lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Giant's Causeway (horse)

message: Hi, what is his value as a Stallion now 2006? In 2001 in Ireland he was valued at €26 million.   Culnacreann 14:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Having a Private Stud fee does not mean higher fee. Most likely when a fee goes private it means there is a drop but the stud farm is trying to protect auction value/syndication value by not releasing the fee. Many sires in the last few years have dropped fees and following the decline and market and other top stallions fees being reduced publicly sires like GC republisized at what it had been while private but were advertised as new customer oriented drops. so, saying that it was most likely higher is a false assumption and/or attempt to add value to sire. People "inside" know that even public fees are not exactly as they seem. there is always a deal to be made and many are not bred at advertised fees. it's all in who you know and who they are connected to. the better connected you are the less you pay. there are many many many mares bred on free seasons if they are owned by the right person or that person has something someone connected to the sire wants.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigrunlittlehos (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sire Fee
Talk:Fall Weiss (1939)

message: The link "Fall Rot" redirects to the plan regarding the invasion of France in 1940 - whereas the description of the link on this page says that it was a defence plan should France attack following the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938...Andrimner (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct.  There were two plans by that name, one as described in this article and a seperate one (the offensive after Fall Gelb) which the other article describes.  Probably someone should just add a note to that effect to the Fall Rot article rather than bother having a seperate article just for the dead-letter 1939 Fall Rot.  129.173.238.5 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall Rot 

message: I had wondered whether this was better merged into the preparation section of the much more complete Invasion of Poland (1939).  However the links to other German invasion plans are very useful.  Should the article be renamed? JRPG (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger or rename?? 

message: This page should be merged with the invasion of Poland by Germany in WWII, this page is the exact same topic but with a german title.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.183.168 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One is about the invasion and the other about the plan for the invasion. Not the same. Volunteer Marek  02:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Agree with Marek; it isn't unusual to have an article on the plans for an operation and another on the actual events, particularly if the plans have some added dimension; in this case, there's the whole breach of neutrality/ precipitation of World War II to consider. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  should be merged 

message: The article itself states that the plan dates back to the 1928 Wehrmacht. To call it "nazi" is a distortion. Or is it reasonable to call the Mosin-Nagant a "communist" design? Asgrrr (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi?
Talk:List of counties of Scotland by population in 1971

message: I added a note explaining the methodology used based on the conversation at my talk page.  I am not entirely sure about the Renfrewshire thing.  Several parts of Renfrewshire were added to Glasgow well before 1975 - did they become part of Glasgow or Govan CPs as well?  The modern city of Glasgow council area is double the quoted figures for Govan and Glasgow parishes: yet Glasgow's borders didn't expand that much in 1975, did they?  So evidently Glasgow county of city would have contained areas outside Glasgow and Govan CPs?   I am confused and would welcome elucidation on the methodology used to compile this list.  Morwen - Talk 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK the CPs weren't changed when parts were added to the burghs, so they still represent the historic boundaries between counties. In reality the Govan CP should be listed under Renfrewshire. I shall make the amendment. Owain (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what set of county boundaries is this using now?  It appears to be the ones extant between 1891 and c. ?1912?, is that right?  Morwen - Talk 15:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the boundaries of the CPs are the same as the 1891 county boundaries. Owain (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Which version of figures does the cited 2001 census support? It is unclear how it can be used as evidence for this creation. MRSC 16:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an error of mine accidentally including Govan CP in Lanarkshire when it should have been Renfrewshire. Owain (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Methodology
Talk:Hollywood Victory Committee

message: * Hollywood_Victory_Committee#Beginning_of_the_Hollywood_Victory_Committee
* Carole_Lombard#Death
::There seems to be a factual conflict describing the same events...
T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollywood_Victory_Committee and Carole_Lombard
Talk:Henderson Motorcycle

message: As an Australian, I may have misspelt some words on a page that should obviously be in American English. Feel free to edit.Seasalt 14:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: American Spelling

message: I was looking for an article on the Excelsior Super X, the original 45" motorcycle that caused the creation of the 45" Indian Scout 101 and the Harley-Davidson D-series which evolved into the W and K series and ultimately into the Sportster.
However, not only do I not see an article on the Super X, I note with dismay that Excelsior (Chicago) redirects to Henderson, which does not cover any Excelsior models.  
Is Excelsior really not considered notable, despite the Super X and despite being the third-largest American motorcycle manufacturer at the time of its demise? Respectfully, SamBlob 03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, where does one find information about Excelsior motorcycles? 

message: I have added the Excelsior (USA) commons category here because Excelsior (Chicago) rediredts here.
If some dear soul decides to build the Excelsior (Chicago) article, may he or she please move the Excelsior (USA) Commons Category here?
I thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excelsior (USA) Commons category 

message: The bore and stroke given for the 1918 'H' do not give the displacement mentioned. 2 17/32 x 3 give 60.39 cuin (989.6 cc). Also, the conversion from inches to millimetres for the bore and stroke does not match. AMCKen (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Displacement

message: The fact Henderson called it a day quickly must have helped the other companies survive due to reduced competition for customers and suppliers and more concentrated orders. Is there any evidence that this entered their thinking ? If so, I think it should be added to the article 31.68.0.156 (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Sacrifice 
Talk:General Order No. 1

message: Misleading content. This article as it is referenced from Legal Status of Taiwan, is supposed to be about General Order No.1 by Gen MacArthur. Where is the original text of General Order No.1? The section "current use" has nothing to do with what's been advertized. Redcloud822 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulse advertizement 

message: There have been a number of general order number 1s.  Should we split this into multiple articles?Nor3aga (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mulitple articles 

message: The article gives the name of the document in English and Chinese.  Would someone please find its name in Japanese? Oaklandguy (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of document in Japanese?
Talk:206th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)

message: I have added information about participation in 'Operation Mars' 1942. Information from Glantz, David, 'Zhukov's greatest defeat:The Red Army's epic disaster in Operation Mars', London, 2000,  Ian Allen. Which I would like to reference, but I don't know how to. (Yet!)The Unclean (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation in Operation Mars
Talk:23rd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)

message: Currently as of 16/12/2015 the link to 26th panzer division lands on this page. This is incorrect, the 26th panzer division sould have a page in its own right. It is a separate formation, and fought throughout the Italian campaign including some high profile battles such as Selerno and Anzio. It was formed from the 23rd Infantry division, but so were many of the other panzer divisions which all have their own pages. I will create a new entry for 26th Panzer and remove the redirect to this page Christwelfwww (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  26 Panzer division
Talk:218th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)

message: and had about 15,000 men, 48 guns in its artillery regiment, and mobility was provided mainly by horse-drawn vehicles, it had about 5,000 horses - so, where is the source for that. And for which date that strength was given ? --213.172.123.242 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength / source
Talk:Nazi ghost train

message: I have been researching this particular stub and feel that introduction is misleading in that the Belgian Resistance was not responsible for stopping this train before it reached Germany, but rather diplomats from neutral Switzerland had made a deal with the German commander in Brussels, Richard Jungclaus, that the 1500 prisoners be returned to Brussels and handed over to the Belgian authorities.
Swat735 (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background
Talk:Mitchel Air Force Base

message: Yes.  Merge all past, present and future uses of Mitchel Field.
Wasn't there also a Navy presence?
Jim.henderson 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Discussion

message: Can anyone add any color on the nature of the military activities which are conducted there?  I've heard rumors of naval intelligence activities.  Obviously rumors and speculation won't cut it for the article, just curious.  ButtonwoodTree 15:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Military Activities

message: See link.  I believe this article needs a complete re-write since much of its text appears to have been taken from a Newsday article.  Newsday - Mitchel Field in Wartime ButtonwoodTree (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write needed

message: I've made up a labeled overhead veiw. I know the area rather intimately. I can also provide current photos of remaining Mitchel Feild facilities unchanged by the county, including the old Officer's Area and field 5/23. Not sure of how to add this to wikipedia. I am a former student, a local, and my grandpa used to land at this base, so I have a personal interest. lmj!ohn!sono  a@t gma!il d!awt cXXo!m  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.134.55 (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New overhead image 
Talk:Leśni

message: I strongly suggest we should rename it Polish partisans, like Soviet partisans. Nobody understands "Leśni" (or even knows how to spell it). What's more important, "leśni" is very informal name in Poland, not used in official speech (almost exclusively in books and speech are used terms, like "partyzanci" (partisans), "oddziały partyzanckie" (partisan units), etc). "Leśni" is one of a bunch of informal names, that could be used by local people to describe partisans (like "jędrusie" etc), but it's rather not used currently by the Poles. Pibwl ←« 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you are generally right, this article was not meant to be on Polish partisans as a group. It was meant to explain the difference between most of the Home Army units and the ones that were in active duty in the forests. //Halibutt 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: :It's a Polish word containing a specific letter ś, not the best internationa name. Maybe rather AK Partisans 
:The name is unsourced or poorly sourced. There is a song Idą, idą leśni.Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources are needed
Talk:27th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)

message: After getting my hands on some third-party verifiable printed material (see article's "Bibliography" section), I found some time to improve this article. I'll try to finalise it in the next few days. Very few material seems to be available about this unit, so any help will be very much appreciated. Regards, DPdH (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found out that the version of this article in italian language has some more information and sources. Will try to translate part of it into english to enhance this article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

text: The version of this article in the Russian Wikipedia lists other online sources that may allow further expansion; will work with these and try to ad content in the next few days. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement 

message: I've been looking for pics of vehicles and troops of this Division and its sub-units, and diagrams or maps related to the battles it fought, unsuccessfully. Can anyone please help? Just placed tags asking for images/diagrams. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images please?
Talk:Higgins Industries

message: I oppose the proposed merger with the Andrew Higgins article; I think with proper expansion this article can stand on its own. -- Infrogmation (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:90th Light Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)

message: The below members of the division were awarded the Knights Cross.  Evidence is here  Those in bold appear on the Knights Cross Bar at the bottom the article, all others are excluded:
*Hans-Levin von Barby. Oberstleutnant 13 December 1941
*Erich Geissler. Oberst 29 July 1942
*Friedrich von Homeyer. Rittmeister 6 July 1942
*Hans Klärmann. Hauptmann 9 September 1942
*Alfred Koester. Oberst 5 October 1943
*Werner Marcks. Oberstleutnant 2 February 1942 (with Oak-leaves)
*Johann Mickl. Oberst 13 December 1941 (with Oak-leaves)
*Albert Panzenhagen. Oberstleutnant 2 October 1942
*Konrad Zecherle. Leutnant d.R. 10 May 1943.
Can anyone assist in editing this bar to include the missing nominees?
Farawayman (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, feldgrau.com is not a reliable source. I suggest getting access to a directory of Knight's Cross recipients such at that by Scherzer.  may be able to help you. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  and , I have a few sources covering these individuals. However, in the past, these sources were considered insufficient by the community to exclusively establish notability. If anyone wants to create these articles, fine by me, I will add what I have, but I will not create these articles. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is just to cite the divisional recipients. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 10:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Noted - I will see if  can create something where notability justifies it.   - as an example of this issue: Werner Marcks is already listed on the Iron Cross recipients page (with Oakleaves) but does not appear on the banner when displayed for 90th Light.  It looks like it's a dynamic banner that checks (I think) unit as defined by the appropriate article page against the Iron Cross list - and dynamically populates the banner accordingly  I suspect that 90th Light is not present on all of the appropriate cases where the recipient was from this division.  Farawayman (talk) 10:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect to Marcks, he was a commander of the 90th Division, but he was not awarded the Knight's Cross, or the Oak Leaves, for service with the division. An early version of Template:Knight's Cross recipients of the 90th LID shows those soldiers who were awarded the KC for service with the division. CheersMisterBee1966 (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Knights Cross awards

message: I have many reliable sources that maintain the name of 90th Panzergrenadier Division until 1945.  I have not seen any reliable source that record the change of name to 90th Grenadier Division.  It was certainly still the 90th Panzergrenadier Division at Monte Cassino as well as Anzio - the OOB dates show it was renamed 90th Grenadier Division (Mot) in Nov '43.  There are no citations to support this either.  I believe that section needs to be deleted from the order of battle, as I dont think its accurate.  Farawayman (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: 90th Grenadier Division
Talk:999th Light Afrika Division

message: This article seems to contradict Battle of Longstop Hill (1943), where American forces had almost no role in overcoming the 999th, and the 999th is described as putting up a creditable defence against British forces before ultimately being overwhelmed by them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction
Talk:91st Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)

message: 1057 Gr Regt fought opposite the Mederet R crossings of 82 Abn Div (La Fiere, Chef-du-Pont) on D-Day.
It was separated from the 1058 Gr Regt and did not capitulate at Cherbourg.
(Various Sources)
71.163.86.44 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Ye Antient Order of Noble Corks

message: I've made a minor edit to the opening of this article to Wikify it a touch more.  This should help your case (as per above) but I know nothing about this order so I'm not really qualified to contribute to the above.  Escaper7 15:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tidied up some of the references, but I'm not sure how to do multiple refs from the same article/website creating: a,b,c etc; can someone assist with this as I'm out of time today? Escaper7 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was on to it Escaper7, when you were also editing. I've tried to update on-the-fly as you posted! :-) I've now mined-out all the references that I can find, (as a non-member). :-) Generic Character 18:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify

message: If you would but reading the Wikipedia entry Line-crossing ceremony, I think you would be struck by the similarity, both formal and in terms of content, between the Cork Degree and maritime  initation ceremonies such as "Crossing the Line". The only obvious omission is Neptune, but I suggest the pagan Classical elements were Biblicized to integrate it into the more general Old Testament flavour of mainstream Masonic ritual, such as Royal Ark Mariners. Nuttyskin (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no similarity of content at all between the Line Crossing Ceremony and the Cork degree as practiced in England. Different characters, different practices, different setting, different ritual. The only similarity is that both are initiatory-type ceremonies of a light-hearted nature, but they have that in common with many others too. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Related to a different matter, that of membership, I have pinpointed another difference between Scottish practice and that of other Jurisdictions: membership is open to all Initiated Brethren (i.e., from Entered Apprentice), which may in part account for its numerical popularity. Nuttyskin (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins
Talk:NZWF

message: What makes this promotion notable compared to the thousands of other indys in the world?BooyakaDell 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sponsoring junior amateur wrestlers is notable! Especially when they win medals at world championships! Curse of Fenric 01:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the problem is you don't offer a citation.BooyakaDell 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This fed is notable for a) its links with IPW and KPW, which are both notable feds in their own right and the latter of which is a spin-off from NZWPW, b) its position as Wellington's oldest fed, c) its links with New Zealand's martial arts community, especially Sumo, and d) articles about it in media such as The Dominion Post and Salient. But I agree that more citations are needed. I will try to put some work into this over the next week or so. - Conniption 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately BooyakaDell nominated this article for deletion rather than giving me time, as I asked above, to improve the citations in this article. Nonetheless I have now added significant numbers of links to a variety of independent sites including Scoop and Salient. Unfortunately the front page Dominion Post article I mentioned is now nowhere to be found on the net, but even without that there seems to me to now be more than adequant citations for an article of this length. - Conniption 12:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:9th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)

message: In the Western front section, it is stated that at the end of septempber 1944 the 9th Panzer was rebuilt, receiving 'at least 22 Tiger I tanks'. I find this to be extremely unlikely. The Tiger I (or Tiger II) was only deployed in independent Heavy Tank Battalions with only a few 'elite' divisions (1st SS, 2nd SS, 3rd SS and GD) receiving them on a permanent basis. That they would be allocated to a division such as 9th Panzer is not in line with information provided in the Tiger I (or II) article, as well as all articles concerning the Heavy Tank Battalions and those concerning the few divisions receiving their own Tiger I tanks.
Is there any evidence, such as photographic evidence showing Tiger I's with 9th Panzer's divisional markings, to support this claim?
145.8.104.65 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any photos, though from the situation at the time, it seems to me that the greater concern at the time was resupplying the severely depleted division with equipment. It's possible Tigers were all that was available. —Ed!(talk) 22:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger I allocation 

message: Ih the section "operation barbarossa" it states  "The 9th Panzer Division then captured the Dnieper River Dam at Dnepropetrosk" this is a false statement.  Dnipro Dam is in Zaporizhzhya.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.186.118 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dnieper River Dam 

message: This original bit [In the battle, the Germans inflicted 3,000 killed and 7,000 wounded, easily defeating the Dutch with assistance from the Luftwaffe despite the fact that the division was equipped with Czech tanks.] is a bunch of crap!
First of all, 9.Pz was only equipped with German tanks and had not a single Czech vehicle in its midst. Secondly the total Dutch losses in May 1940 were 2,300 KIA and 6,900 WIA. The 9.Pz only took part in a fraction of the tough fighting. Most losses that the Dutch suffered were from the X.Corps that battled the Dutch Field Army in the so called Grebbeline and the German Airborne Corps that landed around the major cities The Hague and Rotterdam. 
I am editing the quoted bit so that it mentions genuine facts. Grebbegoos (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some more corrections. A strange assumption that Dutch are harder to kill with Czech tanks ;o).--MWAK (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  early campaign