lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:TOG1

message: I could of sworn that a sign in the Bovington Tank Museum said it stood for 'The Old Gong'... But eh, whatever. 81.129.160.105 (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that this particular connective detail is worth mentioning in this article. This appearance of a TOG1 tank in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (assuming that we can, in fact, verify that the tank in the film was a TOG1) may be noteworthy in the context of the article about the film (most likely, in the Production section) but it is not in the context of this article. See Wikipedia:Relevance of content#Interactions between subjects. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure it was a masqueraded bulldozer. - 91.10.62.135 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: TOG

message: In that film a tank that looks very similar to the TOG 1 (EG WWI British design + Matilda II turret) makes an appearance partway towards the end of the film. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the main article. Graham1973 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that this particular connective detail is worth mentioning in this article. This appearance of a TOG1 tank in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (assuming that we can, in fact, verify that the tank in the film was a TOG1) may be noteworthy in the context of the article about the film (most likely, in the Production section) but it is not in the context of this article. See Wikipedia:Relevance of content#Interactions between subjects. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure it was a masqueraded bulldozer. - 91.10.62.135 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearance in Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade

message: "Main armament would be a field gun mounted in the front – effective against 7-foot (2.1 m) thick reinforced concrete "
What kind of field gun is effective against seven foot thick reinforced concrete? That's like 15" battleship gun penetration, isn't it? I mean a 75mm will maybe chip through it eventually, but a low velocity howitzer firing SAPHE or whatever? I would assume they would be shooting at openings and weak spots, not actually trying to shoot through the concrete. They would want the gun to be effective against fortifications that also featured seven foot thick walls, but not by just shooting straight though the walls. Unless I am totally underestimating the penetrative capacity of a normally sized artillery piece.  Idumea47b (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven foot thick?
Talk:Excelsior tank

message: Reading through the article I think we may be mixing tanks up.  As I understand it, Heavy Cromwell was the meteor/cromwell based alternative to Churchill in the infantry tank role.  Excelsior was an Assault tank.  Assault tanks were made for a completely different role (assaulting heavily emplaced enemies, rather than supporting the infantry).  I get how they built on experiences of engineering the previous projects, but the majority of the article seems to be about tanks other than the Excelsior.  This is then getting mixed up with Excelsior being considered heavy or infantry tank in edits.  Lkchild (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill alternative and early development from Cromwell
Talk:M8 Greyhound

message: The M8 greyhound has been seen in a few sporting events in the U.S., Europe, and South America as additional riot security and as half time floats for local collage games. Here are a few links...
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3ujH5FS9xA&feature=related
-http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/05Ge1tf3tcgd1/610x.jpg
Not sure weather this should be mentioned, but I find it interesting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.33.16 (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Use

message: Did any country tried to modify this vehicle, with better weapon, such as a 5 cm PaK 38 , a better motor,better armour,etc.?Agre22 (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Modifications

message: It's obviously based on the M8 Greyhound. It's just too similar to pass off as a coincidence. --Arima (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halo Wars: UNSC Cougar 
Talk:Valiant tank

message: We really need a ref to this, if anyone is near the IWM (or Bovington?) archives. 3 pages long, and supposedly quite a funny read for just how bad it was. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chertsey report ref 

message: Judging by the reputation this tank has for being a "terrible design" and a unbelievable folly, there must have been more wrong with it than that the driving position was difficult and the controls dangerous to operate (curious why and how that should be as well); there is no way that some problems with the controls would rate someone saying "I hope they have all day to find its flaws (because they'll need all day)" (to paraphrase). Simple ergonomic flaws with the controls could have been remedied with relative ease, so either there were a lot of things wrong with it that this article has just neglected to mention, or it wasn't a hopeless design, but they didn't bother to improve it because it was surplus to requirements at that time, and it has since picked up an undeserved reputation as an "utter failure" and completely flawed beyond redemption...which seems to be the idea most people have. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the rest? 

message: Recently a lot of new information has been shared regarding the Valiant, from Ed Francis and the Tanks Encyclopedia team. Things like the Valiant not being based on the Valentine, but the Vickers Vanguard, which Fletcher completely missed in his early research. A lot of things have also been corrected, like some of the issues being overblown or completely made up. You can find Ed Francis's video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-x829Hj7qs and the TE article here: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/A38-valiant.php and of course you can talk to them on their discords for further information. LeCharCanon 11:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tanks-Encylopaedia has more detail on the issues with the design as tested but it was obviously still an ergonomic nightmare in that respect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

text: A conversation on discord would fail WP:RS as unverifiable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: They could provide sources for citation. Even if it was still an "obvious ergonomic nightmare" there are still things obviously outdated with the article that could be fixed. LeCharCanon 12:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As Wikipedia:Verifiability says "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If you don't feel like editing yourself, feel free to add the Tanks Encyclo link, and Armoured Archives youtube vid to the external links and someone will pick up on it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: alright LeCharCanon 18:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated info on development & other
Talk:Alvis Stalwart

message: Here's why the Stalwart had no side entry doors, only roof hatches:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roof hatches 

message: To my knowledge, this vehicle was never in Canadian service. Cdnguy68 (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Service 

message: Just the front axle? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The middle wheels steered at 50% of the front wheels, controlled by a 2 to 1 beam between the two. Page 96 of army manual V642-2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ySwkVfgTN4PdahmRWJnIpr8WhPXhBfyT/view?usp=sharing Darzet boy (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steering 

message: My dad was in the Royal Engineers and has told me about Saracen drivers bashing up and down kerbs to let the tension out. 90.250.1.152 (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Unwinding' the transmission 

message: If anyone wants evidence to the facts that I include on this page, please add Citation required in the relevant locations within the text - and I'll provide it.
I have a website page full of MOD files and manuals for the Stalwart, and I have letters from Alvis etc to give further evidence - which will answer any and every query that you have.
There is no point in Wikipedia if it's full of false information because Wiki keyboard warriors keep deleting fact instead of bothering to ask for the relevant evidence.
If Wiki was that good, then why is there no way to add images here to provide evidence ? Darzet boy (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is up to you to provide the sources, not up to others to ask for them. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  They were provided, but you started deleting sources like Commercial Motor and the MEXE report. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence. 
Talk:Jiufen

message: was City of Sadness really a big hit in Taiwan??
I doubt it.......it was on general release perhaps but i'd like to see some box office figures to back up the big hit claim.
also can we change the title to Jiufen..........Jioufen is a lesser used spelling
:I've seen the town named Jioufen, Chiufen, and Jiufen...and all three are equally used (depending on where you are). Since the locals are just as inconsistent in naming themselves in English (or just don't), I don't feel so complied to move it. So let's just stick with whatever's on originally, please? Also, the film might not be a big hit, but it was memorable enough to make people flock to Jiufen...Chiufen...Jioufen......*explodes* _dk 11:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I recently visited Jiufen and was struck by its many distinctive cultural features. I would like to add my own blogger articles as references to the Wikipedia article on Jiufen, not to promote my own work, but to offer visitors a different perspective on Jiufen.
https://travel4apurpose.blogspot.com/2023/09/jiufen-teahouse-unique-teahouse-with.html
https://travel4apurpose.blogspot.com/2023/09/a-mei-tea-house-stunning-views-and.html
https://travel4apurpose.blogspot.com/2023/09/jiufen-old-street-must-visit-for.html
I'd love to hear your thoughts. Stanley Guan (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supplemented the article with references that provide more information about Jiufen's distinctive cultural features
Talk:FV180 Combat Engineer Tractor

message: Currently the British Army has the Trojan and the FV180 and the Terrier is being developed to replace the FV180.
However none of these pages link to each other and there is no comment on the relative uses of these vehicles.
Would that be useful to have?
FerdinandFrog (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between combat engineering vehicles
Talk:Mark VIII tank

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.   With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class is not higher.   --dashiellx (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: This article quite confusedly jumps between imperial and metric measurements, sometimes using both within the same sentence.  This obviously makes measurement comparisons very difficult.  I would recommend converting all measurements to one format, preferably metric.
Wcp07 (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Metric/imperial measurements

message: I understand some have problems with mentioning that the Mark VIII inspired the tank in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Indeed this is part of a larger uneasiness with such "trivia" information, especially when referring to the way elements from real history are represented in works of fiction, such as novels or movies. Such trivia seem to have nothing to do with the subject per se and to be merely about some irrelevant reworking of real material into, well, "junk".
However, there are good reasons to consider such junk valid content of a Wikipedia article. The reproduction of history in other realms of life is a very interesting cultural phenomenon per se — indeed it is a science in its own right. Therefore such information is by nature encyclopedic. Furthermore most readers are better acquainted with e.g. a movie than with the "real thing". Sadly, they are probably even more interested in the movie aspect. A deplorable fact perhaps, but it means we have the duty to provide the information they desire. Their interest is proven by the fact that in the past several contributors have added this information — but sadly in an incorrect form. So I created a single sentence with the real facts. Removing it will only cause errors to pop up again, here or elsewhere on Wikipedia!--MWAK (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we even confident that this was meant to be a mark VIII and not just some "generic early tank"? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt it was meant to be a MK VIII at all - your guess is probably correct that the moviemakers just wanted a tank that appeared to be correct for the 1930s. (I commend then for that - the easy route would have been to borrow an M47 or something!) However, I agree it needs to be in the article. If its any consolation, I've seen the same type of content in print articles about the MK VIII. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Information about Indiana Jones movie

message: * http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=175157 Brian in denver (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  surviving examples
Talk:Mk VI light tank

message: I'm aware of surviving tanks at IMW duxford and bovington. Anywhere else?©Geni (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Survivors
Talk:PZA Loara

message: tonnes?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.192.186 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: Hi!
Today I looked the page PZA Loara, there was written 3 operators: PL, India, .....
And somebody have edited - deleted 3rd operator. Why? Was it uncorrect information?  (geniu (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operators edited? 

message: There's no way that thing is only 2.19m tall. Judging by the man standing next to it, it's at least 3m with the radar folded (assuming it can) and around ~4.5m to the top of the radar.
The height statistic is almost certainly taken from the PT-91 height.
24.5.93.153 (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height?
Talk:Steam tank

message: the article should write that it was manufactured by the Stanley motor carriage company (SMCC) that show the constructor name and not only write the "Expertise was called in from...."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.100.62 (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  a notice 

message: A 500hp steam engine is, like, really powerful. A lot of early steamships didn't have engines that powerful. Usually steam engines are low hp, very high torque. While it is possible to make a high speed, 500hp steam engine, it would be unusual for the era, and it would give the machine a better power to weight ratio than most WWII tanks, easily giving it a top speed of 35mph or so. Are we sure it's not 500hp COMBINED? Even that is hard to believe, but easier than a 1,000hp tank in WWI.
Idumea47b (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  500hp?
Talk:K-Wagen

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: At the bottom, it actually uses that word. Uh... I don't know whether to laugh or cry... 96.55.192.119 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gigantomainia? Seriously?

message: Much of this information differs from my understanding of the subject. A particular cause for concern is that the reference work quoted, German Panzers 1914-18, Osprey Publishing, 2006, is by Steve Zaloga, not Eric Bass. Eric Bass didn't write the book; he wrote a review of the book, here: http://www.armorama.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=2013 A rather fundamental error such as that does not inspire confidence. Hengistmate (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grave Misgivings About This.
Talk:Kanonenjagdpanzer

message: Is "outphased" a real word?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The tank museum says they were a modified design:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLWQwKNVjEw&t=282s
©Geni (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Were the guns actually taken from M47s?

message: Different sources refer to it as different things: KanJPz, KaJaPz, or JPz 4-5. Should all of these be named and if not, which one should? DynCoder (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  correct abbreviation
Talk:Jaguar 2

message: In English wikipedia the name is Jaguar 2 but in German wikipedia it is Jaguar 1. Which one is correct? --Kyng (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: that´s not a marder chassis but  of the Hispano-Suiza HS-30.
believe me, i worked with both the marder and the jaguar.
212.23.103.111 (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  chassis 
Talk:BRDM-1

message: The FUG was an original hungarian design (Rába chassis, Csepel engine & suspension), not a copy (AND the layout similar to brdm-2 not to brdm-1! EG rear engine) source: Varga A. József ; Bárdos András [et al.] 2008. Magyar autógyárak katonai járművei. – Budapest, Maróti Könyvkereskedés és Könyvkiadó Kft, 493 p.  
GaborV  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.114.153.173 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FUG 

message: I have added a tag asking for editing to improve style/tone.  The article is pretty much breathless, with too many run-on sentences and a style that makes it a bit hard to read.  I would go about a rewrite, but I simply don't know enough about the article topic to proceed.
Dpenn89 (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone Tag

message: I don't understand how in the list of operators it is said, that SSSR operated 10 000 units of BRDM-1. I belive that 10 000 units were produced total, can author possibly correct this number or explain it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just The Chuck (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number used by SSSR
Talk:Fox armoured reconnaissance vehicle

message: i have seen images from the falklands war of fox amoured cars entering stanley... but i cant find any info about this on the internet. can someone check on that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.195.26 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be confusing the Fox with images of Argentinian Panhard AML's in the Falklands that were shown on television at the time of the initial invasion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.205.98 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Falklands war?

message: :"Malawi - 70/20
:Nigeria - 55/75"
What does that mean? GMRE (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers of vehicles in use

message: Leads to a 404 page on their site.
16:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jane's reference is now dead
Talk:BTR-94

message: While the article claims that BTR-94 was converted from the Russian BTR-80, it has different engines. While BTR-80 has a single 260 hp diesel engine, earlier models (BTR-60 and I think also BTR-70) had the same engine set as BTR-94; two 90 hp gasoline engines. Can someone elaborate on this? Maukku 08:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question; it's very difficult to find info on the BTR-94's engine(s). I'm sure that it's a diesel engine but I doubt that it is the 3TD as quoted by some sources since this engine has an ouput of 500hp. It is mounted on the BTR-4 though. dendirrek (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engines of BTR-94 

message: I updated the article with info about the BAU-23x2 from Marozov's website. dendirrek (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BAU-23 turret
Talk:BTR-50

message: Why were titles changed to Type 77 ? Why was the list of variants removed ? The article is about BTR-50, not about the distantly related chinese Type 77. Bukvoed 10:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Type 77

message: User:Noclador I have asked you to spot vandalizing the article I have added links to the new article Type 77 and Have added Albania as an operator and provide proof yet you keep removing that information that is constant vandalism I urge you to stop and discus your edits and provide proof for your edit like I have. Gon4z 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gon4z has been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for ongoing disruption, creating blatant copyright violations, incivility,, worsening behavior, edit-warring coming right off his 4th block for the same, seeming inability to edit collaboratively, and a general pattern of worsening disruptive behavior. (see here) --noclador 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Noclador]] constant vandalism   

message: Today I updated the list of variants with a brake-up for each country for more clarity. dendirrek 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants
Talk:Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30

message: Recently, the developers of a game called War Thunder announced they would add a variant of this vehicle with an automatic rocket launcher mounted to it called the Raketenautomat. the devs, Gaijin have a history of adding ahistorical vehicles to the game, and i want to edit the page to show it here. The problem is, i don't know if it's real or not. The launcher is, i just don't know if they made it, so i need some help. i tried looking on the internet but all i got was the devblog they announced it in, reddit, and a load of indian movie messageboards. if anyone could find a source that would be great. Redrhuadri (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some help sourcing some info
Talk:T-60 tank

message: Polish People's Army used T-60 for recruit training in Riazań. They were later used in Rembertowo, Chełm and Modliń. They factory numbers were 4671, 4935 , 4964. Source: Magnuski
I think we should add Poland to the "Used by" section. I can write a part about it's usage. Blitzkriegfree (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just those 3 tanks makes it undue weight for the infobox and irrelevant for the article. --Denniss (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. In this case can I add information about the three tanks into the article, and remove Poland from the infobox? Is this a good solution?t Blitzkriegfree (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Poland to the "Used by" section