lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:M45 Quadmount

message: This article appears to be mostly copied from the Robert's Armory website in the External Links section:
http://www.robertsarmory.com/quad.htmERTBen (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

message: tried to patch this back togeather as best i could. Brian in denver (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: patch it up

message: this thing must have been impossible to feed. if the ammo cans only held 200 rounds and the rate of fire on a .50 is 500 rounds a minute. yould have to reload every 30 seconds or so.Brian in denver (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim is obviously wrong. If an 89lb can only held 200 rounds, each round would weigh over 7oz (almost 1/2 lb or over 450g per round, for those keeping score at home)! Granted, a fraction of that would be the weight of the can itself rather than its contents, but this claim clearly doesn't track. Lexington50 (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: World war 2 era 0.50 cal API-T apparently weighed 610 grains (39 grams). Somebody probably misread grain (gr) as gram (g). Hotchkisses25 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: The math

message: At $400 to $605 per 100 rounds... That's $8,000 to $12,100 per minute of firing a M45 if the rate is set to 500 rounds per minute of firing time on each gun. Prices from http://www.aaa-ammo.com/bmg.htm Private owners of the M45 (there are a few) need very deep pockets to play with their toys. "It's only $4 a round." Yeah, only $4.00 2,000 times per minute. $133.33 per second. Bizzybody (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The cost

message: It was in use with the RNoAF (Royal Norwegian Air Force) at least as late as the mid-90's. AA units were of two types, L40 Bofors batteries and NOAH (HAWK) batteries. Each platoon had a nominal strength of 2x L40's OR 3x HAWK launchers PLUS 4x quadmounts. In practice 2 or 3 quadmounts were operational.
91.186.68.96 (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All that is needed is a source.--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: RNoAF
Talk:Special Operations Assault Rifle

message: Nowhere in the Defense Review article linked to did it say the SOAR was used by US SWAT teams or undergoing any US Army testing. All it says is that it's "designed to fill the same role as the SOPMOD M4 CQBR". Unless someone can provide a source proving these claims, the United States should be removed from the list of users. Spartan198 (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use by US SWAT teams and testing by US Army 

message: SOAR SCW is also being fielded to TNI-AD KOSTRAD Raider Infantry Battalion fitted with Trijicon MRO as-per the signed contract by the Indonesian ministry of defense https://twitter.com/robe_718/status/1708654806510997641?t=XkqoT9YST83wRxYagLQVBw&s=19 2001:448A:20B0:9923:F99A:4AB8:3CF2:F285 (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used by Indonesian Army KOSTRAD Raider Infantry Battalion
Talk:Squib load

message: The article could be helped by adding a published example of an explosion of the breech or barrel caused by a squib load. patsw (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Example

message: I figure Brandon Lee's death because of a squib load is notable enough to be included. It was deleted by an anonymous user six years ago with no explanation .Here
Re-adding it would also give an example of a squib load, which as of now is missing.
Any objections? Is there a question if the two part shot is technically a squib load? Hydromania (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brandon Lee
Talk:SV-98

message: As I understand things, the formal Russian for the Sniper Rifle, system of Stronsky, Model of 1998 would be: 
Снайперская Винтовка системы Стронъского образца 1998 года
The Article :ru:СВ-98 does not, however, use the formal data.  Can anyone confirm my estimate?  B. C. Schmerker (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal title of Piece this Article
Talk:Target circle

message: A recent internet search for the term target circle found no definition, although context suggests it has multiple definitions. The most common usage seems to be in a computer gaming context with a meaning similar to the described firearms application. Another common use appears to be the description of an area (usually geographical, although possibly demographic) to be encompassed by a marketing strategy. I question if the definition of present text is accurate enough for a Wikipedia article. It might be more appropriate for a dictionary entry unless confirming sources can be provided. Thewellman (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation
Talk:Grand Prix tennis circuit

message: "From 1970 to 1989, all non-Grand Slam professional men's tournaments were called Grand Prix events" : this assertion in the article is completely wrong. I will change it in the article Carlo Colussi 05:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grand Prix events

message: The Masters (year-end championship) count with points to the Grand Prix? I mean, the first 8 of GP played that event, but I don't know if it give points or not. --Lucio Garcia (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question
Talk:Type 89 machine gun

message: Now that someone has finally gone and created a page for the Japanese NAVY fixed Type 97 aircraft machine gun (Vickers), and people are no longer directed to the page about the Japanese Army Type 97 light machine gun when they are reading about the armament of the (Navy) Mitsubishi A6M Zero, it would be nice to also finally have separate pages for the two different types of Army Type 89 as well. Granted, it does explain both on the one page, but since they saw fit to give the Navy Type 97 (Vickers) it's own page, I don't see why the Army Type 89 (Vickers) shouldn't have its own page as well. Or the two (Type 97 and Type 89) could be combined, as they are both fixed guns and variants of the Vickers? That might actually be ideal, because one could explicitly point out the fact that the Japanese Services did not share weapons, and even when people do things like claiming that the Nakajima Ki-43 used "two Type 97 fixed machine guns", it would link the the correct page anyway; they'd read about the correct gun no matter what the link said. And yes, I just barely saw and fixed that exact mistake on the Ki-43 page. In that case, it would have been wrong even if the Japanese Army used Type 97 fixed guns, since it was still linked to the box-fed infantry Type 97 light-machine gun, which was never used on any Japanese plane, Navy or Army, as either a fixed or flexible weapon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate  pages for the two different Type 89
Template talk:Automobile configuration

message: I created this navigation box because that is what I do.  I am not an automobile expert.  Please add/change/delete as appropriate.--Old Hoss 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 

message: This template partially overlaps with Template:Automobile_layouts. swaq 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap 

message: Looking at 8wd, I'm wondering if this should include 6x4, 6x6, & 8x8 as terms...  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  23:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting a figure 

message: They should be placed together or, at least, closer to each other.
The line containing several unrelated categories should be distributed in other categories:
**All-terrain vehicle - Antique - Classic - Economy - Go-kart - Leisure - Pedal car - Ute - Van - Voiturette
Go-kart should be removed as it is already in the Sports category.
Economy should be placed under or over Luxury and would be another category.
Van and MPV should be placed in the same category.
Besides, some subcategories have been created by combining its category with a size. Too many possibilities. Others have been created by combining the category with a body style. Too many again.
Ute should be relocated in body styles.
All-terrain vehicle, Leisure and Pedal car should be moved to Specialized vehicles.
Antique and Classic could be subcategories of the Status category (or some similar name).
George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-organization
Talk:UKM-2000

message: This part:
The 7.62×54mmR machine gun feed pawl mechanism is radically different than that of 7.62×51mm NATO chambered machine guns based on the MG 42 machine gun feeding method, using a small, simple pivoting arm pushed out to the right side by the bolt carrier, rather than a much larger (and therefore much heavier) articulated feed cam, lever, and pawl assembly.
...is totally ambiguous. Because I know how neither of these weapons work, I don't know what the article is trying to say. Someone who knows (from a source other than the article, I guess) should rewrite this to be clearer. All I can tell from this is that someone thinks one of these two designs is heavier and more complicated than the other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.38.243 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Template talk:CarDesign nav

message: I created this navigation box because that is what I do.  I am not an automobile expert.  Please add/change/delete as appropriate.--Old Hoss 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 

message: "Hood" is in the framework section and the compartments section. Is this repetition intentional?
DineshAdv (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repitition 

message: Added lamp types by function, as these, save headlamps, were almost completely missing from the navbox. -Mardus /talk 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lighting
Template talk:Internal combustion engine

message: I created this navigation box because that is what I do.  I am not an automobile expert.  Please add/change/delete as appropriate.--Old Hoss 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 

message: I think that the template should be renamed “Reciprocating engines”, because little if anything of its contents are automobile-specific and also fit within this boarder category. QrTTf7fH (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The template scope is more general than automobiles
Template talk:Powertrain

message: I created this navigation box because that is what I do.  I am not an automobile expert.  Please add/change/delete as appropriate.--Old Hoss 06:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. I've made such a change. Instead of listing just some of the tire related articles, and inviting the inevitable struggle with which to include and which to exclude, I've replaced them with a link to the single outline of tires article, which is supposed to contain a link to all tire related articles, plus organize and categorize them. This also shortens the template, which might make it easier to navigate. The downside is that it will now take two clicks instead of one to get to some articles. We'll see who complains. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 

message: See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Template:Powertrain. Biscuittin (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade names 

message: Hi all, I know this isn't a very popular template, but I've been dealing with a lot of tire and wheel articles lately. Since they're part of the connection between the engine and the road, I figure they probably go here. Just leaving a note now so the discussion can happen if/when someone has an objection! -Jergling (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tire/Wheel category
Talk:Zastava M80

message: The picture is wrong and does not show a Zastava M-80, but rather some other AK variants which look very different from the actual M-80.
:Yeah, those are definently not M-80s. They appear to be regular AKM derivatives.  
85.181.46.54 (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture 
Talk:Zastava M91

message: A mention of the M91 as being, in almost all respects, a design and usage successor to the very similar Romanian PSL designated marksman rifle would be appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zastava M91 & the PSL 
Talk:Seventy-four (ship)

message: I believe the last surviving seventy-four was HMS Cornwallis built in 1813 and broken up in 1957, But correct me if I’m wrong. Implacable18 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last seventy-four 

message: In short - there weren't any.  Prior to the French Revolution, each of the sea-going provinces of the Seven United Netherlands maintained it's own navy; there was no Royal Netherlands Navy as the Netherlands were not a kingdom.  Following their revolution, the French made the Netherlands a puppet state called the Batavian Republic (whose navy, of course, was the Batavian Navy).  Neither of the United Netherlands or the Batavian Republic had more than a handful of 74-gun ships, since the shallow waters of the Netherlands were better suited by smaller designs of 60-68 guns.  Pretty much the entirety of the Batavian fleet was captured by the British, either at Camperdown or the Vlieter.  Under Napolean, the Dutch were compelled to build a number of 74's for the French navy, some of which were still in Dutch hands at the end of the war, however I'm not aware that any of them were retained following the creation of the Royal Netherlands Navy.
Probably Royal Netherlands Navy in the infobox should be replaced with Batavian Republic Navy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:C7C0:438:1779:F364:7598 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seventy-fours in the Royal Netherlands Navy
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jayvdb

message: A rather large gap in my early contribution history has some caused concern, so here are my    contributions before August 2006, and the very first five actions taken with rough descriptions in brackets are:
* Application service provider, 23:33, 5 September 2004 (rv spam)
* Boston Tea Party, 00:59, 19 November 2004 (rv copyright)
* Objecthood, 01:22, 19 March 2006 (spelling fixes)
* Talk:Elizabeth Hope, 05:04, 19 March 2006 (proposing a split to the article)
* Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser, 06:06, 19 March 2006 (suggesting a minor rephrase; I presume this article was in the main namespace at that time)
As for an explanation, all I can say is that until mid last year I was heavily involved in a commercial software project and did not have the time to spare for pleasure. John Vandenberg 08:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early contributions
Talk:Kabul Zoo

message: I propose merging Pig of Afghanistan here. It falls afowl of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and WP:N due to the udder lack of in-depth coverage. cab (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But I disagree about WP:BLP1E - not a person! PamD (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Khanzir having his own article enables him to be included in the category "Famous pigs" - which he most certainly qualifies for. Plus, he's not famous just for one incident, but for his status. Aridd (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He may remain in the spotlight too as there is talk about his loneliness and need for a female companion.  I predict that within  a few months he will have a friend and be in the news again. Drawn Some (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True, pigs need love too. But his notability will diminish since he would then be one of two pigs.--MarsRover (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Historical notability remains. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal
Talk:Criminal Law Act 1967

message: There is a further apparent effect of s.5(5) that I have not stated yet (to do with the possibilty of circumventing the restrictions created by s.5(1) by charging facts that amount to compounding as a different offence - perverting the course of justice has been suggested by another editor).James500 (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Archbold at 28-8 mentions a case, R. v. Hammersley 42 Cr. App. R. 207, CCA, which says that corruptly receiving a reward to hinder prosecutions may be charged with perverting the course of justice. Richard75 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

text: In that case maybe Hammersley is no longer good law on this point. It may be that Parliament intended that the exception in section 5(1) should apply to all offences, not just the statutory offence in that subsection. The trouble is, saying so will be original research, unless someone else has definitively said it. Richard75 (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note
Talk:List of current Warner Records artists

message: Please list only artists who are actually signed to the label, not people who appear on soundtrack albums as voices and the like! Peace. (MuzikJunky 07:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Artists

message: Please put current and former Reprise Records artists under its entry, please! Likewise for artists who recorded for its subsidiaries! Some Sire artists were through WB, some were through Reprise, etc. Peace. (MuzikJunky 08:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reprise Records

message: Lalaine records for WB subsidiary Reprise. Do not put the name here. It is redundant. Peace. (MuzikJunky 01:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lalaine

message: Ashley Tisdale records exclusively for WB; she only appears on records released through Disney and Hollywood as part of the High School Musical movies’ casts. Peace. (MuzikJunky 02:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ashley Tisdale

message: Although Warner Bros. Records currently handles Nonesuch’s affairs, it is not technically a subsidiary of this label because of its UPC prefix. It is a subsidiary of Elektra Records. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonesuch Records

message: Evaline is not signed to WB records, I removed them.
Greeley Estates and Blessthefall are part of Science Records which is OWNED by WB but is not WB records, should they really be listed there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.110.20 (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaline? Greeley Estates? Blessthefall?

message: Newest addition to the Warner Music family 174.215.145.25 (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fam First DFG
Talk:Ashburton College

message: I'm not sure if the Astronomy Group Observatory section is relevant to this article. Yvanyblog (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   Irrelevant information?
Talk:Indefinite monism

message: :Is this crucial sentence ungrammatical?:
:"Awareness is the venue for consciousness, and the transcendent aspect of Reality, Omnific Awareness, is what consciousness is of."  
:I am stuck at "is what consciousness is of".
:Awareness is the "venue" (ground?) for consciousness, but awareness and Omnific Awareness, and Omnific Awareness and consciousness, have what relations to each other?
:Please will someone rewrite this, while retaining the correct meaning? I am very interested to know what that might be.  Thank you in advance, kind philosopher and/or Indefinite Monist.Vendrov (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Awareness is the venue for consciousness || (2) ..and the transcendent aspect of Reality, Omnific Awareness, is what consciousness is ("made") of. (Or, "composed of", or, whatever you like: Omnific Awareness here, obviously, is meant to be (~to equate to) consciousness. At least, this is my understanding and personally I couldn't even call the notion abstruse; surely not more abstruse then many of the competing "ideas". Although I can't quite help the vague feeling that, eventually, this really is nothing else but a fashionably redesigned version of idealism (the article's denial notwithstanding) -- redesigned, of course, only as concerns those new (?), 'special' terms applied to it. "Omnific Awareness".. well, simply replace it by.. say, the good old ABSOLUTE, or the WILL, or 'Global/Universal/Cosmic Consciousness', or Brahman, The World Soul, or, you name it. What would it change? I've got no problem with the concept at all, I can't just see the difference to anything else, or what's supposed to be new or special about it, or why it would not be an idealistic approach -- as to my understanding it clearly is. All the same, I somehow like it, it's fresh, and the article is fine as it is. Zero Thrust (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It all depends on what the meaning of "is of" is...
Talk:Airburst round

message: This article fails to mention the use of air-burst rounds against aircraft & missiles in the last 100+ years. While it was originally designed for use against troops & animals, the advent of aircraft from WW1 onwards has seen vast quantities used against air targets. Most Naval artilary use of air-burst has been & continues to be against air targets.144.139.103.173 (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Aircraft Round
Talk:Hero and Heroine

message: I have undone the edits by Martinevans123 but I understand the confusion when the infobox album chronology shows All Our Own Work as the previous album whereas the body of the article refers to Bursting at the Seams as the previous album. All Our Own Work was a release of 1967 recordings done by a different line-up of the band. I'm not sure if I've made a very good job of explaining this - perhaps someone could help? Thanks Witchwooder (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for my misunderstanding and thanks for reverting. I would suggest: “After the tour supporting the previous album by this line-up, Bursting at the Seams, there was an acrimonious split..” unless you think this too clumsy? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous album 
Talk:Cardinal McKeefry Catholic Primary School

message: The school can't have integrated into the state system in 1975, since the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975 didn't come into force until 16 August 1976. There is a source in the state-integrated school article that says it integrated in August 1979. Can we please verify and correct? Lcmortensen (mailbox) 03:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Integration date
Talk:Rhyu Si-min

message: I bet it will take...roughly 2 weeks to complete the basic structure of this page. Any help will be granted deeply. Sincerely yours, Peterhansen2032 07:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Filling this article
Talk:Julio Sánchez Cristo

message: Is not right to provide information about the dials where the person can be heard?
User:Camilo Sanchez  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilo Sanchez (talk • contribs) 21:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About Deleted Part
Talk:Bhushan Lal Karihaloo

message: What's "FIEAus MASME FASCE"?  I don't recognize these degrees or whatever they are. RJFJR (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Replacement banknote

message: Mention if e.g., the 2004 edition of the Commons:Category:Taiwan $1000 banknote 1999 edition also represents a . Jidanni (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not including new editions? 

message: In our common parlance, we nicknamed the US ones "Star Bucks" long before Battlestar Galactica came out. However, I cannot find any citations about that term as common usage. Group29 (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, in 45 years of collecting, I don't think I've ever heard them called that.Almostfm (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  US terminology 