lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:HMS Anson (79)

message: From a quick read through, I spotted two inaccuracies in this article:
*"Anson was decommissioned for refit in June 1944 and did not return to the fleet until March 1944" - I presume that the second date should be March 1945?
**Oops, don't know how I missed that. Thurgate (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted the problem section and re-ordered the para's see if you think it works now. Also thanks for having a look at the article! Thurgate (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Oops, Once I get my hands on R & R I can sort out the AA section, and I'll take a look at Rowher's book for all the convoy details etc. Thurgate (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Reassessed now that you've fixed the AA problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The statement that Anson was in Tokyo Bay for the surrender of Japan on 2 September 1945 is sourced to Chesneau, but I think he is in error. Anson is not listed on the official report detailing the ships present in the bay at the surrender, because Anson was at this time in Hong Kong, nearly 3,000 km away. She arrived with Cecil Harcourt and his fleet off Hong Kong on 29 August, Harcourt flying his flag in Swiftsure while Anson was the flagship of Charles Daniel. They entered the harbour on 30 August, and remained there during the transition of power which resulted in the offical signing of the surrender on 16 September. She remained the Hong Kong guardship until October, when she sailed to Tokyo Bay to relieve King George V as the Tokyo guardship and as the flagship of the Fleet's First Battle Squadron. Anson was in turn relieved by Duke of York in December, and returned to Sydney for a refit. 82.39.49.182 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Anson'' at Tokyo?
Talk:Judith Heumann

message: Judith Ellen Heumann was born in Philadelphia on Dec. 18, 1947. She grew up in Brooklyn. TheConnectionisYou (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2023 

message: I would like to add additional details regarding her death from NPR  News article stating she was in the hospital prior to death. HistoryGuy2022 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2023 (2)
Talk:HMS Resolution (09)

message: The final sentence of the final paragraph states: "One of Resolution's 15-inch guns, which was later fitted to the monitor HMS Roberts, is on display at the Imperial War Museum in London." 
The historical note to the reffed IWM pic states: "This gun was mounted in the battleship HMS Resolution from 1915-1938, and was first fired in action against targets in the Sea of Marmora in 1920. It was stored from 1938-44 when it was mounted in the twin 15-in gunned monitor ." Roberts' turret and guns originally came from . Neither this article nor the Roberts one mentions the removal or re-fitting of these guns. Also asking at the Roberts talk page. Any ideas, anyone?  MinorProphet (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guns
Talk:HMS Royal Sovereign (05)

message: Article has been assessed for B-class. The only comment I can offer is that a little more context or clarification may be required as to the transfer to the Soviets...why were the British giving the Soviets a battleship, and how this related to Italian war repatriations (to which party)? -- saberwyn 23:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially, the British wanted to court Italy as a post-war ally, and to do so, they wanted to prevent overly harsh reparations from Italy to the Soviets. I saw this while trawling through google books - I'll have to see if I can track it back down so I can clarify the transfer issue. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This statement may be of some interest; it's the official line as of June 1945 as to why the Italian ships were retained. (Two main reasons: the Italian Navy was favourable to the Allies and these ships were already in service alongside Allied troops; and the ships were built for warm-water service, so were less useful for Soviet purposes). Andrew Gray (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessed for B

message: Saving this for later - here. Good resolution scan of the ONI recognition drawing. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful image 

message: The RN inspectors judged that the turrets hadn't been rotated while used by the Soviets, yet we have a picture of it in Soviet use with one of its turrets turned? Widgetdog (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo is captioned as having been taken no later than 30 May 1944, the date the ship was formally transferred. Presumably that turret returned to the centerline and was not moved thereafter. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  So...
Talk:Transparent latch

message: What is the difference between this and a tristate buffer? From the description, both devices pass Q if E is high/low (tristate buffers of both flavor are available). I suggest this page redirect to tristate buffer.
:No. A tristate buffer is not a data storage device. --Heron 17:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tristate buffer

message: Possibly more relevantly, how is this different from Flip-flop (electronics)#D-type transparent latch?  These are the same things, right? JulesH 17:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: isn't it the same as a gated latch? Fresheneesz 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: latch
Talk:HMS Malaya

message: I found this website and I thought it would be useful it also has other ships details of war service and log books online for free from what I could see.
http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-01BB-Malaya.htm Shashenka (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website that has the full details of the of the HMS Malaya's details of war service

message: Hi WikiCopter.   I note you changed a sentence relating to an AP shell which proved unwelcome in Genoa Cathedral.
The original sentence explained why it didn't explode. That's obvious to all editors but maybe not to the readers.  Have you any problems with changing it back?  JRPG (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Souvenir in Genoa Cathedral. 
Talk:Shilha people

message: At 8-10 million people, the Islhin (Cheuh is the most common, though Francophone, spelling) comprise the largest Berber group of Morocco. They deserve a better article than this. Please expand if you have reliable sources! — mark ✎ 13:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Shilha/Chleuh/Išlḥiyn are the native Berbers of Souss. Soupforone (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Souss

message: Your edits are puzzling and not reflecting the source. Please explain your addition of Judaism/Christianity without a source, and other changes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits were as per policy. What wasn't were the redundant links contra WP:NOTSEEALSO, as well as various other tidbits (such as the somewhat jingoistic tone). The Abrahimic links in the religion parameter were due to an edit conflict (i.e., we were apparently editing at the same time). Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Soupforone: We need to be faithful to the source, if it is allegedly "jingoistic to your tastes" in the reliable source, we must still retain the sense of the source. Don't replace "invasion" with some weasel wording, if the sources say invasion. I have no issue with WP:NOTSEEALSO, since those links were from old version, before I edited this article. I suggest we clean the See Also section further. Same goes for other links. Since the Britannica article is already cited the article, there is no need to repeat that link either. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No OR, unsourced claims 
Talk:Vilseck

message: The sentence "The town is geographically separate from a nearby large American military base known as the Rose Barracks but more commonly referred to as Vilseck" is confusing. I imagine the base is "Rose Barracks", but according to the grammar of this sentence, it's unclear if it's the base or Vilseck that is called that, and frankly, whether the base is called Vilseck. I don't want to make a change without being absolutely sure, so I'll leave it to someone who might know for sure. I lived on Graf, but I was in Kindergarten through part of 2nd grade, so I won't rely on my memory to make a change.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.70.108 (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Which is "Rose barracks"

message: Someone (not me) added this to the article, but it's better here:
*No mention anywhere else in this article is the village of Sorghof mentioned.  Sorghof is the community closest to the Sudlager.  When the villages were evacuated to enlarge the training area between the wars, Sorghof (is this related to Sorgen, Deutsch for worry?).
Totnesmartin 09:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transferred from article to here 

message: The history section contains far too many subsections and needs to be rewritten. Markussep Talk 07:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section
Talk:HMS Agincourt (1913)

message: There's an early description of the ship, translated from an Argentine newspaper, on Google Books. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source 

message: I don't understand the terminology involving barbette. I did go to the Article Barbette - BTW, shouldn't there be a wlink to that? But the days-of-the-week barbettes don't mean anything to me. What is a "Monday" barbette, etc.?     TomS TDotO (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I see now that there were seven turrets. I'm going to mention this, as well as the wlink.   TomS TDotO (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see that this was mentioned in the article and I'd missed it. Sorry. But I did wlink barbette. Thanks for your patience.  TomS TDotO (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbette  

message: What's your source for stating that the ship was named for the state of Rio de Janeiro?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to confuse things further, here's a source that says it honored both the state and city. (The original source for that is presumably Repositório de Nomes dos Navios           da Esquadra Brasileira [Repository of Names of Ships of the Brazilian Fleet], listed at the bottom.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

text: The same source posted by @The ed17. The thing is, if you check this same website page on the battleship São Paulo, it also says it was named after both the state and city, but this happens because these two states have homonymous capitals. Torimem (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazilian ship name
Talk:HMS Benbow (1913)

message: I'm having trouble reconciling two different statements of Benbow's endurance - one says roughly 14,000 nmi, the other roughly 14,000 km, both at 10 knots / 19 km/h.  They can't both be right.  The lower figure seems much more likely, but I don't have a source.  I fear the same error afflicts the article on sister ship :HMS Iron Duke (1912). Philip Trueman (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endurance
Talk:The Survivalist (novel series)

message: I've started adding a one-paragraph summary of each book as and when I get a chance to read them: when it's complete it can be cut down into something more coherent, unless anyone else wants to start doing that in the mean-time. Unfortunately my current collection is missing several books near the start and at the end, so completion is largely reliant on books turnig up used for a sensible price. Mark Grant 12:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot overview
Talk:HMS Marlborough (1912)

message: Photograph is labelled Emperor of India. ??
:I've replaced the photo with one of MarlboroughRcbutcher (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo is of HMS Emperor of India? 

message: The section on construction says "the contract to build her was awarded to Devonport Dockyard, of Portsmouth." This makes no sense. Devonport is in Devonport, not Portsmouth! DuncanHill (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've assumed that "Portsmouth" was a slip for "Plymouth", and changed the text accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction and Commissioning 

message: Found this interesting snippet on Ash Handling, presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, December 4 to 7, 1922, 
of The American Society of Mech. Engineers. It highlights the crucial role of the ash ejector pump in the survival of the Marlborough. See page 690-691. http://cybra.p.lodz.pl/Content/5948/AshHandling.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonkolbeinsen (talk • contribs) 09:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ash ejector pump detail
Talk:Little David

message: Is this a joke? It looks reduculous if find it hard to belive that even the Americans would build this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.176.27 (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Needs expansion. Also, is this a single particular mortar launcher, or a class/make of them? I'm sure that's obvious to any WWII history buff, but I'm afraid not to me (and therefore to the average reader). LordAmeth 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment

message: How can the article claim that "Little David is still the artillery piece with the largest caliber in history" although it mentions two other artillery pieces with the same calibre, which are older and one of which was actually used in combat? Burschik 12:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should be changed to Little David is still one of the artillery pieces with the largest caliber in history?  This will render it correct and keep the article pretty much the same.  I will change it right away. MythSearchertalk 12:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, caliber of Paixhans' "monster mortar" was 24.5 inches, see , . Bukvoed (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The article is incredibly sensationalist. The constant comparison of Little David with Schwerer Gustav is absolutely uninformative (and also childish - sounds a lot like "who has the longest..."). The two weapons were totally different: Schwerer Gustav was a railway gun, giving it the ability to fire shells in an arc more than 40 km. Little David was a mortar prototype with a projected maximum range of 10 km.
If you don't understand what I mean: one could make the same comparison between an M2 4.2 inch mortar and an 8.8 cm gun, and the mortar would "win" on the same grounds. Sansmalrst (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to Schwerer Gustav 

message: 2601:646:8380:E6E0:3D5C:C077:2E14:E95E (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  overall effectiveness
Talk:Urban districts of the Netherlands

message: This page was taken out of Politics of the Netherlands (terminology). Is this page more relevant here than as a lemma in the list? If not I'm making it into a redirect, because politics of the Netherlands terminology was supposed to prevent the spawning of stubs.
-- C mon 12:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eindhoven on the other hand has stadsdelen that are not deelgemeentes, although they have some administrative meaning. I'm changing the translation to city district. Rp (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this article will always stay a pointless stub, but if you feel so strongly about it please keep it. --C mon 14:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:King George V-class battleship (1911)

message: This article states the class was equipped with 4-inch secondary guns rather than the originally intended 6-inch. Which fits with Tony DiGiulian's website, which is extremely accurate, and states the KGV class had 16 BL 4 inch Mk VII guns. (Onyer Tony !).
Yet the separate articles for KGV, Audacious and Ajax state 6-inch guns. ??? Rcbutcher (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated all the ships with 16 BL 4-inch Mk VII secondary aramament. It was the same as that of Orion class. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 4-inch or 6-inch secondary guns ?
Talk:Solanum crispum

message: The Solanum page lists the potato vine as an edible species.  Does anyone have a reference to support or discredit this claim, and which parts of the plant are edible?  --PJF (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find many sites that say all parts are poisonous.  I have removed it from the list pending contradictory evidence. -- WormRunner | Talk 15:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It's no edible, it is drinkable. With their leaves it is made a bitter (really bitter) infussion for stomachache. --Lin linao 23:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edible Species
Talk:Uranocene

message: I'd like to see a reference that this compound is indeed green before adding it to the article...so, I have removed it for now. --HappyCamper 12:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Let me retract that - the original reference says it's green! I misread it to say yellow. --HappyCamper 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What colour is uranocene? 

message: Please do not edit any of the description of uranocene's physical properties without reading and fully understanding all the pertinent references.  A previous version of this article confused a number of electrons with the value of an angular momentum quantum number.
MagnaGraecia (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope those electrons figured out their numbers.  Sorry, couldn't resist. tsilb (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Properties 

message: Do you think it's worth mentioning that there might be a ϕ contribution to the bonding in this molecule? 86.180.80.235 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posssible ϕ-bonding
Talk:HMS St Vincent (1908)

message: Armor section, paragraph 1: Waterline belt armor reduced from 10 inches to 10 inches. Perhaps you mean reduced to 8 inches? Djmaschek (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: B class review comment
Talk:St Vincent-class battleship

message: "The selection of a gun five feet longer than before necessitated a hull ten feet longer between X and Y turret to maintain clearance between the guns and the superstructure". Can somebody add an explanation of why a gun length increase of 5 feet required a 10-foot increase in clearance ? X and Y were the rear turrets. X would have required a 5-foot increase in clearance to traverse, but why 10 ? Y turret would not have traversed forward. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 10-foot length increase needs better explanation

message: "The secondary, or anti-torpedo armament, comprised eighteen four-inch (102 mm) Mark III 50-calibre quick-firing (QF) guns.". They were in fact BL 4-inch Mk VII. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary armament ?

message: Did a cheeky little ce, revert as desired, regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: HelloUser:Sturmvogel66 I was woundering if you might could tell me what is "drooping at the muzzle"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Lovecraft (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Over time and with wear, long gun tubes often lose rigidity and will start to droop at the front of the gun (the muzzle).Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  term
Talk:HMS Temeraire (1907)

message: Currently, the infobox says the ship was launched in 1907 and the body of the article says 1908. I suspect 1907 is the correct year, but can someone check?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be correct, sir. Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1907 or 1908? 

message: There's a nice illustration of the ship available in this journal that can be uploaded to en.wiki. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image available
Talk:Gagok

message: For more information on why this articles should be deletd, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Silent reverie86
:Would argue there are multiple other musical genres that could be moved to dictionary, but are better kept in the encyclopedia. Admittedly, this is a simple stub. Hope that someone who knows more, has examples, etc. will fill in. Some things belong in both places. I'd call "opera" an example. It deserves both an encyclopedia article and a dictionary listing. Peace.  --Here.it.comes.again 07:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionary
Talk:Andrew Melville Hall

message: *Do Not Merge
The notability of AMH is due to its architectural interest, not its place as a UStA hall of residence. It falls within categories that the other residences do not, and is linked directly from other articles dealing with architecture and the career of James Stirling. I do however agree that the other residence sites could be merged - WhaleyTim 09:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with other UStA residence articles
Talk:HMS Lord Nelson (1906)

message: Which ship conveyed Grand Duke Nicholas out of Russia?  The articles on the Grand Duke and the HMS Marlborough state that it was the Marlborough...was the HMS Lord Nelson present in some sort of support role?
75.50.151.135 (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Frances Welch's The Russian Court at Sea: The Voyage of HMS Marlborough, April 1919, Marlborough took a number of royals, including Grand Duke Nicholas and his family, from the Crimea to Constantinople. There Nicholas and his family disembarked and transferred to Lord Nelson, and were taken to Genoa, while the rest of the royals sailed on to Malta aboard Marlborough. Benea (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Nelson or Marlborough