lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Charles Donckier de Donceel

message: I've done a bit of digging around online, and I've found out that Henri and Charles (who seem to have been mixed up all over Wikimedia) are definitely two different people who are both entomologists. Not only that, one is actually the son of the other as it turns out.
Here's what I've managed to gather so far on these two, so anyone watching is aware:
Charles Donckier de Donceel (1802, in Chératte, Liège – 29 June 1888, in Brussels):
* Obituary (in French): https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12738941 (from Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique 32 Bulletin)
* father of Henri
* member of the Société Entomologique de Belgique
Henri Donckier de Donceel (3 March 1854, in Liège – 24 October 1926, in Paris):
* Biography (in French, with image included): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336414209 (this is also my source for the family relation)
* son of Charles
* member of the Société Entomologique de France
I also think it likely that :File:Charles Donckier de Donceel.jpg, despite the rename, is actually of Henri after all. The image was part of an album for the Société Entomologique de France (which Henri was a member of, not Charles so far as I know); it was published in 1905, long after Charles was already dead; and the image included with Henri's biography I linked actually looks very close to the one on Commons. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, would definitely be worth contacting the BNF folks for metadata correction. They are quite responsive. Shyamal (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't tell how much data BNF even has on these two in the first place to be honest. I think I found a page for Henri on their site but it's rather barebones rather than incorrect. Meanwhile, I've also found that Geneanet gives their full names as Charles Henri DONCKIER de DONCEEL and Henri François Emmanuel Emile DONCKIER de DONCEEL, but on the other hand I'm not sure what sources the website uses at all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solving the Henri and Charles confusion
Talk:Reprisal

message: We could use an example or two of historical incidents which led to reprisals and examples of the reprisals themselves. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The statement in the lead of this article..."A legally executed reprisal is not an atrocity" needs clarification. Just what is meant here? What constitutes a "legal" reprisal? Who makes that determination? Dr. Dan (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please clarify

message: What happened to verbiage , as alluded in paraphrase similar to thus , " A reprisal includes an action to assure that an illegal act of war would not be again performed . " ? 
Where is the verbiage which alludes to forcing an enemy to desist in further illegal action ?
GeMiJa (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Element of Rules of War Missing  

message: Could someone invested in this article nip over to the talk page of Dachau liberation reprisals and persuade them that the massacre at Dachau should be called something else - incident, massacre, other - since it was never intended as a reprisal in the legal sense? 174.0.48.147 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dachau
Template talk:Brazilian imperial family

message: It is difficult to see why some of the descendants are included and others excluded, and the number of descendants is likely to rise exponentially. Consequently, I have reduced the template down to just the Main line, instead of the fuller line as shown below. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it may be difficult to understand (which I do not think), I believe it would be more appropriate with the complete information of all members of the Imperial Family in the Template. Not only for informing, but for not causing any contradiction in other posts, for example a Princess is the daughter of a Prince of Brazil but not in the Brazilian Imperial Family, which clearly does not make sense. Also to inform about current members with direct links. I support the old template format.
Arthur Brum (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening 

message: The list contains, in my view, a grave omission. And I'm not concerned with members of the dinasty who claim the title of Prince, but with actual Princes, that lived during the era when the Empire of Brazil existed. The children of Princess Leopoldina of Brazil born in Brazil, known in Portuguese by the names Pedro Augusto (Prince Peter of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary), Augusto Leopoldo (Prince August Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary) and José (no wikipedia article in English; there is an article in the Portuguese language wikipedia), members of the Saxe-Coburg-Braganza branch of the Imperial Family (Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança, in Portuguese), were all Brazilian Princes, and were thus deemed, taken and accepted during the imperial period. Why is it, then, that those Princes of the Empire of Brazil, born in Brazil of Princess Leopoldina's marriage to Prince Ludwig August of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary, are not included in the list of Brazilian Princes? This should be corrected.189.122.100.112 (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sons of Princess Leopoldina born in the Empire of Brazil
Talk:Dries Mertens

message: The redirect Mertens has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  voorts (talk/contributions) 01:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Mertens]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Vickers 40 mm Class S gun

message: The article points out that the 40mm was capable of 25% accuracy against tanks with the RP having a 5% accuracy, falling to 0.5% in action. No objective data is given to back these figures up, so where did  these figures come from? Minorhistorian (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==No data given==
Talk:Exceat

message: In accordance with  the Wikipedia notes on writing about settlements, one of the recommendations is that, in order to reduce the number of stubs, villages and other settlements etc within a civil parish should be in one article. In any case this is an abandoned village, so the statement saying it is now a village is incorrect. Hence the proposal. 
I am assuming it is actually in the parish area of Cuckmere Valley, which extends up the valley from the sea on the east side of the river. Peter Shearan (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposals
Talk:Fairlight Cove

message: I am not all sure why we need a separate article for the Cove part of Fairlight, when the main article on the village already discusses the coastal erosion. Either that is separate or - as I have already done - the information is transferred here, and the Cove article considered for merger. Fairlight Glen can possibly be left as is, since it is part of the Country Park. Every time we open another article such as this one it means that the main articlke suffers through want of information - and then we have two more stubs than we need! Peter Shearan (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger?
Talk:Fairlight, East Sussex

message: I don't know why this article should be lower importance than the audio related articles!
If Fairlight's a place .
:Probably because the Music company article was created first. The standard was for disambiguating locations is by adding the county, ie Fairlight, East Sussex so this article is named correctly. Not sure why Fairlight qualifies as its own article though but thats a topic for the Fairlight Talk Page.  ++ MortimerCat (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priority? 
Talk:Framfield

message: The Wiki article  are the Wikipedia notes on writing about settlements. It is a useful exercise to use the notes, since it provides the backbone of the article. Hence my rewrite
The original article had nothing except the church notes, which were taken from an article withour permission and copied wholesale. There were in any case no references to what was said - a strict instruction now for all Wiki editors. I am sure there is more to be added now - and I have left suggested headings - for someone who knows the village and parish better than I do. It is always necessary to remember that such an article is about two things - the main village and the wider parish. That explains why the school/chapel at Blackboys are included - as we should now add the pubs. The Parish council website must be used to add information about that. When I have time I will have another go, but it would be better for a "local" to make the article worthwhile  Peter Shearan (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am now proposing the Blackboys article be incorporated here Peter Shearan (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing of article

message: One query before a merge, is Halland part of the Parish? If it is, then Halland would need to be merged too. Although I think Halland now falls under East Hoathly parish but I am not sure. MortimerCat (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered my own question. According to the Election map website, Halland falls outside the parish, so I am now in favour of a merge. MortimerCat (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger_proposal
Talk:Hadlow Down

message: The article , which contains the Wikipedia notes on writing about settlements, is a very useful tool. It allows editors to see what could be said, using various headings. This article could do with more information, best done by local people. One of its suggestions is that notes on the civil parish - ie the greater area than the village at its centre - should be included, so that the use of references to other articles are then minimised; and at the same time obviating the need for too many stubs (see how many there are for East Sussex geography alone!). There is nothing on amenities (pubs? sports?) included so far, nor much about its history or geography (are there any rivers? any notable buildings?) Peter Shearan (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing the article
Talk:Hammerwood

message: In accordance with  the Wikipedia notes on writing about settlements, one of the recommendations is that, in order to reduce the number of stubs, villages and other settlements within a civil parish should be in one article. Hence the proposal Peter Shearan (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I have left the article as is, I have in fact transferred the information to the Hartfield article today Peter Shearan (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal
Talk:Hellingly

message: the editing has been done in accordance with  the Wikipedia notes on writing about settlements. The recommendations assist an editor to include as much information about a settlement under selected headings; references for all statements should be given; and an infobox supplied. I have done what I can with this place - and note that it is both a village and the wider civil parish. It may well be that some of the constituent parts of the latter have important things to be added; the recommendations suggest that this all appears here, and not put in a separate (probably stub) article. It all helps to reduce the number of stubs. Peter Shearan (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing of article
Talk:Horam

message: This article has been rewritten in accordance with this Wiki article. Much of the previous article was a copyvio from the Horam Parish Council website. Peter Shearan (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite
Talk:Hurst Green, East Sussex

message: It has been suggested that the hamlet of Silver Hill (not the hastings one) be merged into 
this article to eliminate the number of stubs that  appear. 
also there is no mention of swifsden (or is it (Swiftsden?) Blackwave...... (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that there isn't actually a page for the Silver Hill next to Hurst Green anymore. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added mention of Swiftsden being within the village limits. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger proposal 

message: Im happy to take some photos when im next in the area, but if anyone constantly visits Hurst Green, and have photographic skills, please upload a photo first. Smudger94 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! I added a photo for the main caption box. I also took a few more of various parts of the village last month which I will add soon as I get time. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Requirement
Talk:Iford, East Sussex

message: Reference sources for the church can be found in List of places of worship in Lewes DistrictCharles (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church
Talk:Kent Street, East Sussex

message: Is there in fact any evidence that Kent Street really is a settlement? I can't find it on any map. There are a couple of streets called Kent Street, in and around Kent. But no village or neighbourhood appears.
The user who created this article has also created a number of others, and made changes to pre-existing ones, many of which have proved somewhat controversial, and it appears that he or she is writing from a gazetteer and is based in the USA. His talk page has a number of vandalism templates, and is short on responses to the charges levelled.
I'd therefore propose deleting this article — and will put the proposal up formally shortly, but it seemed wise to ask here on the talk page first, in case my maps are just rubbish! ;) – Kieran T (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... there is something called "Kent Street" on the OS map at TQ783159; looks like a hamlet at most. It seems to be marked as a settlement on a larger scale map as well  though what it's official status is I don't know. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks Iain, that's pretty clearly something, indeed! ;-)  I'll leave it be, and hopefully somebody with a bit more knowledge of it will happen along. – Kieran T (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Really?

message: See Talk:Sedlescombe FM (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge
Talk:Kingston near Lewes

message: Does anyone know about the Whetton family (Christopher)
please? RorusDogus (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingston House
Talk:Maresfield

message: I have edited the article in accordance with  the Wikipedia notes on writing about settlements, using the headings recommended. One of the recommendations is that, in order to reduce the number of stubs, villages and other settlements within a civil parish should be in one article; although, since the article on Nutfield is already quite comprehensive, I have not asked it to be merged.
It would however make the Maresfield article - which is about the whole parish and not just the village of that name - more complete. Anyone have any thoughts? 
I did note that the Nutfield article muddled up the difference between two types of parish, incidentally: ecclesiastical parish vs civil parish: quite different species, although one is based on the other. 
Peter Shearan (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing
Talk:Mayfield, East Sussex

message: In accordance with this article, I am proposing a merger with the civil parish one. It will be seen that this is recommended by Wiki: it solves the problem of having three stubs, making one article of sufficient length not to be so. In addition the layout of this article was far from satisfactory: just a list of sentences without being connected to a theme, and with no references. Peter Shearan (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal
Talk:Newick

message: Not obvious how to pronounce.
WisDom-UK (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation needed 

message: gay 2A02:C7E:38E0:CF00:2434:E08E:D030:AF96 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  gay
Talk:Northiam

message: It would be great if someone in the know could summarise the "life support" facilities in the village, eg doctor, dentist, food shops, post office, etc.  Many thanks if you can!  p.r.newman (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it might be me, as I moved to Northiam since I asked the question! p.r.newman (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life support in Northiam village?
Talk:Nutley, East Sussex

message: The parish is not an ecclesiastical parish one but a civil one: quite separate organisations. All those mentioned are the former, but are included within the latter Peter Shearan (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Parish

message: Hi Jeff
Could you please explain who you are and why you are threatening to block me from editing.
Where is your contribution to the discussion apart from the threat!
--Smg1965 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a Veteran Editor with over 27,000 edits under my belt, sometimes involved in Recent Changes Patrol using Huggle.  At 17:37 (UTC) yesterday, during one of my patrols, I noticed this edit, in which you restored external links that Charlesdrakew felt were spam (as evidenced by that editor's Edit Summary for this edit).  I am trying, as was Charlesdrakew, to protect Wikipedia from inappropriate external links, as we have been explaining to you on your user talk page, so to that end, one minute later I reverted your restoration and issued you standard warning Template:uw-hugglespam3.    — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text: * Agree with Paste and Charlesdrakew. The links seem to be basic violations of WP:EL as described above. From what I understand the only content which may be seen as beneficial to the article from the Pippingford website are the photos, and we can just go out and take high-res pictures ourselves and release them in the public domain. Smg1965 is definitely acting in good faith though - don't bite the newbies!. Una LagunaTalk 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a link violates WP:EL. However, reading the Pippingford website I think its is worthy of a paragraph within the Nutley article - avoiding the commercial aspect - talking about the iron making history, and the SSSI lakes. I am surprised that it is not already mentioned. A while ago I went through the List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex and added these to the various parish articles - which one covers Pippingford lakes? I would go as far to say that the area is notable enough to warrant its own article. I would have created one now if it hadn't been for this bit of controversy.  ++ MortimerCat (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is good to finally have some comments from experienced editors here. This brings us back to my initial comment in the previous section that Smg1965 should find some local history books at the library and write about Pippingford, as is normal practice, rather than introducing a spam link. If as much energy was expended on that instead of on browbeating experienced and veteran editors with long rants it could produce something useful. I would think a new section in the Ashdown Forest page would be appropriate.--Charles (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking editing?!?!?
Talk:Robertsbridge

message: Extracted from the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements.
Writing about the smallest of settlements in the UK can be difficult due to the lack of source material, especially when compared with the country's major metropolises. Some of the UK's smallest settlements may form part of a civil parish or council ward. Country hamlets and villages may mention significant places that might not be considered part of the village, but which lie within the parish or ward. Hamlets that are within another parish or council ward could have their own articles, but if there is no more than a couple of paragraphs that could be said about the hamlet it may be best practice to merge the articles.
Salehurst and Robertsbridge is the Civil Parish, as such we will need to create the Salehurst and Robertsbridge article. The question is do we merge the two village articles into the Civil Parish article?
I think merge, the infobox relates to the Parish. There is duplicated information within the articles eg the Cistercian monks. MortimerCat (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am creating the Parish article and tidying Salehurst and Robertsbridge so they only refer to the village. The villages have enough information to stand on their own. MortimerCat (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Parish article 

message: Robertsbridge is a little unusual in that there are 3 mutually independent websites covering the village and/or parish. It is most technically correct that the Infobox contains the Parish Council website as the Infobox "website" key is defined as being the council website. But it is worth mentioning that the 3 sites taken together most completely cover village life and affairs.
It seemed worth mentioning the 3 local school/preschool sites too, though I'd accept other viewpoints on that. Now it would be possible to carry on  and mention the several major clubs and societies that have a serious web presence - but it may be neater to start a section on "Societies" in general rather than lumping them under "Internet". Likewise, this line of thinking throws into question whether the (pre)schools would be better served by a section called "Educational Establishments" or similar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timjwatts (talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tim, thank you for your additions. I have moved the webpage links you added, including your relevant descriptions, to the external links section which is the usual place for them. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Internet
Talk:Sedlescombe

message: Is there in fact any evidence that Kent Street really is a settlement? I can't find it on any map. There are a couple of streets called Kent Street, in and around Kent. But no village or neighbourhood appears.
The user who created this article has also created a number of others, and made changes to pre-existing ones, many of which have proved somewhat controversial, and it appears that he or she is writing from a gazetteer and is based in the USA. His talk page has a number of vandalism templates, and is short on responses to the charges levelled.
I'd therefore propose deleting this article — and will put the proposal up formally shortly, but it seemed wise to ask here on the talk page first, in case my maps are just rubbish! ;) – Kieran T (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... there is something called "Kent Street" on the OS map at TQ783159; looks like a hamlet at most. It seems to be marked as a settlement on a larger scale map as well  though what it's official status is I don't know. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks Iain, that's pretty clearly something, indeed! ;-)  I'll leave it be, and hopefully somebody with a bit more knowledge of it will happen along. – Kieran T (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Really?
Talk:Tarring Neville

message: Why is it called that? Neville sounds Norman, but was there tarring about then?  Midgley (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled