lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:HMS Defence (1861)

message: 5 inch breechloaders weren't around in 1861. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My sources all agree 5-inch guns, not 4.7 inch or any other caliber. Perhaps these were the Armstrong 70-pounders that supposedly were never accepted into service. I dunno.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article text then refers to 40-pounders, which fits. A GA artcle needs to be consistent. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it did, deleted. Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the breechloading 40-pounder is more likely to be the correct one, it went along with the Armstrong 110-pounder. There was no official service 5-inch breechloader at the time, and there is no way any experimental or developmental ordnance would have been deployed on a frontllne RN warship. I think any published references to 5-inch breechloader on this ship are errors. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 5 inch breechloaders ?
Talk:Jan Mayensfield

message: I suppose this one should be renamed Jan Mayensfield, in line with the Norwegian article? - BsL 03:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved, in line with no:Jan Mayensfield and www.jan-mayen.no - BsL 04:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan Mayensfield 
Talk:HMS Agincourt (1865)

message: Text reads : "After another two years' good service, Agincourt was paid off in 1875 for re-armament, trading her outdated muzzle loading guns for new breach-loading ones".
This doesn't match the infobox, and the new generation of breechloaders didnot arrive until 1880. Accodring to Brassey's in 1888 she had 17 12-ton (i.e. 9-inch) muzzle-loaders, which does match the infobox. The stuff about breechloaders cannot be correct. Also, the stuff in the infobox about 20-pounder smoothbores is a bit odd for 1875. What it looks like happened in the refit is that the 7-inch RMLs were replaced by a lesser number of 9-inch RMLs. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 1875-1877 Re-armament
Talk:Prince Consort-class ironclad

message: From User talk:67th Tigers
You made an edit to Prince Consort class battleship.  The list of ships you used to make a new table is incomplete, and at least some of the dates you quote are launch dates not completion dates. 
:DK Brown, Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Development 1860-1905, footnotes name the ships in order of completion. French: 1859: Gloire, 1860: Normandie, 1861: Invincible, Couronne, Magenta, Solferino, 1863: Provence, Savoie, Heroine, 1864: Flandre, Valeuruse, Magnanime, Surveillante, 1865: Gauloise, Guyenne and Revanche. British: 1860: Warrior, 1861: Black Prince, Defence, Resistance, 1863: Valiant, Achilles, Minotaur, 1864: Royal Alfred, Zealous, Lord Clyde, Royal Sovereign, Research, Enterprize, 1865: Favourite, Scorpion, Wivern, Lord Warden and Agincourt. Brown excludes Turret Ships and Armoured Corvettes (which have been reinstated) and Coastal Ironclads (which remain excluded)
In addition it is difficult to justify counting Scorpion and Wivern as sea-going ships; published Channel Fleet reports make it clear that they were not sea-going.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers of Battleships completed by different dates

message: Is the reference to ADM 1/5980 from a published source? --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments?  If not I'll remove it in a day or two. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately I have a life.  So I will not be able to do anything about this until mid-July.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research?
Talk:HMS Caledonia (1862)

message: Comparing the ship in the infobox photo to the plans and photos in Oscar Parkes' reference work British Battleships, this ship is clearly not HMS Caledonia or any other Prince Consort-class ironclad. This ship has a strongly curved bow; the Prince Consort class had a straight bow. This ship has both funnels in front of the main (central) mast. The Prince Consort class had one funnel in front of and one behind the main mast. According to Parkes' book, this ship's funnel locations and its curved bow (with projecting head) match Lord Warden. 
In fact, looking at the web page from which this image was taken, it looks like two pictures simply got swapped. That page also has an image, labeled HMS Lord Warden, which shows a ship that looks like a Prince Consort and is probably Caledonia, just as this "HMS Caledonia" image seems to show Lord Warden. Since that other image is currently our Commons image for the Lord Warden, it should be swapped with this one.
(See also my discussion entry for HMS Lord Warden's infobox image.)
--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking into this a bit further, the original source of the swapped identification seems to be the publication from which the photos were taken, page 81 of the June 25, 1897 issue of The Navy & Army Illustrated. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Image renamed, text corrected, linking pages corrected. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image is probably a misidentified image of [[:w:HMS Lord Warden (1865)|HMS ''Lord Warden'']]. 

message: Article claims that Caledonia was a guardship in the Firth of Forth from 1872-75. However, in 1873 she was being used by the Coastguard at Birkenhead - . Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious
Talk:HMS Research (1863)

message: Oscar Parkes' reference work British Battleships claims that the infobox photo shows HMS Enterprise (1864), a near sister-ship of HMS Research, and his photo caption points out a couple of features unique to Enterprise: "The different arrangement for securing fore-and-aft fire from the battery can be seen, and the narrow belt just showing above the waterline."
--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image may be [[HMS Enterprise (1864)|HMS ''Enterprise'' (1864)]], misidentified.
Talk:HMS Enterprise (1864)

message: *"this still left a 120° arc fore and aft on which no gun could bear".  An arc (in this context) should be unbroken; I'm not sure whether you mean to say that no targeting was possible over an arc 60° fore and another arc 60° aft (or two numbers that add up to 120), or whether it's 120° fore and 120° aft ... if the latter, perhaps it would be better to say what was covered. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting notes 

message: Just a general query about the history of this ship, I notice on the HMS Enterprise page that it mentions that in 1861 a wooden screw sloop was laid down, and then in 1862, that Enterprise and the planned Circassian seemed to switch names. Was it as simple as that, and a direct and deliberate switch? Miyagawa (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. None of my sources refer to any switch of names at all; they just talk about Circassian being renamed Enterprise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Query
Talk:Marlinspike

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support only if Marlinspike is first moved to Marlinspike (disambiguation).  Vegaswikian 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The marlin spike is also used by loggers to splice wire rope, (steel cable).207.109.248.122 20:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Sailors were often known to use Marlin Spikes as weapons, especially in the age of fighting sail. They would be quite capable if used on a skull or rib cage. V. Joe 21:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use as weapon?
Talk:Interpress

message: Is it really "InterPress"? I thought it was "Interpress" (with a lowercase 'p').
Actually, as the last of the "Interpress" software engineers, I can verify that it is lowercase 'p'.
I hope to add more to this page soon.
Gmb14502 20:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

message: The third external reference link (http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/xerox/xns/standards/XSIG_038306_Introduction_to_Interpress_Jun1983.pdf) returns 404 now. 76.145.9.182 (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken External Reference Link 

message: "... is supported in Xerox Ventura Publisher"
Sure sounds like Interpress is a thing in use, doesn't it? Until you look up VP and find out the final release was in 2002. And the references are from the 1980s. So is Interpress still relevant, or is it some dusty tech that hasn't been used for decades? The article doesn't give a clue. 2A02:AA1:1626:E371:C0D9:8F95:ED37:A646 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is supported
Talk:HMS Lord Warden

message: Comparing the ship in the infobox photo to the plans and photos in Oscar Parkes' reference work British Battleships, this ship is clearly not Lord Warden or her sister ship Lord Clyde. This ship has a straight bow, while both Lord Warden and Lord Clyde had distinctly curved ram bows. Also, if you look carefully you can see the stubs of this ship's retracted funnels, one in front of and one behind the main (central) mast. The Lord Warden and Lord Clyde had both their funnels in front of the main mast. According to Parkes' book, the straight bow and the funnel locations of this ship both match those of the Prince Consort class. 
In fact, looking at the web page from which this image was taken, it looks like two pictures simply got swapped. That page also has an image, labeled as HMS Caledonia (a Prince Consort-class ship), which shows a ship that looks like the Lord Warden, just as this image, labeled HMS Lord Warden, looks like a Prince Consort and is probably Caledonia. Since that other image is currently our Commons image for the Caledonia, it should be swapped with this one.
(See also my discussion entry for HMS Caledonia's infobox image.)
--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking into this a bit further, the original source of the swapped identification seems to be the publication from which the photos were taken, page 81 of the June 25, 1897 issue of The Navy & Army Illustrated. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Image renamed, text corrected, linking pages corrected. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image is probably a misidentified image of [[:w:HMS Caledonia (1862)|HMS ''Caledonia'' (1862)]].
Talk:HMS Bellerophon (1865)

message: Was she launched in April or May 1865?  Bastie 10:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch date 

message: Good start article. infobox needs fixed to current style. In-line citations are needed. An image always help an article out. If these issues are fixed it would be a B class article.--Oldwildbill 10:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: As far as I understand it, raising the center of gravity makes a ship a less, not more stable gun platform. This article states the exact opposite. Loverevolutionary (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Center of Gravity
Talk:HMS Penelope (1867)

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/hms-penelope-18851887-24665
©Geni 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's PD if Henry Morgan died before 1941. This link : http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/artists/henry-j-morgan states he lived from 1839 - 1917. So his work appears to now be in the Public Domain : we are free to upload them to Commons.. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible pic
Talk:Buddy Bell

message: As a Tigers fan, I remember Buddy Bell being fired in August of 1998; I don't remember a formal resignation as manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.88.20 (talk) 
I think he is in the White Sox Organization now, doing scouting or something similar. I'm not sure if it's the same guy, but he's been in the news after the Sox's Latin American scouting overturns...65.96.23.113 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:2+1 road

message: I think there is some confusion in the article; a photo of a standard climbing lane describes the road as a "2+1". I don't think roads without a median divide are 2+1; climbing lanes have existed in Ireland for decades and were never called anything other than climbing lanes. So that is probably why "2+1" isn't used in America - they don't have them! I'll amend the article to eliminate the confusion. Sarah777 (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The 2+1 designation refers to a specific design standard that is primarily used in Germany, Sweden and Finland.  NCHRP Report 275 provides a detailed description of the 2+1 standard. 130.47.34.2 (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Climbing lanes = 2 + 1 ?

message: The given Google Streetview reference for the Australian Pacific Highway shows a dual carriageway section, not a 2+1 road! .. Guidod (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked for a section (may be the link  in the article was mistyped) but so far I have only met a three lane section in an urban area, limited to 80, no switchover anywhere, so it doesn't fit the category of a 2+1 road system, it looks more to be unintentionally left there for further construction. See at StreetView loc: -32.5736,152.13 Guidod (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a mix of dual carriageway and single carriageway sections around here. For example, on the outskirts of Port Macquarie is still single carriageway with a  2+1 layout. Glenkoorey (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just from looking at Google Maps + Streetview, I did not find any section. Any valid geo coordinates that could be checked? Guidod (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia
Talk:Weirdsister College

message: its a television show 69.158.19.129 20:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have recently noticed that this article has been marked as non-notable. I'm prepared to say that the show served as an extension of The Worst Witch television series, and naturally should really be in an article with its parent series. What's the verdict on this? --JB Adder | Talk 03:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Notability 

message: It should probably be explained what this is.
131.217.255.204 (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The College - Foster's Effect
Talk:Forbidden Broadway

message: Should an Awards section be added?  If so, should the awards be limited to NYC theatre awards, or also include those from other cities it may have won (LA, Boston, Chicago, etc.) where editions of the show have been performed? ZamTx1 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need a separate section on Awards.  Each show in the list of shows can list relevant awards.  We normally do not include acting and tech awards - they go in the actor's bio article.  We already list the Tony Award and Drama Desk Awards.  We could add the Obie Awards if someone wants to research it.  We do not normally list local awards.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 
Talk:Social influence

message: Copied information from sandbox. Researchers have been studying social influence and minority influence for over thirty years. The first publication covering these topics was written by social psychologist Serge Moscovici and published in 1976. User:Sray13/Social influenceSray13 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social influence 

message: Copied information from sandbox. Obedience is a form of social influence that derives from an authority figure, based on order or command., added a citation, and corrected spelling error. User:Sray13/Social influenceSray13 (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling and citations 

message: — Assignment last updated by Forst.michael (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Political Communication

message: — Assignment last updated by Mosbug1 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254
Talk:Cherry eye

message: On Sat. morning my vet diagnosed my Cocker Spaniel with Cherry Eye.  On Sunday there was no sign of the cherry eye.  Is it possible for the gland to retract back in the third eyelid or was he mis-diagnosed?
:It can definitely retract, then come out again.  --Joelmills 21:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Move from article:
NOTE(The official book of the Neapolitan mastiff Auth: Dr Sherilyn k. Allen)suggests that, removal of the cherry eye in the neapolitan mastiff, is unlikely to cause dry eyes and Tucking the gland in this breed, will inevitably lead to it returning....and as a former breeder myself of this breed, I agree 100% with my own personal experiences.
-Joelmills 14:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: Hello all... 
An image used in the article, specifically :Image:Bulldog with cherry eye.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue.  The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive.  It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard.  As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article.  If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image needs replacement 

message: Thanks to those who helped my student tidy references, images and stub removal.Drsusan1968 (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for assistance
Template talk:European Americans

message: Jews can be Jews by religion but Jews can also be divided by ethnicity. Askenazi and Sphardi Jews do show unique ethnic traits than themselves and other Europeans groups. To a an X-nation identity a group does not need to hail from a country but can be a group, set aside from others through unique qualities, much as Jews (which can be further divided by different groups). Also groups such as gypsies, which have a distinct poulation in the American South should have their own sections in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.3.60 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Americans 

message: Turkey historically and socio-politically belongs to Europe. As result of this, European Union accepts Turkey as a official candidate country. Please see click the link below to see the official European countries. Apart from that, Turkey is a member of European Council and NATO.
http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm
If we think about the origins of the people in Europe; Finns, Hungarians and many others have their different roots from Central Asia, however this does not make them non-European.
Please put your unneutral opinions about Turkey and be more objective!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NadirTV (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey is a Southern European Country!
Talk:Bowed psaltery

message: Currently "Ukelin" redirects to this page. I'm no expert on musical instruments, but isn't the ukelin sufficiently unique in both design and history to rate its own entry? The current article even explicitly states that ukelins are not generally considered to be psalteries. Any ukelin experts out there who want to take a stab at this? --67.160.74.124 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ukelins: do they rate their own entry?

message: The pic of the lady demo-ing bowing reveals a tee bearing the logo "Cantus Delictus," which conjures up a pleasant image of a group of dedicated souls striving to preserve "dead song."  That's much more noble than the tee I sometimes wear to open mikes, which states merely, "Tune It Or Die."  As a devoted folk musician and eager joiner of small, arcane organizations, I would love to find/contact/join said group, if it is a group and not simply a marketing ploy.  Can the poster of the photo shine any light on this?  PS.  I Googled "Cantus Delictus" asking for bread, but was given a stone.  I shall go ask the question on Mudcat.org now.
Terry J. Carter (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cantus What? 

message: This seems to be the prevailing haughty wisdom on Wikipedia, but Groves (psaltery, section 3. Baroque, classical, and modern by Beryl Kenyon de Pascual) mentions a large body of baroque and classical works for "psaltery with bowed strings." Wiki also neglects to cite any sources for the claim other than discussing the 20th century patent for such things; keep in mind the patent system is a mess and rarely indicates innovation outside of pharmacology.
Please clear this up. 71.23.141.223 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you checked the scores of these works? I am guessing they will include a part for psaltery (plucked or hammered) and other parts for bowed strings (violin or viol family). Simonchadwick1023 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowed Psaltery as a 20th Century Invention 
Talk:Kanotix

message: The article was some time "forgotten", and needs a cleanup that's correct.
With the new Kanotix-Release "Kanotix-2007-ThorhammerRC6" Kanotix is back and active.
But the cleanup needs some volunteers to do this (perhaps English native speakers ;-). 
AlloG  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlloG (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kanotix 2007