lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:HE 0437-5439

message: Are more citations needed? Added a few Fact tags. Would assume these would be simple enough to add references for... Mgmirkin 15:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations?

message: Anyone have redshift data for this object (z=?.?? value)? If so, feel free to add & cite. Mgmirkin 15:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redshift?

message: Marked age both in infobox and text is incorrect, it should be 100 mln years. In text there is reference for older proposals. NASA says that "the star would have to be at least 100 million years old to have travelled that distance from the galactic core". Confusion appears when it is explained how the blue star which is usually lives 20-30 mln years could pass so much distance - it is unordinary blue star. --Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the sources suggest that it is 100 million years old. They only suggest that it would take roughly 100 million (+- 17 mil ) years to travel from the galactic center to its present location at it's velocity. However, two of the sources give explanations for how it could be 20 - 30 mln years old despite this. It could have formed from the merger of two smaller stars along its voyage, or it could actually originate in the Large Magellanic Cloud flung by an intermediate mass black hole. 01as (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: It says in the info-box that the star is 25 million years old, in the first paragraph that it is around 30 million years old, and in the second paragraph that it is at most 20 million years old. Obviously all 3 can't be true. The most recent source cited for it's age, "A Galactic Origin For HE 0437–5439, The Hypervelocity Star Near The Large Magellanic Cloud", repeatedly says it appears to be around 20 Million years old, so I'd go with that. Alternatively we could say it's age is 20 - 30 million years to reflect the apparent uncertainty. Regardless I think the the age should be consistent throughout the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01as (talk • contribs) 05:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Ages
Talk:Hickson Compact Group

message: Very interesting list, but... perhaps interesting to include an extra column for the abbreviations of the constellations (in which the Hickson Compact Groups are located). DannyCaes (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations of the constellations
Talk:Hills cloud

message: There's some inconsistency in the first paragraph, using 2-3x10^4 then 100-3000 AU. I think the notation should be ditched, given that almost everyone can comprehend numbers below 1x10^6 easily and the notation may make it harder. Also, the variance in the number seems clunky in Scientific notation, given that it's supposed to be an accurate method of numeric representation. Basically, I think it should say 20,000-30,000 AU.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.165.141 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Notation 

message: 2015 TG387 is being classed as a Sednoid, which to my non-expert view overlaps.--GwydionM (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does 2015 TG387 belong here? 

message: "vast theoretical circumstellar disc" should be "theoretical vast circumstellar disc". The former says that the thory is vast, not the disc. Professor Bernard (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . Rasnaboy (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax
Talk:Hungaria asteroids

message: If mars & jupiter have been ejecting asteroids, from our solar system, into inter-stellar space, for billions of (earth) years; and if those ejected asteroids have space speeds comparable to earth's planetary orbit speed (30 km/s = 10-7c); then ejected asteroids could have "crawled" hundreds of light-years through space, since our star system first formed.  And, if every other star system has been producing planets, and ejecting asteroids; then the entire disk of the Milky Way galaxy is a "shooting gallery" of ejected now-inter-stellar asteroids (and comets).  Some of those inter-stellar bodies would cruise into (say) Molecular Clouds, where within which stars form.  Thus, inter-stellar asteroids (and comets) could "seed" the formation of subsequent generations of stars & planets.  Deep inside earth, mars, jupiter, and the other planets, small amounts of extra-solar material may reside, reflecting the influences of extra-solar, pre-primordial material, which "stumbled" into our per-solar nebula, possibly helping trigger the condensation of the sun and/or planets. 66.235.38.214 (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  blizzard of inter-stellar asteroids ?? 

message: The following asteroids are Hungaria (per Spratt 1990) but as of this writing do not yet have articles on wikipedia.  Once the articles exist, they should be so noted:
*1235 Schorria
*1355 Magoeba
*1453 Fennia
*1600 Vyssotsky
*1656 Suomi
*1727 Mette
*1876 Napolitania
*1919 Clemence
*1920 Sarmiento
*2035 Stearns
*2047 Smetana
*2048 Dwornik
*2049 Grietje
*2074 Shoemaker
*2083 Smither
*2131 Mayall
*2150 Nyctimene
*2272 Montezuma
*2449 Kenos
*2491 Tvashtri
*2495 Noviomagum
*2577 Litva
*2735 Ellen
*3022 Dobermann
*3086 Kalbaugh
*3101 Goldberger
*3169 Ostro
*3266 Bernardus
*3353 Jarvis
*3400 Aotearoa
*3447 Burckhalter
*3483 Svetlov
*3635 Kreutz
*3854 George
*3873 Roddy
*3880 Kaiserman
*3940 Larion
*4116 Elachi
*4125 Lew Allen
*4142 Dersu-Uzala
*4232 Aparicio
And from other papers:
*4440 Tchantches 
*5641 McCleese 
*6249 Jennifer 
*6384 Kervin 
WilliamKF (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be classified as Hungaria 
Talk:Hydra Cluster

message: The top of the page says "Not to be confused with Abell 732 (CL0855+0321)" but unfortunately that's what you have done by including a picture of Hydra A. Hydra A is a different cluster at a different distance from the one that is the subject of this entry. Skeptic2 (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the distance bothers me. In the text 158 Mly is quoted while in the information bar to the right stands a much greater figure - 724.1 Mly. The Hydra II Cluster (Abell 732 / CL0855+0321 / 0855 +327) is even more distant, with a redshift of (z = 0.20) or about 2.5 - 3 Gly.--Bobbylon (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion between clusters
Talk:I Zwicky 18

message: * Hubble Finds 'Dorian Gray' Galaxy: galaxy now believed to be 1-10 billion years old because of presence of older stars. — RJH (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not as young as first thought 

message: Multiplying 59M lt.yr. by a quarter of an arc-minute yields a width of 4.3K lt.yr.  According to the numbers provided on the article page, the galaxy is about 4-5K lt.yr. across, consistent with "smaller than the Milky Way".66.235.38.214 (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  4300 light-years across ? 

message: It'd be nice if the article (and astronomy articles generally) could say a bit about exactly what the name actually means, the naming conventions etc. What's that "I" doing there in front, for instance? --Arvedui (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galaxy-name
Talk:IC 1613

message: IC1613 should redirect here. 70.55.84.168 (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: redirect

message: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.09506
Need to wait for it to get through peer review mind.©Geni (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Paper on Supernova Remnant in this galaxy
Talk:IM Pegasi

message: Where does "IM" in the title of this article come from? This is not explained and I think it should be. --Mortense (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on the 'IM Peg' link near the bottom of the infobox. Praemonitus (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of "IM" 
Talk:Intermediate spiral galaxy

message: Over the course of several edits,  added quite a lot of content. The quality seems pretty good; the problem is that it's about the general history of the study of galaxies and their formation, not about intermediate spiral galaxies specifically. Is this by any chance just copied from other articles? If not, can we move it elsewhere and get it out of here? It seems a shame to just delete it all. -- Perey (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The first 2 sentences of this article give a correct and concise definition of an intermediate spiral galaxy. The entire rest of the article text is basically irrelevant to the topic of the article and should be deleted or moved to other articles. Aldebarium (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much about galaxies in general
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hilltop Horizon#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Hilltop Horizon#Requested move 27 May 2024]]
Talk:IOK-1

message: * IOK 1 and IOK1 should redirect here, as this galaxy is also commonly written in these two ways. 70.55.84.75 (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. And thanks for the suggestion! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: missing redirects

message: Sadly the press release image is copyrighted by National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ).  The Hubble took an image on Mar 9 2010 (proprietary data) that can go public Mar 11 2011: ads/Sa.HST#IA2K05010. -- Kheider (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image
Talk:Iota Andromedae

message: I think is not correct to say that an article about a star, with five cites of star catalogs, does not cite any references. Coronellian 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now well-referenced. Praemonitus (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: References
Talk:Iota Aurigae

message: Iota Aurigae ... has the traditional name Al Kab, short for Kabdhilinan, from the Arabic "the ankle of the rein holder (charioteer)".
The entry for Auriga is different:
The traditional name Kabdhilinan, sometimes shortened to "Alkab", comes from the Arabic phrase al-kab dh'il inan, meaning "shoulder of the rein holder".
There's quite a difference between the shoulder and the ankle!
The Arabic representations aren't the same, either.
121.44.200.241 (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ankle or shoulder? 
Talk:Karla Drenner

message: According to the Georgia House of Representative's website http://www.house.ga.gov/Representatives/en-US/HouseMembersList.aspx Karla Drenner represents the 85th District (Avondale Estates).  Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 85th not 86th District?
Talk:Iota Leonis

message: In the map the star is not at the centre of the red circle, look :it:Iota Leonis.--Kirk39 (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to tweak it a little, but we've found the circle positioning is unreliable. Praemonitus (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 
Talk:Iota Orionis

message: What's the origin of the name "Hatsya"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSnw5141 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The name appears as "Hatysa" in Becvar's Skalnate Pleso Atlas of the Heavens, and has since appeared in several places as "Hatysa" or "Hatsya".  Paul Kunitzsch, one of the experts on star names, could not find Becvar's source.  See Kunitzsch's Dictionary of Modern Star Names. -- Elphion (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What language does "Hatsya" come from 

message: How can it be a double star but a quadruple system? Pleas excuse any ignorance of basics this question displays.....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.221.147 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a spectroscopic binary accompanied by two other stars. -- Elphion (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary vs quadruple
Talk:Margarita López

message: She should also have her web page contain more details of her attempts to sell Scientology's "NarCONon" frauds and her criminal connections to Scientology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damotclese (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology racketeering
Talk:Iota Ursae Majoris

message: This star was pointed out as being 47 light-years away which means we see it now (in 2010) as it was in 1963 which was when Doctor Who first aired…so if there were living beings there with the appropriate capabilities they'd just be picking up the first episodes about now and going "What the…?" ;-)
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioned on ''[[Doctor Who Confidential]]''
Talk:CW Leonis

message: According to the article here it is dust. However a recent article by the British Broadcasting Corporation found here  seems to suggest that it is in fact enshrouded in water. Can someone with more physics/astronomy experience than I update the article until it's factually accurate. Thanks. --MarcZimmer (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also here is a CBC article ()if it has any further relevant information. --MarcZimmer (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What envelops this star
Talk:Nicole LeFavour

message: I made quite a few edits to the page including adding some bio info and some awards.  However, I do think a lot more bio info is needed still.  Also, the page needs a section on the bills she worked on.  I also added an awards section - I put a list of awards that was on the bio page of her website, but I noted that they need citations instead of citing her website.  I'm not sure what the best approach is here.  Tdferro (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The best approach would be to track down the entities which awarded the awards, I suppose.  (Full disclosure:  I am a volunteer for LeFavour's 2012 congressional campaign.)  kencf0618 (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Added some bio info
Talk:J Centauri

message: It appears that this article has conflated the information from two separate stars: J Centauri and V495 Centauri. Not only that, but V495 Cen is an eclipsing binary. It's no big deal; I just wanted to explain why so much has changed. I've modified the information only cover J Centauri (HD 116087). Thanks. :-) —RJH (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Remarks
Template talk:MLB seasons

message: Why does this template start with the 1903 Major League Baseball season when List of Major League Baseball seasons goes back to 1876?  I mean, it is still considered an MLB season, right?  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting year 

message: I'm curious as to the reasoning to the names of the eras. Spinach Monster (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era Names 

message: That's just plain weird because EVERYTHING I have ever read said it began in 1901.  It was only in 1903 they had their peace.
Also, why is 1953-1968 one era? DandyDan2007 (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern era begins in 1903? And why are the eras divided as they are? 

message: Are we sure that the new WC system starts in 2012?  I've read elsewhere that it might not be till 2013 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wild card

message: Considering the drastic changes the new pitch clock rules are making this season, I wonder if a new era should be created. There is precedent with the Dead Ball and Live Ball era which came about due to rule changes as well. - Richiekim (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Pitch clock era?
Talk:List of old-time radio programs

message: Table should list the following basic information for each radio program if possible
# Name
# Years broadcast - (1945-1958 for example)
# Genre - most shows fit into one genre
# Country
# Network (NBC, CBS, etc.), radio station (e.g., BBC2)
# See also - field to point readers to the show that preceded or followed a given show for cases where a show was on NBC with name and then moved to CBS with a slightly different name (e.g., a mythical example of Bob Hope Show (NBC, 1940-1942) which moves to CBS as the Bob Hope Comedy Show (CBS, 1943-1950))
This would help greatly in finding shows by genre and shows with the same host (Bob Hope, Jack Benny).
This lends itself to easily breaking down the shows into subcategories (detective, comedy, etc.) instead of the partial application of Wiki categories that have been applied to existing show articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.216.121 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Format table with multiple columns including some extra data

message: 20-Jan-2008: Many Wikipedia articles have long Table-of-Contents (TOC) boxes that scroll down the page; some articles use various templates for compact-TOC boxes, depending on exactly matching a particular list of compact subheaders.  This article has been reformatted, using Wikipedia advanced formatting, to float the TOC box, alongside the text, by using a wikitable, as follows:

{| align=right <!--float TOC to right-side of page. -->
|__TOC__<!--show Table-of-Contents alongside text -->
|}

Although a right-side TOC is not "standard", there really is not a set Wikipedia standard for TOC placement, after the various compact-TOC templates have already set precedents for a wide variety of TOC-box placement. As of January 2008, it was not possible to have a TOC default as "hidden" when an article is first displayed. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia advanced formatting

message: If this article is about North American radio, then the title should say so.  If it is a general article, then we should be adding an international content.  Which?  Dbfirs 18:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusive to North America 

message: I have reverted the addition of The Green Door; the article is about a popular song -- not a radio program. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted "The Green Door"
Talk:Kappa Boötis

message: I'm confused. Which is which? Rothorpe (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Serpent's Choice

message: Taking all edits into account (user has less than 2000 edits); using ais523's edit counter. --ais523 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Random diffs

message: User:Serpent's_Choice
run at Mon Jan 22 21:10:23 2007 GMT
Category: 2  
Image: 46  
Mainspace 753  
Talk: 64  
Template talk: 4  
Template: 9  
User talk: 88  
User: 162  
Wikipedia talk: 54  
Wikipedia: 456  
avg edits per article 1.82  
earliest 10:06, 2 July 2006  
number of unique articles 899  
total 1638  
2006/7  48   
2006/8  71   
2006/9  1   
2006/10  137   
2006/11  304   
2006/12  682   
2007/1  395   
From  --BigDT 21:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate edit count showing breakdown by month
Talk:Saiph

message: The second paragraph of this is almost completely wrong.  The explanation of magnitude is backwards.  The temperature is off by 3 orders of magnitude and in the wrong units (F rather than K).  It's unwiki and unsourced.  The first paragraph and the infobox are correct per YBS, however.  I'm tempted to rip it up, but I'm afraid a bot will see it as vandalism.--24.6.207.223 (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Info 

message: See corrected text. It appears the original text was copied from its source without understanding its meaning. I corrected the text to make sense of it. Salient points: higher magnitude = dimmer, dimmer than Rigel because making it hotter causes a large portion of the stellar radiation to be emitted in the invisible ultraviolet, thus making it dimmer to us.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pczerner (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  not bad, just not worded right 

message: My favorite star in the "Galactic Comics" comic series Парус в пульсарах (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galactic Comics
Talk:Tina Kotek

message: I'm working on fleshing this page out and getting it organized.  As the longest-serving speaker, she's got quite a record of notable successes and failures.  Also, if she ends up Governor, it'll be good to have gotten a head start.  Would love your help!  —Karichisholm (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Building out the page

message: A particular anonymous user has felt the need twice in the past week to add "far-left American politician" to the first sentence of this page. It was removed once, then the same IP added it again about a day later, and it has since been removed again. Seems like someone with too much time on their hands is trolling the page. Regardless, this type of edit is inflammatory and overly politicized. They'll probably try this again, so keep an eye out for this and other bad faith edits. 2601:1C0:6480:4ED0:BCEA:6D26:CC93:B011 (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If it keeps up I'll just protect the article or block them. Steven Walling • talk 02:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war: far left
Talk:Kappa Tucanae

message: Can someone please explain where the combined magnitude figure of 4.25 comes from? Unless the system used to be substantially brighter in the past, I don't see how 4 faint stars of mag 5.1, 7.74, 7.8 and 8.2 can combine to make 4.25. Just now, my brother calculated it for me and it came out as +4.87, and according to the Bright Star Catalogue (5th Revised Ed) it's +4.86. Everywhere online I see the 4.25 figure. Have all the websites simply copied the Wikipedia info? Markusdow (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it looks to be an error. The 4.25 value appears to come from Hipparcos. The Bright Star Catalogue lists 4.86. Praemonitus (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Magnitude
Talk:Kappa Virginis

message: It would be great to add information on the meaning and origin of the name "Kang" (I couldn't find any). Yaroslav Nikitenko (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Chinese name, not strictly for this one star but for an asterism of which it is the determining star.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! I actually found this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proper_names_of_stars, but then I could notice it in this article as well. Please close this discussion (I don't know how to do that). Yaroslav Nikitenko (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name meaning
Talk:KW Sagittarii

message: Is the  estimate even obsolete? I think it is. Joey717 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly "older" than the other estimates, but I think it is still useful.  Levesque et al. marked a significant step change in the temperature scale of cool supergiants, and for our purposes contained a self-consistent set of data for a large number of red supergiants.  In this particular case it also forms an interesting comparison with the direct (assuming a distance) angular measurement of Arroyo-Torres.  Lithopsian (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{solar radius|1,460}}
Talk:Lambda Aurigae

message: Where is it on the map? Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)