lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Kennesaw Mountain

message: Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Kennesaw bombardment2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 27, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 18:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Kennesaw bombardment2.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Are the force sizes given in the infobox correct?  cites 16,225 Union troops engaged, and 17,733 Confederate troops engaged.  gives 18,000 Union and 6,000 Confederate.  Both of these figures are 
well outside of what I would consider reasonable measurement error of the 95,000+ / 50,000 strengths currently in the infobox.
Jrnold (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. The previous figures were actually of the total armies (which are listed in the units involved box), not the specific units engaged. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent. Thanks for taking care of that Jrnold (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union and Confederate Strengths
Talk:Battle of Chustenahlah

message: This article and the one on Trail of Blood on Ice are nearly identical. Not clear what is distinguishing. If Trail of Blood on Ice is supposed to be about overall, it should indicate it better. It covers three battles, as does this.Parkwells (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlap
Talk:Data element name

message: I am proposing that only the sections in ISO/IEC 11179 that are related to naming be merged into this article.  A possible exception might be the text relating to database table names, which might move to Relational database instead.RayGates 23:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank *you*, Dan! RayGates 02:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

message: What does ISO 11179 have to do with data element names?  Data element (aka column name, attribute, tuple? & others) was what we called data back in the days of punch cards & ISAM files.  11179, while a nice idea, is a very late comer to the game & has had minimal impact to date.  DEddy (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time warp? 

message: The article says "Tables are Collections of Entities, and follow Collection naming guidelines", seemingly paraphrasing some part of ISO 11179. However, I am not sure where this is described in any part of the document.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.244.238 (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: ISO 11179 says nothing about this at all. I believe this connection comes from Joe Celko's SQL Programming Style () section 1.2.1. The problem with that section in the book and, by extension, this comment in the article, is that it feels like someone is looking for a standards-based justification for their own personal preference. Manolan1 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does ISO 11179 discuss collections?
Talk:Battle of Mansfield

message: I changed "...due to low water conditions and the necessity for the army to follow an established road that turned inland away from the river." to "...due to low water conditions and the army following an established road that turned inland away from the river." Shelby Foote's CW narrative states that there was a good road that followed the river that Banks either did not know about or he thought he could travel faster on the inland road. If there is a source that "trumps" Foote or clarifies the matter further, please edit.
I think referring to any individual's 'incompetence' without citing sources is a bit extreme.  I'm putting a 'needs citations' tag on the article until this is fixed.
69.116.159.109 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is common practice to list alternate names in the lead as early as possible. Battle of Sabine Crossroads is listed as a single sentence paragraph at the end of the lead and should be in the opening paragraph per MOS:ALTNAME and Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names.  Otr500 (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate names
Talk:Battle of Milliken's Bend

message: I'm a newbie, just learning my way around. Just wanted to let folks know in case I do something wrong. I feel like I'm learning quickly, though. CWology (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you may want to take a look at its parameters. For example, "publisher" seems more appropriate for the "War Dept." entry than "last" - that's meant for the author's last name. Better for this purpose, however, is  - that's meant for works published in multiple volumes, just like the Official Records. (By the way, "OR" usually has a completely different meaning on Wikipedia.) I've changed the template; thanks for finding some references in the first place! Huon (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New editor
Talk:Battle of Chickasaw Bayou

message: The lead currently says, "The Battle of Chickasaw Bayou, also called Walnut Hills..."  I think that should be, "The Battle of Chickasaw Bayou, also called the Battle of Walnut Hills..."   — Mudwater (Talk) 04:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a week and no one has replied, so I'm going ahead with the change. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold in lead 

message: Chickasaw Bayou is one of the locations listed as part of Vicksburg National Military Park. Do they have a visitor centre, guided tours, interactive maps and hotel/restaurant facilities? Valetude (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visitor centre?
Talk:Siege of Corinth

message: "The Siege of Corinth" is the name of a published poem by Lord Byron, also an unrelated opera. A disambig would be helpful.
Dak06 (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dab

message: Widow Surratt's farm makes you think of the Surratt family of Maryland, involved in Lincoln's assassination. As Surratt is not the commonest name, it might be worth confirming or denying any connection. Valetude (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surratt 

message: Corinth opened the way to Vicksburg (just like capturing Memphis and its surrounding area) . But it was not "THE base of operations" for Grant. If any, it is Memphis. I don't have the cited book, but would be happy to see the passage that becomes the source of the claim.
Sources:
* The Civil War: A Narrative: Volume 2: Fredericksburg to Meridian Chapter 2 section 5 Kindle loc 3942 Page 258
* http://battleofraymond.org/trail/  
Grant was not the commander of the siege. 
A sample source:
* http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/297/corinth-in-the-civil-war 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kucing (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The trail source you provide does in fact show that he was there "Unwilling to expend more lives in attempts to take the city by storm, Grant began siege operations.". Additionally, Sherman states he was at the double log house. It is not your place to remove material which is cited and you haven't even read it. Do not revert again while discussion is ongoing. If there are differing views between conflicting sources then we attempt to represent multiple views but we do not remove cited material. Your sources do not seem to uphold your points and frankly you aren't making sense. — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Grant did not return to Memphis until June 6. (one source) — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Corinth as the base for Grant and Grant as the commander of the siege
Talk:Battle of Iuka

message: * Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. 
* Recommendations:  additional in-text citations within each section prior to promotions to B-class. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: "[Grant] also ordered Rosecrans's army on a coordinated move along the Mobile and Ohio Railroad ..."
No, not so. Rosecrans came up the Jacinto road from the southwest. M&O RR is in Corinth, 22 miles east of Iuka.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.113.28 (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only one railroad in Iuka! 
Talk:Battle of Jackson

message: I just removed a major part of the article that dealt with affairs after the surrender of Vicksburg. It was a copy&paste job from , including typos and a misspelling of General Johnston. To my knowledge, the Battle of Jackson usually means only the affair of May 14, so if we want this information, it should probably be included in the Jackson, Mississippi article, not here. --Huon 09:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of content

message: Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class.  . --Rosiestep (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: According to the Aftermath section:
:Johnston's evacuation of Jackson was a tragedy because he could, by late on May 14, have had 11,000 troops at his disposal and by the morning of May 15, another 4,000.
Does anyone know if the total includes the initial 6000 troops?  In other words, how many troops did Johnston have available: 15000 or 21000?  Thanks.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Confederate Troops Available? 

message: The CWSAC Report Update is devoted to Grand Gulf, not Jackson. Is this correct? Valetude (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved per request. Time to call it after 25 days, one relisting and no opposition. Fate of the dab page to be decided at a later stage.  Favonian (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 16 April 2024
Talk:Battle of Byram's Ford

message: See This discussion.  As the publishing date under US law (weird quirk, it being displayed publicly in 1898 doesn't quite cut it for US copyright law) is unknown, and a strictly-proven date of death for the painter Mileham cannot be determined, the image cannot be proven to be public domain, and sadly needs to be removed from the article. Hog Farm  Talk 05:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of infobox image
Talk:Battle of Dry Wood Creek

message: Hi . Castel (1968): if you are really referring to the 1968 edition it won't have had an ISBN, but an OCLC - 14875284. Or possibly you are actually using a later edition? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: - After another look, I'm using a 1993 edition (the reprint information was in smaller print at the bottom).  I'll correct it in the article accordingly. Hog Farm (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I do that all the time. Makes me look like an idiot at source reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN query
Talk:Battle of Fort Davidson

message: When I went to edit this article, I noticed that the infobox listed this as a Union victory.  While the Union garrison certainly won the actual engagement itself (the fighting), they were forced to abandon the fort that night, leaving it to the Confederates.  Thus this really should be listed as a Confederate victory, not a Union one (at least in my opinion), even though Price lost in every other way--especially strategically--as a result of this engagment.  Thoughts, anyone? - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough for me!-Ecjmartin (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who won? 

message: This battle has been listed as a Union victory by the American Battlefield Protection Program and the National Park Service.
:Good enough for me!-Ecjmartin (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Union Victory
Talk:Battle of Island Number Ten

message: * Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. 
* This article would benefit from:  expansion (Aftermath), in-text citations. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: …the town of Point Pleasant, on the right bank of the river almost directly opposite Island No. 10.
:Not really. Point Pleasant is round the second bend, and actually directly opposite Island No.11. Also, on your map, we can’t see the little road from the island to the mainland. Could we have a second, simplified sketch-map showing the features more clearly? Valetude (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify, please
Talk:Action at Blue Mills Landing

message: Virtually all references other than the NPS site refer to this as the Battle of Blue Mills.  Liberty is easier to find on the map.  But Blue Mills is better descriptive in that it was fought on the river (and it's also easier to find Battle of Blue Mills via Google than Battle of Liberty).  The local history of Clay County refers to it as Battle of Blue Mills.  I'm going to move it unless there's strong feelings otherwise.  Americasroof 14:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Battle of Blue Mills
Talk:First Battle of Newtonia

message: I notice that the infobox is headed 'Battle of Newtonia'; but there is at least a 'Second Battle ...'. Is there any particular reason?  RASAM (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox wrong ?

message: *Where are you with the nomination for deletion for "6th Kansas Cavalry flag.jpg"?
::It looks very likely to be kept.  Claim of copyright by the source is invalid, and the people at Commons are holding that it counts as 2D art.
*Bears: when there is more than one work by an author it is usual to put the earliest published first.
::Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Forgot the "the"
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Take two
Talk:First Battle of Springfield

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. (This does not mean there is a consensus for "Battle" over "battle." Rather, that issue may be further discussed by proposing that this article and Second Battle of Springfield be changed to lower-case "battle.") (non-admin closure)  SilverLocust (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Action at Springfield →  – Article was moved in 2019 w/o discussion under the basis that this is how the name appears in the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies in the War of the Rebellion, but the nomenclature hasn't been carried over into 20th and 21st century sources. For what it's worth, that ORs also refer to an number of other actions, including the Second Battle of Springfield by names such as "Engagement at Springfield" or "Skirmish at Springfield", so I don't think this naming is entirely unambiguous.  A skim of the relevant literature suggests that "First Battle of Springfield" or the variant "Springfield I" is in greater use than "Zagonyi's Charge", so I think First Battle of Springfield is the best possible title here. Hog Farm  Talk 01:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: Battle or battle? CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 01:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 June 2023
Talk:Siege of Fort Macon

message: The article has been rewritten, so it is no longer of Stub class. The MILHIST banner has been updated. PKKloeppel (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Start class

message: I've noticed that the Fort Macon Civil War Roundtable site contains some information that is inconsistent with the other three sites listed, for instance listing the Confederate garrison at 400 when the other links (and the article) number Confederate losses at 480 and stating that the battle was a 11-hour bombardment rather than a month-long siege.  I think it's pretty safe to remove it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.117.145 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: On 2 April 1862, about midway through the siege, the official name of Burnside's Coast Division was changed to Department of North Carolina, and its three brigades were upgraded in name to divisions. The three brigadier generals became at the same time acting major generals; I do not know when, or if, their appointments were confirmed. Thus, Parke's unit can be referred to as either the Third Brigade of the Coast Division or the Third Division of the Department of North Carolina. I have chosen to go with the initial name, as that is how Battles and leaders lists it, but I will not object if others think the later name is more appropriate. PKKloeppel (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About the name of Parke's unit
Talk:Second Battle of Fort Fisher

message: There is a piece of rather amusing information regarding General Benjamin Butler. Apparently Butler was in Washington DC in a hearing where he protested that he was relieved of Command for wrongful reasons. Butler had been tasked with taking Fort Fisher (among other objectives) but he had failed to do so. In that hearing Butler protested the Fort was impregnable and unassailable. As he spoke there was a commotion outside the building which drew their attention: It was the news that Fort Fisher had fallen in the Second Battle of Fort Fisher. The crowd in the hearing hall started to laugh and even Butler himself joined in as he stood there with the Newspaper in his hand.
The Episode is mentioned in author Shelby Footes 3 volume work on the Civil War, the third and last book to be precise. If anyone feels up to it he/she can add it to the text. Fred26 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butler on the fall of the fort 

message: From the article:
::It also ended any chance of European recognition, being viewed by many as "the final nail in the Confederate coffin."
This is referenced to a book specifically on Fort Fisher.  Is this really supported by anyone else?  I've never heard of this battle being what ended any chance of European recognition, and there's tons of sources that suggest other earlier events, most notably the Emancipation Proclamation or Sherman's March to the Sea, as what ended this possibility.  Precisely because this is obscure, I don't think there are any historians writing "The Second Battle of Fort Fisher is not what ended any chance of European recognition", but it's a bit of a fringe problem in that no medical researchers are writing "There is no evidence that contemplating the constellation of Aries reduces your risk of cancer."  Is there anyone other than Rod Gragg backing this stance up?  SnowFire (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ended chances of European intervention
Talk:Combined statistical area

message: This list appears to have forgotten San Diego since it's not included in the LA combined area.  Or perhaps the SD metro area is not considered "combined", but it's still much larger (over 3 million people) than most of these statistical areas that are included (because they are "combined" metro areas where SD is not part of a combined area -- seems a bit silly). 2603:8000:A800:B0BD:A4F7:17D8:6E38:B5A (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. The San Diego MSA does not combined with any other American metropolitan area to create a combined statistical area. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Diego? 

message: What gives? 136.62.181.15 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austin is missing from the list 

message: Why isn’t Springfield Massachusetts on this list? 72.226.103.144 (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it does not meet the criteria to form a combined statistical area with another metropolitan area/NECTA. There is a map included on this very article to show you which metros comined for an CSA; the criteria for what constitutes a CSA are also explained. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Springfield Massachusetts metropolitan area is not on list (population 699,162) 

message: Missing.  What a list! Izcool21 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tampa Bay 

message: The Tampa Bay area has been left off this list even though Wikipedia's entry on Tampa lists it as the 18th largest combined statistical area in the U.S.!  "The Tampa Bay area is a major metropolitan area surrounding Tampa Bay on the Gulf Coast of Florida in the United States. It includes the main cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Clearwater. It is the 18th-largest metropolitan area in the United States, with a population of 3,175,275 as of the 2020 U.S. Census."  This should definitely be corrected!! Radphilosophe1 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a map on the article showing the CSAs. Tampa does not combined with any other MSA or micropolitan statistical area to former a CSA. Before you all keep coming saying an area is "missing" from the chart, please read the article and/or look at the map. No area is "missing" fromt his list. Criticalthinker (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tampa Bay area has been left off this list 

message: The list seems to have the incorrect population for the Columbia MO CSA. Namely, Jefferson City MO is a MSA specifically not in a CSA whereas the chart seems to have combined the Jeff City MSA and Columbia MO MSA populations together. Millbrooky (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, found the 2023 delineation files that show the changes to the CSA which now includes Jefferson City. Millbrooky (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia MO CSA