lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Nerve injury

message: http://www.chiro.org/rc_schafer/Monograph_26.shtml
(Scroll or click the link to "Seddon's General Classification of Nerve Injury")
166.84.144.29 22:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portions of this article seem to be quoted almost exactly from this source 

message: When I initially found this article, I thought the three types of damage were listed in order from either least to most or most to least severe.  Instead, they seem to be randomly chosen.  Might it work better if there was an order of some sort? or is there an order that I'm missing? Akatari (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Order?

message: I'm a medical student, and I've noticed that under "Axonotmesis" there is a contradiction. In the first paragraph, it states "This is a more severe nerve injury with disruption of the neuronal axon, but with maintenance of the myelin sheath." and in the beginning of the third paragraph, "Axonotmesis involves loss of the relative continuity of the axon and its covering of myelin...".
I am no expert, hence I can't verify which is correct. Somebody please rectify this problem.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.173.72.252 (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in article 

message: I'm not a med student, so I have no idea what this article says. There's nothing in here about the practical effects of nerve damage and very little about what can cause it. (Maybe I'm wrong and that information is just very well hidden?) Is there any way to make this article more accessible to the lay reader?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.7.53.202 (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Readability and Missing information 

message: This article as it is currently written covers the same topic as Peripheral nerve injury (and also a lot of overlap with the Seddon's classification article). "Nerve" to me is by definition peripheral, so I think there is a good case for merging the two. --Gccwang (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Peripheral nerve injury]] 

message: Injury and damage are synonyms.
Neuropathy and nerve injury should therefore dealt within the very same article. Lopkiol (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with neuropathy
Talk:Barbel-class submarine

message: Why are there two "General characteristics" sections with slightly different numbers? Can we eliminate one, or at least use the same numbers in both? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  General characteristics 

message: I think the Dutch Zwaardvis and Taiwanese Hai Lung classes should be removed from the Barbel-class template, with a separate template made for the Zwaardvis class, including the Hai Lungs, especially as they were all built in the Netherlands. A similar appearance and general arrangement does not amount to "the same" class. There is no indication from the articles that assistance of any kind was received from the United States in developing these submarines. Also, the Barbel-class' beam is 0.4 meters more than in the Dutch-built classes. RobDuch (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zwaardvis and Hai Lung classes not close enough
Talk:United States Barracuda-class submarine (1951)

message: Sorry but the information that all US subs built since the Barracudas had angled torpedo tubes is incorect.  The Nautalus, the Seawolf (first nuclear one, not the current SSN22) the Seadragon, the S girls (Sipjack, Scamp, Sculpin and Skate) and the B girls (Barbel, Blueback, and Bonefish) along with the first polaris boats all had bow tubes in the front of the bow vice angled tubes.
My Cite? STS 1 SS William M Lehman USN Ret, (that's me) who worked on the Blueback and the S girls, had shipmates on the old polaris boats, and in my current incarnation as a Shipyard worker for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard has cut up a few of the aforementioned vessels under the IRR submarine recycleing program.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.167.78 (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Issue addressed by my rewrite; Barracudas didn't have angled tubes in any case. RobDuch (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  error in text
Talk:Fulton Street Line (elevated)

message: For a long time, I've found the opening and closing dates of the stations listed in this article very difficult to believe. The main issue has been various stations between Nostrand Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. The 1912 BRT Map and 1924 BMT map indicate Troy Avenue replaced the Albany and Sumner Avenue stations, and Hinsdale Street replaced the Eastern Parkway station. Those BRT and BMT maps also don't show any evidence of Troy Avenue station before the 1924 map, but I found some Brooklyn Daily Eagle articles showing a Troy Avenue station going as far back as at least 1889. I also realize that the Dual Contracts added that third track during the 1910s, which evidently had an impact on some of the stations mentioned. The only question here is, when was that project completed?
Then, there's the issue of Clark and Tillary Street stations; As mentioned in the Western Electric reference, BRT was asking the New York Public Service Commission to let them close these and four other stations, but only ended up closing these two. Again the question is of when. Did they close it in 1901, when the BRT filed that request, or was it next year or the year after that? ---------User:DanTD (talk)  14:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started working on fixing this problem, and have fixed some dates, and I have narrowed down the time frames for others. While some dates are incorrect here, this bulletin.pdf Article in the ERA Bulletin provides a general framework for the openings and closings. Thanks again for your great work on the old elevated lines in the city. This project has neglected them, and you have helped gradually improve the articles.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and I do what I can, when I can. But if you're going to credit anyone, credit User:Epicgenius. He was the one who found that reflink published by J.B. Lyons Company, and used it for the two former BMT Culver Line stations before I could add the images. I just read the thing and found the opening and closing date of Eastern Parkway and Hinsdale Street stations, at least. I should probably look at that for others. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable station opening and closing dates 
Talk:USS Simon Bolivar

message: This section of the article is inappropriate.  It does not apply specifically to Simon Bolivar in that what is written there applies to US FBM submarines in general.  The section reads like a memoir and is 'referenced' to with this claim: 'Attribution to crewmember of USS SIMON BOLIVAR (SSBN 641) GOLD'; hardly WP:RS and which smacks of WP:OR.
I  similar material when it was part of §Service history.  Since then, editors 67.149.255.23 and T6985wsx have restored the deleted material in this new section.  Because it is inappropriate in this article, because it is not supported by reliable sources, the section should be removed.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Shipboard Life Onboard USS Simon Bolivar SSBN 641
Talk:USS James K. Polk

message: This submarine was not decommissioned in 2000.  I served onboard it from 2002-2004.  The conversion to support mini-submarine operation was completed in 2003. -- 15:01, 9 December 2010 161.154.235.100
I'm not sure what submarine the above poster was on, but I served aboard the James K Polk from 1969 to 1973 and, more importantly, attended the decommissioning ceremony in 1999 and saw the ship at PSNS in 2000. The DoD's National Vessel Registry lists her as being decommissioned and struck from the Navy rolls on July 8, 1999.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamiShofner (talk • contribs) 19:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article page
Talk:USS Kamehameha

message: "She is one of only two ships of the United States to be named after a monarch.[1]"
USS Kamehameha, sure.
USS Alfred, Ok..
...so if we're counting Continental Navy ships, what about USS Queen of France?  Or USS Prince William sure sounds like it's named after a monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.184.68.230 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  USN vessels named after monarchs 

message: Can someone explain what is meant by blue and gold crews and how only the blue crew was tasked after the conversion? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Crew / Gold Crew 

message: Just to note, submarines are always classified as "boat", never "ship". For this reason, I changed all the times the USS Kamehameha is called "ship" to "boat"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.67.232.56 (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know how the Navy classifes that, but here on wikipedia we don't always follow the rules of the USN. It is the policy of WP:SHIPS and the WP:MOS to use consistent wording across all related articles. -MBK004 19:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boat/Ship 

message: I was a member of the Gold crew during this period.  The references to Charleston SC, SPECOPS and AUTEC are all correct.  To clarify the remarks regarding the terms BOAT vs SHIP. This is a naval custom, not naval terminology.
Of course the other terminology is referring to surface ships as TARGETs.  Ex-RM1(SS) 1975-1997. 1200Z09 OCTOBER 2015.159.63.69.218 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1975-1977
Talk:Yuri Kochiyama

message: I notice that the existing article lacks mention of numerous organizations and movements that Kochiyama was a part of in a meaningful way – the Young Lords Party, Harlem Community for Self Defense, New York Justice for Vincent Chin Coalition, the Japanese American Redress and Reparations Movement, and the International Political Prisoner Rights Movement. The lead section mentions her anti-war stance and activism, yet the actual article does not describe her involvement in this. She was actually responsible for initiating a meeting between Malcolm X and the Hiroshima Nagasaki Peace Study Mission from Japan. I would hope to research her involvement in these organizations and her anti-war action, and create robust, well-cited edits to her article page.Vanuliarya (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to add if you provide me links, thanks--Jacobin 357 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edits 

message: What do they do? Would like to include info. Jacobin 357 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her other 2 children 

message: — Assignment last updated by Shaykip (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Feminist Philosophy
Talk:List of George Washington University alumni

message: Axelrod did not attend.
Rob Lockwood is a current student. No such Union exists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.176.63 (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:USS Sam Houston (SSBN-609)

message: Not quite sure why all the dates in this article are wikilinked (since there are no entries for the vessel on the lists for those dates), but there should be some standardization for how they're displayed.  Some are written as "10 March, 1965" and some as March 10, 1965.  There also appear to be several paragraphs where somebody wrote notes to remind themselves to put other information in!  For example "Maybe fill in the blanks, the ship operated out of Guam and Pearl Harbor" which is down towards the end of the article... MeegsC | Talk 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinked dates 

message: She left Charleston with the Gold Crew, under command of Ccmmander J. P. Weikert, and began sea trials with ports-of-call at Coco Beach(DASO) Roosevelt Roads Naval Base and St. Croix, then transited through the Panama Canal, then to ports-of-call in San Diego Naval Base and Bangor, Washington for missile onload, then transited to the waters off of the Hawaiian Islands for missile systems testing, and came to port at Pearl Harbor for crew change.  The Blue Crew took her on patrol in the Pacific, and turned the boat over to the Gold Crew in Guam. Tlabshier (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1975 After Charleston refit transit to Hawaii
Talk:USS Thomas A. Edison

message: There was no mention of the notorious "Submarine Steinway" ("Run Silent," indeed.) in this article, so I threw up a quick blurb with a few references. Feel free to clean it up, I know I'm not the best at wiki editing. 72.28.177.52 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have the Post Office cache for this subs comission date. Do you think a pic of that would add to the article?Coal town guy (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comission 

message: The first batch of SSBNs, the "Forty One for Freedom", operated out of Holy Loch, Scotland, Rota, Spain, and Apra, Guam, but those were not their home ports. Their home ports were New London, Connecticut, Charleston, South Carolina, and Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, respectively. The boats rarely if ever visited their home ports, but their home ports were where their crews operated out of. SSBNs, then as today, have two crews, a Blue Crew and a Gold Crew. While one crew was out on patrol, the other was at their home port, undergoing training.
This article incorrectly states that the USS Thomas A Edison was home ported at Guam, when her actual home port was Pearl Harbor. I understand that the mechanics of the dual crews would require much more discussion in articles such as this one, but the actual home ports and operating bases should be acknowledged and described. TCav (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Ports for SSBNs
Talk:USS Whale (SS-239)

message: I find the description of Whale's ninth patrol confusing. The first paragraph in that section states that Whale was part of the Bears, but the third paragraph ("On 17 September, the position of the Bear Pit...") states ...she received orders to disband and proceed as a coordinated attack group of four submarines called the "Bears" to "Convoy College"....
Could someone please clear this up? WeeWillieWiki (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bears" wolf pack
Talk:USS Darter (SS-227)

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: moreover, no mention ismade of the fact that she had had a change of command. in command at the time of her loss was cdr. david mcclintock, usn, (numerous sources).Toyokuni3 (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Article should state:  What's left of the hull now?  Is it still sitting there?  The photos at  would be great additions but they're all 'courtesy of' photos and presumably not PD.  Tempshill (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's left of it?
Talk:USS Scamp (SS-277)

message: This can't be right: "levelled off at 22 feet letting the torpedo pass above her." That would only be five feet lower than surface running. The decks wouldn't even be awash. There is no way a torpedo could pass over her at that depth, unless it jumped out of the water. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  levelled off at 22 feet
Talk:Cass Timberlane

message: I added information about the novel, based on my very limited knowledge of such. But much more information is needed such as:
* Background (regarding the writing of the novel)
* Critical and other reaction to the novel
* Differences in the novel and the film
* Critical and other reaction to the film
* References
* Bibliography
Hope there's someone out there who has written a thesis on the novel and will find this Wikipedia page AND will know how to edit it.
Once there is more information about both the film and the novel, perhaps the entries should be made separate. But for now, I think keeping them on the same page is best.  
(Jcravens42 talk 18:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more about the novel
Talk:USS Flier

message: The following coordinate fixes are need for
USS Flier (SS-250) the position of the wreck is incorrect source for correct location was
"Dive Detectives" National Geographic Program "Submarine Graveyard"
Position of wreck:
7deg 58’ 43.21” N  117deg 15’ 23.79” E
—86.144.193.80 (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error
Talk:USS Cavalla (SS-244)

message: I have added sections as per the request box on the article page. I will go ahead and remove the box. Clegs (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headings 

message: I was just on the Cavalla a few months back.  It is in deplorable condition.  I dont know if the City of Galveston is to blame, but the Cavalla, and the Stewart (the other ship on display) are both falling apart.  These are pieces of history and deserve better treatment.  They charged my family about $20 usd to get in, where does that money go?  The caption in the pictures says the "restored" Cavalla.  I dont know where those pictures came from, but there was not a place on that entire ship that was in the condition shown in those pictures.  The ship is not restored.  It is a rusting hulk. The Stewart is in even worse shape.  Someone has welded fake hedgehog rounds next to the k-guns, just because he thought it looked good?  I read that the USN was going to take back control of the 2 ships from the City of Galveston.  I hope this happens.  I also went aboard the battleship Texas.  This ship is 30 yrs older but is in much better condition.  People were actually working on the ship at the time we visited.  Maybe instead of the Navy, maybe the State of Texas should take over the ships on Pelican island?  The City of Galveston should be ashamed of the way these pieces of history have been ignored.  I guess with most of the veterans gone, there is nobody to complain.  As long as the money is rolling in, why do anything?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.220.203 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll love this, the City of Galveston was reported in the Houston Chronicle not too long ago as petitioning the state for the battleship Texas to be moved from San Jacinto to Galveston because of the increased amount of visitors the location could provide. -MBK004 16:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship is in bad shape 

message: I think the most noteworthy detail of her career, the sinking of the Shokaku, should be in the too-short Lede.  This ship played a very significant role in history, and that role should be noted in the Lede.68.206.248.178 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinking of Shokaku in the Lede
Talk:USS Bluefish (SS-222)

message: Blair's Silent Victory makes no mention of I-351, let alone her being sunk by Bluefish, & you can bet, if Forbes had done it, Blair would say so; rather, he gives Forbes a zero (p.976). I'm betting JANAC got it wrong again.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  05:17 & 05:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Sayonara'', ''anjin-san''
Talk:Albert of Riga

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as originator. Olessi 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: It seems like Google has enough hits for references on Albert of Riga, so where are the references in the article? I am downgrading all assessments for this article due to lack of (in-line) references (and perhaps an image or two). Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've been working on the history of Riga. Lo and behold, I come across History of the Christian Church, by Wilhelm Moeller,  Andrew Rutherfurd,  Gustav Kawerau,  John Henry Freese, which specifically states "Albert (of Stade, not of Apeldern or Buxhöwden)." To be integrated into existing content at some point. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  14:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Problem solved, the source is wrong in this regard. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict over who
Talk:USS Croaker

message: I've gone ahead and added the names of the Japanese ships the Croaker sunk on her various patrols. However, this has lead to some confusion surrounding her second patrol and the attacks of 23-24 October 1944.
According to this source http://www.combinedfleet.com/mikage_t.htm the damaged ship was the Gassan Maru hit on 23 October, and the ship sunk was the Mikage Maru on 24 October. This timeline would not allow the damaged ship to have been hit by the Croaker's last torpedo.
I have not been able to find any further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  2604:6000:130a:5d5:8c78:bcff:88a9:2c59 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second patrol
Talk:USS Flasher (SS-249)

message: The following is from "Unrestricted Warfare: How a New Breed of Officers Led the Submarine Force to Victory in World War II," by James F. DeRose.
"     At the start of her wartime service, Flasher had a reputation as a 'boat built by women.'  This notorious, and irrelevant, claim was true.  She had been built at Electric Boat's 'Victory Yard' by an all-female construction crew, and it was widely booted about in Groton that Flasher was a boat headed for certain disaster.  Instead, she racked up an outstanding record, the hottest boat based in Australia."
There is no citation for this by DeRose, but if true, surely the gender of her construction crew is worthy of mention in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.106.76 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk:USS Gabilan

message: It would help if "shakedown" were clarified for the average lay reader.  See second paragraph use of shakedown.  Plus the English language there is not right.  It should say something like "After the initial 'shakedown' (a term commonly referred to as the break in period for newly seaworthy ships)."
Something like that.  Anyone else have a comment about this?  I do not know what a shakedown of a ship is, other than my assumption that it is the "break in" period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisykc (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Talk:USS Pogy (SS-266)

message: My father, W. Clifford Tlachac, was the communications man(radio-telegrapher doing Morse code) on this submarine.  In the late 1990's  he revealed that after the war, a small group of 12 men were kept on to complete testing of the "pinging" device for torpedos.  They were based in Long Beach and went out of various test cruises for at least a year after VJ Day.  Then they would return and the scientists would adjust the devices and out again for more testing.  
I can never find any other corroboration of this information and would love to have others who know of this to send me to a source for more data.  My dad is still alive but has a form of dementia that has made his long term memory pretty dicey so he can't recall names very well.  We were remiss in not recording his memories before his strokes and would now like to memorialize his contribution to the war for the family archives.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.76.178 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled