lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Pensacola (1814)

message: This battle was part of the War of 1812 but it took place in 1814. Shouldn't the title be Battle of Pensacola (1814), not Battle of Pensacola (1812)? Twpsyn Pentref (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I will move the page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: The following are recorded as "Supernumerary" in the ship musters:
HMS Seahorse:
127 men, all believed to be Royal Marines, or volunteers in Nicolls's unit (numbers 1041 to 1168 in the muster)
4x Indian warriors (1211 to 1215 in the muster)
Spaniards (1170 to 1206)
HMS Childers:
Crew of HMS Hermes, which was abandoned in September 1814
102 Spanish 'Embarked from forts Rosa & Barrancas, by order of Capt Jordan'
HMS Sophie:
149 Spanish - disembarked at St Joseph's Bay on 30 November 1814
Entries 156 to 190 are escaped slaves
Keith H99 (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Strength of the British in November 1814

message: This article needs some serious editing. Many of the sentences aren't sentences, and some of the ones that are are very poorly worded. I'll try to come back to this once finals are over and see what I can do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyh2014 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs editing 

message: This is somewhat problematic.
Tucker states, without recourse to source material, there were at least 15 dead or wounded, as suffered by the Spanish and British. This is stated in one primary source, authored by Edward Nicolls, the difference being this is his estimate of casualties suffered by Jackson's force!
:1. Where does Tucker get his figures from?
:2. Eaton's figures look plausible. Are the nine wounded men mentioned by name?
:3. Has there been a similar compilation for the Spanish soldiers?
:4. It seems plausible that, as per Nicolls statement, no casualties were suffered by the British, the reason being that there was no combat whatsoever for his troops! The British had retreated out to sea prior to Jackson's force arriving, to storm the outlying Fort San Carlos and Santa Rosa Punta de Siguenza battery.
I think this has been too inconsequential for historians to have bothered to have researched. There's more interest and glory with regard to the subsequent Battle of New Orleans. Keith H99 (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Reformatted Keith H99 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties
Talk:Siege of Fort Wayne

message: Please cite references. Also, should "results" be changed to "Effects" or "Consequences"? Results implies to me the connotation of seeking to achieve goals... you try something and say "what were the results?" "Consequences" seems to be much more widely used in any case, in most wikipedia articles on battles... LordAmeth 14:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:MILHIST]] Assessment

message: This article reads like a magazine article, narrative rather than concise and scholarly.  It's replete with trivial detail, and light on the "big picture" or analytical perspective.  I think the article could be shortened by half, and lose little or nothing in presentation. The Punitive expeditions subsection is really a bit off-topic, not sure where it belongs (maybe a footnote?), but should be condensed and summarized. Sbalfour (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest an alternative.  This article should be less about a place and more about the larger context of the War of 1812 and Native American removal and resistance.  Written from that perspective, it wouldn't be a good idea to strip it down and merely make it a subsection of the Fort Wayne article.  Instead, I'm going to create Western Theater of the War of 1812 and try to give a middle-layer perspective that gives context to the variety of places and events that happened in this region.  I'm thinking of Western theater of the American Revolutionary War as a model.  I can get the new article started but I will definitely need some help.Canute (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi, I just edited a sentence in the 'Background' section to appear more grammatically correct and a bit more objective. Hope this was ok as this is my fist wiki edit! Have a good day :) Sokka-the-meat-and-sarcasm-guy (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sokka-the-meat-and-sarcasm-guy Welcome to Wikipedia! Canute (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone
Talk:Battle of Bladensburg

message: Does anyone else see some of the glaring errors and mistatements in ths account?
Tom Cavanaugh
The Road to Washington - British Army Style
:Feel free to correct them Kmusser 17:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was orphaned, hope it now appears Keith H99 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: An editor has suggested that the result was not a 'Decisive British victory' simply a 'British victory'. Would people like to give their opinions here one way or another. Many thanks  - Galloglass 20:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a larger question about where and when to use the word "Decisive". If we're using it as a synonym for unqualified then there are a number of British war victories that should be similarly described yet aren't. If we're going to use it as a synonym for pivotal then I'd concur with your take and would suggest ensuring that all battles in the War adhere to that sort of framing. For instance, OTTOMH & IMHO using the "pivotal" framing the Siege of Detroit, the Battle of_Lake Erie, the Battle of Stoney Creek and the Battle of Crysler's Farm would qualify for adding the "Decisive" description while everything else would be simply a victory. My two bits for a Sunday morning  Natty10000 | Natter  13:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly "decisive" in the sense of "complete" in that the American forces were routed, leaving the British in undisputed possession of the field. Not "decisive" in the sense of "war-winning", as it did not force the Americans to concede terms at the peace conference or affect their ability to continue the war. I would omit "decisive. HLGallon (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive British victory 

message: Whilst the use of Congreve rockets is noted as having scared the inexperienced Militiamen, they weren't up against the Red Army of WW2. There may well have been sixty munitions, but sixty launchers? Totally wrong Keith H99 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There were 25 men in the Rocket team, so 60 sounds plausible for individual munitions. As for the launchers, each would require a section of men, so I presume 8 or so men per rocket frame sounds plausible. Keith H99 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am informed that Elting does state 'sixty launchers', but fails to attribute this to a source. Given that he passed away in May 2000, he has taken that information with him to the grave.Keith H99 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rocket Launchers 
Talk:First Battle of the Aisne

message: This article was nominated for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 I failed this article because it's too short; just a stub and, it has no references. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 06:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  0.5 nom 

message: Added a list of sources and made a feeble start on citations.Keith-264 (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE
Talk:Battle of Chunuk Bair

message: Began adding citations.Keith-264 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE
Talk:Battle of Gully Ravine

message: References I added do not show up for some reason. Help?!--Murat (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings ! I fixed this for you. To make references appear, you need a section ==Notes==
 or  Rcbutcher (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of Hill 60 (Gallipoli)

message: Apparently Hill 16 was actually called 'Hill 60' after the Battle of Hill 60. What, therefore, is the Irish connection to this battle? Thanks. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish casualties

message: I have removed the note "A full list of these men is available at http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/index.blog?topic_id=1104120 9th LHR and Hill 60", because it links to the Nek battle in Gallipoli, in which the 9th weren' t particularly involved. Bean says that they were "relatively speaking, intact, not having taken part in the actual charge at the Nek...", (p754). I  also modified the ambiguous wording which indicated the the 9th fought at the Nek,  even though it was their parent, the 3rd Light Horse Brigade that did so. Also removed "The result was Reynell's death and that of 27 men"  - unless/until a suitable source can be found. There's a source for for Reynell's death (Bean|1924|p=758) but not for the 27.  In any case,  over a thousand died there so why single out Reynell? --Bye for now  (PTT) 13:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations
Talk:Battle of Krithia Vineyard

message: Short, but a good start. References are neccessary, and flags should be removed from the infobox. Carom 02:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment
Talk:First Battle of Krithia

message: Added references and citations, moved a map and removed citations needed banners.Keith-264 (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE
Talk:Second Battle of Krithia

message: Krithia derives from the Greek "krithari" which is the Greek word for Barley.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.92.231 (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference for this pls? Anotherclown (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of "Krithia"
Talk:Battle of Tolvajärvi

message: " The Soviet losses are thought to be over 5000 dead "
Thought by whom? Is it "reliable source"? No links whatsoever, may as well put 150 000 dead there  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.150.175.21 (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proofs
Talk:Battle of Honkaniemi

message: Col. V.Kashuba. was the Comanding Soviet General. Can you add that?
do you know his first name? L3eater (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class.  It would benefit from expansions and sections such as Prelude, The battle, Aftermath, as well as inline citations --Rosiestep (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]]

message: The location of the battle is shown in these old maps: Näykkijärvi in the first map and  Honkaniemi railway stop in the top right cornerof it, continuing to the next map. --Kummi (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: The original Finnish plan had six infantry and four artillery battalions, and an armoured company. What is meant by "due to the haste to get the plan up and running, the planners missed important aspects of the battle, therefore reducing the overall number of units..."? What does missed important aspects of the battle mean?203.184.41.226 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of battle 
Talk:Battle of the Frontiers

message: Hmmmm, was it really expected to be a war winner? Could it be that this was post-war apologetics? Could it be that the military were hoping it would come off but expected that it wouldn't and that its real purpose was to capture Belgian and northern French resources and then dig in for a war of exhaustion? Wouldn't this explain the transfer of two corps to East Prussia - that fighting the war beyond all of Germany's borders mattered more than the 'knockout blow'? Has anyone read Annika Mombauer's book?Keith-264 (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think poor old Von Schlieffen has been done a great disservice by history. Documents dug up over the last 50 years would indicate that what he produced was more of an ongoing feasibility study than a "plan" : his last comments were "we are too weak', meaning Germany still lacked the resources to carry out any such enterprise. The smoking gun seems to point to Moltke, who tried to use a feasibility study as a plan and screwed up. Rcbutcher (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schlieffen Plan 

message: Added material to include all the operations in the navbox, much of it needs rewriting using newer sources.Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions
Talk:Siege of Przemyśl

message: The current version of this articles includes the following ungrammatical line:
:For three days the Russians assaulted and did nothing but bring suffer 40,000 casualties.
It is not clear whether this is supposed to mean that the Russians caused 40,000 Austrian casualties, or that the Russians suffered 40,000 casualties of their own. Could someone familiar with this datum correct the syntax? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffering 40,000 casualties
Talk:Erzurum offensive

message: This is part of Caucasus Campaign.  Erzurum was part of the global Caucasus Campaign. At the end it is a province not a region. Thanks --OttomanReference 16:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign is the [[Caucasus Campaign]]

message: The name of the city is erzurum. We do not create the cities with Russian or Armenian spellings. ThanksOttomanReference 17:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a historic article it should be named the way it was named during the battle. If the people of Erzuram change the name of the city to Paris, this article will still be called Battle of Erzerum. So what was the name of the city in 1916? --VartanM 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The name of the cities are used with their native language

message: A novel by John Buchan, author of "The Thirty-Nine Steps." Erzerum is ultimately where the protagonists come together and aid the Russians in the assault on the Turkish fortress. Greenmantle is one of the first spy novels. The campaign for Erzerum takes place around the storyline.
HLB Engineering (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenmantle

message: I don't understand the citation method used.  It seems to be like a version used by social scientists, where one cites a paper or other work.  That works for social scientists, who typically cite short documents such as papers and articles rather than books.  My background is in history, and I was taught to cite the author, book, publisher and year, then page number.  That way others can find it and verify it.  The method used here is confusing and I am not certain why the previous entries were changed.  In my opinion, it should be changed.  DanielCar67 (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Please note that per Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters, results "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. Thanks! Annwfwn (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox "Result"
Talk:Begonia

message: This section seems like it has useful information, but it's a little technical.  What does overpot mean for instance?  There isn't any trace of it in Wikipedia or Wiktionary.  What is a light pit?  What country/latitude are these instructions for?  I live in southern Australia and doubt they have much relevance for me.
I have done a little wikification, but I think this article could use the assistance of a true begoniac.
—Moilleadóir 04:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultivation 

message: As everyone can see, I forgot to log in before making those edits as 67.162.3.88. Begonial 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still learning by making mistakes 

message: Begonia pedatifida has been added based on the following
http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Begonia_pedatifida
--222.64.210.25 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A topic of .... 

message: I've removed the following from the page because the source is not a good one and terms such as "variety" are misused:
"Binomial terms such as Begonia grandiflora, Begonia multiflora, and Begonia pendula do not refer to accepted species, but rather varieties of tuberous begonias.1er Jardin"
Perhaps some editors here might be interested in a discussion about a related matter at Template talk:Infobox cultivar#Alternative taxonomies, particularly cultivar groups. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a poor citation, but ... 

message: "Begoña" is a female Basque name. Could this be where "Begonia" came from? FinnHK (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: The first two paragraphs have conflicting data.  The intro says:
″The genus contains 1,795 different plant species.″
Whereas the first sentence in the description says:
″With 1,839 species, Begonia is the fifth-largest angiosperm genus.″
This second instance has a citation so it seems to be the correct one.  It seems kind of redundant to mention the number of species twice so soon, so perhaps get rid of the first instance (with "1,795")?
Robisodd (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species number conflict
Talk:Second Battle of Gaza

message: I'm not a techie and don't know how to change this, but the Charles Dallas to which note 3 links is most definitely not the correct person, as the Charles Dallas in the link died a century or so before the actions this article describes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.190.138 (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, I believe it was in fact Alister Grant Dallas, per: . Thank you for identifying this error. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 3 links to the wrong Charles Dallas 

message: Were Canadian forces present? I thought they were all in Vimy in April 1917 -- Thats Just Great (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian forces
Talk:Battle of Saint-Mihiel

message: Whoever has last  edited this page either through incompetence or malice has totally destroyed any/all relevent information concerning this WWI battle.  Please review and re-edit. 70.2.99.156 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review and re-edit 

message: See Wikipedia:How to fix bunched-up edit links. The Transhumanist    11:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunched up edits 

message: Is Mihiel pronunced with the 'l' silent? גבעתי (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: The article appears to contain an inconsistency pertaining to the dates on which the battle was fought: the first sentence indicates that the battle took place on 12–15 September 1918, and the infobox indicates that it was fought on 12–19 September 1918. Which is correct? Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date inconsistency 

message: the aftermath section is largely direct quote from sources given. Needs attention or removing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  aftermath - copying issue 

message: A line early in the article says:"It was the first and only offensive 
launched solely by the United States Army in World War I...", but in
the opening paragraph, it says there were 110,000 French troops under
U.S. command. It seems to me that the earlier line should be changed.
76.254.31.42 (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solely American? 

message: Patton ordered the creation of a tank corps long before Cambrai, in June 1917. Patton was already training US crews on the day the Cambrai offensive was launched. Pershing had ordered a report on tanks as soon as the AEF arrived in France in April 1917; it was completed in June and was highly critical of British and French tank design and tank tactics. Hengistmate (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allied Tank Support
Talk:Battle of Tanga

message: I have recently reverted the change of the term British Army -> Indian Army.  The problem with using the term Indian Army here is the fact that it refers to the nation's army following India's independence in 1947.  Instead I propose a compromise of using British Indian Army.  This way it is still clear as to whom this article is refering to, and at the same time it fully describes both nations, and which force fought where.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 18:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding British or Indian 

message: Lieutenant Colonel Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck was promoted to Generalmajor in October 1917 after the battle of Mahiwa and not in 1914 after Tanga.  There is no record in Farwell, Hoyt or Miller of a promotion from Lt.Col. to full Colonel.  Generalmajor on a comparison chart is equivalent to Brigadier General in the British or U.S. Army.--Gamahler (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion
Talk:Battle of the Yser

message: The WL directs to the following: "The 4th Army (German: 4. Armee Oberkommando) was a field army that fought in World War II."  I'm afraid I don't have enough knowledge as to whether there was or wasn't a German 4th Army in WWI but there appears to be a discrepancy here. Anyone able to help please? Scoop100 (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: German Fourth Army

message: Tidied the references and layout, added citations and sources.Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a bit more and revised a few typos.Keith-264 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Cut 'n' pasted material from the Siege of Antwerp and Race to the Sea pages to remedy the redundant sub-heading. It needs ce which I will attempt later.Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tidied the material parachuted in from other pages. There's more to add to the prelude and battle sections.Keith-264 (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: I prefer not to write under level 2 headers, hence the level 3s which will make more sense when I get round to adding to the narrative (eventually, er, honest).Keith-264 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headers 

message: I don't think this adds anything to the article beyond repetition and obsolete narrative; I'd get rid.Keith-264 (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary section 

message: Keith-264 (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map
Talk:Second Battle of the Masurian Lakes

message: Why are the sources and last paragraph of this article deleted  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pindanl (talk • contribs) 14:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is a short article about a massive battle.  In the Results section, the line "A further ourcome was that Alexandr Bogdanov, serving as a doctor with the 221st Roslav infantry Regiment (III Corps), succombed to a nervous disorder and retired from active service to become a junior surgeon in an evacuation hospital[2]." seems out of place in such a general account of a battle involving many hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
I leave it to those who know more about this subject to decide.
ArtSiegel (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogdanov information seems out of place