lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Grumman J2F Duck

message: Why is there a JF Duck article as well? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they aren't identical types. - BilCat (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which source(s) specify that both are different planes? And which are the main differences that justify having 2 articles? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we have eight 737 articles: Boeing 737 (Original), Boeing 737 Classic, Boeing 737 Next Generation, Boeing 737 MAX, Boeing T-43, Boeing C-40 Clipper, Boeing P-8 Poseidon, and Boeing 737 AEW&C! - BilCat (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused?

message: I agree that the expeditions to the crash in Greenland are notable, but do they really belong under "Survivors" as there is no expectation any part of the plan will be salvageable? I'm not quite sure what heading would fit better though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.129.124 (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenland  

message: This article talks about "When Fantasy of Flight reopens in 2015..."  FoF never reopened and never will.173.62.11.254 (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way outdated 
Talk:Hawker Sea Hawk

message: A good start, but the infobox is AWOL and could use quite a bit more detail. - Aerobird 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: A Rolls-royce publication on Nene Mk103 performance lists the thrust as 5300 lbs not the 5200 listed in the article. %300 lbs is also quoted in AP102B-7401-1 "Historic Nene Mk3 Aero Engines, Mk10100, Mk10200 and Mk10300 Series Engine Chaange Units, General and Technical Information" 81.144.156.66 (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nene Mk103 thrust 

message: Friends of Wikipedia,
The entry for the Hawker Sea Hawk combat record is inaccurate and highly
misleading.
"....the entire British ground attack capability during the conflict was
delivered by the navy Sea Hawks and the Westland Wyverns of 830
Squadron,[28] typically being escorted by de Havilland Sea Venom
fighters"
I recommend that you amend the entry to read:
"British ground attack capability during the conflict was delivered by
Royal Navy Sea Hawks and the Westland Wyverns of 830 Squadron,[28]
typically being escorted by de Havilland Sea Venom fighters.
Royal Air Force Valiants, based in Malta, Canberras and Venoms from Cyprus
(Akrotiri) were involved in ground attack operations, using
quantities of bombs, rockets and 20mm cannon and escorted by Hunter F5s
also based in Cyprus".
It would be wise to correct the entry to retain Wiki's credibility. 2A00:23C7:2520:D501:ACAC:527A:3666:AB6C (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite a reliable published source for your suggested changes. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawker Sea Hawk
Talk:Self-indication assumption doomsday argument rebuttal

message: Doing a disambig run on Natural, and I'm not enough of a mathematician to know if the word "natural" used in the "Remarks" section of this article should go to Nature or Natural transformation - or, indeed, somewhere else.  Could someone please help?  Thanks. Tevildo 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to unlink it altoghether.  Feel free to put it back in if necessary. Tevildo 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Natural"?
Talk:Koolhoven F.K.58

message: The numbers given to the rate of climb in section performance are slightly peculiar. In metres per second the value given is
11.6 m/s. That would suggest the rate of climb to be 696 metres per one minute. Now the value given in feet is 1,130 ft/min which would give approx. 339 metres per one minute. 11,6 m/s would give approx. 2330 ft/min.Noseball (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rate of climb, values of performance
Talk:Topological K-theory

message: Doing a disambig run on Natural, and I'm not enough of a mathematician to know if the word "natural" used in the "Properties" section of this article should go to Nature or Natural transformation - or, indeed, somewhere else.  Could someone please help?  Thanks. Tevildo 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed to point to natural transformation. -- Fropuff 04:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Natural"? 

message: Can somebody please fix the references to this article? Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMorphism (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations, proper referencing 

message: * Include a computation for spheres
* Use this computation for the underlying ring of the complex spectrum
* Mention the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence as a computational tool  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.158.175.34 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computations 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Stably isomorphic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 8#Stably isomorphic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 23:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stably isomorphic" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Sultan Al-Atrash

message: I'm doing a full re-write for the article, section by section. So you might find huge differences in language and information from section to section. You can come and check it out later or add it to your watchlist. If you can contribute to it, please do!
Orionist 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the article be named Sultan al-Atrash? That is, of course, according to the Arabic manual of style. Good luck with the rewrite. :) ← ANAS Talk? 21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Work in Progress
Talk:Lockheed XFV

message: This site says,
:"In 1946, leading Russian helicopter theoretician Professor B.N. Yurjev developed this design for a small delta-winged tail-sitter. Its single Kilmov VK-108 motor, situated aft of the cockpit, was to power both a small forward propeller (used for horizontal flight) and a larger aft propeller that would function during take-offs and landings, and then serve as a canard-like surface during in-flight operations. 
:"The so-called "KIT-1" never got passed the design stage. However, Yurjev was obviously on the right track as his design bears numerous similarities to the U.S.'s XFY-1 "Pogo" and XFV-1 "Salmon" developed a decade later."
Confirm & mention? Trekphiler 12:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would, connections to other designs is always nice information. --Colputt 01:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Predecessors

message: The article should mention that this aircraft was designed by the legendary lockheed engineer Kelly Johnson.  His designs include the P-38, U-2, and SR-71.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelly Johnson 

message: Apparently, Lockheed wanted to make the FV-1's official name "Rising Star". A copy of the Navy's rejection of the name (because it wasn't in production) is here; is it printed anywhere that would make it a viable source? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rising Star"
Talk:Martin Baltimore

message: Agree Seems reasonable - there does appear to be more information here (i.e. Martin Baltamore).  Nigel Ish 18:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Was the "Mark" (abbreviated Mk) designator used officially? Koalorka (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - see here: British military aircraft designation systems  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.143 (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: British designations?

message: It says "Due to the narrow fuselage it was nearly impossible for crew members to change positions during flight if wounded (the structure of the interior meant that the pilot and observer were separated from the wireless operator and rear gunner). This was common for most light bombers of the era like the Handley Page Hampden, Douglas Boston, and Blenheim." 
The problem of the narrow fuselage didn't apply to the Blenheim; it had a seat for the bomb-aimer next to the pilots seat, while the other three types were truly isolated. Second, the man in the rear of the Blenheim could reach the cockpit by crawling over the wing spars, something which would be impossible in the other types, as well as futile since the fuselage was so narrow that there would be no way to move the pilot from his seat anyway. But it was far simpler for the Blnheims bomb-aimer to reach the pilot, so there was little reason to do so..45Colt 09:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuselage  
Talk:Martin XB-51

message: I've removed the info copied from http://www.luft46.com/mess/mep1102.html. The key phrase there is All Messerschmitt documentation was seized by the US and was used in the  development of several aircraft, possibly including the Martin XB-51. THe main concept of the P.1102/5 is the swing-wing, which the XB-51 does not have. Given the lack of concrete proof of any connection to the XB-51, I believe the P.1102/5 info is irrelevant here.
An alternative is to create a page on the Messerschmitt Me P.1102/5 itslef, but the site's info is questionable, since it is not copyrighted, nor does it state its own sources for the info. I'll see what I can do to find some verifiable sources to use. - TomKat222 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an additional issue...the website is intended to sell Luft '46, and the content IS copyrighted, both by virtue of the copyright statement on the home page of that website (which states that the whole site is copyrighted), and by virtue of the fact that the content is exerpted from Luft '46, which itself is copyrighted. So on that basis alone, the text dump is completely inappropriate. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Messerschmitt Me P.1102/5

message: I just looked a "Toward the Unknown" again and in [i]every[/i] scene in the film with the plane, the XB-51 is wearing a "Gilbert XF-120" logo over the Martin text on the nose. I've altered the photo caption of the supposed screen capture to reflect that.
Bwob (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Toward the Unknown" picture 
Talk:Martin XB-68

message: This article seems to be the odd one out, in that it is titled using the manufacturer's designation instead of the usual US military aircraft designation, which is the case for basically all other similar articles I've come across so far, including the ones about models that never went beyond the blueprint stage (e.g. Martin XB-27, Lockheed XB-30,Douglas XB-31 etc).
Any objections to moving this article to Martin XB-68, which is currently a redirect to this article? --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer my own question, sounds like the B-68 designation was later reassigned from the Martin 316 to the Titan missile (which was actually built, unlike the Martin 316), so the argument for moving the article is not as compelling as I initially thought. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a long-held misconception. Up to "B-67" missiles were designated as if they were bombers. However, starting with "-68", the bomber (B-) and "strategic missile" (SM-) sequences were split - note for instance that the -68, -69, and -70 numbers were all assigned to both bomber and missile projects. While at a glance it looks logical, the fact is that "B-68" was never assigned to the Titan. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

text: BilCat, you may want to comment, as I see that you originally moved Martin XB-68 to the current title Martin 316. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Martin XB-68
Talk:Martinsyde Buzzard

message: Article reassessed and graded as stub. --dashiellx (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 
Talk:Packing (phallus)

message: There is an image of Louis-Philippe I. shown. There is an explanation missing why. I am asking because I don't understand it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forestboy2021 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of image 

message: These concepts concern a tiny percentage of the population. "Packing heat" still means "carrying a gun".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.125.190 (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slang
Talk:Halliwell Manor

message: Hi, made some grammatical changes to this page, added a section on manor inconsistancies.  Jeeper275 04:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jeeper, those look like some great edits.  Thank you!  -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Hi, thought all was very insightful and trully professionaly put together. Just thought you might like to add however, that this is an actual house located suprisingly not in San Francisco but in Los Angeles, CA. 1329 Carroll Ave to be more precise. Filming was done in the house, however, most of the time, it was at a replica in a studio. There are only 2 bedrooms in the house so the ones across the street of the home were used. Some scenes from the attic where filmed at the home across the street as well. Also, this is not the first time the house has been used for Hollywood. In Deuce Bigolo: Male Gigolo the Manor makes its apperance as well as in a few commercials. 
			
Again, Loved the facts! thanks for them. -Diana (Dcerva8 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add-Ons 

message: I have made an image in google earth which shows the pentagram and the fictional location of the manor. Should i put it in the article somewhere, the image may be copyright as it says it is in google earth but may be ok in some fair use way? any thoughts? Luke255 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five elements pentagram 

message: I deleted the bullet point under "Important Vanquishes" that stated "The Ultimate Power Battle (Season 8). Although Christy was believed to be dead in "Kill Billie Part 2", time was eventually changed and she was ultimately vanquished at Magic School. Her assumed death at the manor explosion cannot really be considered a vanquish. Jpagan09 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Vanquishes 

message: Why don't you put a nice picture of the exterior of the house rather than the plans of the house?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.123.174 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture
Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-8

message: A canard surface IS NOT a stabilizing surface; for any aircraft, the aftward wing is the stabilizing one. Essential difference with a conventionnal negative lifting tail , the canard surface has positive lift. Plxdesi january 08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.4.123 (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Canard
Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

message: I do wonder just how "comparable" the P-80, Ouragan, & Vampire are. Should the J21 also be included, then? The Yak-15? Yak-17?  Yak-23?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  15:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: They all look alike

message: I'm confused by this. Was the MiG-9 the first Soviet turbojet? Or the first turbojet designed by Mikoyan-Gurevich? I'm assuming Mikoyan-Gurevich didn't design turbojets for other nations before the MiG-9.R5452 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First Soviet turbojet developed by Mikoyan-Gurevich..."
Category talk:Native American tribes in Oregon

message: I was looking at this category and I think it would be a good idea to put articles about the individual bands of larger tribes into parent categories that then go in this category, and remove the articles about the bands from this one. For example, I'm going to put Mohawk people (Oregon) into :Category:Kalapuya and then remove it from this category. It could be argued that this will be a detriment rather than an aid to navigation, so I'm willing to discuss this. The changes would be in keeping with WP:CAT: "normally a page (or subcategory) would not be added explicitly to a category if it is contained in one of that category's subcategories. However there are quite common exceptions to this." (emphasis mine) I have argued that :Category:Cities in Oregon is easier to navigate if each city is in the parent cat even if it has its own cat, but I've changed my mind about this category. So I'm going to go ahead and be bold and start cleaning this up, but drop me a note if you disagree with my changes. Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization
Talk:Myasishchev M-4

message: *8,100 km (5,030 mi) ferry; 5,600 km (3,480 mi) combat radius
Uh? Is this saying that the M-4 can travel 11,200 km round trip with bombs, ammunition, and a fuel reserve for maneuvering to avoid enemy fire, but can only travel 8,100 km with no bombs, no ammunition, and a smaller reserve? I'm guessing that the combat radius is actually supposed to be 2,900 km. <eleland/talkedits> 20:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange Range

message: According to SPACE.com  , a 3M-2 variant of the bomber was designed to be the first stage of a Soviet spaceplane. It was a twin body design similar to the Twin Mustang or White Knight Two, where it carried the rocket booster between the two boons. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Space plane first stage

message: Re ”The display was a hoax; the first group of ten repeated the flyby with eight more” … Nice story. But I have yet to see it repeated. There were plenty of journalists at the air show and there are plenty of descriptions of it in the press, but all I have seen mention four Bisons, or twelve, or another figure considerably less than 28. Hexmaster.se (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The display hoax
Talk:Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.

message: Still needs extensive work, but I think the skeleton is more or less here.  Rousseau 04:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There were no citations as to this case being bad law.  Indeed, the rationale used here was roughly used in landmark cases like Jacob & Kent. Rousseau 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Being Bad Law

message: Is there any relevance of the picture to the case at hand, other than the fact that they both involve coal mining?  I do not see anything to suggest that the picture is of the Peevyhouse site. Cdecoro (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of the picture?
Talk:Martin P5M Marlin

message: Some Operational History for the Primary User (i.e. the US Navy) would be handy here.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operational History? 

message: The page states "The last seaplane operated by the United States Navy was a Marlin, flown by VP-40 on and above San Diego Bay on 6 November 1967." but the US Navy operated the Grumman HU-16 Albatross until 1976. Mztourist (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last US Navy seaplane?
Talk:Consolidated PB2Y Coronado

message: Per this Great Planes documentary, the development of the B-24 Liberator design shared similarities to that of the subject of this article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMkYzO0_By0 .--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-24 Liberator 

message: I'm always willing to learn something new, but to the best of my knowledge, all military radial engines had superchargers, which were integral with the rest of the engine (usually integrated into the rear crankcase housing, powered by the crankshaft). First, operating without any supercharger would severely limit your operating altitude to well under 10,000ft, which is very inefficient and can cause lots of problems when it comes to mountains. There is a difference between avoiding higher altitudes and not being able to fly over 8,000ft at all because your engines just won't keep you in the air over that altitude. Second, being an integral part of most radial engines, it is difficult to just "remove" the supercharger. I've seen lots of mistaken articles which refer to aircraft "lacking superchargers" (or turbochargers) and making it sound like they didn't have any form of forced induction, when the truth is that what those planes were lacking was TWIN STAGE supercharging. Single-stage supercharger is basically stock, regular format for military radials for the era, and high-performance models were given 2-stage/speed or turbocharging. This is what is actually lacking from most aircraft described as "lacking superchargers". I don't know exactly what causes someone to say that they "removed the superchargers" from the PB2Y, but as it's actually written I find it pretty unlikely. There are much better ways to save weight than by removing all the forced induction from your aircraft. Turrets, guns, radios, extra crew, all of these can go much easier than all your blowers. Removing second stages would make sense...if they had them to start with. But that doesn't seem all that likely. So although it seems unlikely to me, I cannot say what they actually could have done that someone would have mistaken for "removing the superchargers to save weight". If it's built on the same design as the B-24, they may well have removed the TURBO charging system, which I believe still leaves each engine with a single-stage blower (IIRC they are stacked in series, turbo into intercooler into blower into engine, vs on a 2-stage/speed system stage-2 to intercooler to stage-1 to engine). The weight of the turbos and intercoolers would indeed be worth ditching if you didn't plan of trying for over 20,000ft at all.
64.222.158.24 (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Removed superchargers"
Talk:Consolidated PB4Y-2 Privateer

message: What is with the "longer fuselage to accommodate a flight engineers station"? The regular B-24 carried a flight engineer, with a station directly across from the radio operator in the compartment directly to the rear of the flight deck. He generally doubled as an upper gunner while the R/O manned a waist gun (except in Lead ships), although sometimes this was reversed..45Colt 05:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight engineers station? 

message: Only an expert will spot the relation. To normal people these two planes look absolutely nothing alike. Instead I'd like to propose the phrase: "The Privateer had many parts in common with the Liberator". I'm not going to do the edit myself though, as I don't know if this is strictly accurate. --BjKa (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The single tail was also used on the B-24K and N (with a small extension on top), and in comparison to late B-24s, the engine cowlings were rotated sideways with the carburetor and oil cooler intakes on the top and bottom instead of the sides, and new turrets were used, most noticeable being the nose and the very distinctive side turrets. The wing and central fuselage remained the same but an extension plug was added between the cockpit and wing which changes the proportions. There were other minor changes, most because the US Navy had different specifications than the US Army, and because it was intended as a long range maritime patrol bomber rather than as a heavy strategic bomber. Same basic airplane though, and the wing was never changed.NiD.29 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Privateer was originally ordered under the name "Sea Liberator" as a Liberator optimised for over-water LRMP use.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.164 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "externally similar" to Liberator 