lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Motion picture film scanner

message: The original text of this article read a lot like an advert for a particular motion picture film scanner.  It's still in there, commented out -- if anyone can find some salvageable information in there, please do.
--Alynna 23:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2005 

message: No. The should not be moved to Telecine.
Telecine are real time scanning to SDTV or HDTV. Scanners can be real time or as slow as a a few frames per second and go to data files (DPX). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy (talk • contribs) 06:15, 16 April 2007
:Sorry for the delay in responding. I proposed the merger because :Motion picture film scanner is basically a stub, and :Telecine has a lot of really good information and is quite encyclopedic. Most of the information in Telecine applies to all motion picture film scanners. Do you have a citation for your claim that telecines must be real time and end in a television format? The spirit datacine certainly supports higher than HDTV resolutions (4k), and I believe it runs slower than realtime. Do you claim it's inappropriate to be listed in Telecine? In my (quite limited) experience, the term telecine does not imply realtime scanning.
:Regardless, though, the question of whether [nearly] all motion picture film scanners are telecines or not, does not decide the merger. Perhaps its better to have the result of the merger be Motion picture film scanner, and for Telecine to redirect there (I would not think so, but perhaps?). I'm also a little troubled at the nature of the specific information in Motion picture film scanner; surely there are plenty of scanners that produce other file formats than DPX and TIF, and the use of SANs seems basically irrelevant. The article seem to read more like a spec sheet for some manufacturer's model than an encyclopedia article. jhawkinson 18:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge to [[:Telecine]] 
Talk:Grip (occupation)

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Grip (occupation). Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Grip (job) →  – Right now we have Gaffer (filmmaking), Double (filmmaking), Music editor (filmmaking), and Sound editor (filmmaking) but Grip (job) which is inconsistent. I tried a search that found no articles with "(job)" in this meaning. There are some like Cooper (profession) and Computer (occupation) but I don't think that is necessary here when we can use the industry. mossypiglet (talk) Go blue! 20:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is if consistency is a concern we should move the other ones with the '(filmmaking)' dab too but Double (occupation), Music editor (occupation, and Sound editor (occupation) but then they wouldn't be specific enough.  Is there something shorter than 'film and television production' we could use as a DAB?—blindlynx 16:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the articles for double, music editor, and sound editor, I am seeing more reason to make it "occupation". For music and sound editors, they work in video games as well, so "film and television" would not suffice. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right they can all be generalized to occupation without the articles getting unruly—blindlynx 19:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 October 2022
Talk:Siege of Głogów

message: The exerted efforts to make this cock-and-bull-story an early exhibit of inherent German hostility are still not convincing:
The general problem: The Empire was, by own account a universal, in fact a multi-ethnic state. In this regard the equalisation with "Germany" seems anachronistic, though eagerly pursued by German nationalists, who may not be right. Therefore:
1. Wasn't this first and foremost a Bohemian, pardon: Czech action of Svatopluk, taking revenge on Bolesław (not exactly a saint himself) for campaigning Bohemia one year earlier? Indeed Bohemia was part of the Empire from beginning to end, but I wonder if Czechs would appreciate being called "Germans".
2. Wasn't this incident also part of the fratricidal war between Bolesław and Zbigniew, who (a traitor against Poland?) had fled from to Henry and asked him for help? 
3. Wasn't ruthless Henry, the "German king" (well, Salian rex romanorum actually, but these are details...) primarily after Bolesław for supporting Coloman of Hungary, and not after the heroes of Głogów or Poles in general. And wasn't it Bolesław, who took the townsmen hostage by hiding within the walls of their city?
Like always, subjects had no choice to perish in a battle that was not theirs. To relable them as patrioteers posthumously seems a bit impious. 85.178.153.119 (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Poles, brothers!
Talk:Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto

message: If anyone has the knowledge and time to do it, please translate the article from the Portuguese wikipedia, as it is a very decent article and should be available not only for portuguese speaking people.
With over 6000 students it shouldn't be hard to get a decent article in no time.
I VERY highly disagree with the propose to merge since this article has the potencial to become quite large by itself... but only time will tell...--nunocordeiro 07:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of al-Babein

message: The sentence that is tagged with footnote number 8 makes no sense whatever. It makes it sound like King Amalric decided to serve under Saladin, an historical absurdity. Who is the "he" that the sentence refers to? Was the sentence moved so that it is no longer in context? Djmaschek (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled
Talk:Operation Marita

message: :I say no.  The current Operation Marita article is simply a not-very-detailed German order-of-battle, and it would be improper to reproduce a detailed orbat in this article.  We should report army and corps-level formations in the article, and link to a detailed orbat down to the regimental level.  This should be named "Greece order of battle," and expanded to include Greek, British, Italian and Bulgarian formations.  See Battle of Crete and Crete order of battle for examples.  My vote is Move Operation Marita material to Greece order of battle (now Balkans Campaign German order of battle), Redirect Operation Marita to Battle of Greece. --Jpbrenna 17:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just redericting to Battle of Greece seems misleading since Operation Marita included both the invasion of Yugoslavia and the invasion of Greece and the diplomatic complications with Yugoslavia was a major reason why it was launched. Fornadan (t) 00:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger?
Talk:Battle of Saintes

message: There appears to be more than one battle (maybe several) using this or a very similar name. Stepp-Wulf 01:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of Cocherel

message: Surely the Captal de Buch was from Aquitaine, not England? Fornadan (t) 20:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange idea to think that the armies in the Middle Ages were "national" in the modern meaning of the word. In this army supporting the king of England, a small minority was actually "English" Nortmannus (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: National identities of forces 

message: The coordinates point to Cocherel near Meaux, east of Paris, while the box says the battle took place at Cocherel near Évreux. I suppose that the latter is correct, in this case the coordiantes should be corrected. --Proofreader (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Monstrelet (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong co-ordinates

message: The information in this article is impossible. The country of France did not exist at that period in time! It's called west fankia, and wow that sounds like France. It isn't! It doesn't have the same line of succession it's not the same government it's not the same group of Kings. It is its own thing it does not include places like burgundy and Provence and other things that make France - France! The concept of burgundy also didn't exist at that time. Concept of burgundy arises much later when some French Duke married an Austrian princess and like they both own land close to each other in that area and so he buys land from like other nobles to fill in the gaps so the children were going to inherit the whole thing. I don't remember all the exact details but like that's a story from like the late 1700s early 1800s. Burgundy is firmly within the country of Lothringia at this time. It almost certainly isn't called Burgundy and it definitely does not include all the territory of burgundy as it exists today. Like there's so much inaccuracy and what's being said here that it's basically tantamount to myth. 96.238.56.251 (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible 

message: I think Wikipedia is the first place I've ever seen Charles II called Charles the bald. I believe that there is an error here. As far as I know Charles the bald is a son of Charlemagne. King of West Francia (what will become essentially Germany) he signed the treaty of verdun. That's Charles the Bald. Charles the second here is more than likely one of his nephews or a great nephew - cousin? Idk but it's not Charles the Bald. If it is then listing him as the king of Navare is ridiculous he's the king of West Francia like all of Germany Austria and parts of Eastern Europe. But I don't think it's him I think it's one of his nephews. He's just mislabeled. I went to his Wikipedia page he's not even bald there's a painting of him with hair! 96.238.56.251 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you have misread the article.  Charles of Navarre was known as Charles the Bad. Monstrelet (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles II - a second Charles the Bald?
Talk:Battle of Fehrbellin

message: edit:
the swedes lost around 4000 men, dead/wounded/prisoners and deserters.. while brandenburg-prussia had ~500 dead/wounded  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.110.185 (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So what about Henrik von Delwig's German infantry regiment, suffered heavy casualties in the German campaign (1,295 men in 1673 and only 120 men remaining after the campaign). Surely the text refeers to this man. Imonoz (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this battle is more known because of the proparganda that followed it rather than the battle-result itself. I would like to ask, what would you like to do/change with the article in its present state? Imonoz (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties and losses
Talk:Battle of Cusco

message: The name appears to be an invention. Some information is relevant to the history of the period, but I can't confirm specifics of the "battle". There are records of a pair of minor skirmishes on the way to Cuzco; that's about it. Praemonitus (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: According to this the Spaniards were led by Juan Pizarro and Hernando de Soto against the combined central and southern Inca armies. Hernando Pizarro had already left for Spain.
'The native warriors, “in the greatest numbers … came out against us with an enormous shout and much determination,” wrote Miguel de Estete. With their backs against the city and the experienced General Quisquis in charge, the northern army fought fiercely, driving the Spaniards back in an onslaught of sling-fired stones, arrows, and battering mace clubs. “They killed three of our horses, including my own, and that had cost me 1,600 castellanos,” wrote the notary Juan Ruiz de Arce, “and they wounded many Christians.”'
105.226.203.142 (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim MacQuarrie's The Last Days of the Incas
Talk:Battle of Shimbra Kure

message: change " ZemenfesKidus (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  melecie  t - 05:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022 

message: - The chronicle of Lebna Dengel says that Lebna Dengel instituted a mass levy and drafted 900,000 soldiers in total, the chronicle says that every able bodied man was enlisted,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41931161
- The gravity of the situation is also emphasized in the Futuh where Sihab ad-Din reports that the whole of Abyssinia was in turmoil.
https://books.google.be/books/about/The_Conquest_of_Abyssinia.html?id=YgIwAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
- Francisco Alvarez said Lebna Dengel could call up 100,000 soldiers in 2 days.
https://books.google.be/books?redir_esc=y&hl=fr&id=J3vjAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=cacala 
- Now concerning the issue with Pedro Paez, he clearly states the muslims were outnumbered 10 to 1, according to him; the abyssinians had 3,000 cavalry and the muslims had 300 cavalry, the abyssinians had an uncountable number of foot-soldiers compared to the muslims which had very few foot-soldiers. Now the issue some people have here is that the futuh states says the muslims had 560 cavalry and the abyssinians had 16,000 cavalry. There is no issue with the infantry number but there is a clear contradiction on the cavalry number between the two sources where one source reports: 
3000 cavalry VS 300 cavalry, but the other reports 16000 cavalry VS 560 cavalry
In this situation the latter is certainly and obviously more correct as Sihab ad-Din which is the author of the futuh was there when the battle took place, he was an direct eye-witness compared to Pedro Paez which wrote his numbers years after the battle, it is as simple as that and I do not even see why this should be an issue.
We can only conclude from this that every source admits that the Muslims were outnumbered but won a decisive victory and that there was also a mass conscription meaning every able bodied male would be signed up.
Lastly, population isn’t linear nor exponential, it variates depending on the date and circumstances, we cannot just extrapolate a number such the estimate commonly circulating on the internet. How do you take into account things like Ahmed’s conquest which undoubtedly had a massive shift on demographics ? The population of Abyssinia at that time was only an estimate which was certainly affected by the Imam’s conquests which did a number on Ethiopia’s population either through killing or enslavement.
I will now be removing the "exaggerated" in the infobox. Yubudirsi (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The battle of Simbra Kure is not exaggerated.
Talk:Fall of Granada

message: I have added some details that I found in one of my history books to fill out the story of the siege, which was rather low key and I think much of an anti-climax. Most of the heavy fighting took place elsewhere during the 1480s.Is there anyone who can link an article on the conquest of Granada as a whole which is a more dramatic series of events?--AssegaiAli 19:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article 

message: The number of troops is ridiculuous. Even if the moorish leader rounded up every man woman and child in the city, it would not have numbered 300,000. Battle, a book I heavily depend upon, gives the figures much closer to 50,000 moors and 30,000 well armed Spaniards who increase their numbers to 60,000 near the end of the siege whilst the moorish numbers fall due to a series of defeats.Tourskin 03:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: None of the articles on Spanish military history reflect the role the Sephardic Jews and their armies played during the battles of the Reconquista.  Sepharad, the Hebrew word for the Roman province Hispania, was the home of the Sephardim, since that was where the Roman Empire banished them.  The Visigoths were new-comers to Hispania.   Later, the all inter-married.  (This fact made the doctrine of "limpieza de sangre" ridiculous.)  The articles state "Castillian" armies, but Castile is only one province in all of Hispania and was only one small kingdom before unification.  As such, not all "Spaniards" can be classified as "Castillians."  These should be corrected to state the "Christian" armies or the "Jewish" armies.   It appears that all the parties involved, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, had complex, changing political alliances and often fought along side each other to achieve political objectives.    One example was the Battle of Higueruela, in which Jews and Muslim armies united and in which Muslim and Christians united against each other.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.170.98 (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish armies in Iberia 

message: A map is needed.  Is their a copywright problem?  This is something lacking in wp generally.69.122.62.231 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: The article should cover the surrender that happened in more detail, and it should mention the historical significance of the event for the downfall of Islamic power. Khestwol (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion
Talk:Battle of Câmpia Pâinii

message: I don't see why this article must be redirected to Bathory page? It is a stub yet or what? In this case we can copy the battle description from Bathory's article here ... --fz22 12:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't have to be redirected to the Bathory page, but in my opinion, you don't choose a poor stub over a somehow decent article where the battle is decently described and sourced. That's the first thing. The second thing is that you can't use the Romanian name, for two reasons: one, because this is the English Wiki; and two, because that battle wasn't even a Romanian conflict--altough Romanian troops were recruited, thus it makes the usage of the name even less justifiable. The Hungarian name for the location of the battle (Battle of Kenyérmező), would be more justified than using the Romanian name, but still not justified enough to use it over the English name, which is Battle of Field of Bread. So if you wish, you could paste the text over there, which presently redirects to the Bathory article. In my opinion, you don't have to create two different articles covering the same event, when one article is enough. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, however the description of the battle fits better here then in one of its commander's biography page. Regarding the naming question I don't think we can simply translate Kenyermezo/Campia Painii in English just because it is easy to do so, why don't we proceed in the same way for the Battle of Belgrad/Nandorfehervar (White Castle of the Nandor's :) . According to wikipedia rules the original/contemporary name, or the present-day name must be used here. regards --fz22 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sometimes the names are translated; this mostly happens to locations rather than the name of a city or town. If you look at the article on Battle of Kosovo, you will see that different names apply for different languages. See the Romanian and the Swedish name. Anyway, my strongest argument here is that it was not me who translated the name into English. It was Franz Babinger. The name for the location was already translated (Field of Bread) and I found it in one of the books which I've used as a source for the Bathory article, namely Mehmed the Conqueror and his time p. 374. I only put Battle of- in front of the translated name. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect or not
Talk:Battle of the Caucasus

message: I'd like to propose that this article and Operation Edelweiss be merged into and article named Caucasus campaign. Alternatively this article can be merged into Operation Edelweiss.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: This article has almost no useful content. Even the title is useless as it covers several different and often unrelated campaigns over three years. 174.46.28.58 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad article 
Talk:Operation Azul

message: I think this stub must be merged with the main article 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. Maintaining an article with the  Operation's code name make no sense.
DagosNavy  12:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway this article is wrong named,  should be Operación Azul or Operation Blue  --Jor70 13:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Siege of Negroponte (1470)

message: Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox "Result"
Talk:Battle of Gomit

message: Can the polish website be translated? I don't know if it's trustworthy and made an attempt that didn't succeed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeteAmora (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish source 
Talk:Battle of Crug Mawr

message: Should the Anglo-Norman belligerents be listed as apart of the "The Kingdom of England"? Personally I think so. - King Moogoe 2023-12-07  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMoogoe (talk • contribs) 07:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: - My view is "no", as the Normans in this battle were not sponsored by the English Crown; rather it was part of the Welsh campaign against local Norman forces trying to establish their own lordships. (By the way, please start a new section and sign with four tildes when starting a new topic on talk pages) Cheers, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Kingdom of participants?
Talk:Siege of Syracuse (397 BC)

message: According to the Sicilian Wars article, there was a siege of Syracuse in 397 BC, but there is no mention of any battle in 387 BC. Is the date wrong?--SkiDragon (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. There's also a mention of this siege on the 397 BC page, but none on the 387 BC page. It should probably be moved. Ems24 (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've moved it. If anyone has any objections, feel free to change it back. I'm not an expert on this subject. Ems24 (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date? 

message: It seems to me that title should be changed to "Siege of Syracuse (397 BC)", as the article almost exclusively refers to the event as a siege and not a battle. Ems24 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title
Talk:Battle of Hundsfeld

message: * Ensured that this article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. 
* This article would benefit from:  expansion, sections (Prelude, The battle, Aftermath), in-text citations. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: There are basically no sources on this Battle ever happening, no accounts from that time period. It's basically made up. Wikipedia doesn't exist so people can write nationalistic fantasy stories like this. This article should be completely removed. Sadly this seems to be something very common in regards to polish articles, a lot of them need a reality check.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.16.184.232 (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Battle never happened.