lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC)

message: I replaced today a whole paragraph previously deleted in July ... "The Motives" with the explanation "it was wrong". It's not appropriate to simply delete all of someone else's work. If you know that it's wrong, then you have access to references that you can cite... when you get the time. Furthermore, if there's something wrong with it that needs discussion, that's what this page is for. Twang (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motives section 

message: Something is wrong with the casualties we propose for the Macedonian side. Where was this huge number taken from? Diodorus certainly does not state a number for the Macedonian losses, nor does Polyaenus or any other source I have read on the matter. Where did we find this number? It is very strange to propose that Philip's army sustained more casualties than the conquered... I will remove it until some source is given for this number. Diodorus states that there was great slaughtering, so I just substituted it with "relatively heavy", since this could mean anything from 100 to 1.000 men...
GK1973 (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: The 'Battle-plan of Chaeronea' image is not consistent with the text.
The Greeks had the river on their right flank and the mountains on their left.
Also, the Macedonians would be coming from the north. So it seems the compass indicator should be reversed 180 degrees.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgonggr (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical battle image compass error 

message: There is a sentence in the 'part of...' box that i can't find in the source to edit out. What gives? Can someone who knows wiki better than me fix?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.7.88 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably vandalism of a template, therefore won't appear in the source page itself. But I can't work out where either. I've asked for ideas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Lion of Chaeronea defaced!. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: Is the list of events in the "Thematic appraisal" section showing up on anyone's browser improperly? For me, all the items in the list start with "1.", instead of being numbered in order (1, 2, 3, etc.). Is this just my computer, or is a mistake? Joshualouie711 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thematic appraisal 

message: there is a type where "distraction" should be replaced by "destruction" 2.197.252.196 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  typo
Talk:Battle of Chaeronea (86 BC)

message: The map places Thurium in the wrong position. Camp's discoveries place it closer to Chaironeia. See:  and [s3.invisionfree.com/campusmartius/ar/t48.htm].--Auric (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire image appears to be incorrect, I'll have a look a drafting something up to replace it. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate map 

message: B class. I added the Sulla coin so that there would be supporting materials. Djmaschek (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , good thought, I'd forgotten with the image removed that the supporting materials (B5) would no longer be a pass. Thanks for doing the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Review
Talk:Battle of the Cedars

message: According to the box describing the battle, there were no more than 200 on the British/Native side, but in the text, the force strength is listed as 650.  Which is right?Dave 06:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Force Strength

message: There is a couple of problems connected to this article:
1. Its difficult to read. Some sentences is not complete and its all written in one paragraf. 
2. Its not about the battle. Its about what happened to the soldiers after the battle. Shauni 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor quality

message: Discuss "merger" of Battle of Vaudreuil stub here.
The Vaudreuil article is currently a nearly-empty stub.  Establishing context to explain the action in a separate article (see the section on the skirmish in this article) would require largely replicating this article. Magic♪piano 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since there was such strong feeling, I went ahead and "merged" (replaced Vaudreuil article with redirect here). Magic♪piano 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Battle of Vaudreuil

message: Given that you have used the correctly dated flags for Great Britain and the United Colonies, it seems a bit anachronistic to use an Iroquois flag from the 1980s in this article. If the Iroquois used a single flag at the time then that should be used, if not then you shouldn't use any flag at all for them.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not conversant in the history of the Iroquois banner.  If in fact this use is anachronistic, it is hardly alone in WP, as it is is used in quite a few Revolutionary War (and earlier) articles.  (I have no objection to altering this condition, just noting that it exists.) Magic♪piano 03:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The banner is a modern construct and as such is anchronistic. I would recommend removing it from this page and any others that predate its development.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I estimate that 20-30 of the flag 80 or so usages of the flag may be at issue.  I'll certainly remove it from articles I work on. Magic♪piano 15:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag

message: I don't know how to enter info correctly here without messing up someone's work, but I have a comment. I was told and have seen in records that the place called Quinze Chiens is a francization of the native american word Quenechoen. Andielemmer (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What sort of records did you see?  If it's published in some sort of book or scholarly publication, we could definitely use it. Magic♪piano 14:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quinze Chiens name
Talk:Battle of Cunaxa

message: I've created pictures of the first and second phases of the battle, but I can only seem to get the first phase of the battle up
File:Battle of Cunaxapng Stage 1.png
File:Battle of Cunaxapng Stage 2.png
SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this what you wanted? There were two problems: You inserted this post inside the WikiProjectBannerShell template, which prevented it and the gallery from displaying. And you didn't specify the stage 1 image in the gallery. I fixed it with this change. —teb728 t c 06:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't I get this picture up? 

message: I am of the understanding that Wikipedia policy regarding battles is that there are three things we can put in an infobox for the outcome of a battle. Victory, stalemate and defeat.
Given the battle resulted in the death of Cyrus the younger, and the dissolution of his army. The fact the Greek component was able to retreat from the empire in good order is largely irrelevant to the battle outcome and really belongs in a war outcome infobox. I would suggest we classify this as victory for Artaxerxes.
sovietblobfish (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle result
Talk:Battle of Craonne

message: Was not this derogatory name for young conscripts also a reference to their youth, as France was scraping the manpower barrel by then?Paulturtle (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Marie Louises

message: Why these two sources both said the french lost 500 men? Did the publisher got wrong?, Waylon1104 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Source [1] (Chandler) states that the Russians lost 5,000 men and the French lost 500 more. In other words, the French lost 5,500 men, not 500. Djmaschek (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chandler's data
Talk:Battle of Cove Mountain

message: I deleted the statement that Averell destroyed this rr because it was factually incorrect. Forces under George Crook destroyed the RR bridge, which was located nearly 40 miles from Averell's position.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenandoah1864 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct: Crook got the huge bridge, and Averell hit Christiansburg and about four miles of line only. This new version should explain everything. TwoScars (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia and Tennessee Railroad
Talk:Battle of Cortenuova

message: The article seems to put the victory on the shoulders of the Saracens, but the sources differ as to whether they were even at the battle or not.  Most of the fighting is said to have occurred between the German horse and the League forces, first their cavalry, then their infantry.  Query what is the foundation for the assertion that the Saracens may have won the battle?Larry Dunn 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the stress on Muslim warriors, who surely played a role, but surely not the exaggerate one boasted by some sources, which forget the true situation in face of such an exotic detail. There's surely also a confusion in data, considering ALL Sicilian warriors as Muslim, which is clearly a misinterpretation. Also the spelling "Moslems" is old fashioned and has been removed. The battle was largely won by northern Italian men-at-arms who disrupted the fleeing, unprepared Milanese and Cremonese troops exiting from Cortenuova at dawn. 2,000 German knights under Frederick is reasonable, considering the number of his allies and the presence of the Teutonic Knights; it is anyway possible that some of those knights were not German, but Hungarian, northern Italian or whatever. --Attilios (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saracens 
Talk:Battle of Cnidus

message: The Battle of Cnidus was most likely when the Athenian general Iphicrates first distinguished himself (J K Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, Oxford, 1971, pp 249-250)... Plutarch, Moralia, 187.1 says "The first occasion on which he won repute was when, wounded himself, he picked up one of the enemy alive, armour and all, and bore him to his own trireme."  Iphicrates was said to have been only 20 years old and an Athenian general at the time (probably he was a trierarch in this battle).   After helping to destroy Spartan sea power in this battle, Iphicrates was (four years later) to be the first to defeat the Spartans in open battle on land.  Perhaps this paragraph could be added?
Sitalkes (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting incident during this battle
Talk:Battle of Chrysopolis

message: This article is seriously flawed in its too positive identification of Constantine with Christian interests. The literature used to support this view is (with one exception) seriously dated. Modern ecclesiastical historians focus on Constantine's political interests and noncommital religious opinions. Jajafe 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constantine and Christianity 

message: This article is about a battle. Does it not seem odd that with the exception of the date, it contains no actual information "about the battle"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.115.242 (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope 

message: Some say 323 and some say 324, so maybe both opinions should be mentioned. Art LaPella (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  323 or 324? 
Talk:Battle of Chioggia

message: It seems odd to focus on a naval battle apparently held on 21st June (records of which seem to be minimal) rather than the Siege of Chioggia over a wider period.  In fact, most of the article is about the aftermath of the siege, rather than a naval battle.  Suggest renaming to Siege of Chioggia and covering the entire action Monstrelet (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand & rename?
Talk:Battle of Cheat Mountain

message: Cheat Summit Fort is inside of Randolph County, West Virginia.  From the description in this article and a diagram at the site, it appears that most/all of the battle was in Randolph County despite the NPS article saying Pocahontas County.  As such, I've tagged both counties for the site of the battle.  Brian Powell (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 
Talk:Battle of Changsha (1941–1942)

message: |strength1 = 300,000 soldiers
|strength2 = 120,000 soldiersHsiung, James Chieh; Levine, Steven I. China's Bitter Victory: The War with Japan, 1937–1945, p. 158600 pieces of artillery200 aircraft
|casualties1 = 29,217 killed and wounded翁里陽、博凡、常然著，《中國抗日戰爭-氣壯山河》，台北市：知兵堂，2007年
|casualties2 = Japanese source: 1,591 killed4,412 woundedJapanese Monograph No. 71, Army Operations in China pp. 76.
Chinese source: 56,000 killed and wounded
Need a paragraph to record the details.   PS: I think it may be necessary to investigate editing war.I feel very confused why the editing time of FormosaKMT and 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:85/61 is very close at 25 October 2018.
I found another problem that may have been added to an untrustworthy reference. The source of the reference is Chinese. So I put .--Witotiwo (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  These contents need to be rewritten into a paragraph
Talk:Diamond v. Diehr

message: The article editorializes when it assumes criticisms of analytic dissection in Diehr are criticisms of the Flook opinion.  Diehr does not say this.  Further, as I read Flook, it explicitly does not use analytic dissection.
:Reply to unsigned comment: I am sorry but that misreads Diehr and Flook. Flook makes a point of saying that it is conceded that everything is old or conventional in the claim except the use of the smoothing equation. Then it says that under Morse and Nielson you must presume that the Equation, the only novel element, is in the prior art. There is a flaw in that statement that is picked up and remedied, I think, by Mayo and Alice. Stevens should have added that there is no suggestion that the (novel) equation element cooperates with the other claim elements in a novel and unobvious way. Recent decisions of the Fed. Cir. usually add that. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analytic dissection 

message: The article right included a discussion of whether the patent would pass the Bilski test.  Per the commentary, since THE DRAWINGS only show an algorithm, this would fail the Bilski test.  Never mind that the abstract talks about transformation of rubber products and the independent claims all relate to rubber curing.  Am I missing something?  If this doesn't pass the Bilski test then what does?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.19.80 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. It probably does not pass Bilski, Mayo, or Alice, because of the way it was claimed. BTW, the abstract and spec should not be read into the claim.  PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bilski test? 

message: Research Corp. Technologies v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2010-1037 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 8, 2010). This case is not concerned with Diehr issues. It should be deleted. I will delete it after a reasonable time if there is no objection. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's OK to delete it now since it doesn't link to an article.--Nowa (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Microsoft case in See also 

message: Often, Diehr is believed to have introduced software patents. But it actually only relates to a conventional system that performs a calculation on an observed quantity: to calculate a time from temperature measurements. The formula of the calculation is not new (it stems from the 19th century), neither is the method to perform the calculation (the algorithm). Rbakels (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a "computer program"
Talk:Battle of Đồng Xoài

message: The article mentions "several hundred more [Viet Cong bodies] were strewn all over the battlefield" but this information is not included in the info box and so creates the initial impression that the VC lost 126 dead and the ARVN forces lost almost four times that many. This suggests a bias on someone's part since the text of the article -- for those who read that far -- indicates the number of dead was much closer to equal. Someone with the approved editing credentials should correct the information on VC casualties and losses to read "126 bodies recovered inside recaptured compounds, plus several hundred more found elsewhere on the battlefield." 66.162.249.170 (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Viet Cong losses -- information in the fact box is incomplete and plays down actual VC losses 

message: The article states that the battle began when the VC overran a CIDG/SF camp but does not include the SF team/group in the belligerents or leaders. 141.156.187.235 (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belligerents 

message: There is only one sentence in this article mentioned ARVN 51st Regt, but in another battle in I Corps (South Vietnam) - Battle of Ba Gia that happened 10 days prior to this battle. Then suddenly, ARVN 51st Regt was listed in Infobox's Belligerents. I think it was purely a reading mistake of user SyriaWarLato in September 2015, and should be removed from Infobox. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed per above explanation. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement of ARVN 51st Infantry Regiment
Talk:Battle of Dominguez Rancho

message: According to the 1886 published account from Bancroft, 4 US marines died in immediate action, and an additional 10 died later of their wounds...all were buried on Snake Island, now called Terminal Island. This total count brings the American fatalities for this battle to 14 (fourteen) DonDeigo 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty count

message: A better map might be provided - as Nevada, San Diego and other locations are not mentioned in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of the Dominguez Ranch 
Talk:Battle of Deorham

message: The combatant nations were as far as is known-   
* Cerin (UK) (Romano-British) - in Cirencester and north eastern Gloucestershire and eastern Gloucestershire. It is not to be confused with the town of Cerin in Slovakia.    
* Badden (Romano-British) - in Bath, Bristol and South Gloucestershire.   
* Glouvia (A.K.A. Glevum) (Romano-British)- Western Gloucester and Northern Gloucestershire.    
* Ergyng (Welsh) - in south west Herefordshire, northern Monmouthshire and the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire. 
--86.25.6.126 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The combatant principalities

message: Everything2 entry  
(map)  -    
Map   
--86.25.6.126 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Could someone with more knowledge of Wiki please add a link from the disambiguation page for Derham or Dereham, please?
I didn't know the correct spelling Deorham, which made finding this page tricky.Dean1954 (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a link to Dereham (disambiguation). Dudley Miles (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble finding this page 

message: While it has long been speculated whether the battle actually took place and where, new potential evidence in the form of metal detecting finds nearby has significantly raised the possibility that it did. The finds include parts of an elaborate and bejewelled early Saxon buckle which must have belonged to someone of great significance, possibly one of the kings killed in the battle.  Whether this means that the dead were transported from the battlefield to a nearby burial site or maybe died where they fell in battle may never be known. However, the buckle that was found has been dated to the second half of the 6th century which aligns with the date of the battle. Several other artifacts from the period have also been found.
The parts of the buckle found thus far consist of a large silver decorated loop a silver based pin topped with gold fretwork inlaid with garnets and the tail end of the buckle plate which is also of a silver base topped with gold and garnets. 
Details can be found on the Portable Antiquities database at https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/284936, https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/641070 and https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/437685 2A02:C7C:88E6:3800:4C94:8EA6:F353:E3EE (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to wait for comment by a reliable source. An editor's interpretation of a PAS record is original research, which is forbidden. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof that the battle took place
Talk:Battle of Denain

message: Reading the article I see that Prince Eugene is the commander of the allied forces. However only Earl of Albermarle is mentioned in the box. Should Prince Eugene been added to the box? If there is no objection I will add him.Tryst Nguyen (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it should be Albermarle. Albermarle was the garrison commander who was overrun by Villars. The article is poorly worded and misleading. It is true that Eugene was the overall commander in theatre - he sent reinforcements to Albermarle but they arrived too late - but the actual commander who fought the engagement was the Dutchman. The strengths of the combattants are also misleading. The editor had given the entire theatre strengths! The actual numbers are approximately 10,000 Dutch, 30,000 French (24,000 according to Chandler). But full credit goes to Villars who outmanoeuvred Eugene that enabled him to gain his victory at Denain. French losses were 2,100 (Chandler and Lynn), the allied losses 6,400 (inc. 4,100 prisoner)Rebel Redcoat (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you have alot of criticism (not just here but elsewhere) but little that's constructive. Why don't you re-write this article and see if you can impress us? And get a proper user account, ie not just a IP address. Thank you.Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I have replaced the previous account of the battle with a translation of the Wikipedia.fr entry which is also being challenged for lack of referencing, but at least gives a coherent account of what Villars was trying to do, rather than simply rejoicing in generic terms at his meting out death and destruction to his opponents.  The article would benefit enormously from a map (#4 of the IGN 1:100 000 series was of great use to me, but certainly isn't Public Domain) Rjccumbria (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That translation was pretty rough. I cleaned up the article and removed the copyedit tag, but this article still needs a lot of help in sources. It'd also be good if someone knowledgeable about this battle could check it and make sure nothing is clearly incorrect after all the converting work. Milhisfan (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was in command?