lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Supermarine Stranraer

message: These may be useful either as citation for current info, or for new info:
* Saskatoon Star-Phoenix - Sep 2, 1939
* New York Times October 13, 1935 (subscription required)
* Taming the Skies: A Celebration of Canadian Flight By Peter Pigott
* Canadian Warbird Survivors 2002: A Handbook on Where to Find Them By Harold Skaarup
* Military Aircraft, 1919-1945: An Illustrated History Of Their Impact By Justin D. Murphy, Matthew Alan McNiece
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful sources? 

message: The article was last edited nearly 10 years ago, so I'm guessing no-one will mind too much if I develop the citation and use the Harvard style, one one I'm used to. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Seems the Stranaer was named for a town in Scotland. – Sca (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Name
Talk:Supermarine Swift

message: So is the Swift the Type 541, or was it further modified before going into production? Maury Markowitz (talk)
:I am sure that 541 only relates to the pre-production WJ960 and WJ965 the production aircraft had higher type numbers like 546 for the F4 but I cant find the list I had at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Not terribly important, but might made a nice addition in the future. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type 541
Talk:Taqsim

message: ==Citation==
Facts about Taqsim can be found in "World Music: Traditions and Transformations" by Michael Bakan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieee8023 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Facts about Taqsim can be found in "World Music: Traditions and Transformations" by Michael Bakan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieee8023 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: "Taqsim is the term of the first movement in Islamic music". Is it really islamic music or just from the middle east? 85.235.91.68 10:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic?
Talk:Douglas XTB2D Skypirate

message: A good Start-class article but could use some additional information - how did the design process go? Were there other configurations considered? What was the actual date of the first flight? What were the experiences of the flight-test team? Etc... - Aerobird 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: Do we know the date of first flight? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First Flight

message: I love this wierd post-war, pre-jet designs. Four-row radial, 3,000hp. Awesome. Anyway, I was just reading through this, and in the list of the armaments it states that it has 1 x .50cal in "ventral bath". Is this accurate, or some sort of typo? I know quite a lot about various weapons and machines, etc, but this is a term I have NEVER heard before. All I can think of is the ventral "dustbin"-type emplacements that some WWII bombers used as a simple alternative to a ball-turret. But that's a stretch, to say the least. Does anyone know what this means, if anything? It's gonna bug me until I find out. If it is a real word, I'd like to know it, and if it's not I'd like to change it. If you know, please email me at <justforever96@yahoo.com>, and I will be eternally grateful. And there's a $1,000,000 reward for the first answer (umm...never mind that last one!) Regards to all Wikipediites. .45Colt 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ventral .50cal Installation 

message: Although there is not a dearth of references for this ambitious project, a new version of the article has been put in place. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New edits
Talk:Consolidated TBY Sea Wolf

message: Most pages of this type include a list of survivors.  Granted, in many cases, there might be no survivours.  But such pages should include a note that all built either crashed or were scrapped. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivors?
Talk:Andreas von Strucker

message: There is no confirmation he is dead.  It has beome common place here to list people dead just because if they actually are then that user feels awesome because they announced it first.  Comic book deaths are so rare that unless the comics preduce a body it is pure speculation to announce a death.  Sorry fanboys. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet if the story clearly intends to suggest the character is dead, why not add it to the page until a different story says otherwise? --98.237.120.74 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death?
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/J. Edward Anderson

message: JzG, I thought my comments were noteworthy in the debate because it helps show the, IMO, higher standard you hold for anything related to PRT.  You have been intertwined with Avidor for a while, including starting the article for his comic strip and defending it against being considered for deletion.  I think you favor Avidor's position in regards to PRT and you edit and protect PRT against having any appearance that it might possibly work.  I think others taking part in this debate might find the perspective useful.  If your position wasn't tainted, I don't think the article would have been considered for deletion.  In addition, I find it interesting that you deleted MY comments based on lack of relevance, but you left irrelevant comments from ThuranX, Knappster, and even every statement made by Avidor.  Since my intent was enlightenment and I didn't expect a response from you, it can't be called "trolling".  --JJLatWiki 02:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is absolutely relevant to the debate, and I will restore it if removed again. ATren 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate relevance and trolling
Talk:Kate Lonergan

message: Wasn't Kate the woman in the 'Safety Dance' video? Theladfromtheeast (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Lockheed WP-3D Orion

message: The third NOAA plane will be Animal N44RF http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1197 76.89.16.189 (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference doesnt say that it will be a WP-3D still need a reliable (non-blog) reference. N44RF was registered on 24 May 2006 as a P-3C former US Navy 161330. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk:North American XB-28 Dragon

message: I have always wondered why this bomber was considered as an alternative to B-25 and B-26 although it would have had the capabilities to replace the B-17 and B-24 in their strategic roles over Europe. Is no source available hat mentions this? Lastdingo (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have removed the name "Dragon" from the text because there is no evidence that such a name was ever assigned to the aircraft and (as explained) three good reasons why it would not have been.  LowObservable (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change title
Talk:Grumman XF10F Jaguar

message: In the malfunction section, the dimensions of the screw do not match up.  Should it be 10.2mm? 122.49.169.252 (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I have changed it to 10mm, although I am not sure it is correct a 10mm screw is very small, I suspect it should be 4 inches. A mistake of using 5in instead of 4in is much more likely. The whole section is referenced to a printed source so it is difficult to prove either way. MilborneOne (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  4 inches is 101.6mm so rounded off that would be 102mm. I think you are right and it should be 5 and 4 inches. 122.49.169.252 (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Grumman XF5F Skyrocket

message: Should the blackhawk squadron (http://ourworlds.topcities.com/blackhawk/models/mod_f5f.htm) be named it the article?Dirk P Broer 00:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 
Talk:Curtiss-Wright XF-87 Blackhawk

message: They weren't really the same aircraft, there were structural and design differences between the two aircraft... the XF-87 was based on the A-43 design, but they were not the same. AVKent882 (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if you cite reliable sources when making these corrections, so someone can check the source and make the corrections to the text. Otherwise, it is just uncited Original research, and we can't make changes based on that. - BilCat (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Experimental & Prototype U.S. Air Force Jet Fighters" by Dennis R. Jenkins & Tony R. Landis:  Chapter 2; pages 96 to 101.  On Page 97 (upper) it states the following
According to the official project history, "The fact that the XF-87 was in fact the 
XA-43 with a new model designation.  Actually the two airplanes 
were entirely dissimilar in size, equipment and mission."  All totaled, 
$863,959 had been spent on the XA-43. AVKent882 (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks. Coincidentally, I actually have a copy on order that should arrive by the end of next week. I'm looking forward to getting it! - BilCat (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My copy arrived this past weekend. I believe there's enough info in it to start a separate article on the Curtiss-Wright XA-43. I'll try to work on getting that done in the next few weeks. - BilCat (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A-43 and XF-87
Talk:Suzuki GSX-R750

message: Too many problems with the stator i hear.  can someone add it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 750's.  Heard they don't last long.  google will bring you to a couple of pages on the issue.--Ericg33 (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suzuki reliability problems 

message: You mention the SRAD model year beginning, but you omit the one reason they were called "SRADs": Suzuki Ram Air Direct.  It was an improved air intake system over previous years and was the standard for all Suzuki sport bikes (GSX-R600/750 and TL1000R) of the time.  Even in the 2000+ model years, the system was still referred to as Suzuki Ram Air Direct, the decal "SRAD" was simply left off the machines beginning with the 2000 GSX-R750 model year and 2001 GSX-R600 model year.
I'll do some digging for some specific info and add it to the page.  Noting the technological advantage of the SRAD system over previous intake systems seems like viable encyclopedic information.209.114.201.30 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SRAD 

message: The only Suzuki GSX-R's that had a 6 speed gear box were the dry clutch Special Edition 750's  The info for the models states 6 speed gear boxes for the 750's. When in fact they are all 5 speed transmissions, except the SE 750 w/dry clutch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.8.94 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what bike you might be thinking of here. But please cite a source if you like. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   Suzuki GSX-R 750 info WRONG.  

message: Although this page has notices for lack of refs and not being prose, it is obviously the result of much work as it contains a wealth of information and all chronologically laid out in nice order. I found it most useful when investigating motorbikes.  CPES (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wealth of Info 

message: These would be my suggestions (for Y thru L9), and I may or may not try to implement them myself.
*Make clear the major change years Y,K4,K6,L1
*Use Suzuki engine data. This makes the engines progression obvious, whereas independent Dyno tests only confuse things by throwing random numbers into the mix.
*Mention new things when they appear eg Slipper clutch at K6 rather than L1
*A photo for each major change (and all RHS view)
*Maybe a gallery for eg the special editions (2010 is my fave) https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/suzu/suzuki_gsxr750%2010%20LE.htm
Jimbowley (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed tidy up.
Talk:Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor

message: The text claims it to be the 1st fighter to break the sound barrier, in 1951. However, according to that article, the barrier was broken by two previous fighter jets, Bell X-1 in '47 (not a fighter), and North American F-86 Sabre in '48 (a fighter jet), so I would remove this claim. Setreset (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The F-86 could only break the sound barrier in a dive, not in level flight. - BilCat (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: sound barrier

message: Is it just me, or the length of this plane seems much bigger than its wingspan, opposed to what the article states.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.32.247.157 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the dimensions inverted?
Talk:McDonnell XP-67

message: Where does this Bat name come from?  A McDonnell Aircraft video doesn't mention this or the couple books I have that list the XP-67.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My sources use both names interchangeably; I believe that both names were informal, and that the airplane was never officially named by the USAAF, but I have not found a source that definitively states this.Carguychris (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bat? 

message: I have undone the revision by Bao b2 15 changing "Number built" from 1 to 2. Sources state that the second prototype was officially considered only 15% complete when the XP-67 program was canceled, and that the lack of progress on the second prototype largely prompted the Army's decision to cancel the project, since it would have taken weeks, if not months, to make it airworthy and resume the flight-testing program. The Army authorized McDonnell to cut up the second XP-67 for scrap, although it's not clear from my sources exactly what ultimately happened to it. Unless some more information comes to light, saying that the second XP-67 was "built" is entirely too optimistic, hence the reversion.Carguychris (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid "Number built" revision 

message: Was trying to locate some top-down photos and ran across this resource.  It would have to be vetted for accuracy and see if the photos are usable, but it has interesting information on this unique aircraft.  — MrDolomite • Talk 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is interesting, and I've been meaning to circle back and improve this article for some time, so I'll start checking the bibliography. The wind tunnel model photos are neat, and they appear to be government work, and therefore should be public domain; I'll double-check the NASA page later. That said, the author provides no attribution for the photos of the flying prototype, which look very familiar to me; I'm fairly certain that they're McDonnell factory photos that are now owned by Boeing, so they can't be used here. Carguychris (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resource and pics
Talk:MV Agusta F4 series

message: Need a section on the F4 RR 312?
its in the table at the bottom but theres no section on it  87.194.223.183 (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  F4 RR 312 

message: Italian article has other models like:
F4 SP-01 Viper
F4-Mamba (1000 c.c.)
 
F4-Corse (1000 c.c.) 
F4 Italia
...not sure if these are models covered under another name. hmmm.87.194.223.183 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't really the purpose of an encyclopedia to be an exhaustive catalog of every minor model variation.  It would be much more worth while to focus on improving the quality of the article and adding citations for what is there, rather than expanding the list of models based on shaky information.  Keep in mind that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; better to look for solid information and focus the models that are notable.--Dbratland (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  other models 

message: While I generally agree that WP:NOPRICES should apply to articles like MV Agusta F4 series, and that these articles should not contain current street prices, the majority of the prices listed in this article are for discontinued models, thus making them related to both inflation and charting trends in high-end boutique motorcycles.  Moreover, much of the notability of MV Agusta hinges on the often record-setting retail prices of their bikes. Their actual sales volume is so low they would on that basis not even qualify for the existence of a page in Wikipedia, but the performance and cost of their products attracts attention.
So by all means, delete some of the prices quoted here and in many other motorcycling articles, but do so thoughtfully and with discussion.--Dbratland (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that there is a justified reason for their mention, then I have no objections --Chris Ssk talk 20:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prices 

message: Maybe time to create an MV Agusta F3 article? 87.194.223.183 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  F3
Talk:Yakovlev Yak-16

message: 800 km/h en vitesse de croisière dans le texte est une information débile pour les connaisseurs
Amicalement  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.88.37.216 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Yakovlev Yak-25 (1947)

message: It would be good if the lead used the word military in the opening sentence. I am going to make this change, but I assume that it is something that, if accepted as good form, would need to be repeated in many articles, and I would need guidance.
Background:  I stumbled onto this article (wasn't what I was looking for) but then struggled for several moments to ascertain what sort of aircraft it was - I didn't recognize the word interceptor at first. Jd2718 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it back for now. I see this as necessary, but am not sure how to make the change without disrupting the lead. I will go to the Wikiproject and see if someone there has good ideas for wording. Jd2718 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  military 

message: Merge or separate ?
Need some opinions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mothmolevna (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yak-30 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: This page need a disambiguation note with the Yak-25 family of 1952 and later.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.6.224.137 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Removed  "To cure the buffeting the tail unit was replaced with one using an NACA 004 aerofoil section.Gordon quotes 20% thickness, while NACA004 is rarely used in tail units thicker than 9%"  The quoted section doesn't make sense ; it certainly wouldn't be 20% t/c ratio with max thickness at 25%, that would be ridiculous, and there is not a dicky bird about a "NACA 004" section in NACA airfoil OR . Anybody any ideas?--Petebutt (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  tailplane section
Talk:Yakovlev Yak-50 (1949)

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Nigel Ish (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:National Railway Company of Belgium

message: I added a company box for the NMBS/SNCB to the text with some financial date retrieved from the anual report. Based on the data in the report, I also changed the sentence that passenger transport in Belgium is profitable to the the NMBS is subsidised, because that is simply (at this moment) not profitable. The passenger devision of the group reported, even with almost €800 milion in government subsidies, an operating loss of €64 milion and an net loss of €80 milion over 2005.
 Crownsteler 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added company box and a small edit in text 

message: The redirect B-rail has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:B-rail]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Zagal – Zagreb Airlines

message: If this airline is just another name for Croatia Airlines why does it have it own article? I doubt it going to get any bigger anyway if its a defunct airline. --MarsRover 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - it is not just another name for Croatia Airlines, but a precursor airline. All airlines should have separate articles. The article could easily get bigger if someone did some research - perhaps MarsRover could do so, rather than merge. Ardfern 22:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for volunteering me :-) There's only about 90 hits with google and about half of them reference wikipedia. And thumbing through those it doesn't look promising, i think i'll pass. --MarsRover 05:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge