lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:51st Army (Russia)

message: I see that this was discussed before, but would like to raise again, as it struck me as odd (before I saw it discussed on this Talk page). 
Per Erickson, the 51st Army was "involved in the Crimean debacle of May 1942..." I suggest rewording this to a more neutral/factual interpretation, for the following reasons:
* The word debacle does not appear on the page again, nor does it appear in the linked article. It therefore does not strike me as the generally accepted name for what occurred. 
* This is Erickson's opinion. For comparison, Glantz & House (When Titans Clashed) use disaster – this is also their opinion, and as such, it should be attributed to the source
* Debacle implies judgement on the part of the editors (more so than disaster); to avoid this, suggest either attributing to Erickson as a direct quotation, or rephrasing. (I think a direct quotation from Erickson would be appropriate in the body of the article to indicate the scope of the debacle/disaster/catastrophe.) 
I also suggest changing the way the article links to the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula. For example, it links in the lead as the debacle, but not in the body, where we have "the Kerch-Feodosiya landing operation in December 1941..." – but not as a direct link to original operation, which was was a success (also per Glantz & House). This creates a dissonance (at least it did for me, as in "where's the debacle?")
Suggested wording for the lead, along the lines of: The army participated in the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in December 1941–January 1942; it was destroyed in May 1942 with other Soviet forces when the Wehrmacht launched an operation to dislodge them from the peninsula (or something to this effect). 
Please let me know your thoughts on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Those changes look ok to me. Thanks for your input. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The credit for implementing the change in the lead goes to Kges1901; I just added the links in the body :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, thanks, Kges, for your efforts, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erickson  

message: G'day, all, I think this article should be moved to 51st Army (Soviet Union), with "51st Army" becoming a dab listing the Soviet formation and the Japanese formation of the same designation. Are there any concerns with this move? If not, I will look to implement it in a week or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I've previously though of moving it. Kges1901 (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't be 51st Army (Soviet Union), except as a redirect, because it was in Russian service from 1992-97. Should be 51st Army (Russia). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, good point. I could live with that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested move
Talk:Steel plate shear wall

message: Hey Mehdi, 
I'd imagine another benefit of SPSW systems to be the ability to replace panels and otherwise repair the structure after inelastic response. Repair must be more simple and accessible than for equivalent concrete systems, at least. I'll add this item to the list of advantages. Please let me know if this is not the case.
Thanks, 
Mike P. Abell 00:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Repair advantage

message: Oh, I came across this item in the overview. Mike P. Abell 00:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Repair advantage
Template talk:Country data Confederate States of America

message: There were a few more flags in 1861. Can they be added as variants please? Foofighter20x (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1861 Flags 

message: :Image:Jack of the CSA Navy 1861 1863.svg should be added as Jack1
:Image:Conf Navy Jack (light blue).svg should be added as Jack2 (Or similar names, as they were the two official Confederate naval jacks. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  request 

message: Please add/change:
| shortname alias = Confederacy
| flag alias-1863 = Second national flag of the Confederate States of America.svg
| flag alias-army = Battle flag of the US Confederacy.svg
| link alias-army = Confederate States Army
Please remove:
| flag alias-jack1 = Jack of the CSA Navy 1861 1863.svg
| flag alias-jack2 = Conf Navy Jack (light blue).svg
| var6 = jack1
| var7 = jack2
Cheers, Pædia 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When requesting changes, please can you provide a rationale. I cannot swap images without an explanatory edit summary. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I understand how jacks are not supposed to be used in articles on those topics, but that is not a valid argument in removing jacks from country data templates, I think. It's a country specific flag, so I see no reason why it should not be accessible trough this template. Addition and changes done. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Added. Removing stuff that is not used is no problem, but I have not seen that this flag is currently unused from this template. As such I'm not removing it until someone verifies that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have verified that the jack1 and jack2 variants are unused from this template, and have deleted them accordingly.  Also, to respond to Paedia's misinformed comment about the variants of Template:Country data United States, these images are not shown exclusively at 22x20px by  et. al.; they are also used by  on thousands of ship articles, and the number of stars is distinguishable at 100x35px. Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Paedia, 28 October 2010
Talk:Charles Bronson (disambiguation)

message: Charles Bronson (band) has been deleted twice. That's the one bad thing about wikipedia, because the band CB is definitely notable, it spawned a whole subculture. Someone should make it again who has the time and effort to source it as properly as notable, since it is. According to the wikipedia rules at WP:unverifiable Charles Bronson the band definitely fits into notable, under rule number five "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." at the very least. 67.5.147.92 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Band
Talk:Transpersonal disciplines

message: I wrote this article to show that transpersonal psychology is only one of a number of disciplines which requires the adjective "transpersonal"  - there are, in Wikipedia, for example, articles on transpersonal ecology, transpersonal business studies, transpersonal ecology and transpersonal art. If some one could read this articles and think about accurate ways to get them linked to this article, it would help this article to lose its orphaned status. 172.141.218.72 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting rid of orphaned status
Talk:Vorpostenboot

message: I personaly think it's weird to use the singular form "Vorpostenboot', the word is used as a plural in the ntry and so are the translations, I would have changed it, but my German is rusty .. Remko2 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A book, "Seas Aflame" by Hart is quoted twice as a source.  This book is fiction and therefore an unreliable source. I would therefore suggest that it and the information derived from it be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.104.6 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I rolled back and then removed it. Did you actually check whether the pages in the source were part of the novel or a non-fiction section giving background? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable source

message: thank you both for your help and suggestions the past few days! This is the first time I'm diving into this area of content so it is very reassuring to have a bit of a hand in the process. I've just finished what I think is a pretty comprehensive history section of this article, which was extremely fun to write. I think the article has further potential, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to what that would look like. I erred on the side of throwing more information into the history rather than less, since I figured it would be easier to trim than to have to look additional things up. Beyond cleaning that up, I'm not quite sure what other sections are appropriate for this kind of article. I'd love to hear y'alls input and thoughts on the potential to eventually take this to GA at some point down the road. Very respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 17:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thanks for input and request for more
Talk:Mars Area High School

message: Most or all of the notable people from the Mars, PA page are probably alumni of Mars High, aren't they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars,_Pennsylvania#Notable_people
Also, there was a TV show called Farm Kings about the King family, all of whom attended Mars. That seems worth a mention. 
Seansinc (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Alumni
Talk:2005–06 Reading F.C. season

message: Review and events needs serious improving. I won't do anything major myself as I don't know how to do things like create tables, but if someone would create a basic outline I'd happily add to it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.209.39 (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review and events needs improving! 

message: The table says that the players were playing Premier League football. They weren't, they were playing Championship football.86.135.209.39 (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premier League?!? 
Talk:Ferrer (surname)

message: Eisenhower said in this book that his last name- often translated as "Iron worker", actually was closer to meaning "iron craftsman", working on more artistic and ornate shaping of iron. Wou;d this also be true of "iron worker" in old French?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4E00:2100:D1BB:642A:8C00:43E3 (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to Dwight David Eisenhower, in his autobiography "At Ease- Stories I tell to friends"
Talk:Bob Folwell

message: The College Football Data Warehouse is wrong. This page only shows part of Folwell's career. This shows the 1911 season with Lafayette. None of these show his time with W&J College, which is well-documented in the article. I have recalculated his winning percentage, using the correct data from the North book.--Jwilkinsen (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked all the relevant sources and recalculated Folwell's college football record as 109–31–9. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: CFBDW is wrong
Talk:Battle of Calderón Bridge

message: The introduction says 100,000, but the article body says 80,000. howcheng  {chat} 21:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many Mexicans? 

message: A study by Mexican geographer Alma Rosa Bárcenas, published in the first isue of “Geografía”, published by INEGI in Mexico City in 1986, cleared up the confusion surrounding the exact site of the battle, and how it related to the map as originally drawn. It showed conclusively that the map is actually upside-down! 
See, for example, "The map of one of Mexico’s most famous battles is upside down" at http://geo-mexico.com/?p=452http://geo-mexico.com/?p=452.Ladysmith204600 (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map used is apparently upside-down 
Talk:2004–05 Reading F.C. season

message: I've just improved the page a little, it was thread bare before I started. I've added a basic squad list (could somebody improve this for me? I don't have the knowledge to put it in a table) and a short summary of the season, which I hope to add to in time.
I'm using old programmes as sources. 86.135.209.39 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving this page
Talk:Ocha Nigosu

message: Not claiming to be authoritative here. But I've been unable to find any Japanese that supports the phrase "ni gosu." A simple google search only gets the manga, suggesting it isn't some dialectical thing. There is a verb "nigosu" 濁す; exactly how the word applies to tea is a bit baffling, since it means "to make muddy", but it appears to be one of those words often used with very different meanings in expressions, and can mean giving an evasive answer as well. Definitely something to have verified by someone Japanese, but I think it's supposed to be one word. Doceirias (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  nigosu vs ni gosu 

message: The title most likely　comes from the phrase Ocha wo Nigosu (お茶を濁す).　The meaning is to use irresponsible measures to deceive, evade or smooth over a bad situation. The phrase comes from that people that don't know tea ceremony etiquette make the tea muddled, to smooth it over more tea powder is added...or something to that effect. Thusly deceiving, evading or smoothing over a bad situation.Yamikumo (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Doceirias (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is nigosu. 

message: publisher catalog --KrebMarkt 17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  refs
Talk:Katteni Kaizō

message: The official romanization of the name is "Katteni Kaizo" without the space between "Katte" and "ni" . It is written as such on the backcover of the japanese volumes. Anime News Network also has it's article without that space. I tried to move it to this romanization stating this reason for the move but it was almost immediately reverted. Can please someone tell me how the official romanization can be preempted and why this article isn't named the same as the official romanization? Chaosof99 (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a few links on your talk page to explain it; removing the space between a noun and a particle is a romanization practice not followed by Wikipedia's standards of romanization, and one I believe would normally be ignored in the same way we romanize Shijo as Shijō and not Shijyo or or Shijou. Wikipedia uses Hepburn romanization unless there is overwhelming evidence that the unorthodox romanization would be more recognized. In the case of an untranslated, relatively obscure manga, a redirect is probably enough. Doceirias (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanized name
Template talk:Case Law

message: I did a version with a different image in the sandbox.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  22:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: The scope here seems limited only to case law.  Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source lists actions involving small claims, trademarks, murder cases and more.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  14:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  Are you saying that you think the Wikipedia as a court source covers things that would not typically fall under the category "case law?" Remember (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are all legal cases considered case law?  What about cases in small claims court?  Cases judged by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board?  This is rather out of my field and the article on case law is not clear to me.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, any published decision decided by a court (in the US at least) constitutes case law.  So I think all of your examples would count as case law as well as anything on the court source page. Remember (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, wasn't sure on this one.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope
Talk:Industry of China

message: Is there any good reason why "China Inc" redirects to this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.95.131 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: China Inc

message: "The chinese economy is mainly built on stealing western technology and selling it off as native, willful disregard for intellectual property rights, currency manipulation, and slave like conditions in sweat shops around the country. China is increasingly belligerent towards it neighbors and the rest of the world as they are filled with envy of not having a meaningful standard of living while wishing they could live like Americans and Europeans. In short, their society is a corrupt one, where theft of intellectual property replaces ingenuity and maintenance of slave like conditions in the majority of the jobs they have stolen from the rest of the world is the norm. As part of US$586 billion economic stimulus package of November 2008, the government plans to further subsidize in particular high-tech and service sector industries. [4]"
This is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm going to remove it.
CaTigeReptile (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing a paragraph. 
Talk:Coastal fortifications of New Zealand

message: Hi Geronimo20 - how about including Maori fortifications as well? I think quite a few of the coastal pa would also count as coastal fortifications - with the same military use (controlling coastal trade and coastal land) as the European versions.
In any case, nice to know people are still tackling big ones on Wikipedia ;-) Happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. There are about 6000 known Māori fortifications, I don't know how many coastal. I'm sure there is interesting stuff there - maybe an article in it own right since the current one is already long and incomplete. But I don't know enough about it. What about you? In the meantime, a note at least acknowledging Māori coastal fortifications would be good. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maori fortifications 

message: The "Historic Russian scare forts are colour coded yellow" but should also be marked so they can be identified on black and white pages.  Maybe attach the same  note to each.  -- SEWilco (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow forts 
Talk:1985 Algarrobo earthquake

message: This section lacks any specific citations - the general one at the end of the section doesn't even mention this earthquake - and I have been unable to find anything to corroborate it. I am planning to remove the whole section unless anyone can find some citations to support it. Mikenorton (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific understanding?
Talk:Ahu Tongariki

message: Hi, just because the Ahu is made from stone is it within Geology? I would have thought that was more appropriate for the islands quarries and geological features. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I've removed this from WP Geology. Mikenorton (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Blotto game

message: Sometimes I search for things on the internet.  Tonight I was learning about game theory because someone brought up the monty hall game.  I found this post: https://twitter.com/microsoft_edu/status/419157474420486144 and I followed that link to learn about colonel blotto and the solution, because I like knowing we have figured out something. I read the blog post, and I tried to follow all the links from the page, and I didn't really understand blotto games until I watched a youtube video.  Once I did that, I searched around some more, because they said there was a solution, but I hadn't found it yet. But I found this link  https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=5rg-_ZUAAAAJ&citation_for_view=5rg-_ZUAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C  and I wanted to know if that's what they're talking about.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.155.86 (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think 1950 article from RAND, 'a continuous Blotto game' or something, solved for equal number of soldiers with any number of battlefields. Have to check though. 58.146.204.191 (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: recent research

message: What is the link with goofspiel ?
Generalblotto (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: links

message: This looks exactly like the computer game style 'domination' in first person shooters (where each team attempts to capture and hold as many control points as possible and the team that throws more people at a control point generally claims it). The difference is that in a computer game you can reallocate team members to control points on the fly. Has there been research in these 'dynamic' strategies? This could be useful knowledge to avoid 'best strategies' that may result to robotic gameplay and therefore a worse game.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.191.85 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: domination

message: Well-known game theory scenario solved
 Colonel Blotto: New algorithm could help political strategists, business leaders make better decisions
 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211190010.htm
 Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-02/uom-utf021116.php
:--jwalling (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science News: February 11, 2016 
Talk:Sara Gagliardi

message: If Rep. Gagliardi serves 20 years, will every bill she files be listed? Isn't that a bit excessive -- perhaps a WP:NOT#IINFO violation, even? Biruitorul (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Level of detail
Talk:Jack Lind

message: I have no idea what to do, but Jack Lind is the father of Zach, the drummer for Jimmy Eat World.
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6029528/play-ball-jimmy-eat-world-previews-arizona-diamondbacks-2014-season  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.190.64 (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life