lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Nördlingen (1634)

message: I changed Swedish infantry to Protestant infantry under Swedish command because no regiments from todays Sweden participated in this battle. 83.248.26.40 02:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there were no regiments from Sweden proper present at the battle. 83.248.27.130 17:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: All Swedish and Finnish regiments are listed in the constitution of 1634. Their history is well documented, none of the Swedish regiments were present at Nördlingen (and as far as I know non of the Finnish either). The Swedish army in Germany consisted of both Swedish/Finnish regiments and regiments put up in Germany (with German, Dutch and Scottish mercenaries). If there's talk about Swedish regiments at Nördlingen it must have been hired troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.24.253 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the geocities source and added one source from SMB [] and one from [], the first one is reliable since it is the Swedish military history library (Don't know how to translate that correct), the second one however, is supported by "Historien om Sverige: När Sverige blev Stormakt", a book by the Swedish historian Herman Lindqvist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Björnebacke (talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and numbers 

message: I think the references to Saxons needs to be removed the army of the Elector of Saxony was near the Bohemian border under Marshal von Arnim no where near the battle. The troops under Bernards command were a very polygot mix of mercenaries mainly but by no means exclusively from germany and are referred to in most texts as 'bernadines' or mercenaries. Kurtk60 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saxons 

message: I suggest drawing more on Wedgwood's description of the battle.  What I think is missing is how the Protestant command divided its forces, sending half on a wide-maneuver to push Imperialist forces off the high ground on the right.  The attack initially drove in the enemy outposts, then lost cohesion and was driven back.  Meanwhile, the Protestant left and center faced a strong majority on their section of front which proved overwhelming.
The chief result of Nordlingen is that France was forced into the war prematurely to take heat off the battered Swedes.
The Battle of Wittstock was fought in 1638, four years later, not two, after Nordlingen.  After Wittstock, the Swedes steadily regained their dominance in most of Germany.  As the bigger, stronger power, it is natural France would dominate any peace deliberations with the Hapsburg-Bavarian alliance.  I doubt Nordlingen had much effect on that point
I'm surprised to learn so few native Swedish troops fought at Nordlingen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongabonga11 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Comments on the Battle and Aftermath
Talk:Battle of Novara (1513)

message: I have added numeric notes from this website about condottieri battle. I also seem that Novara was not the 2nd most important city of the Duchy, Pavia and Lodi being the most reliable candidates. But ain't sure of this. Bye. --Attilios 01:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers
Talk:Battle of Nikopol

message: If this article is being protected, shouldn't there be a tag to indicated that? Yosri (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protections 
Talk:Battle of Ngasaunggyan

message: Some facts of the article is so far from the truth. So I added some sentences with refence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerelt (talk • contribs) 09:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Enerelt - I'm afraid I missed your comment here earlier. Looking closely at your additions, I see that you did add a reference, which I missed because it wasn't showing with the other references at the bottom of the page. Can you please provide an English language source for your additions? Such dramatically different numbers (from "unknown" to "over 100,000") should be supported by a source more easily accessible to the average English-speaking Wikipedia editor. Thank you, Kafka Liz (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi Enerelt - Thanks for addressing my concerns about sourcing; I'll check out the book you mentioned and see if I can find any others. I hope you don't mind if I do a little copyediting for grammar and style? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 
Talk:Battle of Nieuwpoort

message: There seems to be a lot of doubt concerning spanish casualties.
Might I ask how the number 2500 came to be? Wikipedia pages of this topic in other languages seem to state this was 3000, which is supported with sources.84.84.50.147 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: In the article it says Albrecht was son and brother of Rudolf II.
That’s not true - he can’t have been both unless rudolf had another son with his mother which I can’t find anywhere. 47.184.0.18 (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son and brother?
Talk:Gun culture in the United States

message: The foreign perspective section seems very dodgy to me. It uses four sources all from the same date (which I assume are negative reactions to a mass shooting, written by americans most likely). This seems to me to be incredibly poor research and sourcing, and does not give a broad perspective. I will look for other sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.179.228 (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth source is clearly by a British writer in a British journal. The others do appear to be by Americans, but depend on quotations from a lot of non-Americans, which is presumably the point of this section. Feel free to find other sources, but please discuss them here before adding them to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Perspective Section 

message: The image to the right appears twice in the article: 
It is once inserted in the the lead section and once in the section "Ownership levels".
Is it intended? 
--2003:F6:2716:2C00:C422:EA0:236D:98C7 (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same image appears twice in article 

message: — Assignment last updated by FULBERT (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

message: why is this sentence on this wiki page? There is no reference to anyone irrationally adverse to firearms, so why mention it? 2A00:23C5:EBA6:1001:F927:C0:8C6D:FEE4 (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sourced, contrasting with the term 'gun nut', and it's in the appropriate section.  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term hoplophobia refers to an "irrational aversion to firearms". 

message: The source given shows the US is top in number of guns per capita. This isn't the same as the gun ownership rate, which is implied to be the highest in the world by the initial phrasing. For example, suppose in Society A, 49% of people own one gun each (and the rest none, implied in all going forward). In Society B, 1% own 50 guns each. In Society C, 1% own 10 guns each. By number of guns per 100 people, Society B is the highest with 50, followed by A with 49, followed by C with 10. But that's obviously silly, because A is clearly the highest (49% own guns), then B and C which are the same (1%). I wouldn't be surprised if the US topped this metric too -- it does on Percent of households with guns by country, but the source there no longer exists, and it only has 34 countries, excluding Yemen, Serbia, etc. Since I can't actually confirm the claim as true, I removed it. Miladragon3 (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this image and its source deal with your concern?  Source: —RCraig09 (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun ownership as highest in the world
Talk:Interstate 270 (Missouri–Illinois)

message: The Missouri Department of Transportation has an archive or past state historic maps showing the history of I-270 and it's evolution.  There are also historical maps indicating that the layout of 
St. Louis County influenced how I-270 was built.  But important parts are missing from history like its time as Missouri State Route 77 and as a U.S. Route 66 bypass. --Bushido Hacks (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More History Please! 
Talk:Interstate 270

message: I'd say that this page is ready to split as follows: Move the Ohio and Maryland sections to separate pages, and move this page Interstate 270 (Colorado). Then create a new page where this one is and make it a disambiguation page. --Rschen7754 18:31, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed.  Doctor Whom 18:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Split
Talk:Ordnance QF 6-pounder

message: Either I'm misreading the quoted figures, or there's a typo. 2.82 metres seems way too short for the overall length, since even 43 calibres is over 2.4 metres. Find a good side view and the proportions look wrong.
It's certainly not the overall length, but just what is it the length of? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.55.113 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the barrel and breech together which is strictly the QF 6 pounder part, the carriage being defined separately. GraemeLeggett 14:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The carriage weight is what the 7 cwt refers to in the full designation - something like; Ordnance QF 6 Pounder on Carriage 7 cwt.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurements and dimensions 

message: Why couldn't this image be uploaded on Wikipedia or Commons as ? It's published in WWII U.S. War Department Special Series. Ain92 (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/artillery-in-the-desert/pics/6pounder.jpg Sketch of the 6-pounder Mk 2] 

message: Just so I am not missing anything; in the penetration tables it states that British AP could penetrate 135mm of what I am guessing is RHA.
Thus, the quote from 'Service History', 'British Service' 'Anti-tank gun' it says that, and I quote "The standard 6-pounder shot was ineffective against the front armour (of Tiger and Panther tanks) at any range..."
If the armour of the Tiger 1 was 100mm thick, surely it cold penetrate the front of the Tiger at ranges below 500m.
:The 6-pdr using APDS shells could penetrate a Tiger or Panther. 
:2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9855:B4FF:68DD:F753 (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The penetration table is an estimate based upon calculations to turn measured performance (in the case of British guns firing at an angled plate) into a standardized form (90° to line if shot). And part of that format is that the shot succeeds 50% of the time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Views Perhaps 

message: It says: In service 1942–1960. Yet under that is say it served in the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971.  The Service history was when the last gun was in service in any army.
2A01:4B00:881D:3700:9855:B4FF:68DD:F753 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Service history
Talk:TransAmerica (board game)

message: I have added a section towards the end of this article about transeuropa - I decided to place it here because it is so similar to transamerica that annother page seems silly. I will try and add a redirect from transeuropa - if anyone sees a better way of representing transeuropa on wikipedia, do it!--Warlorddagaz 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TransEuropa
Talk:History of Wiltshire

message: This page should be chronological or with headings or both. I don't have the time on my hands to do it, myself. Thelb4! | Talk to me 19:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think headings, then chronological within each section. I've made a stab at some headings and subheads, and moved most of the pics (which seemed to be randomly positioned) into a roughly chronologically-ordered marginal strip, apart from a couple which seemed vaguely relevant to the sections I placed them in. SiGarb 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: The first series Ordnance Survey maps 7, 8 and 12 (dating from between 1817 and 1822) show three areas to the south and east of Reading as being Part of Wilts. One of these is centred around Spencers Wood, another around Farley Hill, and the last and largest stretches from just north of Wokingham north to Twyford. All of these must be 30 miles from the nearest part of what is now Wiltshire, and are now part of Berkshire (in so far as that county still exists). I suspect this article probably ought to cover this strange anomaly; both how it came to be, and when these places ceased to be in Wiltshire. Anybody know the answers. -- Chris j wood 13:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just seen a link to what might be the answer in prior discussion on Talk:Wiltshire; I'll follow up. -- Chris j wood 12:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of Wiltshire to the south and east of Reading 

message: Swindon is part of the historic county but gets no mention at all!  Has it been excluded merely because it's recently become a unitary authority?  Not a valid reason, I'd suggest.  I've added a quick cross-reference under 'Industry' and will come back to it when I have time but it will take some research to give it the appropriate weight right through.  Major_Clanger (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes.  Please write more about Swindon. (For what it's worth, the current ceremonial county also includes Wiltshire.)  I look forward to reading it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swindon
Talk:NASCAR 06: Total Team Control

message: I know I'm not the only person who's noticed EA's lack of real-life drivers in its NASCAR franchise. When I look at the drivers they include for the Craftsman Truck Series, it makes me wonder why they include the CTS at all when more than half the drivers don't even exist. It's frustrating when non-existent drivers end up in the Chase for the Cup. It makes it less fun when you're driving against drivers that don't exist rather than veterans like Jeff Gordon and Matt Kenseth. Either EA is horrible at securing name rights or they just don't care anymore and they're making the game for the money. I think Papyrus should have the license; they did so much more with it. –Wlmaltby3 13:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of real-life drivers 

message: I believe this is the most realistic EA Sports NASCAR game ever. The handling is realistic, the way the "Fight to the Top Mode" is handled in a realistic calendar-type way, and it's interesting to you can make a race car driver as old as 70 years old. This game is more realistic than NASCAR 09. In fact, it might even be more realistic than Gran Turismo 5. GVnayR (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Realistic EA Sports NASCAR game ever 

message: NASCAR 06 Nextel Cup Drivers needs to be merged into the game's main article, mostly because it isn't notable enough for it to have it's own article. -- Nascar1996(Talk • Contribs) 13:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Except merging it in here would violate WP:GAMECRUFT, so deleting it outright seems better. ZappaOMati 01:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:BOLDly redirected. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion
Talk:DCE/RPC

message: This article is pretty good but it still needs a little work. The article has a point of view and that should be limited. The prose could also be rewritten to be more formal. Then this article would really start to shine. Triddle 19:09, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Done! Thanx 69.142.2.68 01:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I added "design by committee" back in a slightly more encyclopedic tone, although I'd also appreciate a source for it. What it is you'll have to put in, as to why it was avoided, that I tried to distill to something NPOV and readded. Also, generally you sign your name @ the end ;D (The infamous 4 ~s). Thanx 69.142.2.68 21:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Survey says: yes.  I updated it. Guy Harris 00:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Interface Definition Language", derived from "Network Interface Definition Language (NIDL)" which was part of the Network Computing System from which DCE/RPC was derived. E.g., see https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r1.halx001/netcomnidlc.htm 74.104.146.178 (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: @ตั้ม สุริยันต์ 2001:44C8:494D:92C8:60FD:2099:E34F:5553 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ฉันอย่ากได้IDที่ล็อกอินจากเฟสๆฉันมีคนแฮกเข้าสู่ระบบบัญชีเฟสไม่สามาถรเข้าเฟสได้อีกเลย
Talk:Liz Claiborne

message: The pages for the person and the company need to be split -- a $6 billion/year company deserves its own entry. Rusty 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Pixelface 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Company article

message: Was she jewish?
:Her obituary says she was Belgian. 
:"In the 1930s Omer, his wife Louise Fenner Claiborne, and their young daughter returned to their home in New Orleans, where Liz received a strict Roman Catholic upbringing." Encyclopedia of World Biography.  In google, her company appears on several Roman Catholic charity donors lists, as well.  --Kunzite 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestry

message: This article has been classified as a stub. This is due to the removal of the information on her company. It can be reclassified as a start once more information is added on her life and career. Capitalistroadster 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub classification

message: Was Liz Claiborne Jewish?  Thanks in advance to anybody that knows.
:I don't find this question relevant to anything at all; except for some disturbing instances of racism on the internet; perhaps documenting 'jews' isn't precisely the 'notability' that we are looking for on wikipedia? 70.57.240.90 (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Liz Claiborne Jewish???
Talk:Battle of Plovdiv (1878)

message: I'm suspicious at the edit [], especially seeing what it included in between. No references accompany it anyway. Can anyone with a real book source nearby please check what the number consensus is? --BACbKA 20:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced numbers check (hopefully not a long-standing nonsense) 

message: *"Battle of Philippopolis"
*"Battle of Plovdiv"
Takabeg (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name
Talk:Battle of Piacenza

message: I've put these two individuals: 'Charles Emmanuel' and 'De Gages' in the 'who?' category because I have little idea of their involvement in this article. The infobox is not very helpful; it merely links to a picture of a 'sepulchre' to the Comte De Gages, (is it the same person, I wonder?), but not much else. 
Something like "the Spanish commander, the Comte De Gages" (or whatever), would be most helpful.
RASAM (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity introduction
Talk:Battle of Baideng

message: Numbers, from what source?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.70.80 (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: The second source that the Huns were 30-40 thousand is wrong. I checked the source. There is no phrase "30-40 thousand". Ch'unwei9 (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty source 

message: Gumilev does not call the Hun army 30-40 thousand, but 20-40 thousand. Ch'unwei9 (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty source 

message: I checked the third source. Han doesn't just call his army 320 thousand. It says 320-400 thousand. Ch'unwei9 (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty source 

message: According to Liu Kun, Lu Chen, and Their Writings in the Transition to the Eastern Jin, David R. Knechtges, "Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles", Reviews (CLEAR), Vol. 28 (Dec., 2006), pp. 1-66, this wasn't a battle, but a siege. Also, this wasn't a Xiongnu victory, but a defeat since their siege was unsuccessful.
*"Baideng refers to Baideng Mountain, located northeast of modern Datong, Shanxi. It was here where the Xiongnu surrounded the Former Han emperor Gaozu for seven days. Using a strategy devised by Chen Ping, he was able to relieve the siege. Chen Ping was later enfeoffed as Marquis of Quni. See Shiji 56.2057, Han shu 40.2045."--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege, not battle 

message: Well, Xiongnu's strength was most probably exaggerated since the total population of the Northern Nomads didn't even reach 1.5 millionCompeting narratives between nomadic people and their sedentary neighbours : papers of the 7ᵗʰ International Conference on the Medieval History of the Eurasian Steppe, Nov. 9-12, 2018, Shanghai University, China / edited by Chen Hao. p. 150, and as Di Cosmo, who is an expert on these topics, points that not all the northern nomadic peoples had yet been included in the Xiongnu  confederation.
:
ChanyuofXiongnu (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength of Xiongnu 

message: Johnle9822345667 (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2024
Talk:Siege of Pensacola

message: José Solano y Bote was later recognized by King Carlos III for his efforts in coming to aid Gálvez with the title Marquez de Socorro
That line in the Aftermath section should be changed to "... with the title Marquess of Socorro (Marquess of Aid)" to clarify both the Noble title and the meaning of it.
::The proper Spanish for marquis is marqués (incidentally, there's a Marqués de Socorro and a Marqués del Real Socorro, different titles). Admiral Solano was from Extremadura. His heir, the painter and Basque Nationalist politician Carlos Solano Adán de Yarza (1888-1949) so far as I know rennounced to the title, or at least he never used it. Incidentally, the Basque agrarian trade unionist Paul Nicholson Solano is admiral Solano's heir.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Waldeck supplied mercenary soldiers to Britain.  Waldeck was not a belligerent and should not be listed as such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.152.206 (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waldeck not a belligerent 

message: The Anglo-Spanish War disambig page has Spain's Florida activities during the American Revolutionary War, including the Siege of Pensacola, listed among the "Other wars that pitted England against Spain, though not commonly known as 'Anglo-Spanish' wars" and there is no Anglo-Spanish War article that covers the 1781 time period. For those reasons, I am removing mention of the Anglo-Spanish War from the opening of this article (despite it clearly being a military action between Britain and Spain). Carter (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Spanish War?