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

message: hello,
I wonder why "miles" is ahead "km"? Is this a standard? I mean, this is after all an war which took place in Europe. Regards.--GoPTCN 08:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miles? 

message: I have altered the wording of the sentence "The engagement, fought on 13 August 1704, would become known in Europe as the Battle of Höchstädt, and in Britain, as the Battle of Blenheim." to "The engagement, fought on 13 August 1704, would become known in German as the Battle of Höchstädt, and in English, as the Battle of Blenheim." The previous wording was wrong on two levels:
#Britain is in Europe!
#There are other European languages that call the battle Blenheim (see the list of foreign language names to the left of the battle page.
The two sentences would be better combined:
--PBS (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britain is in Europe 

message: Hello, given position is false. Schellenberg hill is on the left bank of Danube. Slightly north-east of Donauwoerth town. There battle took place. Not at Nordheim, which is south nearby Donauwoerth - on the right bank of Danube. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: A few sentences lack citations. :File:March to the Danube 1704.png is also unsourced. If we find a source, this map would benefit from an SVG version. A455bcd9 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article needs some work, but I notice it was given an A-Class Review in 2006. Can I just go ahead or do I need to get it down graded first? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Robinvp11, I remember this one. I doubt very much that it would survive an A class review, but there is no necessary need to nominate it for one before getting on with some much needed improvement. Will you be aiming at getting it back up to FA? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd envisage similar to the article I updated on Battle of Malplaquet, which is currently assessed as B, but I think could be FA. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One of my favourite bloodbaths and in a passably decent state. If you need a collaborator, you know who to call.  Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll keep it in mind :) Robinvp11 (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:URFA/2020]]
Talk:Battle of Sehested

message: Here is a source confirming Swedish involvement. --Droyselich (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've presented an "Order of Battle" which clearly states that there were no independent Swedish troops active in the battle. Hopefully now that same old mistake won't be brought up over and over again. Imonoz (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish involvement
Talk:Battle of San Jacinto (1899)

message: A link to Alfonso Steele would be appreciated if it can be squeezed in somewhere, as the article itself is listed in the category of articles that aren't linked by other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slicedoranges (talk • contribs) 
:Sorry, but Alfonso Steele is associated with the Texas Revolution Battle of San Jacinto, not the Battle of San Jacinto (1899) of the Philippine-American War. You're a wee bit confused, compadre. — • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Feedback 12:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of Salla (1939)

message: Prior content in this  duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Salla_(1939)&oldid=663060883. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Battle of Saint Gotthard (1664)

message: I'll be editing this battle over the next few weeks as part of a college history class assignment.  Feel free to add/subtract but I'd rather you post on this page first.  Because I'll be adding over time rather than all at once, there are going to be holes in the page until I am finished.  For example, I haven't added citations yet for my information.  I also haven't been able to find specific battle casualty figures yet.  I'm working on that although information on this battle hasn't been forthcoming.  
Have some patience over these two weeks.  When I'm done it will look nice :)
FightingFalcon 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Class assignment

message: "At the battle of Saint Gotthard in August 1664 Raimondo Montecuccolli, supreme commander of a        Habsburg force significantly strenghtened by units both from France and the Rhine confederates, still only managed to field an army of some 40,000 men."Jeremy Black & Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman Warfare, 1500-1700 (page 48-49). Lysandros 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength of the armies 

message: I have been studying this battle for over a year, both through Austrian and Turkish history. The real fact is that the Turks managed to gather an army of 10,000, while the Austrians, since they were allied with the huge Holy roman empire, France and the league of Rhine, managed to gahter a huge army of 80,000! All the average sizes of the Turkish armies were not more than 10,000, until they started to use mercenaries in battle. There were only Turks in this battle(Battle of Saint Gotthard), which means that they gathered 10,000 soldiers maximum. You might ask me how I can be sure of this, well, if I have studied, analysed and researched a battle for over a year, I belive that my sources should be (is) reliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.76.220 (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Real" strength
Talk:Battle of Steenkerque

message: As far as I can tell, this battle is the only to occur here or have this name, so the date is not needed in the title. Battles should only have the date in the title when it is needed to disambiguate between several battles of the same name. Grunners 14:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right about the date. I'm curious about what the battle (and the town) are called in contemporary English, Steinkeerke looks pretty archaic. The French name is Steenkerque, Dutch Steenkerke. Probably "Battle of Steenkerque" would be a better name. Markussep 15:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and as it stands, the town and the battle have the place name spelt differently! Grunners 21:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Britannica says Steenkerke, the 1911 EB had Steenkirk (and Steinkirk and Estinkerke). The Columbia encyclopedia has Steenkerque for the village  and Steenkerke in references to the battle: , , , . I have no idea where Steinkeerke comes from, it's only in wikipedia and clones. Probably a typo. I'll move this page to B.o.Steenkerque, and make a redirect from B.o.Steenkerke. Markussep 22:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: Hi,
The intro mentions France vs an alliance of four other nations,
but in the description of the battle, two others appear (Danish and Swiss).
This is perhaps insignificant, nonetheless it is a little confusing.
T
85.166.162.202 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalities 

message: Has any gander on googlebooks will prove, "Steenkirk" (cf. Dunkirk) is the historical English exynom of the Dutch placename "Steenkerke". Therefore, the aforesaid should be reflected in this wikipage's heading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.33.120 (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In English it should be: "Battle of Steenkirk" not 'Steenkerque' 

message: Could someone do this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:25F3:BF29:2B60:672C (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki page needs link to neckcloth called: steenkerk/steinkirk... 

message: The article mentions 'a joint English-Scottish-Dutch-German army under Prince William of Orange'. While he was Prince of Orange from birth until his death, shouldn't he be referred to as King of England here? I believe he'd become king right after the Glorious Revolution in 1688.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChalonArlay (talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'William III of England' instead of 'Prince William of Orange'
Talk:Battle of St. Quentin (1914)

message: The same image appears on the Great Retreat page, but is labelled "British troops retreating".
Although the resolution is not good, the men appear to be wearing British stype flat hats, and the broad blunt muzzles of the rifles resemble Lee-Enfields more than Gewehr 98s.
131.104.192.93 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the origin of the image accompanying this article? 

message: Doughty and Humphries and Maker are first rate sources, you can't override them by throwing sources at the article to alter the infobox, you need to write an article and then let the narrative be the basis of the infobox and lead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I will rewrite, or at least complete, the article with numerous sources when I can. Doughty never describes the battle as a German victory. On the contrary, he wrote that "assisted by III and X Corps, I Corps drove the [German] enemy back" (last sentence of his description of the battle) and that "D'Esperey's Corps had performed superbly at the battle of Guise". It seems to me that the article fails to present the French perspective of the battle, as well as the wider consequences of the battle on the campaign, and this will be corrected. Regards LaHire07 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What did Doughty describe after the the French victory (?) having driven some of the German units back, the German units continued their advance. St Quentin was a misfire that the Battle of the Marne wasn't and that was unquestionably a French victory. I like your decision to delve into the details because a better description of events makes the conclusions of the RS more comprehensible. Don't forget Template:Infobox military conflict though. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits
Talk:Battle of St. Jakob an der Birs

message: This article doesn't declare the same number of soldiers as the Old Zürich War. I'm tempted to say that the most modest estimate is the right one, but I'm no historian so I won't edit this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruijoel (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradictory numbers reported
Talk:Battle of Sant Llorenç de la Muga

message: I believe the title of the article, Battle of San-Lorenzo de la Muga is a mistake. This article gives all the correct details of the Battle of Campmany (Black Mountain) according the Digby Smith source cited in the References. The only error seems to be in the title. San Lorenzo de la Muga was actually fought on 13 August 1794 between Generals Augereau and De la Union. A rename of this page may be called for. Djmaschek (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I rewrote the article as the real battle of San Lorenzo de la Muga, which was fought on 13 August 1794. I will add the Battle of the Black Mountain (17-20 November 1794) in a little bit. I am using Digby Smith as the source for the names. The problem arose like this: the French wikipedia article Bataille of Sierra Negra lists an alternate title of San Lorenzo de la Muga. My apologies to the original author and editors for pulling this stunt, but I strongly believe this Black Mountain was misnamed San Lorenzo. I am only correcting this error. Djmaschek (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation
Talk:Battle of South Mills

message: The info box on the right of the article states the battle was "inconclusive". Is this correct, or should this be a Confederate "victory"? A couple of points if I may:
1) The Federals withdrawal left the battlefield completely to the Confederates in this case.
2) The Federals failed to accomplish their stated objective of destroying the Dismal Canal locks (the locks are immaterial to this battle, I realize...but if the Federals had extended this small campaign by backing up, regrouping, and trying another way I'd be more inclined to call this little battle "inconclusive". They didn't do that though - they withdrew all the way to New Bern)
3)  The Confederates completely achieved their objective - stopping the Federal advance on the locks.
4) The casualties are distinct - 25 to 114 in the Confederates favor.
5) There is a link in the info box to the Battle of Tranter's Creek. Its rather similar in nature - but this time the Confederates retreated and the Federals failed to pursue. It lists this one as a Union victory...??
Now, of course you can have more casualties than your enemy and still win a battle, and you can fail an overall objective and still win individual battles, but taken as a whole I don't see how S. Mills is anything but a Confederate victory, even if small and local...or, to put it differently, what was "inconclusive" about it??? Engr105th 19:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Union held the costal area around the locks making the canal worthless. Even with the locks intact, the rebel forces could not move naval assets through the canal. Dominick (TALK) 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inconclusive" designation ?
Talk:Battle of Saint-Dizier (January 1814)

message: Hey folks, 
It seems that this page is a duplicate to Battle of Saint-Dizier. I don't have any experience merging pages, but I'd recommend that's the direction this article moves in.  DuckWrangler97 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate page - consider merging
Talk:Battle of Tolbiac

message: I've done my best to translate the existing text into native-speaker's English: I am not an expert on the period and would appreciate double-checking to make sure that the original wording actually meant what I thought it did!
I left the sentence "It is likely that the warriors of Clovis were less likely than the Alemanni" unchanged because I have no idea from the context what is meant by the second 'likely', although this is evidently not what was literally intended here.
Igenlode (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Please check for accuracy

message: It's not clear what Clovis was converting from. The same section has references about Arianism, did he convert from native Germanic religion?
88.159.71.34 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bitte einen Beleg angeben. Die fromme Legende des Bischofs redet von "sterblichen Göttern" (im Plural). Daß damit Arianismus gemeint sein könnte, ist sehr fraglich und deswegen ist eine solche Behauptung ohne Beleg wertlos. 2A02:908:1871:6560:9CB1:5F77:B8C3:25B2 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion from what?
Talk:Battle of Telamon

message: it doesn't look like a stub anymore, so i removed the tags. Mhaesen 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a stub 

message: Parts of this article are taken from the description of the battle in the game Rome: Total War. Is this copyright infringement?
This is the description from the game:
"After the end of the 1st Punic War, the Romans had every right to feel pleased with their results. There had been unrest in northern Italy, but the mere appearance of an army had quashed any opposition. However, in 225BC an alliance of Gallic tribes and mercenaries from Transalpine Gaul moved into Etruria through an unguarded pass in the Apennines. To meet this invasion, the Romans called on the resources and manpower of all of middle and southern Italy, who rapidly mobilised defensive forces. As a result, they succeeded in outmanoeuvring the Gauls, and forced the invaders towards the coast of Tuscany, while another army made an unopposed landing at Pisae and prevented them from a line of retreat. The Gauls were surrounded, trapped.
After Telamon the Romans decided that enough was enough. Northern Italy would have to be secured and the Gauls defeated, a task that would virtually double the area under Rome's direct control. By 220BC nearly all the Gallic tribes had submitted and Carthage was severely weakened by the loss of one of its main sources of mercenaries. The peace won would not be long lasting."
84.68.227.143 23:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright infringement?
Talk:Battle of Sunomata-gawa

message: Wouldn't "Battle of Sunomata River" be a better name, since it would be a more accurate translation of the Japanese title? Or, atleast "Battle of Sunomatagawa," to remain consistent with other battles of the series. (I think "river" is more accurate, though.) Douggers 02:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose either is fine, though I'd prefer "Sunomatagawa", "Sunomata-gawa" or something of the sort. Otherwise it lends itself towards a trend of overtranslating place names. (eg Battle of the Field of Seki instead of Sekigahara, Battle of the Inlet of Dan instead of Dan-no-ura, Battle of the Mouth of the Kizu River instead of Battle of Kizugawaguchi) LordAmeth 09:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good enough reasoning for me. Douggers 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Sunomata River
Talk:Jacob Klein (chemist)

message: * Article expansion sourced from Oxford University Gazette. Alf melmac 20:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of Uji (1180)

message: Seems to contain a hagiography of one of the participants in the battle, labeling them a "hero"Frobird (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-wrote the part in question as well as fixed some grammar and sentence structuring among other things. I'm confident that I re-wrote it enough to fit the criteria to remove the annotation warning of a non-neutral opinion in the article, so I did. MeadeIndeed (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Cananga odorata

message: I noticed the header maintained it translated as 'flower of flowers', but the etymology insisted this was incorrect.  I'm siding with Encyclopedia Brittanica over a new wavy handbook as the more reliable, and removing the claim from the lead.  (People after its meaning can go down to etymology easily enough) --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:90C0:B727:8DD7:2D2C (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting claims

message: Could someone who knows it add the pronounciation please? I suppose it should be possible without a knot in the tongue as I get it ^^ --峻義 Jùnyì  論 09:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's ee-long ee-long? I think I like yah-layng yah-layng better. 63.172.193.57 (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How to pronounce yl

message: Encyclopedia Britannica says "Ylang-ylang in Tagalog (a Philippine language) means “flower of flowers." The article says something different and unsourced. Who is right? - Xufanc (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the name?
Talk:Battle of Tyndaris

message: (sorry for my Eglilsh - I'm Italian) - The roman commander in this battle was not Marcus Atilius Regulus but Gaius Atilius Regulus (consul with Gnaeus Cornelius P.f. Blasio II) - Marcus was Consul Suffectus in forllowing 256 b.C. List_of_Republican_Roman_Consuls. Vale! User Horatius on it.wiki--151.37.233.184 17:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)

message: Hi  and thanks for the input on elephants. Although some of it has puzzled me a bit, so I will lay out my concerns below and then give you a chance to come back at me.
#I am aware of war elephants, I linked to the article in the sentence you edited. It is so poorly sourced as to not be much use in my opinion.
#There are two species of African elephant - the bush elephant and the forest elephant. The forest variety is by far the smaller, about 2.4 m (8 ft) at the shoulder. 
#Miles, p. 240, explicitly states that the indigenous North African elephant, the ones he states are used by the Carthaginians, was not the African bush elephant (nor the Asian elephant), but a now-extinct relative of the African forest elephant which he says "measured around 2.5 m high at the shoulder".
#Goldsworthy, p. 34, says they "were probably African forest elephants".
#Lazenby, p. 27, states that "almost certainly" they were forest elephants.
So, could you specify your source(s) for removing my mention of "indigenous African forest elephants" and instead referring to African bush elephants? 
Cheers Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I dug a bit on this. I was initially concerned by the existence of this article on North African elephant (Loxodonta africana pharaohensis), which supports the existence of a species of African elephant different from both the Forest and the Bush elephants, but apparently it seems that this "third species" of African elephant is erroneous. From what I read in Klaus Karttunen "Bird-Watchers and Story-Tellers" pp.196-7. It came from a supposition made in 1955 by an author named Deraniyagala. H. H. Scullard, the specialist of elephants in the ancient world, said the North African elephant was the same as the Forest Elephants, but they were separated by the desertification of the Sahara (here, p. 161); I suppose that the later statement from Miles, Goldsworthy etc. comes from there. So, in short, you can revert my edit (never trust Wikipedia lol); the article on the North African elephant may also have to be merged into that of the Forest Elephant. T8612 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for that. I suppose that speciating extinct animals must be tricky. I shall rewrite it a little - possibly tomorrow - now that that you have drawn my attention to it. Let me know if the revised version rings any further alarm bells. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elephants