lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of Byzantine emperors/Archive 1

message: If Nicephorus III Botaniates married Michael VII Ducas' widow, how is it that Micheal VII Ducas outlived Nicophorus by nine years? Wouldn't you have to be dead in order to have a widow?
Michael VII Ducas (1050-1090,ruled 1067 - 1078)
Nicephorus III Botaniates (1001-1081, ruled 1078 - 1081) - married Michael VII's widow.
:Heh, that's right, I didn't notice that...actually Nicephorus married Michael's wife after Michael became a monk, so she had two living husbands. Thanks! Adam Bishop 15:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicephorus III

message: Constantine I is listed on the article as the first Byzantine Emperor, though on his article, he doesn't have a box on the bottom saying that he was a Byzantine Emperor and who he was succeded by. Also, emperors starting from Constantine I to Theodosius I don't have that box as well. Should I start adding those boxes to the articles? Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 21:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction between "Eastern Roman" emperors and "Byzantine" emperors is not a sharp one.  The term "Byzantine" is an invention of later historians; all of these emperors would have called themselves "Roman Emperors," right down to 1453.  Constantine is often listed as the first Byzantine emperor because he founded Constantinople, which would be the capital of the empire that we now call the "Byzantine Empire", but the division between the West and Eastern Roman empire (which became the Byzantine) didn't really become permanent until more than a century after Constantine's death.  I think Roman Emperor succession box we have now on Constantine I's page is OK, honestly.  It's not like he has different successors as "Byzantine" emperor.  --Jfruh 22:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantine I is a Byzantine Emperor? 

message: A mini-revert just happened over the opening sentence of this article, which reads "This is a list of the Emperors of the late Eastern Roman Empire, called Byzantine."  I think its worth adding a few words to make it clear that "Byzantine" is a term used by modern historiographers, not by the emperors themselves under consideration. How about:
"This is a list of the Emperors of the late Eastern Roman Empire, called Byzantine by modern historians." 
--Jfruh 13:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Called Byzantine"
Talk:HMS Active (1869)

message: Queen victoria's journals record HMS active as a guard ship at cowes in 1891. Temporary recommission? I know that earlier in the century ships were posted to the area when the queen was at Osborn house.Geni (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: late career
Talk:HMS Achilles (1863)

message: When was she reduced to 3 masts? Drutt (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

message: A minor issue, to be sure, but Wheeler says the launch date was Dec 24, not the 23rd, and is a more nearly contemporaneous source than Conway or Parkes.  Not being at all informed on the topic, though, there might be a difference between "launch date" and "float date" of which I'm unaware. 
(Wheeler, William A., and Charles G. Wheeler. Familiar Allusions A Handbook of Miscellaneous Information. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company The Riverside Press, Cambridge, 1881. Print.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelby Davis (talk • contribs) 18:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch date 

message: Apparently the ironclad frigates were designed to be frigates in purpose, first and foremost, but were forced into service as  battleships because they were so expensive?
This isn't right and I don't know what misreading is going on here. The attempts to build seagoing armoured warships at the end of the 1850s settled on the armoured frigate concept because the idea of building an armoured vessel with more than one full-length gundeck any useful height above w/l was immediately foreseen to present stability issues associated with topweight & centre of gravity. (Note that the French did indeed construct a pair of two-decker ironclads as part of their first programme, and recorded these ships as being adequate seaboats, but they were deemed inferior to the single-deckers in this regard and featured very low main gundecks - and were not repeated.)
These vessels were armed with the most powerful guns of the day and were intended very much to both withstand battleship fire (something which a traditional wooden 4th- or 5th-rate frigate would never attempt to undertake in its designed role) - especially in the context of shell-firing guns - and to destroy enemy ships of the line, which they could do as designed thanks to their huge resilience, which the armour was specifically included to impart.
The notion that these heavy, somewhat sluggishly-manoeuvring ships were intended as long-range independent trade protection and patrol vessels, or as repeating ships for the wooden line of battle is entirely at odds with the well-established history of the type.
Which source said this of the type and what was the exact phrasing, please? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:6CEE:9B79:5D9A:6432 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 1 

message: Our article states that "she was the only British warship ever to have four masts". I find that somewhat misleading - maybe the source uses "British" in contrast to "English" to refer to ships in use after the Act of Union 1707? Four masts were fairly standard for large galleons, and Henry Grace à Dieu, for example, certainly had four masts. Can someone with access to the source try to clarify this? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 4-masted British Warship?
Talk:HMS Achille (1798)

message: I think this passage is confusing:
It would help if the long sentence was broken up into shorter ones and a few of the "her" prounouns were replaced by the name of the ship. For the moment I will change the "forced her" to "forced Berwick", which is I think what is ment
I do not understand the second sentence. Were all the crew of the Berwick transferred on to the Achille and then some back onto the Berwick or does it mean something else.
-- PBS (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing
Talk:HMS Acasta (H09)

message: The General Characteristics Armament seems to describe late-war conversions of other members of the A-class.  HMS Acasta, sunk in 1940 would not have carried Hedgehog, introduced in 1942.  Probably the armament in 1940 would be the same as for HMS Ardent.96.54.53.165 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: March (presumably his British Destroyers 1892–1953) is cited in the article but not listed in the bibliography.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops, thanks for letting me know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the same issue is in some of the other A-class destroyer articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  March missing from the Bibliography 

message: Does this book, only a single page really contain all the cite details as per this article? I'm not saying it's false but it's not clear which sentences are actually mentioned and cited, so I've made the assumption the reference at the end of the paragraph does this - but then there is an awful lot cited to just page 17 of this book. Surely there are other numerous records (Official War History, etc.) which can be cited in more depth to qualify this is a GA? At the moment, I wouldn't have the normal confidence in GA reading this as an accurate account of it's war history which is to be expected for a GA. Aeonx (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: English covers each destroyer's history in a few pages, although the peacetime portion is often very sparse as there's often not much notable activity happening then. The citation covers the entire paragraph; if I'd used other sources I'd have listed them. The GA criteria is: "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Standard Destroyers of the 1930s - extensive use as a reference
Talk:HMS Achilles (F12)

message: Ministro Zenteno PFG 08, was retired of the Chilean Surface Fleet in 24 February 2006.
The 11 august 2006, Ministro Zenteno PFG 08 ,was Decommissioned of the service in the Chilean Navy in Talcahuano Naval Base after 15 years.
Achilles  GI & TI Achilles courtesy visit to Barry S.Wales 1970/71 & a run-ashore with the local plod - made honorary PO's after being "Thrown-out with" rather than "By"  Survivor Dave[60] would like to make contact -  anyone known ?   oc@1092atc.org.uk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.24.183 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Talk:John VII Palaiologos

message: The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.--Panairjdde 22:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate on the move is now completed; the result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:John VIII Palaiologos

message: The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.--Panairjdde 22:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate on the move is now completed; the result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:John V Palaiologos

message: The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.--Panairjdde 22:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate on the move is now completed; the result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: The infobox of this emperor should be changed to match the other Byzantine emperors that have the monarch infobox. --Senjuto 12:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox
Talk:Andronikos IV Palaiologos

message: The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.--Panairjdde 22:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate on the move is now completed; the result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: This emperor needs a infobox pronto!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox
Talk:John VI Kantakouzenos

message: The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.--Panairjdde 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate on the move is now completed; the result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I believe the following sentence, which is found on the third paragraph of the Life section is unnecessary, and derogatory. It's a very subjective comment that doesn't add anything to the discussion. It should therefore be removed.
"Cantacuzenus is considered responsible for their entry into Europe."
: Good point , considering that it was the civil war created by the Regency, not just by Kantakouzenos that led to Turks into Europe.Tourskin 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary

message: I gave "Joasaph" a go in wikisearch and it redirected here; there's also Joasaph Bolotov first Bishop of Kodiak.  should that be a dab line or just put him in the See alsos?Skookum1 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Joasaph]] redirect?

message: Dated, but the EB mentions
* . 
* .
* . 
 — LlywelynII 04:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion

message: If this guy was the usurper in the first place,   then when he was deposed, I don't think that is a usurpation.Lathamibird (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The supposed 'usurper' who took his place was the legal heir to John VI's predecessor, making the charge of usurpation entirely unbelievable. Unless someone can provide a reliable source naming John V as a usurper, this statement has to go. I'm replacing 'usurped' with the far more neutral 'deposed' now, if anyone can provide a reliable source for it it can be re-inserted. Also, I'm changing "retired" to "was made to retire" in line with the longer explanation given in the article on John V Palaiologos.82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usurped ? 

message: Is it really the case that he died on exactly the same day, 15 June 1383, as his successor Matthew Kantakouzenos? That seems extraordinarily unlikely in itself, and what's even more unlikely is that no mention is made of this amazing coincidence.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of death
Talk:Andronikos III Palaiologos

message: The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.--Panairjdde 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate on the move is now completed; the result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:Michael VIII Palaiologos

message: The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.--Panairjdde 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate on the move is now completed; the result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: In reconstituting the Byzantine Empire Michael VIII restored the old administration without endeavouring to correct its failures, and by debasing the coinage he hastened the decay of Byzantine commerce
Michael VIII did not debase the coinage system, Andronikus II did so according to this:
Mango, Cyril. The Oxford History of Byzantium. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2002 pg 260
I added some sentences about conflict between Mongols and Byzantines in 1265.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerelt (talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debasement not true 

message: The following sentence, placed as last of the lead, makes little sense, but even if revised to be grammatical, seems out of place at best, and more probably irrelevant: "However, Turk Beyliks began scattering Byzantine territory in 1260 and the Beylik of Menteşe was founded in Caria region." I've removed it, but left it here in case someone wishes to try to discern its meaning and salvage it.MayerG (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyliks 

message: I'm surprised that this article has been rated by some as "B". Not only does there need to be more inline references, the version I found lacks many important details of his life & reign: details of his coup; intrigues against the West, first against Manfred of Sicily, then Charles of Anjou; negotiations with Genoa, Venice & the various Popes; the consequences of the Council of Lyons (it was an unpopular move to which Michael responded viciously); & the loss of the Asian territories. (I added details of his youth & early career which were missing.) Maybe after I add details from Geanakoplos' monograph (which only covers his foreign policy with Western powers -- a very small part of his career) & from Nicol's The Last Centuries of Byzantium, it will be closer to being worthy of a "B". -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: Hmm. On the one hand since I did provide a good deal of the content of this article, I'm mildly pleased someone thought this worthy of a GA rating. On the other, alas, I don't think it quite qualifies. The reason is simple: there is little attention to the Turkish encroachments on the Eastern Byzantine borders, which Michael allowed to happen due to his preoccupation with Charles of Anjou. (And that handling these chronic attacks -- let alone successfully handling them -- would occupy the attention of any competent ruler. I do have some sources that address this problem, so if I find the time I will make the needed contributions to secure this rating. Or, if asked, provide the names of the book & related articles. -- llywrch (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism
Talk:Mount Washington, Cincinnati

message: The word "desirable" was added as a way of noting that Mt. Washington property values are steadily increasing, which is a true statement and verifiable.  Obviously this would not occur in a community that is "undesirable", and is used in many contexts to describe the community.
:I suggest then that you find a way of saying just that.  You might also find a way to privide a relevant citation.  Pzavon 02:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desirable

message: Why was this moved?  Mt. Washington is a Cincinnati neighborhood, not a municipality (not a city or village), but part of the municipality of Cincinnati...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.199.194 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a reasonable observation.  Perhaps someone unfamiliar with the geography was trying to standardize titles of articles.  Shall we move it back?  Pzavon (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mt. Washington, Ohio??? instead of "Mt. Washington, Cincinnati"=
Talk:Andreas Palaiologos

message: The discussion for this move request is undergoing, as well as other similar requests, in Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. Please go there to discuss the move request.--Panairjdde 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate on the move is now completed; the result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Both 1502 and 1503 are stated here. Is it an old/new calendar problem? SaundersW (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death? 

message: After I visited this page a while ago, I was under the impression that he chose the Catholic Monarchs as his successors in his will after he was unable to sell them. Briefly looking in the history, it seems someone changed the historical events so that Palaiologos sold his titles to Ferdinand and Isabella. Could someone attempt to find who changed it and ask them why they did so (the person who first mentioned the supposed successors should also be contacted) over independently investigate the matter.--201.52.246.175 (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were his titles sold or bestowed? 

message: I remove a wrong news.
Domitia Paleologo was the concubine of Evandro Conti, but the news about their children is wrong: Evandro and Domizia had two sons, they were not both males but a male, Mario (or Marzio) and a female, Stefania.
Giovanni Cesare Conti was not the son of Domitia but of the legitimate wife of Evandro, so he was not a descendant of the Paleologo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerum gestarum scriptor (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantine's descent 

message: Place your responses below this disclaimer and table (after the hr code). Remember to sign your name at the end of all of your statements by typing in ~~~~; Do not edit the article as it will cause conflicts for me and the tools I am running on the page. I will reformat this discussion to keep everything neat and orderly and we will have a lot of discussions. Thank you --GalendaliaChat Me Up 08:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking the time to go through this! I'll think about captions in the future and add in alt tags to the images but I don't understand what you mean by "move the dynasty table at the very bottom of the page to somewhere more visible in the article"? Do you mean the succession box-thing at the bottom? Those are always at the bottom of articles, i.e. Queen Victoria, Napoleon, Moctezuma II. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Yeah I didn't notice that. I have stricken that statement out. Always remember when responding you need to ping me please or I won't see it. :) GalendaliaChat Me Up 19:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Edit Status Updates
Talk:Meredith Belbin

message: My first "proper" Wikipedia page!
I have put in what I know and referenced the Belbin website.  About 3/4 of the way through typing I realised I should insert some critique.  This will need references so I have put the header in and will come back to it unless someone else puts it in in the meantime.
I have thought about alerting the Belbin organisation to that fact that the page has been created so they can read it and have the opportunity to raise any possible misrepresentation. Is that permissible? TeamCoachingNetwork 22:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Created Belbin page

message: I think this section can be severely cut down and perhaps rephrased to a single paragraph, linking through to a main article like Belbin Team Inventory Sargant 23:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Research section unnecessary?

message: Confusing. Isn't that a name for female persons? --87.138.226.207 (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, but not exclusively, c/f Hilary etc. I think he's known as Ray/Raymond to friends and family anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name "Meredith" 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  06:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem
Talk:And Having Writ...

message: I have the book ... somewhere. The summary here is vaguely compatible with what I remember about it, but I haven't read it in 25 years. It's a start, but I wouldn't want to copyedit without the book in front of me and that would necessitate some digging. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: I just removed the cultural depictions of Franklin D. Roosevelt category from the article when I last edited the article. I did that because he is not mentioned at all on the article in the characters section and it felt out of place. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural Depictions of FDR Category Removed