lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Kolín

message: Strays from NPOV near the end, placing blame for the defeat.  Needs references and better cross-linking, and maybe a map. -- Medains 07:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Pardon me for the mess on the "view history" page; the reference and notes sections needed to be added, and I had to struggle with it for awhile. 36hourblock (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous remark by Fred II 

message: This is a source of continuous frustration to me: the numbers of Austrians stated to be participating, namely 53,790, is simply the sum of Clodfelter's figures for the numbers of infantry plus cavalry only.  Not only does this imply spurious accuracy (4 significant figures!  Did nobody report sick that morning?  Bodart quite reasonably rounded it to 54,000), but more importantly it ignores the fact (and Bodart ignored it as well) that 154 guns don't crew themselves.  I've been trying to establish some good 'norms' for artillery force manning, because this problem runs through most pages on battles from 1500 to 1900, but a figure of 15–30 per gun appears to be reasonable.  I hasten to add that I'm not an expert in this particular period, but I imagine that there would be 20–30 horses per gun, given the numbers of caissons they had in the later Napoleonic times, and it takes a lot of people just to look after that number of horses, not to mention the numbers of specialists, e.g. ammunition handling and blacksmiths.  So would anyone object if we assumed a minimum of 2,000 gunners, and raised the Austrian total to 56,000?  This does however raise another issue that I couldn't resolve in the time I had available: did the Austrians still have regimental artillery in this period, and if so, could the crews for the lighter guns already be counted in the infantry total, given that they might be cap-badged as infantry?  People who know more about this period than I do really need to resolve this issue, but my view is that a breakdown of guns by shot weight for typical armies of the period might help.  
I hasten to add that this still doesn't count any command staff, engineers (though probably only a few dozen in this period?) and any specialist logistics (if there were any outside the artillery). – Wally Tharg (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guns don't crew themselves
Talk:Battle of Lagos

message: First, on the table, it says that 3 French ships were taken, but in the "Battle", it says only 2.
Second, on the table, it says that there were 14 English ships of the line, but in the "Ships involved", it shows 15.
Third, on the table, it says that there were 12 French ships of the line, but in the "Ships involved", it shows only 7.
--ClaudioMB (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction information

message: Why are the fireship Aetna and Salamander commented out in the order of battle? Harrias talk 16:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi : Because I can't find a RS for them. Troude goes all handwavey over them. If you have a RS, it would be gratefully received. Either point me in the right direction, or just make the edit yourself. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you feel about Clowes The Royal Navy, A History from the Earliest Times to Present, page 212? Some of the detail differs on numbers of guns for a couple of the ships too, I think. Harrias talk 17:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel an idiot for not thinking to look there myself! Thanks. I am disinclined to delve into the whole actual guns/rated guns/changes in both over time thing, and I like to have as many French sources as I can when writing about Anglo-French conflicts, so I would like to leave the rest as Troude has them. Unless you, as the source reviewer, would prefer otherwise. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy enough with it as it is. I only came across that because I used it for the Intrepid article (at the recommendation of Sturm) and I noticed the discrepancy. If you take this onto FA, then I might stir myself to look a bit more closely. Maybe. Harrias talk 20:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's headed for FAC; as soon as there is a slot in my queue. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of battle

message: "The seven French ships sailed at the speed of their slowest member, the Souverain. ... the two fastest French ships, Souverain and Guerrier, slipped away". Not clear. Thanks, Spicemix (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you have seen this, it seems pertinent. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks , apologies : I missed this. The same, very reliable, source unequivocally makes both claims. It does not expand on the apparent discrepancy, and while I can think of a couple of likely explanations, they are OR. I am inclined to leave things as they are, but further thoughts would be welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Souverain''
Talk:Battle of Halidon Hill

message: Balliol was defeated at Annan-not Arran-near the English border.
Rcpaterson 05:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Annan not Arran

message: Introduction, second paragraph: "By mid-July, knowing Berwick was on the verge of surrender and aware they were much stronger than the English, the Scots attacked". Suggest "...believing they were much stronger", or perhaps "...knowing they had the numerical advantage". After all, the decisive defeat means it turns out they were not, in fact, "much stronger". I am simply unqualified to know what (if any) is the proper edit so I'm deferring. 108.26.143.223 (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The stronger force does not always win. The lead ("Introduction") is a summary of the main points of the article. Where the army sizes are discussed. A modern historian opines that the Scots had about 15,000 combatants and the English a lot fewer than 10,000, possibly being outnumbered two-to-one; possibly before detaching a large force to guard Berwick. This is all cited to reliable sources. To summarise this as the Scots being "aware they were much stronger than the English" seems reasonable. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were the Scots really "much stronger" than the British?
Talk:Battle of Dupplin Moor

message: The Scottish force is described as "ten times stronger" in the article's introduction. Considering that Balliol's force was victorious, would "ten times larger" be more appropriate?
Wikigreenwood (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of Scottish forces 

message: I have expanded this article not only to supply more detail but to try to emphasise its importance in the history of medieval warfare.  Although politically the impact of the battle was at best temporary, in terms of strategy and tactics it forms, on a small scale, a prototype-supplemented on a larger scale the following year at Halidon Hill- for the later English victories of Crecy and Agincourt.
Rcpaterson 01:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Important Battle. 

message: Dupplin Moor isn't near Scone, it's in Strathearn, the other side (west) of Perth. Forteviot, Gask and Dunning are all mentioned in the article, these are all closer. Methven (see battle of Methven, linked in the article), is not far either.
82.40.126.123 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Incorrect location''' 

message: Needs a protection template SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Protection has since expired. —Sirdog (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023
Talk:Battle of Vigo Bay

message: "Here, by contrast, I have only to pick up what other men have lost, and not only in this Bay of Vigo
but at a thousand other sites where ships have gone down, whose positions are marked on my
underwater chart. Do you understand now that I’m rich to the tune of billions?”
So Vigo Bay is only one of a great many sources of his wealth.  agb 173.233.167.50 (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verne correction
Talk:Battle of El Mazucu

message: This one doesn't seem to have any gaps and the reference is the only one to be found, so class B seems harsh quota 12:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 

message: 81.9.240.159 wrote:
:Real name of the place is "El Mazucu". the same for "El Biforcu" and specially "Peña Blanca".
::People who live in the village call it El Mazuco, and the sign outside the village spells it that way, too.  And the primary reference (see references section) spells it that way too.  He also uses 'la altura del Biforco' (and current maps also spell it that way).  He uses both Peña Blanca (to refer to the whole hill) and Peñas Blancas (to refer to the three summits of the hill), so it would seem both are correct.  mfc 16:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've changed the wording to clarify when the three summits or whole mountain is referred to. quota 11:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of place names 

message: This isn't my area of expertise but from all I can find on the web (English and Spanish) and in my University library, this article is 'spot-on' .. it captures exactly the essence of the cited references, and what actually happened.  Why would anyone grade it as 'B-class' without good reason?  Have set the class to '?' for now, surely there must be some process for any grade, not just someone who wanders by ... quota
:Reverted to B-class. It may, in fact be A-class (or even FA), but to get such a rating, it needs to go through the formal review process for those classifications. Feel free to nominate it for a better classification at the relevant locations. In the meantime, it should stay at B-class. Carom 20:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had evaluated this article, I definitely would have given it a B-rating. The commanders are given by only one name (presumably their family name) and not their full givenname-surname. The account of the battle reads like a list of bullet-points, not a proper prose paragraph form. And there are so few links - why do the commanders' names not appear in the text? Every section is rather short - the introduction, the prelude, the combatants in particular. See Battle of Greece or Battle of Crete for what a better-than-B-class article is supposed to look like. LordAmeth 13:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I'll admit I know nothing about the battle or the region, but my general knowledge of the Spanish language tells me it's much more likely that Mazuco and Biforco are the proper place names. Maybe I'm wrong; I don't know. LordAmeth 13:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class/general discussion 

message: It's not absolutely clear from the various references and biographies around whether José Solchaga Zala was promoted to general before or after this battle.  Does anyone have a definitive date?  quota 11:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about General José Solchaga Zala
Talk:Operation Ichi-Go

message: The map displayed on the page has a mistake. It says "Mongolia" in the present province of Liaoning. During the war that part should be called "Manchuria". I will try to fix and reupload the map. Oscar24 (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while. We really need to do something about the map, sooner rather than later. --Yaush (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Map Error

message: People I need sources. S-o-u-r-c-e-s. What's with this page being as long as it is without even a referance section. Come on people. (And OMG the Japanese outnumber the Chinese? I didn't know situation such as this existed for any of the major battles, or aka, SITE YOUR SOURCES)
ParallelPain 02:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Site your sources people

message: * Battle of Henan (13 Apr - 25 May 1944)
* Battle of Hengyang-Changsha (26 May - 8 Aug , 1944)
** Battle of Changsha (1944) (26 May - 18 June)
* Battle of Guangxi (16 Aug - 10 Dec 1944)
** Battle of Guilin-Liuzhou (16 Aug - 24 Nov 1944)
** Forces from Indochina and the main operation meet up in Nanning on Dec. 10
I'm still trying to get more detail on Ichi-Go, so these phases will likely change. 17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Three phases

message: During hostilities, there are two sets of goals: one for each side. Those editors who know the material too well are likely to neglect, as in this case, to mention who, for instance, wanted to capture airbases and reach Indochina. --Jerzy•t 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals
Talk:Hundred Regiments Offensive

message: * First period (Aug 20 - Sep 10): Targeted rail roads
* Second period (Sep 20 - early Oct): Targeted Japanese strong holds
* Third period (Oct 6 - Dec 5): Clashes with responding Japanese troops
Source: Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power: The Emergence of Revolutionary China 1937-1945, pg. 57-58
Oberiko (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Periods of the offensive

message: The vast majority of sources for this article are in Simplified Chinese. There are 3 English language sources and zero Japanese sources. This is not a good start when considering the balance of an article that concerns a touchy conflict.
The 'Hundred Regiments Offensive' was Communist China's biggest anti-Japanese offensive of the Sino-Japanese War, and is used as a propaganda talking point to this day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Regiments_Offensive_(film), including stirring up racial hatred of Japanese people https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-japan-specialreport-idUSBRE94O0CJ20130525. This detracts from the reliability of some sources in Simplified Chinese and should be borne in mind.
There do not seem to be strong grounds for calling this operation a 'Chinese victory' - the page on Japanese Wiki calls the outcome 'Disputed'. Since the PLA achieved some of their objectives in capturing railway lines, but did not cause a major strategic reversal or occupy cities or population centres, calling this a Chinese victory seems premature. The balance of casualties does not favour the PLA either.
The timeline, objectives, and events of the offensive are not clearly presented.
Finally, the reference to the 'Sanko' policy being introduced as a result of this operation is dubious, since it is doubtful whether Sanko actually existed (I shall continue that discussion on the Three Alls Policy page).
Suggestions: refer to Japanese sources and balance these against Chinese claims; amend Chinese victory to Disputed; clearly present the timeline, objectives, and events of the operation; add 'alleged' or similar hedging to the Sanko/Three Alls reference. Makibadori (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has serious balance and quality problems.
Talk:Reliance Communications

message: Please add  to the article. A large portion of the article is pormotional in nature, like a brochure.
And , as this is using too many non-free photos, and failing WP:NFCC requirements
-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done:.  This article is already tagged as having issues.  It doesn't need more tags.  If you have specific suggestions on how to improve the article, please use the talk page to discuss it.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remove the images that fail NFCC. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: editrequest

message: I used to have a Reliance Data Card which I closed. Can I use the Sim as a prepaid one in my Mobile phone ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.247.2 (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliance Data Card
Talk:Rain Phoenix

message: The date listed in the article (para 1) does not match the one under the photo. Onyva (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 
Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/WikiReader/Spoiler Warning

message: The BBC ran a poll a while back to find the British public's favourite books.  I made a quick list of the 100 that they came up with, it's at User:Worldtraveller/temp.  I've only had a cursory glance but it looks like a lot of them have good articles.  Could be a useful list from which to draw titles for this reader. Worldtraveller 20:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

message: Have you considered A Digest for Wikipedia Readers, to elide trademark issues?
Also, it seems to be relatively straightforward to print/bind your own books, if these guys can be believed.  Perhaps you would want to print on-demand for the first little while.--Joel 18:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "Spolier Warning" trademarked (or trademark-etable?) Yeah there are a lot of ways to print books,  Im thinking of working with local printers and not POD, but have not got that far yet. So far the amount of quality spoiler content on Wikipedia is limited, although that continues to improve with time. Also thanks for the BBC list! Thats a good idea. Stbalbach 00:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name&publishing 

message: You can use Wikipedia:Stable versions to select your articles. -- Zondor 14:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Stable versions]]
Talk:Benjamin Cory Elementary School (San Jose, California)

message: I have turned this into a redirect. the 2005 afd would now come in as a Delete. funny, the school seems to have been voted closed anyway in 2005. thats why we dont keep such schools here, they are like mayflies.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: comment
Talk:Adolphus Busch

message: Adolphus Busch died at his Estate in a little village called Lindschied located 2.5 Km from
Langenschwalbach (now Bad Schwalbach). This Busch complex which includes Villa Lilly, named after his wife, was renovated in the
1990´s and is currently being used as a drug rehabilitation center.
The original buildings of the Busch complex are still in existance
and in very excellent condition. --84.169.158.103 12:35, 16 September 2005 kfkfjf(UTC)
The article says: "He died while on vacation in Langenschwalbach, Germany (now Bad Schwalbach, Germany). His body was brought back in 1915 by train to St. Louis"  Isn't that a bit of a difficult train trip? --141.150.90.45 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: In 1898 Rudolf Diesel sold Busch an exclusive license to trade diesel engines in the US. What happened to this business, did Busch pursue it at all? East of Borschov (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Diesel license

message: The German Historical Institute in Washington, DC has published a short biographical article on Adolphus Busch that can be found here: http://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entry.php?rec=152
Immigrantentrep (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Source 

message: There are no other references in the article nor outside for Anton.  See this sentence: 
His brother Johann established a brewery in Washington, Missouri; Ulrich, Jr, married a daughter of Eberhard Anheuser in St. Louis and settled in Chicago; and Anton was a hops dealer who later returned to Mainz.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/ (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Anton ? 

message: According to the main text both 100,000 and 250,000 are equal to 2,8 million today. It's possible, depending on value changes, but very unlikely to be so exactly the same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.90.39 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2,8 million 

message: BUD corporate web page, May 2019: there is no mention of a Busch of any name as a director.Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:   August Busch IV is now on the board of Anheuser-Busch InBev. - When is "now"?  

message: Busch's first business partner is given as "Ernst Battenberg" He was actually Ernst, or Ernest Wattenberg. See The German Element in St. Louis by Ernst D. Kargau, p5, and Under the Unfluence by Peter Hernon and Terry Ganey, p23 Zythophile (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career
Talk:Single camera setup

message: I vote to merge Single-camera mode with Single camera setup.  They're just different terms for the same shooting technique. --Jeremy Butler 11:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Same thing, different name. Combine the info and it'll be fine. --Zybergoat 08:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me - the two are the same thing.  If they do merge, I'd assume consolidating under Single-camera setup would be the better choice for the combined article; I've heard that version of the phrase used more often. Imdwalrus 18:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to merge
Talk:The Chase School

message: Do  we really  need the opening  hours of the library  here? I think it's info  best  kept  on  the school  notice board or in the school's newsletter:
* Fiction: Books are arranged in alphabetical order, according to genre.
* Non-fiction: Books are catalogued by the Dewey Decimal System.
The Chase Library is open from 8.30 am – 5.00 pm on Monday to Thursday and from 8.30 am – 4.30 pm on a Friday.  Pupils may use the Library independently from 8.30 am – 8.45 am and during both morning break and lunch break.  Year Groups may visit the Library at these times on the following days:
* Monday: Year 7
* Tuesday: Year 8
* Wednesday: Year 9
* Thursday: Year 10
* Friday: Year 11
It's a great  idea to  mention the school's facilities and amenities,  but one way  to  expand a school article is to  take a look at  the articles of some of the other schools in  the area and see the kind of information they  include. A Wikipedeia article would be an excellent project for a group of senior students, and regular Wiki editors are always on  hand to help
--Kudpung (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article needs sources for personal information regarding staff etc. If citations cannot be provided, the information MUST be removed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed.
Talk:Siege of Santiago

message: I will be adding the new navbox template called "Rough Riders" to this article. Although the Battle of San Juan Hill is often regarded as being the final battle involving the Rough Riders, the siege of Santiago occurred just down the road a couple days later so the Rough Riders would have been involved as well (at least to some extent). Not necessarily in the fighting, but in maneuvers which ulimately led to the surrender and capture of the city.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rough Riders
Talk:Battle of Las Guasimas

message: Indecisive? Is it so difficult to assume a minor defeat?
yes because you'll never find it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.133.55 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

message: The Spanish were forced to abandon their positions and retreat, it doesn't matter if they were already retreating, they lost.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Retreat!