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

message: "The heavily-armed Roman legionaries stood fast, but Arminius' warriors slowly began to route [sic] them in overwhelming numbers. The Romans, along with the Chauci who fought on the Roman side as auxiliaries, defeated the allied Germanic forces decisively, inflicting heavy losses on them."
This doesn't make sense. First Arminius is routing the Romans, then the Romans have decisively defeated the Germans. The attentions of someone knowledgeable in the subject is required.  Metalello talk 05:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  two sentences don't add up 

message: Aren't "Battle of Idistaviso" and "Battle of Idisiaviso" much more common? Delbrück refers to "the two great battles of Idistaviso and the Angrivarii bank" while arguing that they were invented or greatly exaggerated. (Renfroe translation, vol. 2, p. 114.) 173.66.211.53 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does this name come from? 

message: ... I don't agree with Delbrück, but think he deserves a fair hearing. Can someone explain why his arguments are about modern German politics instead of the campaign and its histories? Can someone explain why the demographic issues aren't issues? 173.66.211.53 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't understand some of the arguments in the challenges to Delbrück's alternative view 

message: The infobox currently says the result was "Indeterminate". Surely it should say "Decisive Roman victory, Romans withdraw after punitive campaign successfully completed". Thue (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How "punitive" it was isn't for us to decide.  Is there an WP:RS that states "decisive Roman victory"?  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "How "punitive" it was isn't for us to decide."? Of course it is for us to decide how punitive it was meant to be, relying on sources. Thue (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

text: "Decisive" is one of the standard categories used in the infobox. As for a source, take [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_(Tacitus)/Book_2#18 The Annals (Tacitus)
]: "It was a great victory and without bloodshed to us. From nine in the morning to nightfall the enemy were slaughtered, and ten miles were covered with arms and dead bodies [...]". Thue (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sources, alone.  If we interpret sources and come up with "decisive", a word they didn't use, that's WP:SYNTH; we can't do that.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

text: That's original research, particularly linking this battle with the assassination several years later. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive victory
Talk:Battle of the Herrings

message: Anyone know weather the French forces knew in advance of the English convoy, or if they found out by running into it on their way somewhere else?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.76.170 (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: I have re-added the numbers of the forces involved as they are given by a seemingly reliable source (and references therein ) already in the article . Xxanthippe (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strengths
Talk:Battle of the Ebro

message: Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. February 8, 2006 5:52pm. WikiCheck 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Validation

message: That´s all ;-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.213.146.210 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The point marked in Google Earth is incorrect

message: The number of casualties and looses of this battle are totally different depending on the Wikipedia version you read, the Spanish or the English. Can someone check these data? --77.57.210.160 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of casualties 

message: The English in this article needs a bit of work. It is strange that no-one has  noticed this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toroboro (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Editing
Talk:Battle of the Colline Gate (82 BC)

message: 'Parthian civil army?' this cannot be correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.193.123 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

message: The image that was listed for use in the infobox (Porta Collina.jpg) is not a valid image. Please review and adjust as necessary. I have commented it out for the time being. tubedogg (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . José Luiz  talk 02:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing image
Talk:Battle of Arcole

message: where is the citation for the officer pushing Bonaparte off the bridge?
*I added a request for a citation. Chandler’s The Campaigns of Napoleon. pg. 108. Does state an unknown officer ran up to Napoleon and warned him not to go any farther for his safety, and in the confusion Napoleon fell into the river. But does not say Napoleon was pushed. --Bryson 23:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 217.235.232.98, the article is sourced to reputable, neutral, mainstream authors. Could you please explain what you are talking about as, for the moment, you are not making any sense?--Alexandru Demian (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: can you change the title to Battle of Arcole?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Gellos (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . If you need help with a pagemove you can also ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title
Talk:Siege of Chōkō-ji

message: I think this article is talking about the siege of Chōkō-ji (長興寺). I don't want to change the article without having this confirmed because the details in the two articles are slightly different. Anyone have better sources? Douggers (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making the changes. Douggers (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Temple, not Castle
Talk:Fall of Antwerp

message: I read that the Dutch employed an armoured ship during the siege (Rudlov). Anyone having more details? Rudlov, J.: Die Einführung der Panzerung im Kriegschiffbau und die Entwicklung der ersten Panzerflotten, BGTI (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Technik und Industrie), 1910, 2, 1 Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finis Bellis, a Dutch 'Ironclad' 

message: Geocites is no more, so I tried to check if I could access "Los Tercios Españoles" using the Wayback Machine, but unfortunately, it seems only two pages of the main website were saved in all the archived results: . I don't think I missed it, but can anyone confirm there's no way to reach the page linked on the article anymore? universalcosmos | talk 00:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead geocities link
Talk:Third Battle of Artois

message: Cancelled banner as refs added. Don't know why the red warning is still there. Any ideas?Keith-264 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red 

message: The attack was stop under heavy losses and the Germans held their ground.
How is that not a German defensive victory?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.181.180.159 (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a few details from Greeenhalgh.Keith-264 (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this not a German victory
Talk:Third Battle of Nanjing

message: REFERENCES::
Are there any authorative texts on this battle?
It is difficult to see, from the article's account, exactly how so many people anded up dead. That is, the specifics do not seem to add up to the overall immensity of the battle.
I do not mean to doubt the figures, but do suggest a more detailed account is needed to reflect the magnitude of the incident. In particular, some reference to, and comparison of, various academic texts upon the subject would seem to be appropriate.
This is also true in spirit of the main Taiping Rebellion article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.217.134 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The city was called "Jiangning" from the Qing Empire and the Heavenly capitial by the Taipings, where is the name Battle of Nanking coming from?--Skyfiler (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the predominance of modern sources use "Nanjing" and not "Nanking" or "Jiangning" for this battle, so I will move it to that. SilverStar54 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 
Talk:Second Battle of Acentejo

message: Great problem: here are related two battles, Aguere and second of Acentejo, clearly differents in time and location.
Here begin the second:
"Advancing along the northern shores of the island, the Spaniards pursued the remaining Guanche forces and faced them once again at Valley of Taoro, near Acentejo, the site of the first battle, called by the Spaniards La Matanza ("The Slaughter")."
-fco
Fixing.  Thanks! --Polylerus (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Sack of Baltimore

message: Some prisoners were destined to live out their days as galley slaves, rowing for decades without ever setting foot on shore,..." while others would spend long years in the seclusion of the Sultan's harem or within the walls of the Sultan's palace as laborers.
The author makes this claim directly. Therefore no further citation is necessary. As to the question? I really don't know enough to answer your good question. Raggz (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Galley slaves

message: According to Corsarios musulmanes en Irlanda, a recension of a work by Peter Earle:
:Cuando los musulmanes irrumpieron en Irlanda, Baltimore era uno de los mayores enclaves piratas de la zona. Sin embargo, la ‘razzia’ transformó a sus habitantes, que reclamaron una intervención decidida contra el bandidaje marítimo, fuese local o extranjero. «La miseria y el miedo volvieron honesta a la gente», escribe Peter Earle en el ensayo ‘Piratas en guerra’ (ed. Melusina).
: When the Muslims fell unto Ireland, Baltimore was one of the biggest piratical sites in the area. However, the raid transformed its inhabitants, who claimed for a decided intervention against sea banditry, however local or foreign. "Misery and fear turned the people honest", writes Peter Earle in the essay "Pirates at war" (pub. by Melusina).
If such, it would be interesting to mention that Baltimore was a pirate haven.
--Error (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The book mentioned seems to be The Pirate Wars: Pirates vs the Legitimate Navies of the World . --Error (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish pirates 

message: Per this discussion, I am leaving the diff here so that it can be checked properly before deciding what can be restored. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a Dutch captain, some Irish, they sailed out of Algiers and rumours that the Algerians were captured must mean that they were part of it. It was an Ottoman Turk strategy, but what I can read of that chapter doesn't suggest they were involved. It's actually a chapter in the book, Chapter 4 From Baltimore to Barbary: the 1631 sack of Baltimore Theresa Denise Murray. We need to check other sources. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition
Talk:First Battle of Newbury

message: I have to quibble with the result being listed as "Decisive Parliamentarian Victory". The battle itself was pretty much a draw, although the Royalists failed in their objective and Essex won the aftermath. I would have thought that a better description would be "Tactically Inconclusive. Strategic Parliamentarian Victory." As the talk is pretty quiet, I'll leave it for a while before I change it, to allow for counter-arguments here. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That works, but I wouldn't go for "tactically inconclusive". Essex's tactical objective was to get the royalists out of the way. Charles's tactical objective was not to get out of the way, strategic objectives obviously being "then we can get back to safety" and "then we can destroy the last Parliamentarian army in Britain" respectively. By grinding Charles down, Essex also won the statistical victory of preventing effective chase - by being ground down, Charles failed to keep essex in check. Ironholds (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We could simply be a bit more free with the terms so as to reduce confusion; 'Royalist failure to destroy Parliamentarian army, Parliamentary army succesfully retreats to London'. Maybe this or a variation of this? Omegastar (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me! Ironholds (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result not decisive 

message: The view shown with this article is of the battlefield of the 2nd Battle of Newbury taken from Donnington Castle - and is not relevent to this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newburychap (talk • contribs) 14:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I've removed "Decisive" and the bullet points from the infobox result parameter in the infobox. Anything other than a simple "X victory" or a "See aftermath" link to the section in the article where the result is discussed if there is no consensus in the sources on the victor is deprecated by WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and Template:Infobox military conflict. I would also point out that, per MOS:LEAD, "The lead serves as...a summary of its most important contents" and "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" yet there is no discussion of the decisiveness or otherwise of the battle in the main body of the article. Factotem (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result in infobox 

message: The level of detail provided for these elements seems unnecessarily detailed - it nearly doubles the length of the article and could be covered in two paragraphs. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections on Bristol, Gloucester etc
Talk:Sieges of Taketenjin

message: There is already a Wikipedia article about the "Battle of Takatenjin" in 1574.  Is the 1574 Siege listed here also the same battle?  If so, this page needs to be modified to only include the 1581 Siege, and the other article used for the 1574 battle/siege.  Otherwise, the Campaignbox links won't work properly. Roy Al Blue 23:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1574: Battle or Siege? 

message: When I completely delete another user's work, I like to apologize. I know I wouldn't enjoy other users coming and rewriting my articles wholesale... I've made this a redirect to Sieges of Takatenjin, which will be a disambig page to the two separate battle articles on the 1574 & 1581 sieges. Thank you. LordAmeth 19:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the previous author of this page.
Talk:Siege of Terabe

message: In the Tokugawa Ieyasu article I find this sentance "Ieyasu won his first battle at the Siege of Terabe...". Which is acurrate this article or that one? We will need a ref either way... Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tokugawa Win?

message: https://favoriteslibrary-castletour.com/aichi-terabejo/ Roozitaa (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   Oda was defeated in this war
Talk:Siege of Rouen (1418–1419)

message: I propose moving the article to Siege of Rouen (1418-1419) or Siege of Rouen (1418) to enable current page to be used as dab page for list of sieges of Rouen. I will move page and fix redirects from page that currently link to the current page before creation of dab page. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Page moved after no comments received and dab page created at Siege of Rouen. Newm30 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move
Talk:Siege of Miki

message: Is this the Japanese siege where the defenders held out until they ran out of saki?  (no, I am not joking, heard that in a lecture on Japanese castle construction).67.164.212.239 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't doubt that it's a possibility. I don't see reference to that in any of my books, but still it could have happened. LordAmeth 12:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Iocane

message: I would think this shoul be in the article The Princess Bride rather than a separate article. Redirect recommended. - WCFrancis 21:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the redirect, this contained information not contained in the articles about either the book or the movie.  I've also seen references to it in other media (notable a roguelike computer game, can't recall which one atm).  The rest of the info wouldn't fit very neatly in the article about the movie; is there a strong preference for the redirect? /Jaeger5432 04:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

message: The Iocane powder article/redirect should be updated. --80.63.213.182 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In case this got turned into an article again
Talk:Interstate 72

message: That sign is an important part of Interstate 72, because it says "90° Longitude,  1/4 Way West Around The World". There aren't many of those signs in America, let alone the entire Earth, so I believe that sign should get an image on the I-72 Wikipedia article. 104.145.251.117 (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @104.145.251.117 if you are in the area, please take a picture and upload it to Wikimedia Commons so we can do just that. –Fredddie™ 03:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anybody suggested adding an image of the 90° longitude sign at mile marker 78 onto the Interstate 72 (I-72) article? I suggest somebody put an image of that sign onto the I-72 article.
Talk:Interstate 172

message: Exit list seems to be compliant from what I've seen.--Freewayguy Call? Fish 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The head and tail rows are no longer kosher, but that's all I can see too. Unless someone wants to convert to . —Rob (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit lists
Talk:Battle of Apache Pass

message: Need to research, I believe the California Column did not travel along the entire Butterfield Stage route From Yuma AZ to El Paso TX as a single unit of 1500 to 2800 men and supplies. It moved in smaller groups. The Capture_of_Tucson_(1862) happened on 20 May 1862.  Advanced elements of the Column reached the abandoned Fort Thorn on the Rio Grand on 4 July 1862.  The Apache Pass battle was on 24 July and involved 140 men of two companies of the California Column. I assume that these two companies were a typical traveling group that the Apaches decided to attack.Rcollman (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Before the battle

message: Given the primary sources give between 10-63 Apache killed in the article itself, I see no reason to trust an obscure encyclopedia over primary sources in order to list the tally as 66 Apache killed.Cheetaiean (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Apache casualty numbers
Talk:Battle of Tettenhall

message: Article referred to Lindsey in Northumbria. It linked to the pre-1974 county, so I have redirected it to the Anglo-Saxon "kingdom" of Lindsey. Also removed reference to Northumbria. Lindsey was under Deiran influence in early 7th century, but was associated with Mercia long before the Danish occupation.Sjwells53 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lindsey 

message: As sources are split as to whether the battle took place at Tettenhall or at Wednesfield, the page name does not conform to neutrality.  I would suggest a move to "Battle of Wednesfield or Tettenhall", or "Battle of Tettenhall or Wednesfield".  Wolverhampton History and Heritage Society gives a good overview of the location issue. Fingerpuppet (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost every battle during this period could be disputed on location and this is the most recognised name. Just mention in the article that it may have been somewhere different. We shouldn't move this. --Tefalstar (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Move

message: I have deleted references to Æthelred, as he was in such poor health after 902 that his wife was the effective ruler of Mercia, so it seems very unlikely that he was involved in the battle. See eg N. J. Higham & D. H. Hill eds, Edward the Elder 899-924, Routledge, 2001, p. 160, which states that military campaigns in Mercia after 902 were conducted by Edward and Æthelfleda. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Æthelred 

message: I've upgraded the importance from low (Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article) to mid (Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area) - due to the importance of the battle. Æthelred (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms

message: I guess we don’t know the precise location where the battle took place? WisDom-UK (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Only what is stated in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battlefield? 

message: That the Danes should have embarked somewhere "south of Bridgnorth"  (in hostile territory) seems inherently less plausible than that they should have disembarked there. Perhaps there is a mistake by the newspaper or an editorial slip by User:Cloptonson. I have no access to the Shropshire Star. Would somebody like to check, please? Frans Fowler (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The account is nonsense. I have replaced it with one based on an authoritative source. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... embarking somewhere south of Bridgnorth, Shropshire"
Talk:Battle of Dun Nechtain

message: I wonder whether the parsing of the name is actually correct. I understand that "Gwaith" = battle, however Y Geiriadur Mawr also gives "Gwaedlan" as meaning "battle". Nennius gives the name as "Gueithlin Garan" and as "Garan" has little to do with "Nechtan" there seems little reason to suppose a "llyn". Clearly "Nechtansmere" implies "Nechtan's Lake" but "Llyn Garan" is something else. I don't have a resolution to this, but it does seem to me that there is a hitherto unrecognised problem. Freuchie (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Talk:Battle of Maiwand

message: According to the Independent on Sunday (8th June 2008, p18, "Soldiers in Helmand unearth British rifles lost in 1880 massacre", http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/soldiers-in-helmand-unearth-british-rifles-lost-in-1880-massacre-842497.html), members of the regiment made a last stand in a walled garden in Khig, with the last 11 charging the Afghans.  Is this worth a mention, or is this sourced elsewhere?Pluke (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 66th Berkshire Regiment

message: Indian Army cavalry had precedence on Queen's infantry?Mcgarry90 (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The battle -- unit precedence 