polynyas" occurs in the article, but the Russian plural would be "polynyy". There are over 13,000 occurrences of "polynyas" in Google Scholar, but there are also a few hundred "polynyy" or "polyny"; an example is "A new convective model of the Weddell Polyny". Perhaps the Anglicized plural should be kept but the transliterated Russian plural should also be mentioned. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural