lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Gemini 9A

message: I had an edit just reverted—maybe it would've helped to cite it, but I just got done reading Gene Kranz's Failure Is Not An Option, and it was clearly mentioned that Gemini 9 (and 9A's) primary mission objective was to test out a variety of rendezvous maneuvers, since the ones they had planned for Gemini 8 were scrubbed due to the docking emergency. This led to quite a bit of backroom conflict regarding the "angry alligator" because the NASA administration wanted to try and get the docking objective in via the risky EVA, and Kranz was strongly against it, because (my emphasis) docking was only icing on the cake, and they had other objectives to worry about.
I want to revert the reversion, but I need a guarantee I'll have the chance to make the citation without inviting wrath from the admins. Can I have that guarantee?
Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight confusion in objectives 

message: The YouTube URL for reference #14 is incorrect. The correct URL is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJjOw4Xr3SU at t=20:34.
2601:643:C000:7B21:BC1E:F622:6A9C:EC8 (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link in references 

message: The crew gave a fantastic new name to the Agena vehicle with the shroud not separated: "Angry Alligator". 2001:8003:E490:7D01:5191:C462:66AE:6FB2 (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Name
Talk:St. Patrick's Military Academy

message: where can I find my school records from when I was a student at St Patricks Semi Military school.  I was a student there from 1961 to 1963. Please email me with any info you can provide. 
Thank you,
Cornelius Eulo 
414-559-0516 2601:802:C200:3BD0:A0D2:2798:F860:1546 (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  School Records
Talk:Gemini 10

message: Just in case someone notices my edit, and quick retraction, regarding the Agena burn duration, I thought I'd add a quick note. Several sources mentioned the burn was 13 seconds while some others said it was 78. What made this confusing was John Young himself said that it was a 1G burn. After doing the math, I found that the burn must have been 13 seconds, but the official post-mission report said 78 seconds. After digging around quite a bit I found that each burn of the Agena primary propulsion system was preceded by a burn of the secondary propulsion system in order to settle the fuel. This first burn, using the smaller engines, lasted about 65 seconds, while the second burn, with the larger engine, lasted 13. The portion of the burn that used the primary propulsion system provided an acceleration of about 1G, but the total burn duration was 78 seconds. Hence the discrepancy!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatpay (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agena burn duration 

message: From reading about this mission elsewhere, the reason given for cutting short the zip gun testing was over not wanting to use any more RCS fuel, which was in short supply due to the out of plane error during the first rendezvous. This article doesn't mention this, and instead claims the zip gun malfunctioned as being the reason. There isn't a source given for this. I don't recall reading about it in Collins' own account given in Carrying the Fire.
EeekiE (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  EVA 2
Talk:Gemini 12

message: Should the information on the solar eclipse page about Gemini 12 being the only space craft to ever pass in the umbra of a total solar eclipse be included here and if so where? 198.82.66.54 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eclipse 

message: This video shows the lower stage exploding after seperation. Anybody know anything about it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGkU7RuBzi8&feature=related  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.41.157 (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't the lower stage exploding, instead it is the faring that connects the two stages together coming apart after the ignition of the upper stage.  I have no idea if that was intentional or simply a by-product of the heat+pressure from the upper stage's exhaust... and it certainly had no impact on the mission.  --Robert Horning (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  tank explosion 

message: Someone should incorporate this photo or the public domain hi-res equivalent into this article. (sdsds - talk) 03:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual launch photo 
Talk:Heinlein Prize for Advances in Space Commercialization

message: If this prize is awarded every July, why are there only two winners listed?Syd Henderson (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Immokalee, Florida

message: The article states that "about 90% of the nation's tomatoes that are harvested during the winter months."  It needs a citation or should be deleted.  I am doubtful that this is the case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westlch (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Tomatoes Harvested in Immokalee?

message: Would help to have the pronunciation in phonetic symbols, including where the accent goes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.34.19 (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is the name pronounced? 

message: Okay, so I am really confused by the Demographics, I know how to put them in, and I also know there is something not right (for instance, claiming to use information from the Census by regarding Hispanic as a racial category, which it is not).  I'd love to correct it, but kids prevent that.  I hope someone can take care of it, Wikipedia is supposed to be a place for information, not popular opinion.2601:0:4180:80B:1D30:91C4:4D5:F0D1 (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics
Talk:Agena target vehicle

message: On several rows the flight statistics table has a mysterious "kg" notation in the in comments column. for example the first line, GATV-5002, has the comment "Exploded during launch. 3,261-kg". There appears to be a correlation between failed missions and having the notation, but even having worked out that much it's still a mystery what it means. Can someone knowledgeable please expand or provide an explanation for the benefit of general readers? Thanks Kiore (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a "Mass" column for clarity. It's just the mass in kilograms. Mlm42 (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those masses look fishy. The ones which actually achieved orbit (except for the ATDA) all happen to be an even 7,000 pounds, while the two which failed at launch are only slightly more. Is this supposed to be the mass at launch (fully fueled)? JustinTime55 (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight statistics table kgs? 

message: Director Emi, please stop edit warring. Your picture of the Gemini 6 launch which failed, duplicates the Gemini 8 launch photo already in the article, and there is no illustrative value to having another one in this article (they all look the same, except for the ATDA launch). Please direct your efforts to actually increase the informational value of the article. Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate launch photo not necessary 

message: I just moved the page to "Agena Target Vehicle by copy and pasting, and someone undo my moving and said me that I would move it in the "traditional" way. I want to say that I tried to do it, but it was impossible.
--Aledownload (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy-and-paste

message: Still in orbit? Reentered?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.130.34 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article (table in Flight statistics section). Your question is answered there. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are all these now? 

message: The Gemini 9A astronauts gave a great name to the Agena with the shroud not separated: "Angry Alligator". 2001:8003:E490:7D01:5191:C462:66AE:6FB2 (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great name
Talk:Iga-ryū

message: Cleaned up the text to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and readability.  Added a reference.  --BwB (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Iga-ryū is depicted the anime/manga series Basilisk, which highlights the feud between Iga-ryū and Kōga-ryū at the end of Tokugawa Ieyasu's reign.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitchinka (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture
Talk:Port of Garston

message: I deleted the following unsourced text "Today, Garston is a major shipping and container port, and amongst the many Mersey docks is second only to Seaforth Dock" from the article. Garston is a fairly small port and no container ships call there. Also, it's not reasonable to compare the three docks of the Port of Garston combined with the single Seaforth Dock, rather than the Port of Liverpool as a whole.  Indeed, it's unclear on what basis Garston would be "second".  In terms of surface area, it's clearly smaller than the Great Float of Birkenhead and in terms of tonnage, it's hard to imagine it exceeding, say, Canada Dock, which regularly loads 70,000DWT freighters with scrap metal and often receives 100,000DWT tankers — that's about ten times the size of the largest ships that can dock in Garston . Dricherby (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text 
Talk:Port of Mainz

message: How the heck did I miss that DYK? It can't have been on for more than, like, six hours??? Ingolfson (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DYK?
Talk:Photovoice

message: "The most recent Photovoice project is taking place at Wydown Middle School as a dual project between Mr. Kastner's Computer Art and Photography class and Dr. Pierce's writer's workshop class" - although informative, this either needs more detail, or I will eventually remove it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erocifellerskank (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: After reviewing the article, I have noticed that the facts were referenced from peer-reviewed journals and presentations from appropriate meetings. However as already noted, there are some areas which requires citation. The links in the article all work, the article has been updated last in 2015 and the information does not seem too out of date (infromation from 1988 to 2015), but recent information could be added. The article is relevant to the article topic and has effectively showed what it is, who uses it, and how it came to be but could use more information in the other subsections. Hsrkim (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation 

message: Introduction and History of photovoice 
In 1994, two researchers, Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris, PhD, published an article titled, “Empowerment through photo novella: Portraits of participation” laying the foundation for the development of photovoice. According to Wang and Burris, the camera used in photo novella is put in the hands of “children, rural women, grassroots workers, and other constituents with little access to those who make decisions over their lives.” (Wang & Burris, 1994, p.171). 
This research method allows participants to produce photographic documentation of their lives as a tool to encourage action, promote dialogue, and to inform policy. (Wang & Burris, 1994). The historical significance is credited to Brazilian educator Paulo Freire who described education for critical consciousness in that photo novella allows people to show and describe their life conditions as they see them (Freire, 1970). Photo novella (later to be named photovoice) was born out of three theoretical frameworks: empowerment education, feminist theory, and documentary photography (Wang & Burris, 1994). 
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: The Seabury Press. 
Wang, C. C. & Burris, M.A. (1994). Empowerment through photo novella: Portraits of participation. Health Education Quarterly, 21 (2), 171-186.
ACMwiki2020 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New suggested introduction to photovoice page
Talk:Reciprocal teaching

message: Sometimes called ReQuest, Reciprocal Questioning is a variation of the Reciprocal Teaching method used to develop reading comprehension with students.
http://www.learningpt.org/literacy/adolescent/strategies/request.php
http://www.readingrecovery.org/pdf/conferences/NC07/Handouts/Barratt_Recip_Q.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDredla (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ReQuest, a subheading for Reciprocal Teaching 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kieramalley (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: EDFN 508 Introduction to Research
Talk:Science Learning Centres

message: (Possible CoI - I work for one of STEM Learning's partneres but neither I not it have anything to gain from these changes other than the joy of factual correctness)
This article is greatly out of date and by the look of it was incomplete even when originally produced.
Under Origins, there is no mention of Myscience - the body that actually ran the Science Learning centres and the National Stem Centre.
In 2016, it changed it's name to the current STEM Learning Ltd which runs the National STEM Learning CEntre and the National STEM Learning Network.
There is no mention of Project Enthuse (the Enthuse Foundation) that funds their CPD courses, nor is there any mention of the fact that courses in parts of the UK other than England are run by partners - partners in Northern Ireland (Department of Education Northern Ireland), Scotland (SSERC) and Wales (Techniquest).(https://www.stem.org.uk/project-enthuse)
And finally, most of the science learning centres listed do not now exist.
Frankly it needs a complete rewrite - I'm happy to do it unless I am perceived to have too much of a conflict of interest.
Chris
CL-SSERC-Scot (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Date
Talk:Scientifically based research

message: I know that a great deal of work has gone into these two articles Scientifically based research and Evidence-based education, so please don't be offended by my suggestions. 
However, would it make sense to merge them into one article, make it lean, efficient and easy to maintain? And we can use REDIRECTS so people can find it.
Both articles require updating. They should not try to include too much detail or serve as an instruction manual because the field is changing rapidly.
In my view, Evidence-based education contains so much information that makes it impossible to keep up to date. The Coalition For Evidence-Based Policy appears to have wound down in 2015. And, Best Evidence Encyclopedia appears to be mentioned only in Scientifically based research.
Instead, the merged article would highlight the best available sources of information and offer unbiased information about them. This would enable educators to seek out reliable sources and make their own decision.
This is a hot topic and worth doing a good job.
Are there other articles that attempt to cover this same area? The merged article could be featured briefly in Evidence and Evidence-based practice.
I am not an expert in this area and am hoping you are.
John (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Evidence-based education article has been updated so, if there are no objections, I plan to move this information to that page and instal a redirect. John NH (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Scientifically based research]] and [[Evidence-based education]]
Talk:Writing process

message: I am going to create a new subsection on the * Writing process page identifying research that points to strategies to use with learning disabled students to help them develop achievable goals for their growth as writers. In my sandbox I have annotations from sources I plan to use to help me build up the section. Jonahkasha (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey we appreciate your additions but please remember Wikipedia is not an academic journal; many of your additions including in your sandbox look academic-y. My sense is to shorten and write in basic clear English, not 'college' English, and get to the main points quickly, with less emphasis on which professors wrote which articles (ok for references but do we need their names so prominently?). A too-long section risks upsetting the balance of the article, so maybe a spin-off article might be a possibility if you plan to add even more material.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Note: moved this from the top of the shell where it is probably no longer needed; if students are still using this page, please revert my change, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Class assignment

message: — Assignment last updated by Pthomas4 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Composition Theory

message: — Assignment last updated by Icecream209 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing

message: I'm planning on adding some more content to the 'Expressivist Process Theory of Writing' section of the article by discussing more ways in which expressivist theory has been helpful in Writing education along with some discourse that surrounded the expressivist process theory within the Writing Studies field. Jackiemillan (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributing to Expressivist Process Theory of Writing
Talk:Gariep Dam

message: "total storage of approximately 5,500 million m³ " 
I would appreciate it of someone could confirm this, this appears to be a volume statement. As far as I am aware the storage of a body of water is usually measured in megalitres (ML) or gigalitres (GL)
Verticalsmurf (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: South Africa uses SI units and reservoir capacity is generally expressed in cubic hectometers. 5,500 is close, but according to , 5,340 is more accurate --NJR_ZA (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article definitely needs more citations, and many of these extra external links are superfluous. They might not be relevant to this article, as they could be classified as original research. SmallMossie (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits needed
Talk:BJU Press

message: The current references are inadequate as they give the newspaper name and date, but not the title of the article for verification. These need to be given in whole or removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalHamton (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added author and article titles on first mention.--John Foxe (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing
Talk:Skylab B

message: -"Numerous plans for the Skylab B station included putting it into a mode where it could generate artificial gravity"? I don't know of a way to create artificial gravity. Isn't it supposed to be "simulated gravity" by rotation? Dkronst (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial Gravity? 

message: I always thought it was originally intended to be a backup if for some reason the original Skylab had failed to reach orbit or couldn't support a crew.--Craigboy (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skylab B 

message: What did it cost, or what was the cost of Skylab A + Skylab B if they were in the same contract ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did it cost
Talk:Tateyama Kurobe Alpine Route

message: I see lots of photos of this route with the road carved right through the snow as sheer cliffs.  My experience with snow removal includes large banks of snow on both sides of the road where the trucks have piled it from the road to the side of the road.  That does not seem to be the case here.  How do they do it? -ErinHowarth (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do they clear the snow?
Talk:Elephant Shell

message: As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this review. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the review and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the professional reviews section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! (favorable) 2008Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review Suggestion
Talk:Nachi Falls

message: Someone recently changed the introduction to say that the falls were Japan's second highest waterfall (with a single drop), rather than the first, which is what other websites say. The only place I've seen that says differently is the Japanese wikipedia, where someone also changed the introduction to say that it is second after the 140m drop of "Rakkibetsu" waterfall, a redlink. It is referenced by a footnote to a slightly dodgy looking site I didn't care to visit. The fall in question seems to be somewhere in Kunashir (territory occupied by the Russians but still claimed by Japan). I would be in favour of reverting to what most websites say. The alternative would be to provide a proper link for information about the Kunashir waterfall and add a footnote to the "highest" claim, noting that there is this higher waterfall in disputed territory currently held by Russia. Any views? N p holmes (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A little further searching shows that the fall is actually Ilya Muromets Waterfall on Itarup (another of the islands taken by Russia, but still claimed by Japan). I think the best thing is to say Nachi is the tallest in Japan and add a footnote "The 141m high Ilya Muromets Waterfall is also in territory claimed by Japan." If nobody objects, I'll do this in a day or two. N p holmes (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent change to lead
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Miseria

message: we meet all criteria under the music standards, we have published works in northern california, which are also available nationwide through myspace.com and snocap.com, the first demo we released is fully copyrighted and we own all permissions to it so there is no reason why our pages should be deleted, everything stated on them is factual and can be proven to every extent and in reading wp:music we meet the standards.  so we are please asking you to remove the proposal of deletion, thank you.
Shadowguy76 (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Sub-units of the Frontier Force Regiment

message: Lists are still graded by the same form of ranking as articles, moving towards Featured List status. The Military History Wikiproject does not have a 'list' assessment. We simply grade them along the scale of stub-list upwards, the same as articles.  If you have anymore questions, leave them on my talk page and I'll answer them. Cromdog (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mil Hist assessment 
Category talk:Giftedness

message: I see that there are some people included in this category.  Is this correct, or should they be recategorized?  Also, I see a subcategory of :Category:Extraordinary People here.  Is that a valid category (that should be changed to proper capitalization) or should that be taken to CfD?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the people are living people, we should have a  reliable source so identifying the people before including them in the category. Similarly, for any other category that might include people, living people (and, ideally, all people) should be included only if there is a source that uses that exact word to describe each person. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not limited to living people. This category is a collection of people who were clearly important, but the selection of people seems to be completely arbitrary. --mfb (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on categorization of people into this category