lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Unbiunium

message: I changed the the rating to stub, as "5" is not a rating. Beast of traal T C 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub?

message: Unbiunium's electron configuration will not be [2, 8, 18, 32, 33, 18, 8, 2], it will be [2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 9, 2]. That is clearly wrong. 86.138.142.213 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll actually probably be [2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8, 3]. Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electron Configuration 

message: It is probably possible for there to be >120 protons, but when there are 120 electrons, extra electrons probably wouldn't orbit causing the atom to stay as an ion.
207.6.81.95 (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not likely at all. The probability of fusion decreases very quickly as the projectile grows in size relative to the target. Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-8-18-32-32-18-8-2 

message: Well, E121 and E122 are the last elements for which we have predictions. Unfortunately, they are basically limited to: 1st IE, chemically like the element above them (Ac and Th respectively), and electron configurations relativistically stabilized 8p orbitals (though the dns2 electron configurations of Ac and Th should be the first excited states of E121 and E122), and electron affinity for E121 (La: 0.33 eV, Ac: 0.35 eV, E121: 0.57 eV). Nothing like the wealth of predictions you can find for E119 and E120.
This list contains refs for both E121 and E122.
* http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/109/10/10.1063/1.476995 (121)
* http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/51/2/10.1063/1.1672080 (and the next few superactinides' EC's; the main point is the relativistic stabilization of 8p)
* http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/53/6/10.1063/1.1674338 (showing that 8s and then 7d get stabilized, sacrificing the 5g one would expect)
* http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-4075/35/7/307/meta;jsessionid=FE348596ABCF1477381FE1BA5F4FC071.c1 (122)
* http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375947415001463 (very recent article, going to 121 and 122: can anyone access it? The abstract promises some chemistry, so finally we may have enough for an article).
** Don't worry, I got it (thanks R8R)! Double sharp (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, the predicted atomic weight is not given in Fricke, but is given in the source I linked immediately above (320 amu). Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 22:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article nomination (2017)

message: FYI  has been nominated for deletion -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|Infobox unbiunium isotopes}}
Talk:Unitarity gauge

message: Who introduced the unitary gauge? (comment March 21st, 2019)
The page says it was Weinberg, but something very similar was done by Schroedinger in the case of scalar QED much earlier, see his letter: Nature vol. 169 (1952), 538. He considers there complex scalar fields ψ coupled to electromagnetic field, and introduces a gauge transformation which shifts the gauge field by a logarithm of ψ/ψ*, which is 2i times a phase of ψ! (see his eqs. (6) and (7)). I think it is worth mentioning. He also cites even earlier papers by Gordon, Klein and himself from 1926/27, where it could have been done, but I didn't check.
SMD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18E8:2:28B9:F000:0:0:856 (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Untriennium

message: I will hereby a name carium (Km). Cosmium 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Why is every element up to Untriennium have a page when Ununoctium is the last element listed on standard periodic tables? Nothing beyond Ununoctium has been discovered, it's all speculation. I think this page was created a little too early. 207.190.244.74 (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right. Speculation about heavy elements can be included if that speculation has been published in the scientific literature, but not just because someone who did a trivial calculation using the wrong equation and thought the result notable. --Itub (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete?
Talk:Upper-convected time derivative

message: Nitpicky point: this discussion assumes that div {\bf v} = 0. If you look in Oldroyd's paper [Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 1950 200, 523-541], Sect. 3(a), you will note that he also has the term "+div {\bf v} {\bf A}" on the right-hand side. This is the general upper-convected frame-indifferent derivate of Oldroyd. See also Aris's book "Vectors, Tensors, and the Basic Equations of Fluid Mechanics," Sect. 8.32. No reason to assume div {\bf v} = 0 when giving the general exposition. Evilmathninja (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! 208.59.64.68 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Nitpick
Talk:Uranium-234

message: This table puzzles me. Unless I'm greatly mistaken about how to read it, it's wrong.
It seems to say that U-233 is a decay product, by alpha, of Pu-238.
I suspect that that entry belongs under U-234.
Similarly, it is U-234 that decays to Th-230, not U-235.
Then again, U-235 IS a decay product of Pu-239.
The alpha decay product of U-235 is Th-231, not Th-230.
Source: an alpha particle has mass 4.
DaveyHume (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what it's saying, though I can see how the layout might be confusing. Everything is written from the perspective of 234U. So the next lighter U isotope from it is 233U and the next heavier is 235U; its parent is 238Pu and its daughter is 230Th. Double sharp (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  table of isotopes U-233, U-234, U-235 
Talk:Uranium-235

message: A comparison with coal might be nice, and there should be plenty of WP:RS for it.  Comparing atom for atom, C12 vs. U235, though, isn't very useful. Usually the comparison is by weight, I am not sure now if it is for 3.5% enriched, or how it is done. Without looking, though, I believe that there should be such a source. I do agree with removing the one just removed. Gah4 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  coal
Talk:Uranyl carbonate

message: The article has long stated that the core is uranium(VI), which is consistent with the core "UO2" being a +2 ion and also consistent with a 1:1 ratio to the carbonate –2 ion. However, that "dioxide uranyl core" is linked to Uranium dioxide, which is the neutral UO2 (i.e., uranium(VI)) not uranium(VI). Should it point to Uranium trioxide instead? Unless the point is that it has the same oxo-ligand count in the solid state? But the given O#U#O (where # is a triple bond) component does not match the tetrahedral lattice given in the uranium dioxide article.
Then there is a list of several forms found in ground water, including some with hydroxyl ligands. Hydroxide is usually considered a –1 ligand according to hydroxide itself (and consistent with the metal oxidation states in the minerals listed there that I spot-checked). But the article here lists "UO2(OH)2+, which would be U(VII)? Otherwise, wouldn't adding two OH–1 to UO2+2 make it neutral not +1 (or else OH needs to be effectively a –½)? Or is this actually a hydrate of the uranyl-oxide or somehow else not the same form of the oxo ligands as in the parent compound? UO2(CO3)(OH)3− is similarly confusing. If 'uranium carbonate" as given previously is neutral, three OH–1 to it wouldn't make it a monoanion. And even if I have no idea really how the OH behaves in the first one, adding one more of them and a –2 carbonate would only work in this second case if the OH were effectively –0. There's either something wrong with the charges or the way the ligands are identified, or else a very clear explanation is needed to unconfuse a world of non-minerologists. DMacks (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxidation-state confusions
Talk:Uranium dioxide

message: A picture caption read (with emphasis added):
*This is a 20 mm diameter fuel pellet, note that the central temperature is very different for the different fuel solids, also for the different pellets it has the lowest centre line temperature, power density is 250 W per cubic meter and rim temperature of 200 °C
250 W/cubic meter is orders of magnitude too low: less than 2.5 W/square meter of pellet surface, with a temperature gradient > 1000 K/cm... No. I've removed this number, since it's better to leave out a quantity than to have one that is grossly wrong. The number could be calculated, approximately, from the data in the preceding graph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.131.179 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong number! 
Talk:Uranyl peroxide

message: Uranyl peroxide is the hydrated form of a uranate! Classic toilet humour!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.78.36 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilarity 
Talk:Variable cycle engine

message: Just a quick read through of this article shows that it selectively covers the field and has no citations... anyone willing to work on it a bit? - SidewinderX (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work

message: Tandem Fan was conceived as a VTOL system, not as a way to augment thrust while lowering noise. The description even details the VTOL application, with the forward fan airstream exiting downwards and the aft fan then being fed by side intakes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.190.114 (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Tandem Fan covered in this article 

message: I was under the impression that a high speec supersonic jet needed high specific thrust because the jet exhaust has to be as close to the speed of the craft as possible for maximum efficiency. That's why turbojets are more efficient at high speeds, and less at low, because the exhaust velocity is wasting energy because it's much faster than the slow airspeeds when flying at subsonic. Likewise it is difficult to make a large-volume, slow speed jet create sufficient thrust at high speed because the exhaust is actually slower than the jet. Unless you want a very high volume of exhaust to make up for this defect, you need a high exhuast jet speed. The smaller cross section is an incidental benefit and doesn't really matter unless the larger fan forces the designer to thicken the wing, for example, or if the engines are pod mounted.
Idumea47b (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross section? 

message: These two articles cover much the same subject, although contents are currently quite distinct. Better to have one with everything. Lfstevens (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Advanced technology engine
Talk:Graphical user interface testing

message: The entire section 'Testing GUI Applications' is a direct copy from the abstract of the 'Testing GUI Applications' paper.  Which is then described as a seminal paper.  Hardly neutral... Isolater (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Testing GUI Applications

message: Calling the subject of this section a "breakthrough" is unnecessarily subjective.  I'm going to change to the term to something less dramatic. --67.198.16.28 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Event Flow Graphs

message: I believe "visual regression testing" in web browsers might add to the section of the article which mentions the issues of regression testing.
With tools like PhantomCSS and WebDriverCSS there are methods to automate these visual regression tests. Of course, this only applies to supported web browsers and not to UIs that do not rely on web technologies.
But it might be worth mentioning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremygrajales (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual Regression Testing
Talk:Vis viva

message: How is this an "obsolete theory"? Vis viva is perhaps an "obsolete name" for energy, but the theory is not obsolete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.231.130 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsolete?

message: Intro says "It can be thought of as a type of kinetic energy" but 'a type of' seems misleading; wouldn't it be more accurate to say "It was the first [known] description of what we now call kinetic energy" ? Rod57 (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the later addition of 1/2, I would say, yes, it is what we now call kinetic energy. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 15:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree: edit it please.Stgoetz (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. - Rod57 (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Kinetic energy

message: imho this sentence is not correct:
"...represents an accurate statement of the conservation of kinetic energy in elastic collisions, and is a consequence of the conservation of momentum..."
its not a consequence. Both conservations are independent facts and consequence of the Homogeneity of time and space.
see Noether's_theorem
I think its not neccessary to cite the original History of energy here and propose to delete that part.
Stgoetz (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This must be a typo.  It was first introduced by Michael Price in this edit: . --Amble (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leibniz vs. Newton or conservation of energy vs. conservation of momentum 

message: I came to this term via Erwin Schrodinger's "What is Life?", where he mentions the historical usage of the term as a means to describe the Élan vital, of sorts, that characterizes life. Would this be of value to the article? 216.21.161.163 (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  As A Supernatural Life-Giving Force?
Talk:Weak hypercharge

message: The table has no apparent connection to the article. I actually came to this article because I am trying to understand the relationship between weak charge, weak isospin, parity, and handedness. So, while I have a vague understanding of what eR means, most people will not. I also question whether the values of T3 for the quarks are correct? Perhaps I've confused T3 with T (weak isospin, total) but I'm pretty sure I've run across several references in WIKIPEDIA which state T3 is +/- ½ for the quarks?? So, the table should either be removed or preferably discussed/explained in the article (as well as corrected, if wrong). A reference SHOULD really be provided, also. I'd also suggest expanding it to include both T and T3, as well as noting that isospin and weak isospin are unrelated (?!) in the text.Abitslow (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked. The article Weak Interaction clearly claims that T3 is NOT zero for the quarks and states that T3 IS weak isospin. I understand that various authors consider the T3 component as weak isospin, but the difference  between T and T3 is important, imho. Important enough to be made clear in each article using it (or at least those which give a value for it)!Abitslow (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: T specifies the weak isomultiplet. T3 specifies a component of the isomultiplet. So the T=1/2 doublet may have T3 =±1/2  isocomponents.  Informal language, but crystal-clear from context. Unless one is familiar with SU(2) from sophomore QM , or the original isospin, this is not the place to come to brush up on them.  Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table is inadequate
Talk:FSB Border Service of Russia

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus.  There are comments about spliting the articles, so it might be better to decide on splitting before requesting further moves.  (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 April 2021
Talk:List of banks in Greece

message: TT Bank does not exist anymore
FB Bank & Omega Bank also.
Piraeus Bank bought ATEBank and Geniki Bank from Societe Generale.
Alpha Bank bought Emporiki Bank from Credit Agricole.
TT Hellenic Postbank bought T Bank.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.158.131 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2013 

message: Γεια σας!
 removed Attica Bank from the "Systemic banks" and placed it among "Other banks incorporated in Greece" with the comment that it is "unreferenced".
Actually, the article does not state at all what would be the difference between a "systemic" bank and an "other" bank. Still, my feeling is that, since the consolidation of the sector in 2013, Attica Bank is consistently cited by the media among the 5 major remaining bank networks in Greece, although it is indeed smaller than the other 4. Here are a few examples of news pieces that cite it as such:         . You wouldn't see the Co-Operative Bank of Drama listed as consistently as Attica Bank among the major banks.
Therefore I believe that we should either merge the two sections into a single "Banks incorporated in Greece" section, or include Attica Bank among the top 5 banks. Place Clichy (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systemic banks
Talk:White noise machine

message: The article plainly states several purported facts about the use and usefulness of these machines (e.g. 'produces a noise that calms the listener', 'allows specialized users to identify noise and sound according to their respective needs and utilization', ... managed with special devices which are designed to create certain sounds that treat such conditions at a mental level'). None of these claims, however, is backed by any reference currently present. The majority of the sources, in fact, seem to deal with the utterly tangential fact that some people believe that sleeping next to a fan might be considered harmful. 2800:21E7:F000:632:8043:E99D:92DB:50D7 (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claims
Talk:N. Richard Nash

message: Umm...if you click on The Rainmaker, it takes you to the disambiguation page, where, if you click, The Rainmaker (play) it takes you to...N Richard Nash.  I can't find the actual page...can someone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.99.123 (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  SWAdair 08:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix
Talk:Yttrium aluminium garnet

message: Hi there,
the article reiterates for several laser wavelengths that they are "relatively eye safe", because the damage is not done in the retina. While the latter is true, the aspect of safety is not given. Even when the cornea is damaged, grave vision problems can occur.
I urge to change the passages to refer to damage done at the outer skin of the eye rather than at the retina, but not downplay the risks involved.
See laser safety for questions. Remember, the dose makes the damage.
So long, Slarti—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.73.206 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 24 September 2008 
:Agreed. While the wording here was not as bad as what one often sees, the phrase "eye safe" should be abolished, even when qualified by "relatively". Certain wavelengths have a higher threshold for eye damage than others. I have rephrased the article to say so.--Srleffler (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye safety 

message: The word is Aluminum not Aluminium.  Thank you --
Am wake (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a spelling error. The word is "aluminium" outside North America, and according to IUPAC this is the preferred international name for the element.--Srleffler (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error 

message: it is not enough to say what it is.  how about: it was developed in [year]  by  [name]  of[country].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.79.129 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: Why is called garnet? Garnets are silicates. YAG might be considered corundum 46.25.68.142 (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. Perhaps the crystal structure is similar to that of garnet?--Srleffler (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition
Talk:The Incredible Melting Man

message: It says: "This feature-film debut of writer and director William Sachs".
This is incorrect. He wrote & directed There Is No 13 in 1974, this movie is his feature-film writing debut. His directing
debut was some scenes in South Of Hell Mountain in 1971. 86.46.59.127 (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: There is incorrect information in this article

message: I've managed to find the novelization. Supposedly it is based on the script Sachs wrote. I've only skimmed it so far, but it seems to be a straight rip of The Quatermass Experiment, with the only survivor of the first manned Mars mission coming back to Earth horribly altered. The novel finishes with a second Mars mission being overwhelmed by the organism that attacked th first mission.Graham1973 (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Novelization
Talk:Yukawa potential

message: Hi, I am not a physicist, but just performing a basic dimensional analysis, with the parameters defined as the article does, you can see the exponent in the 1st equation (-mr) is not dimensionless. I am tempted to fix it myself but the article goes further and that is well beyond my abilities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfloccinaucinihilipilification (talk • contribs) 16:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  In units where speed of light c and h are set to be 1, then mass and reciprocal length are in the same units.  Vis mass =(c)= energy =(h)= 1/time =(c)= 1/distance.  Anyway, yall should not be editing articles you don't understand, but flagging them for attention from someone who does. 2001:BB8:2002:200:E870:BC4D:B4ED:31DD (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Yep. There is of course another scaling constant in the exponent to ensure its non-dimensionality. I've stuck one in as a "k". This is meant only to give the form of the equation, and the h-bars and c's are often left out. In this case, k probably is dimentionalized by some multiple of c/h. SBHarris 18:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll try to find some more information in the Internet about the Yukawa potential to extend or revise the article, I will need a hand probably (I'm not a native English speaker).Superfloccinaucinihilipilification (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first equation given is wrong 

message: how can -g²/r give the Coulomb potential given by U=Q/(eps°r4pi)??? Ra-raisch (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We can just define g^2 to be (q1*q1)/(4*pi*e0) Landmark ni (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited Landmark ni (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coulomb potential 

message: I would remove
In the SI system, the unit of the Yukawa potential is (1/meters).
or explain immediately what is g^2Suppongoche (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  again on first equation 

message: "(also called a screened Coulomb potential)" -- Who calls it? In three decades working in nuclear physics I never ever heard these words in connection to Yukawa potential. Btw, there is no screening. -- Wassermaus (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screened Coulomb potential ?
Talk:Your Body Is a Wonderland

message: Can someone clarify in the article the release versions? I have two copies both around 4:10 which seem to both be the same studio recording, but one starts out with only rhythm guitar/bass/drums and is mostly those instruments for the whole song, while the other has lead guitars, other percussion and lots of colour. Then there are a whole bunch of different acoustic performances that seem to be released from CDs. It would be nice to document released versions. For example, the infobox mentions a radio edit but the article doesn't clarify what is edited out. TheHYPO (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versions? 