lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Talk Show (band)

message: Hi, I'm not a wiki editor, but Talk Show was a band I liked back when they released their only album.
After searching about the singer Dave Coutts (wondering what he was up to), I found this article from Sept of '22 on Rolling Stone's website.
Perhaps someone could update this wiki to reflect the page?
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/stone-temple-pilots-talk-show-dave-coutts-1234584605/ Philosyphilis (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave Coutts article Rolling Stone
Talk:Operation Dingo

message: "Much later a doctor provided testimony explaining that infectious disease had been a major cause of death after the attacks". What does this mean?  What exactly is death "after the attacks"?  Most likely the vast majority either died outright or from infection shortly afterwards. Infectious diseases is hardly likely to suddenly strike down thousands immediately after an attack - unless biological weapons are used - which I presume is not the allegation. So what exactly was the doctor saying, and why is it controversial (rather than implausible)?
The following sentence "but that nonetheless many civilians had been killed at close range by the soldiers" is neither supported by the evidence nor connected with the doctors testimony. I suggest deletion.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: This article is told almost exclusively from the Rhodesian military point of view: in terms of voice, perspective, sources, and names. It needs to be in a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, where facts are presented, but not from only one angle. Babakathy (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The Rhodesian fatalities are described as either one or two, because the second death occurred on the way back.
The ZANLA and civilian casualties are generally given as either 1,200 or 3,000, and there's multiple sources for both. While the lower number is given in history works, and the higher generally in more popular works or recent news, it is probably best to keep both as both are widely cited. Babakathy (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities
Talk:Operations order

message: This is the same as the 5 paragraph order entry. Hal06 23:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

message: I suggest merging five paragraph order into operations order.
And leaving behind a redirect so people searching for "five paragraph order" will find the description of a five paragraph order in this article.
As far as I can tell from reading the articles, a five paragraph order is a common kind of operations order; and the distinction (if any) can be covered in a couple of paragraphs in a merged article.
--DavidCary (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge. An OPORD is a subset of the Five Paragraph Field Order, which also includes FRAGOs, etc. When merging, we need to update this one. The Army pattern as given in FM 6.0, has greatly expanded the old Cold War era order given here. Things have been added, other parts have changed names (Logistics to Sustainment, for example). The whole format given is sadly way, way out of date. FYI: I do this for a living. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge. I've never heard that, and throughout my long service, I have always seen the terms "Five Paragraph Field Order" and "Operations Order" used interchangeably. Whether they are the same or one is a subset of the other, they should be merged and drastically updated. I also do this for a living. CsikosLo (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: A five paragraph order is used by the USMC and standardized through the acronym SMEAC.  A opord is used by the Army, with the fourth paragraph being Sustainment.
-(JoelOdo former US Marine & current Soldier)- 1454, 4 May 2015 (CST)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.192.220 (talk)  
I believe I have to second the above statement. The words 'military' and 'in the military' get used as though one person's branch is the sum total of military usage. After talking to assorted Marines, Airmen and Sailors, I see they have many documents that are (or sound or appear) similar, but surely aren't. I am tempted to merge the two articles under the heading of what my people use, but it will only cause confusion in the readers who are told that what they need to look up is something else. LTC (Ret.) David J. Cormier (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave It 

message: Colonel Frederick E. Garman the developer of the 5 paragraph field order (OPORD) died 26 April 2022 at Viera, FL 4.79.197.234 (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frederick E. Garman, COL, US Army, Ret 

message: This page should be renamed 'Operation Order', dropping the S. 'Operations Order' can link here but it is not the correct spelling. 2001:569:5270:A400:81DF:40E3:362E:516C (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename
Talk:Ordnance

message: This should page should probably be made into a disambig if the content is moved to Wiktionary. There are several terms, such as Unexploded ordnance, Ordnance Corps, Board of Ordnance, Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Royal Ordnance, etc. that might be included to make the disambig more useful. Katr67 20:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would give us a more useful page. Do it if you want. We can always revert if people object. Tom Harrison Talk 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, as soon as I figure out the transwiki thing, I'll see what I can do. Katr67 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did it. There was already a definition at Wikitionary. The list of articles I added might be overkill, but there are about a million more articles in Wikipedia with the word "Ordnance" in their names (mostly different types of ordnance) that I didn't include. Please adjust as necessary. Katr67 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transwiki?

message: I'm not sure that "Ordnance weapon" makes sense - perhaps "Ordnance (weapon)", "Ordnance (munition)".  Also I don't think the redir to Personal weapon is correct - e.g. many references to "ordnance" are to ordnance carried by aircraft. DexDor (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ordnance weapon" ?
Talk:Panha 2091

message: Somewhere I read that the Panha 2091 was unlicensed, but I'm not sure.Leonidas15andihack (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlicensed?

message: The following text was in the article, and I moved it here to the talk page.
"There is a conflict in the description of the armament: that kind of attack helicopter would have 1 gun station in the front, nothing in the rear.  Also, the 70mm rockets can hardly be conceived of as anti-tank, as they are too small a rocket to be an effective anti-tank round." Drdrama (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved a comment from the article to the talk page
Talk:South African honours system

message: There are 2 pages covering this subject -
Orders, decorations, and medals of South Africa and this page. My suggestion of deleting ODM of SA was turned down. (There was a 3rd page - Evolution of the SA Honours system which I merged into this page and has since been deleted}
ODM was meant to be a list of all the decorations and medals - but these lists are better maintained on individual pages such as South African military decorations. Since we can't seem to delete the page, I suggest that we add a list of all orders and medals to ODM
Do any regular visitors of these pages have any suggestions on how to structure these 2 pages? Gbawden (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure
Talk:Partnership for Peace Information Management System

message: The text is vacuous and not encyclopedic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.191.234 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: mission and vision
Talk:Presidential Security Force of Indonesia

message: More WP:RS help improve the article - thank you SatuSuro 10:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please help

message: BISA GA ORANG SIPIL JADI PASPAMRES KARENA SAYA MAU JAI PASPAMRES KALO GA BISA BERARTI PAYAH  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.38.201 (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RECRUITMENT 
Talk:People's Army for the Restoration of the Republic and Democracy

message: Is this the same organisation as the People's Army for the Restoration of Democracy (Armee populaire pour le restoration du democratie APRD) see CAR Briefing - 22/09/2008 wagingpeace / Central African Republic: News bulletin No. 90, 15 Dec 2008 - 05 Jan 2009. Humanitarian and Development Partnership Team - Central African Republic (HDPT CAR). 05 Jan 2009.
Either way, the French name and acronym need to be provided, since the references have become delinked, and there's no way to verify the identity of the article's subject.
Not trying to be difficult, but I'd like to update the current situation, and the English only titles are imprecise enough to make it hard to see what is already done.  T L Miles (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 
Talk:Te Vaka

message: The user Te Vaka Management contributed a goodly portions of updates to this article but due to her conflict of interest i offered to help re-write the article. I just put up my initial draft of the re-written article. If anyone else can contribute to the article on Te Vaka it would be most welcome. I may have more to add to this article or the articles on their discography as i sort through the numerous references that were emailed to me. Cheers. delirious & lost (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: COI Editing tag
Talk:Rohan Kriwaczek

message: It seems that User:Rohan Kriwaczek tried to create Funerary Violin, but it was deleted. Perhaps after his book comes out Wikipedians will agree to add it back? See User talk:Rohan Kriwaczek. Is there more discussion? <>< tbc 04:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phooey. For crying out loud, P. D. Q. Bach is an article! And so should Funerary Violin be. The NPR story inspired me. He's not your run of the mill crackpot that WP has every right to blow off. He convinced a publisher. And he perplexed NPR -- they just didn't fully get it. It took me several days to put it together. I think it's charming. The music itself is astonishing! <>< tbc 18:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Once the book comes out, it'll definitely be worth an article, although I'd be more inclined to have Funerary Violin redirect to the book title, and have the entry there.cbustapeck 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oops. It seems that there already is an article for the book, An Incomplete History of the Art of Funerary Violin. cbustapeck 17:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pig War (1906–1908)

message: As the German article correctly said, it wasnt the government in Vienna who promoted the boycot but the hungarian government in Budapest. The cisleithanian politicians were mainly against it. I corrected it, because it wasn't "Vienna" who started the boycot, it was the government of the Kingdom of Hungary, especially the hungarian prime minister Géza Fejérváry.
Eromae (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Austria or Hungary
Talk:Pintle

message: I've commented out  because this is a disambiguation page Fiddle Faddle 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a dab page it's a mighty peculiar one. IMHO it should be merged with Gudgeon and called maybe Gudgeon and pintle. Abtract (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

message: Nine Inch Will Please a Lady - Robert Burns--195.137.93.171 (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right; wikt:pintle points out that this is the now-dialectical descendent of the Old English word for penis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phallic meaning
Talk:Pitched battle

message: A historical perspective would be interesting. What is the first documented pitched battle? What came after?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-b (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What succeeded pitched battles 

message: There are multiple references (and a link) to the term skirmish, but how it is being used has nothing to do with how it is defined on the linked page.  It seems to me that meeting engagement more closely matches in meaning how the word "skirmish" is being used in this article (as in "a chance encounter").
REggert (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skirmish? 

message: I made a large edit a relatively large edit to this article today.
These edits were made for a number of reasons.
*I put back the wording of the original sentence because the wording is IMHO more elegant and says the same thing.
*I removed "and are sometimes referred to as duels on a larger scale. " because I don't know who would call them a duel but is a metaphoric and not a literal meaning. The battle of Warterloo may have been a dual between Napoleon and Wellington but although Wellington did fight a duel but it was on Battersea Park not down the road at Waterloo Station.
*"Pitched battles are noted for lack of the element of surprise, ability to manoeuvre and lack of initiative available to either side." Well sometimes, but there are many many examples of where initiative, surprising tactics and ability to manoeuvre have won pitched battles.
*"In military theory pitched battles are to be avoided, particularly by those troops that depend on the on the three above mentioned factors, such as insurgents." Well only if one things that pitched battles never involve initiative, surprising tactics and ability to manoeuvre. Also with insurgents it depends on the size of the insurgency.
*"Pitched battles were however the preferred method of resolving a military campaign during the Renaissance and until the Franco-Prussian War because of the prevailing thinking that a decisive battle is to be sought as soon as possible." Yes it was the preferred method of some of the outstanding generals of history notably Marlborough and Napoleon, but one of the things that highlights Marlborough's career is that he was doing this during a time when most military campaigns were based on siege warfare.
--PBS (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 18 November 2008

message: Would anyone else find the list of pitched battles more useful if it had some form of organization? Maybe it does and I'm not seeing it. But it's neither chronological nor alphabetical. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of list 

message: I don't think "set piece battle" is always synonymous with "pitched battle". The only source cited for that synonymy is a very old book. The Wikipedia entry on Set piece also doesn't agree. 188.27.81.59 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonyms? Etymology?
Talk:Plunging fire

message: 138.163.128.41 (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Agreed this article needs more references -- I just added one but there's more work needed. However, the concept of plunging fire is not at all the same as enfilade/defilade (you'll note the difference in the newly added ref.). -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you quote the fragment? I've removed your reference for now, since I fail to see how it defines plunging fire, or relation between plunging fire and enfilade fire. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Comment. Although I'm generally opposed to short articles (WP:DICDEF-like), the "Enfilade and defilade" is clearly not a good title for an article that covers multitude of firing techniques. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose combined with existing article 

message: 60px
The section Top Attack may contain material unrelated or insufficently related to the topic of the article Plunging fire Please discuss this issue in this talk section. Reason for off-topic: Top attack is not a type of plunging fire, top-attack is notable on its own, and so should have its own article.
I am starting this talk thread, as I don't believe Top Attack should be in this article as "top attack" munitions really don't meet the definition of this page, Plunging fire. At best, the FGM-148 Javelin at least follows a somewhat similar trajectory, although, it is a direct fire weapon, and the path is flown via guidance and certainly the rest of the weapons/munitions listed in the table are not plunging fire either, as for some reason, there are some Air-to-ground weapons listed (like the Hellfire). I'd argue the only guided weapons to meet the definition would be the M982 Excalibur, which ironically is not listed in the table; and maybe to a lesser extent (although I'd argue semantically that the aren't) is the submunition artillery rounds SMArt 155, Bofors 155mm BONUS etc. Furthermore, I think top-attack is definitely notable on its own, and should have its own page.
KarmaKangaroo (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Attack is off topic - discussion
Talk:Point-defence

message: Since the real page appears to be spelled "Defence", I'm going to change all spellings to defence. The page ought to be at the least internally consistent. Kisc 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I commented out the Original Research and Improve tags since the article is essentially a directory and has had a reference added. - Leonard G. (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR and improve tags removed 

message: This term is not generally spelled with a hyphen, and it is not hyphenated in the article's main reference either. I cannot perform the move because there is already a redirect from the correct spaced form "Point defence". Equinox ◑ 23:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be moved to unhyphenated form
Talk:Post-war

message: Spelling error in name, See: Websters Dictionary [http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Postwar+Definition&meta= Google search "postwar"
Postwar is spelled "postwar" See:  FWIW Bzuk 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably a trans-Atlantic difference; see WP:ENGVAR. --Stemonitis 11:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I checked a wide range of dictionaries- all have it spelled "postwar." The only time it appears as "post-war" is in non-standard use. Wikipedia, for one, has post-war popping up along with a huge number of "over-hyphenated" words. FWIW Bzuk 12:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Oxford English Dictionary, the definitive record of the English language, lists "post-war" only. It is only "over-hyphenation" in your opinion; I would consider "postwar" a clear case of "underhyphenation". There are significant differences between American English and Commonwealth English, and this is one of them; WP:ENGVAR applies. --Stemonitis 12:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right about the Oxford Dictionary definition but the overwhelming number of other dictionaries including the Chambers Reference Dictionary in England have the "postwar" spelling. I did a cursory Google search to find over 1,700,000 entries with the spelling given that way. This is another example of a word gradually changing its conventional spelling through acceptance by the majority of users. FWIW Bzuk 13:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my own writing, I would follow Fowler, and distinguish between the noun and the adjective. But I agree with Stremonitis here: leave it alone, or move to postbellum - now a redirect to a particular aftermath. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 16:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move (2007)

message: The post war 2401:4900:35F8:5EAA:1:1:A627:9C62 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Post-1945 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#Post-1945 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Interstellarity (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Post-1945" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:POW code of conduct

message: This article should be merged with Code of the United States Fighting Force. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I see there hasn't been discussion after eight months.  Since the Code article is more specifically named, in perhaps a couple weeks, I'll make this article a redirect and build sourcing into the other. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Prize of war

message: While not exactly coterminous, the two concepts are related and the article Prize (law) could be mined for content and references.--Jpbrenna (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Prize (law)

message: Typing 'spoils of war' led me here. Newspeak. How do you define nottothinkof/unspeakable concepts? are here voluntarily/necess city/shirt of nessos  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A540:290:0:587C:E994:FE06:81A9 (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugliness
Talk:Project SHAD

message: I think Project 112should be the main article for Project SHAD (currently a citation-lacking start-class article).  Project SHAD took place under Project 112 and all of the records for SHAD are inseparable from Project 112.   Therefore, Project SHAD should point to Project 112 as the main article.72.188.73.163 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: To combine under Project 112?

message: American Aviation Historical Society Journal, 1971, p. 137 mentions the activation of the 4533 at Eglin as a Tactical Test squadron, so it may have existed and was re-purposed. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  4533  

message: I've found my books in my closet and will be re-adding some of the removed material with the proper sourcing. User:LuckyLouie's concerns and removal of the un-sourced material were valid as this material was improperly sourced. Apologies for getting it wrong.Johnvr4 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Material Reintroduced
Talk:Qadr (munition)

message: According to the Copyvio detector, this article is nearly identical to the posted external link. 
The article can be rewritten and then request that the previous versions be hidden via ... or the article could be deleted according to WP:G12. It would be better if someone would be interested in paraphrasing the content. Does someone familiar with the topic have an interest in paraphrasing this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation