lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Poe (disambiguation)

message: I have been adding several times now "Power over Ethernet" on top of the page, just below the  "most often refers to" claim for Edgar Poe. I have nothing against literature, I have read some Edgar Poe texts myself, I have not tried to undo other's work by changing this "most often refers to" claim in favor of the emerging technology that Power over Ethernet is, and I have not removed the redirect link from poe but rather proposed it further down that page. However, I have added, below that  "most often refers to" claim, another meaning of poe that in my honest opinion has its place on top of the page and not lost in the middle of the list.
NormanEinstein, you have twice undone my change, despite the fact that I explicitly asked you to argue on that page rather than purely delete my entry (see my entry below from 18 November 2009). The facts have not changed, "PoE power" gives still far more hits in google that "Poe Edgar", per today about 3 times more hits for "PoE power". Please stop the war, discuss it here instead, and give your arguments. Others can comment as well.
Cyril.holweck (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war? Power over Ethernet is important on that page 

message: (Page merge in progress --Jerzy•t 22:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History-Merge Documentation 

message: I don't know if there's an official policy on this, but I removed her from A&E (mostly names of works and no other people.) while leaving her in the People category. If we include artists and entertainers in A&E we'll either have a lot of redundancy or no reason for a People section (as, to be consistent, politicians will go into politics, etc). As is seems to be what other disambig pages do. Thmazing (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poe (singer)
Talk:Pinback (album)

message: This page was moved to ""This Is Pinback"", but no update was made to the text to mention that the CD is often called by both names. The official Pinback website has this album listed as "This is a Pinback CD" (I can't link directly to it as it is a flash site) but their merch site has it listed as "This is Pinback C.D." I see more references to it around the internet as "This is a Pinback CD" and the Pinback page also lists it as this title (I wonder if the merch site listing is a typo). I think some more mention should at least be made about this in the article (but I don't have enough knowledge about Pinback to do it correctly). Wadey (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Confusion
Talk:Battle of az-Zallaqah

message: I have come across this article by acccident and I am surprised that there seems so little discussion around the points raised below. However, I must say that nowhere in English sources is this battle ever called by the name az-zallaqah, it is always called Sagrajas so I propose to transfer the text to the battle of that name. In addition the content definitely does not match the quality of fairness of other Wikipedia articles (oddly enough it resembles a number of other article about Moorish victories, though) and strikes me as mainly POV in style. Could the author please improve it, failing which I shall go ahead with changes in due course--AssegaiAli 11:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: This article is so, so messed up. With the numbers, the events, the details, everything! Where the hell would the moriveds get indian swords from?? and whats so special about them?! How is it that the moors numbered exactly half that of the Spaniards, and how is it that exactly 59,500 Spaniards were killed?!
It also says that Ibn Tashfin, gave Alfonso three choices, convert, jizya, or battle?!!!! Thats totally false, Alfonso was the attacker, he had the upper hand, Yusuf ibn Tashfin and Muhammad ibn Abbad didnt have a choice but to fight and hold their ground. The article also fails to mention Ibn Zirri, the ruler of the taifa of Granada, who was also an important part in the battle. "Alfonso lost his leg", thats just plain exxageration. Arabic sources say that he was badly wounded in his leg, but he nowhere do they say that he lost it.
This article is a fantasy tale completely, anyone with enough historical information, please re-write it.
* Now that this article is translation of the week - could someone please respond to these points that were raised anonymously?  I too was bemused by the term "Indian sword" - I'm just curious to know what they are.  Otherwise, I really don't have a feel for the factual basis of this event one way or the other - I would feel better if someone could respond to the above.   At a minimum - are there any references that can be cited?  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plate of Falsehood! 

message: In one part of the article the Castilian force is referred to as 60,000 strong and that is treated as a fact. In another part of the article it is said that the Castilians had only 14,000 men under arms and that contemporary sources exaggerate the size of the battle. The article is thus contradictory and badly in need of some cleanup and citation of references. David Newton 16:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory
Talk:Battle of York

message: It should be noted in the article that the most interesting loot that the Americans captured was the mace of parliament, symbol the Crown's authority - as York was Upper Canada's capital. It remained at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis until 1934 when President Roosevelt returned it as a friendly gesture during Toronto's centennial. (John Woolley and Gerhard Peters,The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). Available from World Wide Web: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14862. SCrews 13:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mace of Parliament

message: I understand how Bunker Hill can be considered a Pyrrhic Victory but the raid on York had significant implications on the future course of the war. The among the munitions seized at York were the cannon destined for the Provincial Marine Lake Erie squadron. The capture of these undoubtedly contributed to the US victory at Put-in-Bay. At the Battle of Put-in-Bay the British had to strip guns from the Fort Amherstburg(Malden)to arm their squadron.
Danwild6 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrrhic Victory? 

message: The Background section doesn't describe the purpose of the US attack on York.  Can someone who knows fill in that information?  --Doradus (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully the recent additions cover the American plans and intentions. HLGallon (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: Interesting choice. I suppose I was expecting to see Canadian here, eh.
Oh well, next best thing. Varlaam (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK spelling? 

message: Is Peppiatt, author of Chapter 31B: Fort York, linked from Robertson's Landmarks of Toronto, simply wrong in stating 200 American troops were killed in the magazine explosion?  It disagrees with total casualties currently given in article.  I added use of the source but left out the 200 number for now at least.  Not yet included in the article:  assertion by Peppiatt's account that some number of British, too, were killed in the explosion.  The source is used also at the Zebulon Pike article, which is where I found it. --doncram 17:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualties per Peppiatt 

message: Would it be considered controversial if I added a hatnote to this article, linking to Battle of York (867)? I'm not sure what the wording would be, possibly "This article is about the 1812 battle in modern Toronto. For the 867 battle in York, England please see Battle of York (867)." CSJJ104 (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hatnote should definitely be placed at the top of the article as a redirect. I added a hatnote at the top of this article for now. Feel free to adjust it however. Leventio (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a Hatnote
Talk:Battle of the Windmill

message: Apparently this battle was the second instance of steam warships engaging in combat.  heqs 13:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early use of steam warships 

message: I remember reading an account that mentioned the Canadian militia were shooting prisoners that had surrendered and they had to be stopped by a regular officer. Looking at the listed casualties this would make sense how men in a fortified position could take much higher than the attackers.
100.0.196.219 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killing of Prisoners

message: Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox "Result"
Talk:Battle of Trois-Rivières

message: I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and organization than would be expected of a Stub (barely), and of low importance, as I do not feel that this battle is critical to understanding Canadian history. Cheers, CP 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Is any site supposedly associated with this battle a National Historic Site?  I'm wondering why the article is categorized this way.  (Google isn't locating any evidence that there is such a site.) Magic♪piano 12:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Historic Site? 
Talk:Battle of the Thames

message: Would the burning of Moraviantown count as a war crime? Krupo 04:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moraviantown - War crime

message: Yet in those times, it was common to 'sack' or burn the fort you were attacking.  In this instance there was no such front.  It seems the Americans still wanted to burn something, not surprising but in my mind still a crime. Greenknight (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes I believe that it would

message: The concept of "War Crimes" is really a 20th century invention. Besides by Wiki's definition, war crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war" which by the previous commentator's own description this was not as it was "common to 'sack' or burn the fort you were attacking." It is also humorous that you don't see anyone rushing to claim that the burning of Washington was a "war crime."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.153 (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: No It Was Not

message: I have assigned initial ratings of class: Start (because the article is more than a stub, although it needs more material before it's a "B") and importance: Mid.  Other editors may disagree with the "Mid" rating and are free to adjust accordingly, but from my vague recollections of the War of 1812 the Battle of Moraviantown was an important one, mostly due to the loss of Tecumseh and the loss of property.  PKT (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada Project Ratings
Talk:Battle of Ridgeway

message: Canada West
Is it normal in Wikipedia to use the historical terms for places as opposed to the modern names?  If the former is the norm, then how about changing "Ridgeway, Canada West" so that only the word Ridgeway is a link to the Ridgeway Ontario page and the "Canada West" words are a link to the Canada West page (my bad for not searching for that in the first place, I guess I assumed that since it wasn't linked, it didn't exist.)  Cheers, CraigWyllie 02:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is customary to use placenames contemporary to the events being described in historical articles.  The actual link on the name leads to Ridgeway, Ontario, so anyone wanting to find out more would have little difficulty. Geoff NoNick 12:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed - my apologies for not noticing the incongrueties before.  Perhaps "The inconclusive engagement at Ridgeway was followed by a Fenian victory at Fort Erie later that day." Geoff NoNick 12:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Ridgeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120924012704/http://www.ridgewaybattle.ca:80/casualties.htm to http://www.ridgewaybattle.ca/casualties.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612091834/http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=16025&pid=0 to http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=16025&pid=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806123630/http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dbertuca/g/FenianRaid.html to http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~dbertuca/g/FenianRaid.html
*Dead link fixed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 
Talk:Battle of Montgomery's Tavern

message: I really don't know why we can't refer to it as the "Battle" of Montgomery's Tavern. That is how it is referred to in other historical texts. Other "Battles" from the later Patriot War were much smaller affairs, but still called battles. Sbmcmull 22 Apr 2007
Support Referred to as the "Battle of Montgomery's Tavern" at Canadian Military Heritage, and it is the more common title. Sbmcmull 23 Apr 07
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: The Prelude section third paragraph references "MacNab" without linking to who he was or providing a description.  It is assumed that the reference is to Sir Allan Napier MacNab, 1st Baronet, but the author of that text is not clear.  Would someone with the authority please make that clarification?  Similarly, there is a further reference to a "Fitzgibbons" and later "Fitzgibbon" where the spelling ought to be checked and a reference made to who this person was.  --Hkne (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was referring to Allan MacNab. I have added his first name and wikilinked him. As for FitzGibbon, any editor can WP:BEBOLD and add/fix the information. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to "MacNab"
Talk:Battle of Longwoods

message: If both withdrew, would it be considered a stalemate?  RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little odd that when the Americans retreated at the Battle of Lundy's Lane and then the British withdrew, the outcome is described as "indecisive". Silverchemist (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Victory?

message: Do we want an Image for this? I can provide images of paintings, modern re-enactments, the current battle site or the memorial. 99.249.97.171 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image
Talk:Battle of Frenchtown

message: The description of the imange in the info. box for the first Battle of the River Raisin states that it depicts "Kentucky Mounted Militia riflemen attack British troops at the Battle of Raisin River in painting by artist, Ken Riley". The original description (which can be seen by clicking the "Source" link in the image's "New Details" page correctly states
:"Remember the River Raisin!" by Ken Riley
:Moraviantown, Upper Canada, October 5, 1813 -- Following Commodore Perry's success at Lake Erie, a U.S. force, commanded by General William Henry Harrison, engaged British troops 75 miles east of Detroit. His command included a regiment of Kentucky Mounted Riflemen, led by Colonel Richard M. Johnson, made up of picked militia volunteers armed with long Kentucky rifles and tomahawks. The Kentucky troops scattered the enemy army -- British regulars, and Indians under the famed Tecumseh. The Battle of the Thames was revenge for an earlier massacre of Kentucky militia on the River Raisin. Coupled with Perry's triumph, it ended a series of defeats and helped restore U.S. dominance in the northwest region.
No such incident as that depicted occurred at Frenchtown. The image should be replaced. The description should also be corrected in the image's own page. HLGallon (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the painting is "Remember the River Raisin!" so any possible confusion as to what it depicts is understandable. It does show the militia with the cry of that era "Remember the River Raisin" and yes does depict the Battle of the Thames, which was considered as retribution/revenge for the massacres at Frenchtown etc. The sourcing for the description is here. I'll change the description, but really the actual File name should be changed... I don't see how to do that but I'll poke around and figure it out. Thanks for pointing that out. Shearonink (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid image 
Talk:Battle of Muye

message: The article gives a fixed date whereas zh:牧野之战 states: 「日期： 说法不一，从前1130年到前1018年都有」 (Date: statements differ, between 1130 and 1018 everything is represented.). 峻義 Jùnyì  論 02:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: At some point as the article is expanded, it'll be necessary to cover the other names (like Legge's already mentioned "Muh") and how Muye means Mu City, leading to some writers dropping the -ye element. — LlywelynII 23:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel like we need to accommodate Legge's idiosyncratic romanisation. His translations of the classics are literally the only place anyone will ever run into that spelling, which also looks to incite mispronunciation. Folly Mox (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Both for the general background and details on the specific day and campaign, see
* .
 — LlywelynII 23:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion
Talk:Battle of Guningtou

message: Were the POWs repatriated after the battle? Or were they allowed to choose settlement in Taiwan instead?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.25.232 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to museum in Kinmen today, where the guide said they were repatriated. --BertholdD (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese POWs? 

message: Does the name of this section really have an impartial tone to it? 24.206.159.232 (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fortuitous ROC defenses at the landing site" 
Talk:Battle of Jieqiao

message: What's the source for these numbers? I can only find the 30.000 infantry of Gongsun Zan in ZZTJ. No mention of the size of YS's troops and Gongsun Zan's 10.000 cavalry. - Plunged (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 40.000 infantry, 10.000 cavelry

message: This may be the only battle where the esteem
Yuan Shao is at his finest moment. Although
the battle is unknown to me, for others you
have to at least give Yuan Shao a small amount
of praise and credit for willing to die in the
ranks of his own soldiers.
Moreover, Yuan Shao shows great bravery at this
battle so at least give him some credit for his
bravery. (If you wish)
--Zhang Liao 19:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yuan Shao's Finest Hour

message: "After a general melée the front of Yuan Shao's line was littered with cut down horses and Gongsun Zan's dead."
Gonsun Zan's dead what?--80.227.100.62 10:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dead soldiers. "Dead" here is a noun. _dk 05:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: the original text I think most of the article is based on is this
瓚步兵三万馀人为方陈，骑为两翼，左右各五千馀匹，白马义从为中坚，亦分作两校，左射右，右射左，旌旗铠甲，光照天地。绍令麹义以八百兵为先登，强弩千张夹承之，绍自以步兵数万结陈于后。义久在凉州，晓习羌斗，兵皆骁锐。瓚见其兵少，便放骑欲陵蹈之。义兵皆伏楯下不动，未至数十步，乃同时俱起，扬尘大叫，直前冲突，强弩雷发，所中必倒，临陈斩瓚所署冀州刺史严纲甲首千馀级。瓚军败绩，步骑奔走，不复还营。义追至界桥；瓚殿兵还战桥上，义复破之，遂到瓚营，拔其牙门，营中馀众皆复散走。绍在后，未到桥十数里，下马发鞍，见瓚已破，不为设备，惟帐下强弩数十张，大戟士百馀人自随。瓚部迸骑二千馀匹卒至，便围绍数重，弓矢雨下。别驾从事田丰扶绍欲卻入空垣，绍以兜鍪扑地曰：“大丈夫当前斗死，而入墙间，岂可得活乎？”强弩乃乱发，多所杀伤。瓚骑不知是绍，亦稍引卻；会麹义来迎，乃散去。
1. Gong Sun's cavalries were horse archers, they only charged after they figured that their arrows weren't doing much against the shields and there were only relative few infantries.
2. it appears that Ju Yi only had 800 men as the vanguard, while they took a lot of crossbows with them but it was well hidden. 
3. 皆伏楯下不动 seems less like a shield wall than simply hiding under their shields.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RollingWave (talk • contribs) 01:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions on the interperation
Talk:List of wars and battles involving China

message: Anyone want to work with me on this list to make it featured? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 06:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Why we don't have a format like:
War XYZ
* Battle A
* Battle B
* Battle C
Putting all battles in a table, in one batch, is more harder to follow.   El Otro (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Many items listed are not battles but campaigns and wars. Many of the battles named are simply the only notable event of a longer war. Many battles that seem to form a group that could in retrospect be seen as one war would not have been seen as such by contrarieties of the events. As such I would not want the article to structure as suggested as it lacks the flexibility required. However, where there are clearly defined and well accepted wars (especially in the modern eras) it may be worth adding text in the "Brief description" column that would make the grouping clear. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article format

message: This article contains an enormous number of redlinks. Beyond the usual convention that if something isn't notable enough to have an article, it doesn't appear in a list, this makes it difficult to verify an edit like this.
I propose a relatively drastic remedy; remove all redlinks. They can be re-added if articles are forthcoming. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks 

message: Why is the Formosa Expedition included on a list of Chinese wars?  This is factually inaccurate. Neither the location nor belligerents were Chinese. Võ Nguyên Giáp war criminal (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formosa Expedition - Not a Chinese war 
Talk:Battle of Chengpu

message: I think this article reads too much like a story, and could benefit from more context.  I don't know enough about the topic or I would give it a go myself. Surfer83 (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Sorry if it looks like I've sprayed and prayed as far as the citations go, but that seemed to be the only web related source of any substance I could find. I might have a look in the university library when I go back to see if I can find any books on the matter. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 