lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Radar picket

message: I would like to propose the removal of some extraneous information about the AGR Guardian-class radar picket ships from this section; the information is readily available in the main article on these ships. Thoughts? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Converted merchant ships

message: The following text was added to the Japanese WW2 section. While it definitely covers costal-maritime pickets, in fact these ships did NOT use radar and so do not belong in this article.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-radar picket posting 

message: Shouldn't this article include reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80) - sunk during that conflict while operating as a picket?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.217.179 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be a good addition. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Sheffield (Falklands War / Malvinas) 

message: Just saying, it could be more clear. 208.98.223.19 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of this is just the basic principles of "scouting" or "sentries", as applied to radar specificity..
Talk:Ramped craft logistic

message: One of these now seems to be in service as the Leslie Anne with a Scottish firm - not sure which, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The listed IMO is 8516586, which seems to be Audemer.  I've updated the table. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial use
Talk:Reserved occupation

message: This article copies this BBC page too much...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6652019.shtml?sectionId=0&articleId=6652019  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.80.220 (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

message: Wouldn't it be better to have an actual list of reserved occupations, rather than list of notable people which doesn't even specify what their job was! In fact I'd consider this trivia.
This is also basically a UK specific article, presumably other nations had something similar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymnophoria (talk • contribs) 23:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the list, as on analysis it was random trivia (no clear inclusion criteria and a potentially vast pool of people who could warrant inclusion), and mostly wrong (Bevin Boys were conscripts, not in a reserved occupation that prevented conscription). Mauls (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Which professions?

message: "as both agricultural students and farmers were exempt from conscription, as were students." Is that saying the same thing twice or is "agricultural students" redundant as being included in all students? 194.207.86.26 (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Students
Talk:Resistance to interrogation

message: The use of the word ostensibly has a connotation that there is some other (hidden) agenda. Since Wikipedia attempts to remain neutral, I have taken the liberty to change the wording.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed8r (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ostensibly" 

message: This sentence is very problematic "Especially moving into modern times, when information and technology is often more important than numbers in combat, and when torture has been used less often to humiliate and more often to extract information" has it even been proven that torture can actually extract information?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraK (talk • contribs) 04:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue of the uses of Torture
Talk:RNZAF Base Woodbourne

message: * https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/air-force/where-we-are/dip-flat/ - official page on RNZAF site
* https://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/8054545/Air-force-trains-near-St-Arnaud - Stuff newspaper story
* INNZNA report
Buckshot06 (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links
Talk:Romanian Armed Forces

message: Someone posted "Day of the Romanian Army" in the Holidays and observances section on the October 25 page.  Is this a real holiday/observance ? the same as Armed Forces Day ?  Can someone confirm this, please ?  I wonder why this date was chosen. Thanks. -- PFHLai 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered here. Mentatus 17:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better here. The day is mostly observed by the Romanian Army and its veterans on the anniversary of the liberation of Carei, the last Romanian city under occupation during World War II. This coincides deliberately with the birthday of King Michael; the Army officials dedicated this victory to His Majesty as a sign of support against the Soviets and "local" communists. --ES Vic (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you're wrong here. Even the civilians are active military service personnel, working in domains like logistics/public relations/etc. Also, many of them are usually armed. So the military personnel number of the Romanian Armed Forces is 90,000. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Day of the Romanian Army ? 

message: There seems to be a little misunderstanding over the number of active troops. Although the total number employed by the Romanian Armed Forces is 90,000, 15,000 of them are civilians. In the List of countries by number of active troops as well as in the wikiarticles of other countries, only the number of military forces are given, not the total military + civilians. 
If we are to look even closer, at the UK for example, only the active troops are given (without the territorial troops) - and take note that in the Romanian case active troops are just 2/3s or 50,000 soldiers of the total 75,000. However, since 2007, a new strategy stops separating the Romanian Armed Forces in active and territorial units, opting for the terms "high-readiness" and "regeneration units" instead. Dapiks (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you're wrong here. Even the civilians are active military service personnel, working in domains like logistics/public relations/etc. Also, many of them are usually armed. So the military personnel number of the Romanian Armed Forces is 90,000. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 90,000 vs. 75,000

message: male: 121,391
female: 115,258  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.139.133 (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New reaching military age estimations by CIA 

message: As you can see here  and here , they absolutely are not warrant officers! They must be integrated within the NCOs template, as sourced. --Nicola Romani (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maistri militari are not WO but OR! 
Talk:Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force

message: The Antigua and Barbuda Regiment doesn't comprise four line companies.  There is only one infantry company, and three support (not "line") companies.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Royal Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 18#Royal Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   Peter Ormond 💬 13:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Royal Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Royal Antigua and Barbuda Coast Guard and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 18#Royal Antigua and Barbuda Coast Guard until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   Peter Ormond 💬 14:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Royal Antigua and Barbuda Coast Guard" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:1st The Royal Dragoons

message: The website referenced in many of the links now displays Vietnamese content, amongst which (according to Google Translator) are titles such as "Top sexy girl pictures are much nicer than some Japanese girls" and "Horse racing betting guide".
:Thanks. I have now updated the urls in the citations using "wayback". Dormskirk (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs replaced by a Vietnamese website
Talk:Royal Hampshire Regiment

message: The caption for the first photograph reads: 'The SS River Clyde holds dead of the Royal Hampshire Regiment who were killed while attempting to get ashore at Sedd el Bahr during the Gallipoli Campaign' [1915]. 
While the introduction to this article carries the following information: 'In 1946, due to distinguished service in World War II, the regiment was retitled as the Royal Hampshire Regiment.
One of these statements is clearly wrong, but I do not possess the sources to correct the wrong 'un.
I would bet, however, that the WW I offering is the guilty party - many parts of the British Army at that time did not have the 'Royal' prefix; (e.g. Army Service Corps or A.S.C), but I'm not sure. 
What do other editors think?
RASAM (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It became "Royal" on 28 November 1946 (see Regiments.org). I have corrected the caption to the photo. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Royal' or not 
Talk:Saegheh

message: *Keep - I disagree with the proposal to merge this article with Saegheh (Anti Tank Rocket).  This article describes a short-range surface-to-surface missile system.  The article for the Saegheh Anti Tank Rocket describes a shoulder-fired, rocket-propelled anti-personal weapon and is different from this one in every way.  Merging the two would be like merging USS Hornet (CV-12) with F/A-18 Hornet.  --JJLatWiki 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "anti tank" is a misnomer in the title of Saegheh (Anti Tank Rocket).  The (unsourced) body of that article describes the weapon as an "anti-personnel" weapon which is supported by the description of the prefragmented warhead.  Saegheh (Anti Tank Rocket) should be renamed, "Saegheh (RPG)" and this article should be "Saegheh (surface-to-surface missile)".  This surface-to-surface missile is never described as "anti-tank", only "anti-armor".  --JJLatWiki 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should be renamed, "Saegheh (surface-to-surface missile)".  A dab page should be created though, since Saegheh seems to be a popular name for a variety weapon systems. --JJLatWiki 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert on this kind of weapon - I just stumbled onto this article.  Do you fancy doing this? Rwendland 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on merge proposal 

message: It's said that Iran uses the same name for a multitude of things for the very express purpose of confusion, which, to us Wiki editors have well and truly found out. I BELIEVE that this page in question, relates to the M47 Dragon copy, so thus I've added in reference to the M47 in the article.
As mentioned above however, I could be totally wrong. But, the information on all of this is VERY sketchy, and in my opinion, all Iranian confusion devices should be stuffed onto one page, or just noted on the original's page (e.g. the M47 Dragon) and left at that. SOLVED!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkusContagia (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion: The ole Unoriginal Iranian trick
Talk:Sarissophoroi

message: Sarissoforoi were not light cavalry(!!!) but they were heavy infatry!
They were first used by Philip of Macedon and later by Hellenistic armies. I add as many information as I could but more informations and cities is needed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seleukosa (talk • contribs) 11:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarissoforoi

message: There are articles about sarissophoros (i.e. the singular of sarissophoroi) in other languages. I think they shall be linked with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissophoroi Xakepxakep (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarissophoros
Template talk:US-band-stub

message: Please unlink the common widely understood term United States, per WP:OVERLINK.
Colonies Chris (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Colonies Chris, 7 February 2011
Talk:Shadow box

message: I googled this and could not find any decent references, only merchants. I think someone will need to track down information in a book for references  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasreach77 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Or go ahead and nominate the article for deletion, which to me seems more appropriate anyway.  KDS4444Talk 17:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: References
Talk:Shahab-1

message: I don't think that there is much of a contradiction between the to statements:- that the initial in service  date of 1988 (the first missiles to be called Shahab were of North Korean manufacture), and the establishment of local production sometime between 1987 and 1994. Just tooling up the factories to build components and sub assembelies training the workforce etc would have taken time.--KTo288 (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: inline contradiction template
Talk:Sindh Regiment

message: Hello Wikipedians and the moderator of the article, i have to say that the moderators of this article should change the name of the page from Sind to Sindh this is because the name Sind was used during the time of British Raj and is no longer used, the name Sind refers to Sindh which is now a province of Pakistan that was established on July, 1970 and since then the native name has been used over the colonial one.
Also another point to be noted is that the term Sind not only is irrelevant but it is non-existent in use with Pakistan army now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NameIsShaheer (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing of the name from "Sind" to "Sindh"
Talk:Soft target

message: "to generate terror, create chaos, and intimate" the public?  Surely that should be "to intimidate" or "to intimate [sic]"?  Not sure which, as I don't have access to the original.  68.101.78.195 (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the typo. Thanks for flagging. Neutralitytalk 02:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Flagging a typo

message: The term 'soft target' also seems to include verbal attacks. According to the collins dictionary: "a thing or a person that is easy to criticize or make an attack upon" (source) -- － Cy21 ➜ discuss  09:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbal attacks 

message: In the article we have:
> Of terrorist attacks worldwide from 1968 to 2005, 72% (8,111) struck soft targets and 27% (4,248) struck hard targets.
However the math doesn't add up - 8111 / 4248 is far off from 72% / 27%. The source here is a book which makes learning the original intention of the numbers difficult. Razziabuissa (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math on the ratios of soft / hard targets doesn't add up
Talk:Soltam Systems

message: The soltam was founded by finnish comppany TAMPELLA to get around strick finnish export laws to warring nations, and to this day the cannons and mortars of "soltam" and other products are licenced tampella (today patria) products.
Sollel-Boneh + Tampella = SOL-TAM.
Also tampella officially ended the cooperation sometime in the 1970's (or so sources available in internet claim) but no matter what they claim it is obvious this is not so, as first there is till this day first finnish prototypes or production types of certain type of weapon and then magicly soltam "developes" the exact same thing some years later. And this "ending of the cooperation" was nothing more than selling / giving whatever the full ownership of the corporation to the state of israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.248.159.240 (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor article, 

message: Changed official website to http://www.elbitsystems.com because soltam.com hasn't been related to their products since 2011. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official website changed
Talk:Sovetsky Soyuz-class battleship

message: From what I know about Stalin's preferances in naval warfare, which were always crtical, he never considered carriers as a threat to a well-built monster-sized battleship. Soviet ships had to be designed to outgun other ships of the class in every point - meaning uncontrolled growth of tonnage. And if you didn't design a wonder ship, you were to be considered a traitor.
The hatred toward aircraft carriers continued throughout the Cold War and the "missle craze".
"The weakest, least developed country tends to try to build the biggest battleship." Cited in a two-year old Popular Mechanics issue. Compare "Soyuz" or Yamato to the reasonable Iowas and King George-Vs. The latter were less ambitious, but more realistic, and were actually deployed in large numbers (4 Iowas and 6 ships of similar level, compared to 2.5 Yamatos (one finished as a support carrier/floating maintenance airfield)or 4 uncomplete "Soyuz")).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.139.166.181 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancelled because of aircraft carriers?

message: Only four hulls had been laid down, of the sixteen originally planned, by July 1940, when the decision was made to cease construction of more ships of the class, as the Soviet Union shifted its resources to building its land forces in preparation for the imminent war with Germany.
:For example:
:Of the proposed 16 ships, only four hulls had been laid down by July 1940, when the Soviet Union shifted its resources to strengthening its  land forces, in preparation for the imminent war with Germany.
::Look for sentences with lots of commas, with that appear in the place of objects, with more than one "that", and with passive or "ing" verbs.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Voice"
Talk:Templebeat

message: itwiki lists the following source, which might be used to improve this article:
*
AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: Initial documentation is provided for the band's touring activities in the 90s; more evidence is needed for this as well as the MTV claim. Additionally, the reformed band (Templebeat LTD) planned a tour in 2020 but it is unclear whether is occurred or not. If these can be documented it should suffice to prove notability. Otherwise it may hinge on the notability of Sub/Mission and Dynamica records, both labels that could fulfill WP:NMUSIC #5.-- t_kiehne (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Ten Foot Pole

message: An explanation of the origin of the name would be interesting  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.40.144 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary:not touch something with a ten foot pole has at least a partial explanation. -- œ™ 17:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:University of Massachusetts Amherst/Archive 1

message: Moofdaddy renamed this page to University of Massachusetts-Amhest yesterday.  Obviously the misspelling of "Amherst" a bit of a problem there.  However, I also visited the UMass website and confirmed that they do not use a hyphen, so the whole rename was wrong even if it had been spelled correctly.
Anyhow, I changed it back.
I'll go ahead and create a redirect at University of Massachusetts-Amherst pointing here, to prevent future confusion. —Bsktcase 16:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  No hyphen 

message: I added a daytime photograph of the UMass skyline to the History section. The old photograph was moved to the Buildings and Layout section, next to a paragraph talking about the library and the old chapel. If anyone objects to the layout changes, feel free to edit, but I think it works well this way. --Eraboin 01:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daytime Photograph
Talk:Staff college

message: I think there is more than enough that can be said on each page. The US colleges are sufficiently numerous for their own page - provided it is adequately linked to the main pageNcox 11:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I was expecting (hoping?) this page to be a disambiguation page.
Attempting to use this page for that purpose is hopless.
Hence, I'm constructing a new table here, and when it's in reasonable shape, I plan to migrate it into the article.
Everyone is more than welcome to help. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity
Talk:Alejandro Scopelli

message: Hello, I'm a french, and I try to translate in franch the article. However, when I read the career of Alejandro Scopelli, and watch the career as trainer, I notice problems : for exemaple, how he can win the Championship of Portugal in 1930 whereas he played in Argentina between 1928 and 1933? There is a contradiction between english and german articles and spanish articles. Could you explain me that?Thank you so much.
:Scopelli did not play in Portugal in 1930. He did play for Belenenses in the twilight of his career, and then went on to coach Belenenses, Benfica and Porto from the Portuguese league. IIRC, his only championship wins were as a coach in Mexico. elpincha (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 
Talk:Standardization agreement

message: says NATO used the 762x51 ammo until the 80's. don't we still use this cartridge?? m240, mg3, minigun, etc GarrettJL 09:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it refers to the basic rifle for infantrymen, not including machine guns or designated marksman weapons.  Many countries use(d) FN-FAL as their standard infantry rifle. --UnneededAplomb (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  7.62x51mm NATO cartridge 

message: Are some of these documents classified? It would be useful to list which are freely available and which are not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.207.212 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All STANAGs not published at http://nsa.nato.int are classified. There are however a fair number of civil standards by NSA (NATO Standardisation Agency) in use. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: This page should be called NATO Standardization Agreements as there are many formal and informal Standardization Agreements in the industrial and technical realms -- so the page title itself must specify which one. 
Eyreland (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Badly Named 
Talk:Starfire Optical Range

message: Why don't the green beams continue past their point of convergence? What stops them? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA)
good question, that.
:They do continue.  Except when they continue in space, you can't see the light.  What you are seeing in the picture is some of the laser's light being scattered off the air molecules, dust, pollutants in the atmosphere.  Once the beam gets into the vacuum of space, even though the laser light is in the visible wavelength band, you can't see it (although the beam is still there...if you held a movie screen in space you'd see a green dot).  Basically, all the science fiction movies you've seen with lasers firing visible light is wrong.  First, they wouldn't be firing lasers in the visible spectrum.  Second, even if they were, you wouldn't see the laser beam until it reflected or scattered off the target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.154.229 (talk • contribs) 
::They don't converge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.246.15 (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convergence