lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Fort Duquesne

message: Need to add reference to Edward Braddock.   He played a significant role in the fight (earlier, in 1755) to take Fort Duquesne during the French and Indian War.   Washington traveled in his company.  71.245.164.83 (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: a) since this is the main article on it Forbes expedition, it should be renamed.  Be a revised to emphasize that this was a campaign to capture the fort, and (b) the British were entirely successful because the French and their Indian allies abandoned the ford, and abandon the entire Ohio Valley to the British.  That means the main goal of the Forbes expedition was a total success.  I added some better cites Rjensen (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, someone ought to write a proper "Forbes expedition" article (undoing the redirect), and leave this as a detailed description of Grant's action. Magic♪piano 13:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: British victory
Talk:Battle of Fort Beauséjour

message: This article contradicts itself.  The text says the battle happened in July, but the battlebox says it happened in June.  Which is correct? Roy Al Blue 21:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: June. Probably a mistake on my part. Albrecht 21:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-contradiction 

message: What are the best books that tell the entire history of fort beausejour and place it in context of hte french and indian war?--Sonjaaa 19:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: books?

message: This article is a touch unclear for someone without a clear understanding of the local geography.  Could someone more well-versed than I please edit it to better reference it in this regard?  Thanks --Cjs56 21:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography
Talk:Battle of Fleurus (1794)

message: The coordinates given are virtually identical to those given for the Battle of Waterloo. Presumably this is wrong, and the battle in fact took place near Fleurus. Could somebody knowledgeable correct these coordinates? --David Edgar (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's still wrong and the icon for this battle pops up at the same place as Waterloo, I'll remove the coordinates. Using the same as for the town Fleurus wouldn't be good, I think (rendering problems for icons?). --84.164.101.2 (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for propagating this message to the dutch (NL) wiki. In the interest of saving others some time, I just wanted to drop a quick note that the French wiki also seems to contain the Waterloo coordinates. --Frank Geerlings (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect location

message: Who is 'Smith?' 
Of course I can now see from the footnote that is the modern author Digby Smith, but introducing him into the narrative, without preamble, by surname only, sending any intelligent reader scrolling back to see if he should know what the author is talking about, is a clumsy way to include his opinion.  Turning the quotation into narrative with the existing citation would appear to be the simplest way of addressing this. 
JF42 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a simple change, to move the later mention up to the first quotation. But do edit it if you can improve it further. --David Edgar (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith
Talk:Battle of Fleurus (1622)

message: Some notes from assessment: the article basically passes all the criteria, although it's thin at points and citations maybe could be improved; the Armies section probably could be better formatted. -- Avocado (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPMILHIST BCAD Notes 

message: Having added Vicente Carducho's depiction of the battle to this article, I had a look back through the edit history and saw that the same painting was formerly the article's main image. It was removed about a year ago and replaced with the Peter Snayers painting still at the article's head. I think that the Snayers painting is a better header, since it more explicitly depicts the two armies' formations and does without the dramatic close-up figures that appear in Carducho's version. Nonetheless, Carducho's work was done a mere decade after the battle and seems relevant enough to include here in a demoted position. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carducho Painting
Talk:Battle of Grandson

message: The battle went differently and longer in this source.
The Vorhut arrived first numbering 2,500 men plus a 300 men detachment of skirmishers as well as a column of foragers (non-combatant). The Schwyz handgunners skirmished with the Burgundian archers while Hans von Hallwyl (name from German wikipedia) ordered a halt to await the Gewalthut and the Nachhut. After the Burgundian archers withdrew with losses, the much larger Burgundian artillery fired and the Swiss artillery counter-fired. Elements from the Gewalthut arrived reinforcing the Vorhut to 10,000 men. A Burgundian guard cavalry unit drawn up in wedge formation commanded by Charles the Bold, duc de Bourgogne charged the Swiss skirmishers comprised of handgunners and crossbownen forcing them to withdraw. Charles the Bold then ordered his cavalry wedge and another cavalry wedge commanded by Louis de Chalon to charge the Swiss Vorhut but both wedges were repulsed by the Swiss pikes. Charles the Bold ordered both wedges to continue charging the Swiss Vorhut until Louis de Chalon's wedge collided with the edge of the Vorhut while trying to outflank it and the Swiss pinned the wedge in a melée.
The Swiss were facing downhill with their left flank on Neuchâtel Lake. Charles the Bold thinking he was facing the entire Swiss army wanted to draw the Swiss Vorhut forward to expose it to flank attacks. Charles the Bold withdrew his cavlry and ordered his centre to withdraw slightly and his artillery and archers to transfer to the flanks and his reserve cavalry to the left flank. While the Burgundian troops were redeploying, the slimmed down Gewalthut and the Nachhut arrived on the battlefield. The Swiss army advanced on the Burgundians who broke in rout carrying the rearguard along with it. Charles the Bold, left with only his cavalry and artillery, was forced to retreat with his routing infantry, abandoning his artillery pieces and baggage.
title=Armies of the Middle Ages, volume 1: The Hundred Years' War, the Wars of the Roses and the Burgundian Wars, 1300-1487 |last=Heath |first= Ian |year=1982 |publisher= Wargames Research Group
Sleigh (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle

message: The flags are from left to right: the ally Solothurn, the ally Biel, the ally Fribourg, Schwyz, Luzern, Bern, Zug, Uri, Zürich, Obwalden and Nidwalden (same flag as Solothurn) and Glarus.
Diebold Schilling the Elder makes an error depicting the flag of Luzern. He depicts the Luzerner coat of arms instead of the flag which is two horizontal stripes.Sleigh (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags
Talk:Battle of Glenmalure

message: No, I'll stick in Clonakilty, thanks all the same. Is this really a folk song? I've never heard it, but it looks like a 19thC nationalist sentimental "believe you me" composition. In the historical context, Cailin o cois tSuire me is a folk song, dating from the 16thC, but surely not this? To say it's folk must be like saying G.K. Chesterton's Lepanto poem represents the feelings of western Christians on the defeat of the Turks in 1572.--shtove 02:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Follow me up to Carlow]] 
Talk:Battle of Glasgow, Missouri

message: WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please.  The survey will end on April 30.
* Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
Any additional feedback would be appreciated, although I do feel that I have been given good guidance regarding my writing style in Wikipedia in general.
* If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
Writing good articles is the only significant writing that I do outside of my commitments to school.
* Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? 
My writing style is influenced by the MoS regarding military history. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: This action was not particularly consequential, so there has not been a lot written about it. If you cannot find adequate secondary sources to flesh out the article, you may wish to consult the Official Records. For example, if you go to http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/moa-cgi?notisid=ANU4519-0083 you will find reports on Price's Missouri Expedition. Col Harding's report starts on page 434, for instance, and there are other Union reports nearby. Clark's report starts on page 678. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  more info 

message: I reorganized and rewrote this article to reduce the reduntant information it contained, with some things being repeated more than once in the previous version.  I also hoped to make it more readable, and reduce or even eliminate the "spacing" problems referred to in earlier entries on this page. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization and repetition 
Talk:Battle of Gergovia

message: Were my improvements alriht???
I have re-assessed this article as "Start," and am contemplating whether it maybe even deserves a B. The article appears to cover all the major details of the battle, and includes an infobox. I don't know much about this period of history, so I can't really guess at how much more could be said. I have rated the battle as Mid-Importance because, as far as I am aware, it was the Battle of Alesia that was far more crucial to the Roman-Vercingetorix (Gauls) conflict; Gergovia was just one chapter of the events leading up to Alesia. LordAmeth 12:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This statement was flat-out wrong:
"Caesar had settled the Boii in the town after defeating them in the Helvetian War, as subordinates to the loyally pro-Roman Aedui."
The Boii settled in Gorgobina, not Gergovia; Gorgobina was on the western edge of Aeduan territory, and these Boii were later given Aeduan citizenship. Gergovia, as Vercingetorix's birthplace, would be in Arvernian territory, yes? At the beginning of the Gallic Wars, both the Aedui and the Arverni had been independent civitates under treaties with Rome since about 120 BC — which didn't stop them from fighting with each other (see Bellum Gallicum 1). One of the interesting things about Vercingetorix's uprising in 52 is that there hadn't been a peep out of the Arverni since Caesar entered Celtica in 58. Caesar seems to have been totally blindsided; he never seems to have had any concerns about Arvernian loyalty, and unlike some Gallic leaders who appear throughout the BG, Vercingetorix seems to come out of nowhere, a full-blown supreme commander. (I don't know why this fact doesn't receive more attention in the histories: Caesar was caught with his pants down, too busy overreaching in Britannia and Germania and too worried about politics back in Rome to see the biggest danger to his far-from-closed conquest of Gaul.) Anyway, the point is that the Aedui probably wanted the Boii there as a buffer against the Arverni. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  error about Boii 

message: The reference is to be found in Asterix and the Chieften's Shield, along with references to the Battle of Alesia. 218.218.25.223 (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  error regarding Asterix
Talk:Battle of Gestilren

message: The article cites no sources and I feel that the composition is rather poor. I'll try to put together an improved/exteneded article and post it here for comments first. Regards Osli73 19:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve article 

message: I removing citation reg danish troups, not one single source claim any danes, Denmark was fully occupied with other things, IF it was battle, no danes were involved! (see the source above where Jan Troel confirms, that the Danes were not involved.) Dan Koehl (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed everything with danish troups
Talk:Battle of Galveston

message: Isn't this the second battle of Galverston? The external link leads to another battle...68.95.138.120 05:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I added some new wording and linked this to the Second Battle, not the first. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second battles?

message: The first two sentences describing the battle don't make sense. The Neptune is mentioned, but doesn't explain on which side. The sentence says "The Neptune arrived shortly thereafter." After what? The battle section needs to be expanded.GregE625 (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neptune?

message: The Union blockade around the city of Galveston was lifted temporarily for four days, and Galveston remained the only major port that remained in Confederate hands at the end of the war.
:So what was significance of the four days? Was it a truce, to allow the Union troops to be evacuated? Valetude (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify, please. 

message: I am aware that it states the casualties but it does not say the initial number of men. could you please add this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.135.27 (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of men
Talk:Battle of Gabiene

message: The external link at the end of the page, "Lecture Notes For Week Fourteen" is broken.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.57.175 (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External link broken

message: The dictionaries of battles by Bruce and Harbottle (1971) and Laffin (1986) both describe a battle of Persepolis in 316 BCE that sounds eerily similar to this one, with Eumenes captured at the end. The odd thing is that Sabin (2007) in Lost Battles, when discussing this battle, doesn't say "also called Persepolis", so that a complete novice regarding ancient history is left wondering whether there is one battle or two. Laffin linked it with the equally uncertain battle of Corupedion. The naming of these battles needs to be clarified, but alas I'm not the person to do it. --Wally Tharg (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this battle also known as Persepolis?
Talk:Battle of Fuentes de Oñoro

message: Forgive me for diving into the information box in the worst nerdy traditions, but I spotted that Brialmont's losses for the French side matched exactly those given by Digby Smith for officers only.  I don't have Brialmont, but obviously there is a mistake somewhere: either in the book itself, or by a Wiki editor.  I thought it best to update the information box casualty and losses stats in line with Smith (whom I treat as definitive on these matters) and leave the discussion of losses to the end of the article.  
More minor matter: Smith says dates were 3 to 5 May, the article (with references) says 3 to 6 May.  Any thoughts as to which is correct?  --Wally Tharg (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article dates the battle as 3 to 6 May but doesn't mention any action after the 5th. According to Dr. T. A. Heathcote, in his book Wellington's Peninsular War Generals and their Battles, the British regained control of the village on the afternoon of the 5th and Massena, having lost 2,000+ men, made no more attacks. Although he and his forces remained in the area until supplies were exhausted, finally leaving on the 8 May 1811. In light of all this, I am changing the dates in the article.--Ykraps (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

text: It's incredible how bad this infobox is. The sources used to support the "strategic" victory didn't have a single "Strategic" point in them, and the claim that Wellington ended as master of the field is just plain false, as the French ended up controlling half of the town. Ruddah (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

text: While I doubt this mess can be correct without starting all over again, I'll made a small contribution. Aozyk (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty and loss statistics

message: The result of the battle has been changed by User:Aozyk despite the citations saying the end result was not indecisive. Shire Lord  (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Result
Talk:Battle of Freiburg

message: Hello Fellow Wikipedians,
I am a student in University, doing an assignment which requires me to edit this stub. Hence, I added the following sections. (1)Context, (2)Prelude, (3)Battle, (4)Battle in Hindsight, (5)Aftermath and Significance, (6)Impact on Freiburg.
I mostly have followed the Manual of style similar to articles which are very much in the same category. 
If you disapprove of my work or want me to make some modifications, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page, or this article's talk page itself.
Freerange56 (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections added 

message: 78.165.27.14 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The "inconclusive" result is cited to a source.  Please provide a source for your change, not including any other Wikipedia.  RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021 

message: 78.165.27.14 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Zupotachyon (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021 

message: 95.12.47.4 (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021 

message: El Gran Salvador (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021
Talk:Battle of Graus

message: What are the primary sources for this battle? I am aware only of the semi-legendary account of it in the Chronica Naierensis, which dates the encounter to 1070, close to the 1069 argued by Ubieto (and accepted by Bisson). I also known about the Cid's semi-legendary participation in Graus, but the Historia Roderici seems to be in error about his rank at that time. 
I admit that in calling this battle not a part of the Reconquista I was half-remembering the semi-legendary account, but it makes a good opportunity to encourage this article to be rewritten with better sourcing. The details of this event are still debated. (And I notice we have Battle of Calatañazor, though that battle is entirely myth.) Srnec (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jaime de Salazar y Acha (1994), "Reflexiones sobre la posible historicidad de un episodio de la Crónica Najerense," Príncipe de Viana, 55(201), resurrects the legend as history, but the most illuminating thing he has to say about Graus is that Ramiro died in unclear circumstances. If the legend is true, however, then Graus was not fought by an Aragonese king intent on extending his dominion over the Moors, or even intent on fighting them in the first place. That is why I want to know what the other primary sources are and what they say. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources, legend
Talk:Battle of Gravelines (1558)

message: This entire submission is blatantly wrong and should be taken down. Completely laughable and ridiculous to have allowed this obvious fake. Whoever made this entry should be banned from ever doing so again. If you can’t post facts stay off the internet. Good lord. 2604:2D80:4B07:E500:6C76:BD6C:DEDC:85BA (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong
Talk:Battle of Grijó

message: The French general Franceschi is Jean-Baptiste Franceschi or Francesqui (as he appears in French Wikipedia) - Somebody, 6 October 2007, 18:33  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.56.67 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Franceschi ? 
Talk:Battle of Hanau

message: if the lead is expanded, this will definitely pass the B-Class. Cam (Chat) 02:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: B-Class

message: This is a much more appropriate label for the outcome of this battle, given the strategic goals of the two commanders. De Wrede needed to bar Napoleon's way until the Army of Bohemia could come in from behind the Grande Armee and smash the Emperor. Meanwhile, Napoleon simply needed to clear his way towards Frankfurt, so, for him, beating De Wrede was just a means to an end, which is why he didn't follow him after winning the battle.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Strategic French victory
Talk:Battle of Hatteras Inlet Batteries

message: Hi there, I assessed this as B-Class per the checklist as it meets the criteria, (after I added the !!!) What it needs now is a good copyedit and perhaps some restructuring. I would move the opposing forces bit down to the bottom of the page. You then need to provide more information on the references, the abbreviations aren't understandable to me. You need a specific section listing the references, ie publishers, dates, isbns etc. See Paul Nobuo Tatsuguchi for an example on how this should look. If you have any questions, then ask away on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Ships in the Caribbean trade would reduce the time of their homeward journeys to New York, Philadelphia, or Boston by riding the stream to the north.
:As the stream flows Northeast, how would it reduce their homeward journeys? Are you sure you don't mean their outward journeys? Valetude (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riding the Gulf Stream
Talk:Battle of Havana (1748)

message: As a post-captain he was bound to become an Admiral if he lived long enough; promotions to flag rank was by seniority. The big question is whether he held any active command again. Creuzbourg (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Playing devil's advocate, I suppose he could have been Admiral Byng'd or struck off the list. The possibility of becoming a yellow admiral for post-captains was also ever present; being posted was not a guarantee that long life = full admiral. In the case of Knowles, he continued as CinC Jamaica for a year after the battle and was only reprimanded at his court martial. He then spent some time serving as an MP before in 1752 he was appointed governor of Jamaica. He resigned in 1756 under a cloud but again does not seem to have been affected by this. Now a vice-admiral, he went back to sea as second-in-command to Hawke in the Raid on Rochefort. This failure saw his supersession in the fleet, and was his last active service. As noted he was promoted by seniority to admiral a year later, and seems to have been looked upon favourably, being appointed rear-admiral of Great Britain in 1765, in which year he was also created a baronet. Although this article could go into better detail about Knowles' fate, I think it accurate to suggest that Havana did not truncate his career. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Although'' Knowles was to suffer a mixed reputation as a result of the battle he eventually attained the rank of admiral in 1758.