lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Knights of Saint Columbanus

message: The correct name for this article should be Knights of Saint Columbanus, even though the orgaisation styles itself The Order of the Knights of Saint Columbanus. Excluding "The Order of the ..." is line line with the naming conventions used for similar organisations (see :Category:International Alliance of Catholic Knights. Furthermore, this particular organsation is most commonly known simply as the Knights of Columbanus.--Damac 21:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 
Talk:Air Defence of Great Britain

message: Is that 1925 date correct? Denis Winter's First of the Few (I think...) suggested the Zep raids prodded HMG to call back several squadrons in 1916-7, & form ADGB. I don't recall if it was officially designated as such, but that was the idea.  Trekphiler 14:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The silly chap who wrote that bit (i.e. me) was having an excessively pedantic day. The article as is only deals with the RAF Command called ADGB. It can, and probably will, be expanded to cover the general "Air Defence of Great Britain" topic, starting with pre-WW1 scaremongering about Zeppelins, and ending just about now. I have books that would let me write an article covering Zeppelin to the end of WWII, and I imagine there's enough material on the MoD website to do the rest. Possible GA/FA material!  Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  that 1925 date 

message: So, thinking furiously, probably this should be moved to RAF Air Defence of Great Britain, and new article be written here. I'll wait until I've written one before moving it. That could take some time. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: "Defence" is not a word. Someone please fix that major spelling error. Eeek.
-- unsigned by 69.229.122.212 at 08:03, 15 March 2007.
: Of course it's a word -- in British English. Anyhow, it's a proper name; that's how the RAF spelled it. Airminded 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 
Talk:Air Experience Flight

message: I am struggling how to make the list look good and how to add an underline? Can anyone help me please. (My first proper edit) --Vulcan110 18:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

message: I have suggested that the various different articles for the various Air Experience Flights are merged as they all pretty much duplicated.
This concerns:
=== Current AEFs ===
*No. 1 Air Experience Flight RAF - RAF St Athan
*No. 6 Air Experience Flight RAF - RAF Benson
*No. 10 Air Experience Flight RAF - RAF Woodvale
*No. 12 Air Experience Flight RAF - RAF Leuchars
Pandaplodder (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it could be argued that the AEFs all have quite similar histories, though the No. 1 Air Experience Flight RAF article, at least, seems to contain a lot of unit-specific content. I would support moving any generic content in AEF articles not specific to the unit into Air Experience Flight to avoid duplication, but leaving the individual AEF articles in place for unit-specific details and history. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: *No. 1 Air Experience Flight RAF - RAF St Athan
*No. 6 Air Experience Flight RAF - RAF Benson
*No. 10 Air Experience Flight RAF - RAF Woodvale
*No. 12 Air Experience Flight RAF - RAF Leuchars
Pandaplodder (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it could be argued that the AEFs all have quite similar histories, though the No. 1 Air Experience Flight RAF article, at least, seems to contain a lot of unit-specific content. I would support moving any generic content in AEF articles not specific to the unit into Air Experience Flight to avoid duplication, but leaving the individual AEF articles in place for unit-specific details and history. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current AEFs 

message: I have removed the very detailed and well-researched accident descriptions, since singular events - unless they lead to historical changes of this programme - hardly characterize these introductory flights.  Thousands of such flights have taken place without even minor incidents.  Listing such things would not be appropriate for an encyclopedic article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidswelt (talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Accidents
Talk:RAF Ascension Island

message: What is the origin of the "Wideawake" nickname? Mmartins (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wideawake

message: I followed the link here from the Ascension Island article, to find what seems to be only a subset of the text of that article.
Unless someone has plans to add to this page (what about the "strange hump" mentioned in the other article?), I'd suggest that it be simply deleted and replaced by a link to the main article.
I'm not sure how this would affect all those Wikiprojects, though...
--Nyelvmark (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest merger/expansion
Talk:Dikirion and trikirion

message: Should we include the Paschal Trikirion here, or under the Paschal Candle article? InfernoXV 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the bishop's candlesticks. I don't know whether the Paschal Trikiri is related. The priest doesn't bless with it crosswise that I've ever seen; he's generally holding it in his left hand. Paschal Candle doesn't really fit well either, as this is a rite specific to Western Christianity with its own peculiar symbolism and uses. If we had sources for the development of its use and so forth it might be worth its own article, IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest having a link to it from an Easter/Paschal page. However i would also like to suggest that this article needs a photograph. Has anyone got any photographs of an Eastern Orthodox/Eastern Catholic Priest holding these and using them? Because that would make this article considerably better. IMO. Anyway, generally speaking the article is good! :-D --Ithillion (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paschal Trikirion? 
Talk:Linesman/Mediator

message: The statement "LATCC used the Linesman data in their Marconi Myriad computers to handle all air traffic control in the London area" is, I would suggest, not correct. I was a civil technician on the Myriad at LATCC from 1974 until the end of 1978. During that time, it never handled any radar traffic (although it was originally designed to do that) being used instead as a touchwire update system for LJAO (LATCC Mil) in the MAS control room and, I think, the Special Tasks Cell. It was known as the FPPS (Flight Plan Processing System) using a triplex three 'prong' scheme. CTL Mod 1s and PDP machines were used for civil radar processing with the Ferranti Hermes doing the flight strips for civil. Eventually, during the painful introduction of the IBM 9020D and its bypass system, FPPS was also linked to the 9020D to front end the 9020D for update purposes using the previously installed (but never used until that time) Myriad peripheral cables in the CAS control room and so it ended up doing two jobs - not bad for, if I recall correctly, 64k of core memory!! Myraid saved 9020D's bacon. 
After I left LATCC at the end of 1978, 9020D became operational - eventually - although I believe Myriad was retained for use by the military for some years. 
LATCC R.I.P. Longfinal (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

message: This is a good start for a complex and in places still classified topic. However as written it has serious ommissions and inaccurate information. For example the Linesman element was certainly not scrapped in its entirity in 1984. The L1 went but the rest of the sites carried on until 1988-1989. I was an RAF TG12 operator up from 1983 to 1989 and was very familiar with the T84-T85-HF 200 in service at that time and the 'modern' (hand made) prototype T90 Martello. 
I would suggest a radical re-write in consultation with 'radarpages.co.uk' and the addtion of some references / citations in the text. Cmpltd (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The documents about the Software Engineering (SSJ 000001, Software Standard) and Software Architecture (SDA 000000, The RDPS Software System, Edition 5) have now been declassified.  Some parts of them have been scanned and are on the Internet. Proficp (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of text. 

message: The article on Linesman/Mediator contains much that is about its precursors, which should be made into a separate article. Proficp (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of UK Air Defence
Talk:Magnum Research

message: There is no mention of the Lone Eagle single-shot pistol anywhere on Wikipedia. This should be rectified. -NordsternMN 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lone Eagle

message: Wasn't the Mountain Eagle a .22LR pistol that looked like a Desert Eagle? 66.24.34.51 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain Eagle 

message: The article states that IMI/IWI is strictly a contractor and all intellectual property is owned by Magnum Research, citing a reference book.  However, the article on the Desert Eagle itself cites an issued US patent (4,619,184) that was originally filed in November, 1983 by Ilan Shalev of Givataim, Israel and is clearly assigned to IMI.  How should this be resolved? 96.35.174.133 (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellectual property 
Talk:Long Marston Airfield

message: I am currently thinking about merging this article with  Shakespeare County Raceway as the raceway article is a stub and at the moment i cannot see the topic needing it's own article.
 
I will keep the raceway article as a re-direct to the Raceway section of Long Marston Airfield so if the raceway does require it's own article it will be easy to move back.
 
Any thoughts?
Gavbadger (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed mind not going to happen anymore.Gavbadger (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merge with Shakespeare County Raceway 

message: Within this week i will be moving the RAF section to it's own dedicated article (which is currently a redirect)
Gavbadger (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move of RAF Long Marston to RAF Long Marston article
Talk:No. 1 Group RAF

message: According to the RAF website the transport choppers (Chinook, Merlin and Puma) are part of 1 Group.  (SAR choppers are correctly given under 2 Group.) That website can get out of date, and I don't really know so I'm reluctant to fix this article myself.  I hope somebody sorts it out. Macguba (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing helicopters

message: This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image :File:1 Group badge.jpg, found on :No. 1 Group RAF, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator.  STBotI (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An image on this page may be deleted

message: why don't those insisting on HMS Ajax updated the "Subordinate stations" section?Phd8511 (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subordinate stations is outdated 
Talk:No. 14 Squadron RAF

message: It is claimed the Seventh Ottoman Army was disintegrating in November 1917 during the Battle of Nablus, but these two things occurred in September 1918. In November 1917, just after the victory at the Battle of Beersheba (1917) the Battle of Mughar Ridge was won and the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) was in progress. --Rskp (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: rewritten to clarify: The squadron received new aircraft in Nov 1917, the actions took place subsequently. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 1917 dubious tag
Talk:Feudal (game)

message: I remember that the board came in 4 pieces, but does anyone remember the number of spaces per board?
I think there were 12 spaces per side for a total of 144 per board and 576 for the assembled board but someone should confirm that before adding it to the article.
brill (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm that there are four panels, each of which are 12 x 12 squares, but this is WP:OR.  Is there a published source that discusses such details? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 03:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Board layout 

message: Would LOVE a picture of the pieces and board....--Knulclunk (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos? 
Talk:French Battalion

message: Added information regarding the Battalion de Coree's participation in GM 100 and the battle for Mang Yang pass in 1954 to the end of the article.  Thanks! Botswanafury (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 
Talk:No. 16 Squadron RAF

message: This article has me a bit confused, but perhaps someone can explain, and perhaps modify the article so that the meaning is more apparent.  The article states the squadron was disbanded in 1919, but reformed at "Old Sarum" in 1924.  The only "Old Sarum" I know is an archaeological site.  Why was an RAF squadron reformed at an iron age hillfort?  Eastcote (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is actually a grass aerodrome at Old Sarum, used by the Royal Flying Corps during WW1.  There is still an interesting museum nearby.  Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Sarum?
Talk:No. 2 Group RAF

message: This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image :File:2 Group badge.jpg, found on :No. 2 Group RAF, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator.  STBotI (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An image on this page may be deleted
Talk:Duncan Forbes of Culloden (politician, born 1644)

message: Is there a reliable source for his stint as provost? He doesn't seem to appear on the list published by Am Baile.
45ossington (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have edited accordingly.45ossington (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Provosts of Inverness|Provost of Inverness]]?

message: Something is very much amiss here. According to the article, he seems to have held a couple political offices after his death. Maybe there is some confusion here with his son?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.164.82 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Served after he was dead?
Talk:Fibered knot

message: This sounds like a knot is fibered if it is the binding of an open book decomposition of the 3-sphere. Is that right, or does the fibered condition require trivial monodromy? Orthografer 21:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer: a knot is fibered if and only if it is the binding of some open book decomposition of S^3, with no monodromy restrictions. Orthografer 20:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monodromy?

message: What is an example on a knot that isn't fibered? I think that should be mentioned in the article (as well as the answer above).--agr (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is known that the Alexander polynomial of a knot is monic if the knot is fibered. By monic, I mean that the coefficients of the highest and lowest powers of t are plus or minus 1. Examples of knots with nonmonic Alexander polynomials abound - the twist knots have Alexander polynomials qt−(2q+1)+qt−1, where q is the number of half-twists. See this paper if you'd like a reference. Orthografer (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-fibered knot?

message: The Introduction presents a definition of fibred knot that is completely inadequate, because it's easy to think of situations satisfying the definition that are most definitely not what "fibred knot" means.50.205.142.50 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadequate definition
Talk:Durga Prasad Dhar

message: India defense review   https://books.google.com/books?id=BVl0ABkB2f4C&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=durga+prasad+dhar+pandit&source=bl&ots=6lutkhx9cT&sig=t_xseYF1-zAi-5Au3PzWyDVk1JM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikyfmPut3NAhUI94MKHTPdDG4Q6AEIUTAK#v=onepage&q=durga%20prasad%20dhar%20pandit&f=false
On page 97, IDR refers to D.P. Dhar as a pandit...  Is this sufficient to cite that in his biography?
--Patbahn (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  DP Dhar Pandit
Talk:PlanetBoredom

message: Why was this article deleted? PlanetBoredom 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the article you wrote earlier? It's at Planetboredom (small b). Upper and lower case are distinguished in Wikipedia (apart from the first letter, which always becomes a capital) — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk:No. 3 Group RAF

message: This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image :File:3 Group badge.jpg, found on :No. 3 Group RAF, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator.  STBotI (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An image on this page may be deleted
Talk:E. Ahamed

message: What does the E stand for in E Ahammed? I have never seen any news channel refer to him as anything other then E Ahammed, and was hoping that the wikipedia article could clarify this.--Shahab (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Full name

message: The Hostage Crisis and the Haj Quota sections need to be more neutral and a major part of the article needs to be verified by reliable sources. Bharatiya29 16:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and unverified claims
Talk:No. 39 Squadron RAF

message: The 39th SQN is listed as having used Martin marauders, but they weren't in the article? Anyone got a listing of the planes they used?--194.100.2.66 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Marauders in WW2? 

message: Is it known when 39 Squadron reformed as a RPAS squadron? I've seen January 2007 mentioned such as on the RAF website, this Flight Global article says March 2007, this gov.uk article simply says 2007 while a USAF news release says 39 Sqn reformed on 23 January 2008? 
I'm personally leaning towards the 2008 date myself due to showing the reformation ceremony, but I wonder if anyone else can shed some light on this? Could it be the squadron were carrying out operations in 2007 but didn't officially reform until 2008? F4JPhantomII (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPAS reformation date
Talk:417 Combat Support Squadron

message: I have created a userbox for people who have served with this unit. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 417 Squadron Userbox

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:No. 400 Squadron RCAF which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 18:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Earl Williams (politician)

message: There's enough useful info about Earl there that I'm removing the stub template. --Steve Foerster (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:No. 45 Squadron RAF

message: Is this the same squadron, or at least part of it, which has based itself at RAF Kai Tak in Hong Kong from 1965 to 1970? I can see no mention of it here.Wilfred Pau 02:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Frustratingly, the Malayan Emergency section makes no mention of the Squadron being based at RAF Butterworth and the previous reference to the squadron flying Venoms has been removed.  I supplied the photograph of 45 Squadron at Butterworth from my late father's log books.  Would the obituary of the commanding officer at that time provide the required evidence?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11415839/Air-Commodore-Geoffrey-Cooper-obituary.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs) 20:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - Many thanks for the very helpful obituary for Air Commodore Geoffrey Cooper. It certainly would, in my view, provide the necessary verification and I have included it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: RAF Butterworth
Talk:No. 47 Squadron RAF

message: Much of this article seems to be a straight lift (copy and paste)from the RAF page quoted as a reference, is this OK or would a summary and a link to the RAF page be better?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppeetteerr (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As the RAF Page isn't public domain, a copy (whether acknowledged or not), which is what much of the article is (i.e the paragraphs 2nd formation and 3rd formation) is not acceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism or permitted copying?
Talk:Ako Adjei

message: There are no less than four institutions called Lincoln University and it's also a potential alternative name for the University of Lincoln. Which was he at? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs) 11:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was at Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)--Natsubee (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Lincoln University?
Talk:No. 5 Group RAF

message: This britsh area bombing directive nr. 42 lead to a systimatical attacking of the geman civil populatiuon. the british attacks were concentrated on workingclass quarters and midivael citycenters. The goal was pure terror against civilians. The amount of civilian loses were enormous. In Hamburg (55.000 dead, in Dresden betwenn 25.000 and 35.000 dead, in Pforzheim 20.277 dead ,31,4 % of all inhabitants, in Darmstadt 12.500 dead, 66.000 homeless out of former 110.000 inhabitants, Kassel 10.000 dead, Heilbronn 6500 dead, Würzburg 8500 dead etc. Churcill, Harris, Lindmann and many other bristish politicians and military personell was not sentenced for his warcrimes after the war.--Kastorius 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SYSTEMATICAL ATTACK ON CIVILIANS

message: Text and references copied from No. 5 Group RAF  to Alec Sutherland,  See former article's history for a list of contributors.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution
Talk:No. 5 Squadron RAF

message: King George V  might have been confused about the squadron number, but surely Wikipedia doesn’t have to be. At least, Wikipedia doesn’t have to apply NPOV by using both in almost every paragraph! I presume it began as No. 5, so it should remain such unless there was a formal change.
Is the official name of the squadron know? Did it ever change? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The RAF Museum refers to it as No. 5 Squadron (see here) and the MoD refers to it as V (AC) Squadron (see here) so the situation is confused but I agree it should be standardised across the article. Dormskirk (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Confusion arises because some squadrons, No. 5 included, have a Roman numeral on the badge. Ashworth lists the squadron as No. 5, whereas he list 15 jointly as No. 15/XV Squadron. The joy of all things (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. 5 or No. V?