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

message: Hi, i think there is a mistake in the result of this battle, according to britanica it was a persian victory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.221.58 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

message: This must stop. The creator of a handmade map based on original research is edit-warring it into the article. The creator has been warned about the map at commons by admin  but seems intent at edit-waring it into the article. He has also attempted to intimidate me on my talk supplying nonsense arguments. I think the map is an amateur attempt based on original research and as such it is unsuitable for the article. It may also be a handmade copy of another map as Future Perfect at Sunrise told this user at commons and as such it may be a possible copyright violation. For all these reasons this map is unacceptable for use in this article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the unsourced image has no place here. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Can the image stay off of the article until a consensus is formed deciding otherwise. As per WP:ONUS, Parsa1993 requires consensus on here. Currently, consensus is against the image being added. Thank you, SamWilson989 (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Sam. I fully agree that the image must stay off the article because the current consensus is against its inclusion. Also, in addition to the reasons already stated above, the edit-warring editor has a COI for including it because he is the creator of the image. He should let others decide on its inclusion into the article and not try to edit-war his/her image into the article against consensus. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit-warring a hand-made [[WP:OR]] map into the article 

message: Would user:Firefox Iani care to supply a link, quote or page number for their opinion(s)? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefox Iani and his edit warring IP 

message: The result of the battle does not fit well into definition of a Pyrrhic victory, because in this case, even if no battle were fought, the Persians still wouldn't take any cities. The invasion was already a failure after Belisarius managed to pursue the Persians with an army before they were able to capture any fortification, this is evident from the fact that Belisarius initially didn't want a battle as he succeeded in driving off the Persians, so the Persians were no longer willing to continue their campaign in Syria.
The cited source mentions the result simply as "victory" elsewhere, there also other wordings in other sources, e.g. "costly victory" by Iranica. My suggestion is: "Tactical Sasanian victory, no territorial changes" --Z 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrrhic victory
Talk:Analytic proposition

message: This page and the synthetic propositions page are near-duplicates; this one is the edited one.  I think that both should be condensed into a single analytic/synthetic distinction page - no one will want to hear about "analytic propositions" without wanting to hear about "synthetic propositions" as well.  (But I don't have the tech expertise necessary to do this.)
:It's done.  I've merged analytic proposition and synthetic proposition into one comprehensive article entitied the analytic/synthetic distinction. -Jaymay 19:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Battle of Achelous (917)

message: The numbers of the opposing forces, which are given in the article, are incredible. Even if there was a medieval source or modern assessment that claim such figures (there are no references in the article to any source), it would have been unreliable in my opinion. Dobrin 16:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this absurdity. Theres no way even the stupidest Byzantine commander could have wasted 2/3 of all their manpower in one disastrous battle. How did 110,000 men lose to 70,000 anyways... Tourskin (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In the contemporary sources it is stated that the empire gathered all its theme troops from Asia Minor  and the European themes. They were defeated with heavy casualties which is evident even from the quote about the bones. Not to mention that this is not the first time the byzantines have lost almost their entire army in battle.--Avidius (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 110 000

message: This needs to be addressed ASAP.  No citations for great swaths of this article - and it has been tagged many times. Editors, this sort of thing should never have happened in the first place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.22.29 (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  another greatly un-referenced article
Talk:Second Battle of Panipat

message: * Hemu's coronation. It is there in the background.
* Akbar being stationed away from the battle field. It is there in the sub-topic of the actual battle.
* Details of Humayun's death are unnecessary.
* The ruler was seeking to expel Mughals from India? More likely for the Delhi throne.
* Hemu's activities in Bengal.
* The title of Samrat is bestowed on a warrior who has not lost any war. This should come on the page for 'Samrat'
* That Hemu started coins in his name and appointed many Hindus at important positions. Should be on the page for Hemu.
* 'thus changing history' (after his eye was struck by an arrow)
Salilb (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant lines removed

message: Why the heck is this reading according to the Bollywood film Jodhaa Akbar? Akbar gladly hacked away at Hemu, but being a lad was unable to remove his head. Thus, Bairam Khan obliged and took off his head.
No sources are given so you should promptly cite a stupid Bollywood movie as your source if you're going to write such fallacy.
I'll provide more accurate details with sources soon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.72.61 (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bollywood as a source? 

message: This article is blind sided Hemu page. It says about Hemu only and how great he was...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.73.18 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV
Talk:Battle of Morgarten

message: The main text says "3000 to 5000 men" for the Austrians, the table says "3000 to 4000". Pukkie 06:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size Austrian army 

message: The intro para says the Swiss at Morgarten were archers. This is wrong. Further down, the text says they were armed with improvised weapons and halberds. This is correct. Check in Charles Oman. 81.158.253.239 (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archers?  Don't think so 

message: The Habsburgs' hereditary possessions (i.e. Aargau) were situated in the old, defunct, duchy of Swabia between the Rhine and the Alpes, the region which is now Switzerland, southwestern Germany and French Alsace. (they had only acquired the duchy of Austria some 40 years before. Duke Leopold I. was appointed as administrator for these old Habsburg lands by his brother. Naturally, his army was recruited there and not in Austria. At that time the Habsburgs were much more Alemannic/Swabian than Austrian!!! This should be changed.
(btw historians use the term "Austrian army" for an Habsburg army only from 1740 onwards)
213.33.19.47 (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Austrian"
Talk:Battle of Kunersdorf

message: I have changed Austrian-Russian victory to "Russo-Austrian vicotry" since the Russians accounted for 41,000 troops on the field (the Austrians had 18,500 troops, mostly in reserve). Although there are claims that Loudon's participation was instrumental to the victory, the Austrians accounted for only ca. 30% of the allied army, and the overall command was Saltykov's. When Loudon faced Frederick II by himself, he was soundly beaten at Liegnitz in 1760. Vitoldus44 18:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Info box is overly detailed and confusing this defeats the purpose of the info box which is to give the gist at a glance. Much of that information should be moved into the body of the article and ref'd as it does not agree with what's currently written in article.Tttom1 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box 

message: I very much doubt that Frankfurt an der Oder at the time was the second largest city in Prussia. In 1750 it had a civiliam population of 9,470 . Compare this with Breslau's 55,000 in 1750 and Königsberg's 47,939 in 1768. Stettin had about 13,000 in 1750, Magdeburg had 18,000 in 1740, Halle had 13,460 in 1751. This is not to stay that Frankfurt was not all that important a city; it just was not so much the size of its population but its strategic location as a gateway to Berlin for any foreign army that crossed the Oder there that made this city so vital at that point in time. Proofreader (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankfurt an der Oder, second largest city in Prussia
Talk:Joy

message: The page joy was changed to point here instead of the primary meaning of happiness over a month after this anonymous edit removed the semi-disambiguation notice from that page. I've not reverted those two edits because there aren't too many links to "joy", but the matter warrants some discussion... --Joy [shallot] 22:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that joy is a concept distinct from happiness (just as Anger differs from Rage (emotion) and Sadness differs from Sorrow (emotion). I would propose that this title be made into an article on the emotion of joy, with the disambig page moved to a disambig title. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: AGREED. Make this title into an article on the emotion of joy. The disambig page should have a disambig title.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not 100% sure whether I understood all the subtleties, but afaics this means that I must create a page Joy (disambiguation), then move content from Joy to this page, then write new content into Joy. The biggest challenge is: what to put into this new page. I'll do some research and then write a first suggestion. You feedback will then be needed. LucSaffre (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Material from other Wikipedias could be translated; see for example :sl:Veselje, :de:Freude, :he:שמחה or :fr:Joie. Korg (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Joy and happiness

message: Shouldn't this article's content be deleted and redirected to Happiness? They're similar enough topics. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We can always translate the Slovenian article when we get bored of the redirect. :) —Alalch E. 23:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's a good idea. If someone wants to do that they can go ahead. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded the lead to make it more in line with other articles such as pleasure. I changed "The word joy refers to the emotion evoked by well-being, success, or good fortune, and is typically associated with feelings of intense, long-lasting happiness" to "Joy is the emotion evoked by well-being, success, or good fortune, and is typically associated with feelings of intense, long-lasting happiness," as the old sentence was about the word "joy", rather than being about joy. I also added some information and citations about the psychological effects and sources of joy. I have a favor to ask, though. The lead section could benefit from a citation to either a book or a scientific journal, similar to how other emotion articles, such as pleasure, admiration, and gratification have. If anyone here has a copy of "The journal of positive psychology", and if that book has a mention of "joy", we could possibly use that as a citation for the lead sentence, as we do on the "Admiration" article. Thanks. Seckends (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to [[Happiness]]
Talk:Tones on Tail

message: Albums and singles which do not meet notability standards WP:N WP:MUSIC should be merged to the band. Active Banana (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you love them and think they are great. But do you have significant reliable third party coverage? WP:N WP:MUSIC . Active Banana (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really want to merge "EVERYTHING!" into this article? There are over 3.3 million articles in the English Wikipedia and it will become too BIG! Seriously, you can not include any details of that album and the two lists of tracks in this article. At most, you can include a couple of lines about it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I take your resonse as "I dont have and do not expect to find any reliable third party sources that have significant coverage to support a stand alone article."  or as something else? Active Banana (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: you MUST TAKE IT as a STRONG OPPOSE and “the presence of THAT PAGE does NOT itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as "a dick"!” Anyway, editing for Wikipedia is not mandatory. I will help when I CAN and WANT to! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contributions to Wikipedia are certainly voluntary. But unless you (or someone else) volunteers to provide the substantial coverage by third party reliable sources that are required to show "notability" that is necessary for a stand alone article, then there will be no stand alone article for that topic, no matter how much you demand on a talk page. Active Banana (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

text: If these claimed sources exist, when the content has been sourced, stand-alone articles for the albums can then be created. Active Banana (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching on Google should find sources quite easily, for example GBooks returns a substantial review of The Album Pop from SPIN and Gnews a review of Tones on Tail from the Washington Post. Add to these the Allmusic reviews and coverage from Trouser Press and certainly Pop, Tones on Tail, and Everything have enough coverage to justify stand-alone articles. Improving articles on notable albums is surely better than removing those articles, isn't it? --Michig (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BURDEN If you want to search for and add reliable third party content that you find to the article, feel free to do so. Active Banana (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Battle of Fort Cumberland (1776)

message: Since Eddy Rebellion redirects here, it would be useful to explain the exact meaning of this term in the article. The term is used in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry on Jonathan Eddy (see External links), but not explained too clearly. Was it the whole incident, or one part such as the siege prior to the arrival of British reinforcements, or what exactly? Dirac66 (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "Eddy Rebellion" covers the entire episode (i.e. from Eddy's recruitment of people until his force was dissolved). Magic♪piano 00:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Eddy rebellion? 

message: The title change of this article from Battle of Fort Cumberland to Battle of Fort Cumberland (1776) wasn't discussed on this talkpage and, frankly, were there any other "Battles of Fort Cumberland" articles that need to be differentiated from this battle or *this* Fort Cumberland? Maybe, but not that I or Wikipedia seems aware of. Shearonink (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, there is Fort Beauséjour aka "Fort Cumberland". The connectivity between the different names for the same place is not clear. I assume that the editor/page-mover intends to perhaps set up some kind of disambiguation linkage or page so these events happening at one and the same place but in different times can be differentiated from one another? Shearonink (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change
Talk:Siege of Detroit

message: The box says the battle took place on July 11, but the article says August 15. Which is right? 172.200.83.19 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The August date was correct. Thank you for pointing out the problem! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 14:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree you look up this battle and it's unkown so you really have to dig it up.Callum1st2 (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: I've noticed the back-and-forthing on whether this was a decisive battle or not and there's no better place to hash-out the general sentiment of such changes than here. So rather than accusations of edit warring being bandied about, why not state here arguments for or against it being decisive and (hopefully) let this be the end of it.
I'll begin as being in the decisive camp because along with Michilimackinac, a numerically superior foe was defeated and US plans that had previously viewed the War as a "mere matter of marching" were completely upended and significant territory capture and/or made safe for British/Canadian interests.  Natty10000 | Natter  15:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The template documentation suggests that this parameter should be decided based on sources rather than our interpretation of who won and by how much, and that without supporting sources it should be omitted. Do the sources call it a decisive victory, a victory, or none of the above? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive or not?
Talk:Battle of Crysler's Farm

message: Why is this battle not listed as decisive? The British victory here put a stop to the American effort to seize Montreal. Im changing it.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.101.230 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive 

message: 195.92.168.163, what was the primary source for the new additions? Fawcett5 04:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: :"On November 1 they reached French Creek, New York, where there was a clash with British gunboats escorting supplies up the Saint Lawrence. From French Creek, Wilkinson proceeded down the river."
Really this French Creek, 250 miles out of Saint Lawrence in opposite direction??? (Harry 84.176.67.86 (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously not that French Creek. I'll remove the link until I can sort things out. HLGallon (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What French Creek 

message: On an old map of the battle, the area is spelled "Christlers Farm" (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/09/f-vp-smol.html).150.203.110.103 (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Spelling 

message: Regarding 209.112.59.136's revision of the geo-coordinates for the Battle of Crysler's Farm monument, I'd be interested in knowing the source for the revised coordinates. TIA User:Natty10000 [Stop me before I edit again!] 21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting before reverting. User:Natty10000 [Stop me before I edit again!] 14:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crysler's Farm Monument original location 

message: The original figure of 18 casualties (undifferentiated) came from Elting, Amateurs to Arms. Where did the revised figures come from? HLGallon (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Dragoon casualties
Talk:Battle of Tricamarum

message: Procopius gives the name of the site of the battle as Τρικάμαρον (Trikamaron, in Latin Tricamarum). So do most scholarly works on the subject. Googling Ticameron, I come almost solely upon Wikipedia articles or mirrors of it. Unless there is an objection, citing a credible source as to the current name, I am going to move the page within a few days. Regards, Cplakidas 20:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The form Tricamarum is used in the Justinian article for exactly the same reasons. Iblardi 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name
Talk:Battle of Syllaeum

message: this picture makes the byzantines look like they were stronger because of all the men that shouldnt be there!There wasnt that many on there anyway! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.167.194.36 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: There is a major factual problem with this article: there was no battle at Syllaeum. The Byzantines did indeed attack the besieging Muslims, but they did so in the Sea of Marmara, and no details are known other than that Greek fire won the victory. What happened at Syllaeum was that the retreating Arab fleet was wrecked there in a storm. Cf the sources, Theophanes (primary) and Treadgold (secondary). This article, by its title alone, is misleading. IMO it should be deleted and the correct events added to the article on the siege itself. Any other opinions? Constantine   ✍  23:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is not the problem that the article needs a differnet name.  You are not sayinmg that the naval campaign did not happen, merely that it was not at Syllaeum.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No battle at Syllaeum
Talk:Battle of Pelagonia

message: I think that the most reliable sources indicates that the battle took place in a valley in the north coast of the Kastoria lake. The name of Pelagonia indicates prob. that it was significant for the control of the region of Pelagonia (aka. Upper Macedonia, modern west Macedonia (region)). Shall we change it, cause other sources that place the battle in the region of Pelagonia seems not accurate. It's propably an example of ancient and modern, historians, "urban legend". Prilep is not historically belonging to Pelagonia[] in the Kingdom of Macedon, but in Deuriopus, part of Paionia, in a place where was the city called Styberra. Vagrand (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place
Talk:Siege of Nicaea

message: In chapter "Byzantine arrival", it reads that "Turkish inhabitants" called Alexius for help.
First, I believe that at that time, 20 years after the Turkish incursion, Turks were a small minority in western Asia Minor.
Second, I doubt that Turks would have called for Alexius, because he had heavy interest in reconquering  Asia Minor, formerly part of the Byzantine Empire.Hungerhahn 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicaea was Kilij Arslan's capital at the time (although being a nomadic Turk at heart, having a "capital" is a strange idea), so there were probably lots of Turks there, at least in the ruling class. They called on Alexius because Kilij Arslan gave up on them. They probably knew they could get a better deal from Alexius than from the crusaders - and as a result, the city was not sacked, and Kilij Arslan's family was able to escape to Constantinople. Adam Bishop 16:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well no, he wouldn't have, but the crusaders would have if the Byzantines hadn't intervened. I don't think John Axuch was related to them, as Axuch's background is unknown, aside from being a Turk. He was probably the son of a Turk taken captive in battle somewhere. Adam Bishop 17:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish inhabitants