lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of chemistry journals

message: There is some discussion  on Talk:List of scientific journals about where review journals fit in that article, as review journals do not have a high number of references or a high impact factor. I added the paragraph below there and thought I should also add it here.
My thoughts after a night's sleep are to create a new page List of review journals in chemistry and move all the purely review journals from List of scientific journals in chemistry to there. This will make the latter more manageable as there are many many more journals to add and will also allow an introduction on the importance of review articles for people entering a field and also allow mention of which review journals have high impact factors. What do people think? --Bduke 02:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Review journals don't have a high impact factor? Chemical Reviews has the second highest impact factor for a chemistry journal (the top is Surface Science Reports)! More than half of the top 20 chemistry journals by impact factor are review journals. Itub 16:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Review Journals

message: Would you call that a jounal in chemistry?
J. magn. Reson, JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE, http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622884/description
ChristianB 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd call it chemistry, although since it is an interdisciplinary topic you could also call it physics. --Itub 14:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE

message: The list named a journal called "Inorganic Chemical Communications"; I could not find any evidence of it but I did find an "Inorganic Chemistry Communications," so I changed the spelling and added a link...if there is indeed a journal using "chemical" it should be added as well
Mah159 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: INORGANIC CHEMISTRY COMMUNICATIONS

message: Just examples:
Please compare the following 
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Analytical+Chemistry&btnG=Search
with 
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Cambridge+Journal+of+Economics&btnG=Search
--222.64.20.183 (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About an academic strength of a journal.... 

message: There is an RfC regarding the standardization of journal lists names. Please comment at Talk:List of journals#RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Lists of journals#RFC|RfC on journal list names]]
Talk:William vanden Heuvel

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 
Talk:Józef Dowbor-Muśnicki

message: Good to see that Dowbor-Muśnicki is finally getting some love! Last year I had to put my rewrite of this article on hold when I got to 1919 and realized that I didn't remember as much Polish as I thought :( Yell when it's reasonably stable and I'll be happy to stop by and tweak the grammar :) Ahasuerus 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article expansion 

message: This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review
Talk:Just watch me

message: Does this need the stub reference ?  It seems pretty complete to me.
-- Beardo 02:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Administrative divisions of Perm Oblast

message: Note to self: Sylva urban settlement was demoted on September 5, 2005 (when Perm Oblast existed); however, the law did not take effect until January 1, 2006 (when Perm Krai came into existence) .  This edit should be reverted once Perm Krai's administrative structure is legislated; it will be incorporated into the article on Perm Krai's administrative divisions.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 02:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note
Talk:Nicolia (plant)

message: Because Aachenosaurus is a plant and not a dinosaur, remove Aachenosaurus from the categories "Invalid dinosaurs" and "Nomina dubia".
Yeah, I agree. Paleo Kid (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It is an invalid dinosaur, because it was named as a dinosaur and found to be a plant. It is a nomen dubium because it is impossible to tell what species of plant it should be synonymized with. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aachenosaurus
Talk:Brahmajāla Sutta

message: hi,
This is about the English spelling of Brahmajala Sutta.I feel it should be "Bhramajaala Sutta"."Bhrama" in Indic languages means illusion or wrong view, and "jaala" means a net used to trap birds or fish.
I felt  this after I  found in the Digha Nikaya page, the entry
"1.Brahmajala Sutta (-jāla-): mainly concerned with 62 types of wrong view."
in the 'Divisions' subsection.
	Also, in the Brahmajala Sutta page , the following passage is found.
"The elaboration of these beliefs is very detailed, focusing on how the beliefs (faiths) come to be and the way they are described and declared. The elaboration ends with the Buddha's statement about the danger of clinging to these beliefs, as they are still influenced by desire (lobha), hatred (dosa), and ignorance (avijjā) that its faithful followers will not end in the final liberation but still in the cycle of samsara."
This again conforms with the entry in the list of suttas quoted above.  
However ,the following passage from the introduction to Brahmajala Sutta page 
"The name comes from 'brahma' (perfect wisdom) and 'jala' (net-which-embraced-all-views)" ,does not seem to be correct,because generally,in Indic languages ,"brahma " is taken to signify the universal presence.It may, perhaps, have the connotation of perfect wisdom .  But 'jaala' (net) is not generally used to signify 'all encomapssing'. 
      Unfortunately , I have no access to the original texts.
siva122.169.138.190 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's okay to do your own translation, but you should cite whatever sources you use, even if they're in another language. The important principle is Wikipedia:No original research. I don't mean to imply that you're doing anything wrong, but it's worth keeping in mind! Cheers, Melchoir 08:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

message: I think the article should be changed to the present tense, which is the standard in discussing literature. Also, the section headers are too big. I guess I'll do that one myself. Melchoir 01:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. I agree. I will do the present-tensing. thx.Tasfan 01:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 
Talk:Honey Huan

message: Is it really true to say "Many have compared her attitude to that of comic book character Harley Quinn, who shares a similar relationship with The Joker."  ??  Harley Quinn was only created in 1992, whereas Honey has been around since ??
-- Beardo 02:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harley Quinn]] 

message: I know that in 1989, Duke married Honey to get her out of China after the Tienanmen Square massacre, at the behest of Donald Trump who offered a million-dollar reward for her rescue. Duke planned to divorce her afterward, but couldn't do so immediately because he wouldn't have received Trump's reward. The question is, did Duke and Honey ever get divorced, or are they still at least technically married in the strip's continuity? --Metropolitan90 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They did get divorced. It wasn't shown in the strip but at one point Honey said "ever since our divorce..."—Chowbok ☠ 22:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Married to Duke? 
Talk:Idrees Sulieman

message: I was a good friend of Idrees from 1977 until his death. I noticed in the article that his birth name is listed as Idrees Sulieman. He was born as Leonard Graham, changing his name in 1947 in an effort to avoid bigotry. Later, he studied Islam and became a devout Muslim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyjazz (talk • contribs) 16:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Achillobator

message: I just modified the size with infos from theropoda database :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: While the "Velociraptors" from Jurassic Park were based on Velociraptor and Deinonychus and supersizing it, Achillobator matches the depiction of the raptors in Jurassic Park to a T. A new dinosaur was invented for the movie, which turned out to be real! I think there should be another small section in Achillobator's page about this.
:That would be Utahraptor. FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The raptors in Jurassic Park are achillobators. Utahraptor is too big 205.175.118.201 (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: An obscure genus described in 1999 was hardly the inspiration for a 1993 film. FunkMonk (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurassic Park
Talk:Adasaurus

message: I edited the paleo tempalte to include only information formally presented in the literature and not extrapolations by online authors, which are inappropriate sources. I also corrected some of the information that was present. For instance, sauros literally translates to "lizard", not "reptile". I added the metric measurement alongside the English measurement. I changed "Cretaceous" to "Cretaceous Period" since the Cretaceous is not actually an Era... this is a problem of template coding that needs to be changed. Finally, the Nemegt Formation actually represents a more humid floodplain environment compared to the more arid environment seen in older deposits in the area, according to Jerzykiewicz & Russell (1991). Sheep81 05:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Aepisaurus

message: This may be a small point but it has given me some grief - everywhere I look, this dinosaur is described as 'high lizard'. However, the Greek symbol 'η' (eta) would be the corresponding letter to the diphthong. 'ε' (epsilon) should not be confused. 'High' might come from the prefix 'επι-' but that would surely not have been spelled with a diphthong. What I have edited into the article would appear to me to be more likely. Does anyone have access to the original papers, to find out what logic was behind the name? -Ballista 04:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "αη" is often transliterated as "ae" for some reason, couldn't tell you why. Sheep81 08:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation 

message: Tortosa and Buffetaut (2007) rediscovered the holotype of Aepisaurus and concluded that it may be closely affiliated with Camarasauridae based on comparisons with various sauropod groups (camarasaurids, brachiosaurids, diplodocoids, titanosaurs).
Tortosa, T., and Buffetaut, E., 2007. Rediscovery and redescription of the holotype of Aepysaurus elephantinus Gervais, 1848-1852 (Dinosauria-Sauropoda). Pp. 64 in J. Le Loeuff (ed.) Fifth Meeting of the European Association of Vertebrate Palaeontologists Abstract Volume, Muse ́e des Dinosaures, Espe ́raza, France.68.4.61.168 (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Link to paper? I can't seem to find it. Capra walie (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 
Talk:Aetonyx

message: The rocks in which Aetonyx palustris Broom, 1911 was found actually date to the Early Jurassic. [1]
[1] http://www.users.qwest.net/~jstweet1/sauropodomorpha.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.232.151.49 (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geological age of Aetonyx 

message: Merge the page Aetonyx with the page Massospondylus. Aetonyx is actually a synonym of Massospondylus (Cooper, 1981).
Cooper, M.R. (1981). The prosauropod dinosaur Massospondylus carinatus Owen from Zimbabwe: its biology, mode of life and phylogenetic significance. Occasional Papers of the National Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia, Series B, Natural Sciences 6(10):689-840.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.237 (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aetonyx
Talk:Venice 13

message: I deleted the reference: 
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/11108231.html because it linked to page that did not mention V13.  I did replace it with a page that covered the incident in question.  jonathon (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References
Talk:Agathaumas

message: The second edition of The Dinosauria (published in 2004) paces Agathaumas milo as a synonym of Edmontosaurus regalis. However, the type specimen of A.  milo consists of a sacral centrum and a tibia fragment, both of which are not diagnostic. Therefore, A. milo is considered to be Dinosauria indeterminate.68.4.61.237 (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agathaumas milo  

message: Agathaumas monoclonius is a typographical error for A. sylvestris, while other species referred to Agathaumas are not assignable to Agathaumas. Therefore the species section needs cleanup.68.4.61.237 (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't implying that they are referable as far as I can see, if fact it lists other species they are referable to. As a nomen dubium, nothing is referable to Agathaumas but the type specimen. Do you have a reference for A monoclonius being a typographic error? MMartyniuk (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species 

message: How can an 1890s painting be based on an animal (Styracosaurus) which was not discovered until the 1910s? FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC he based it on Monoclonius with the spiny (quilled...??) skin/frill based on skin impressions. Need to find some actual sources to expand that section. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knight painting
Talk:Agilisaurus

message: Butler et al. (2008) recovered A. louderbacki and Hexinlusaurus multidens as basal to all other cerapodans, with heterodontosaurids outside of Genasauria.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.160.85 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Threw that ref in. Thanks! J. Spencer (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phylogenetic placement?
Talk:Agnosphitys

message: Although Fraser et. al. (2002) view Agnosphitys as a non-dinosaurian dinosauriform, Langer (2004) considers this genus a nomen dubium, due to the ongoing debate as to whether Agnosphitys is a dinosaur or not. Mortimer (2006, online) found Agnosphitys to be a theropod, supporting the hypothesis that Agnosphitys is a dinosaur. (His analysis also recovers Chindesaurus and Guaibasaurus as also basal theropods.) For this reason, do you need to update this page.
1. M. C. Langer. 2004. Basal Saurischia. In D. B. Weishampel, P. Dodson, & H. Osmólska (eds.), The Dinosauria (second edition). University of California Press, Berkeley 25-46.
2. http://staff.washington.edu/eoraptor/Phylogeny%20of%20Taxa.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Agnosphitys
Talk:Xinjiangovenator

message: "It may be related to Bagaraatan, and therefore a tyrannosaur."Rauhut, O.W.M., and Xu, X. (2005). The small theropod dinosaurs Tugulusaurus and Phaedrolosaurus from the Early Cretaceous of Xinjiang, China. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25(1):107-118
The reference actually states something else entirely: "Whereas Tugulusaurus is the most basal coelurosaur known, Xinjiangovenator represents a maniraptoran." Either the reference is correct and our article needs revising, or the statement about X being a tyrannosaur is correct, but the reference is wrong. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is it was overstated; they found some similarities with Baga, but not that Baga was a tyrannosauroid. J. Spencer (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyrannosaur?
Talk:Pete Frame

message: Has it occurred to anyone that Wikipedia could be used as source material for the Ultimate Rock Family Tree, based on link crawling?
:Yes, that's why I just came here.  I just saw an interesting listing of band members of Voivod (band).  Thoughts?  --Eric Jack Nash 14:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Xuanhanosaurus

message: The new quadrupedal image bothers me — I understand the suggestion was made in the description, but the consensus is clearly against it. I don't have a problem with it being included as an illustration of the ideas of Zhiming, but I think it should be labelled as incorrect; and perhaps it shouldn't be in the taxobox. — John.Conway 14:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It's done. ArthurWeasley 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quadrupedal Image 

message: Benson R.B.J, 2009. A description of Megalosaurus bucklandii (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Bathonian of the UK and the relationships of middle Jurassic theropods. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
Its showed as a megalosauroidBrisio (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifications 

message: STOP IT ALREADY!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.50.105 (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quadrupedal Xuanhanosaurus 

message: I draw dinosaurs, and I would like to be able to help with this stub. Can I try to draw a Xuanhanosaurus qilixiaensis for this page? Is there someone who can review my drawing to make sure it is accurate so I can contribute to the article?
Thank you! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Artist's Rendering
Talk:Wuerhosaurus

message: According to this post: http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/not-wuerhosaurus-homheni/ FunkMonk (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's been out there for a while.  I've never felt like doing anything about it because frankly I don't buy it. J. Spencer (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonym of Stegosaurus?
Talk:Anchisaurus

message: The preoccupied names Megadactylus and Amphisaurus really should be referred to the originals, rather than being redirects to this page. CFLeon (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I don't even know what the originals were.  The first is probably an arthropod (-dactylus ending; besides, if there's a preoccupied dinosaur name, 9 times out of 10 it's an arthropod), the second is probably a lizard or a snake.  If you can dig something up on them, help yourself. J. Spencer (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Preoccupied Names

message: The sauropodomorph remains from Nova Scotia reported Shubin et. al. (1994) are not conspecific with any of the specimens of Anchisaurus and instead represents a new genus and species of massospondylid (Fedak 2007). This taxon has yet to be officially named, but differs from Anchisaurus in having very elongate cervicals, a sacrum that incorporates both a dorsal and a caudal, among other differences.
Fedak, T. J. (2007). Description and evolutionary significance of the sauropodomorph dinosaurs from the early Jurassic (Hettangian) McCoy Brook Formation. Ph.D. dissertation. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University.
Shubin, N.H.; P.E. Olson and H.-D. Sues (1994). "Early Jurassic small tetrapods from the McCoy Brook Formation of Nova Scotia, Canada". In Fraser, N.C. & Sues, H.-D.. In the Shadow of Dinosaurs: Early Mesozoic Tetrapods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 244–250. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nova Scotia Anchisaurus
Talk:Vulcanodon

message: Raath ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.138.189.207 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raath ? 

message: New paper has just hit, pushing the taxon back about 15 million years.  Lusotitan 19:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much from the paper can be used in the article body except in Discovery and naming. No concrete date either, somewhat disappointing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Paleoecology? FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much. Some talk of the surrounding matrix, but no real interpretation. There's also an indet. massospondylid mentioned. Doesn't make for a very well-rounded section. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucky us. Their paper gives a very generalized age assessment, but they do have a time calibrated phylogeny, which has Vulcanodon as 199-188 mya. As its included in the published paper this is about as good as we will get without actual elemental decomp analysis. IJReid  04:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I removed it because its a bit old and misleading in lacking the external toes, but I am not opposed to it being readded. I would edit it if I could remember the source for the dorsal views but I can't. IJReid  00:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok, maybe it should wait then. But is that first model's fingers accurate? FunkMonk (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important New Paper 
Talk:Declaration of Alma-Ata

message: This article contains the entire text of the Declaration, with some changes. Maybe it belongs on Wikisource instead. See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. --Claudine 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! Will remove it and describe it. Prashanthns (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

message: What is the significance of the declaration from the current point of view?  Especially, it is already over 2000.  Are there some formal evaluation from WHO?--Tossh eng (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current evaluation 

message: I think without the help of who and unicef it was not possible to tackle such type of issue .
Because every country and organization was not enough developed at that time to invest on primary health care .
But who and unicef give the suggestion and courage to world that by investing in phc we save live and most important increase life expectancy . 103.225.50.38 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO and UNICEF HELP
Talk:Quaesitosaurus

message: How could Quaesitosaurus have been one of the last sauropods to live if it lived during Santonian-Campanian, ie some 18 million years prior the K/T mass extinctions? There's multiple sauropods known from later on, during the Maastrichtian stage, such as Alamosaurus, Ampelosaurus and Saltasaurus. This needs to be changed IMO.
- 212.201.76.106 14:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Louis Camille Maillard

message: After googling around (both web and books) and reading a badly translated French biography I found no support for the statement that "He also researched the agricultural and food industries and the origin of the taste of many culinary preparations." I have removed the claim until someone can supply some support. --Slashme (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Researching taste and gastronomy?

message: What "French intervention" was Maillard involved with during his Final Days? Folajimi 03:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact meaning was "French participation in WWI" and Maillard enrolled in the army probably as a conscript.--HappyApple 07:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying; I have edited the article for coherence regarding this matter. Cheers. Folajimi 11:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WWI
Talk:Tom Gallagher

message: I believe that you are wrong in your assertion that Family material is not revelent. Mr. Gallagher is running on a "Family" platform. I think it is appropriate to see how he came to this position, as well as giving the reader information to determine whether his stance has political motives.--12.42.4.162 15:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people (newspapers, for one) are apparently saying he's crooked somehow. What are these accusations based on? Why isn't it covered in the article? 63.21.73.9 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quberoot's changes of 28 Feb 06