lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Template talk:Infobox school/Archive School2

message: This template in intended to create an infobox suitable for all non-collegiate schools.  It is similar in style to Template:Infobox University2 and Template:Infobox Company on purpose.  I believe that previous infoboxes were either too cluttered with too much information or were not aesthetically pleasing.  I also believe that WP will benefit from having minimal structural and stylistic uniformity across articles of the same subject and across all articles in general.
:Gurulegend 22:32, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Added Motto.
However suggest (like the Infobox_Company some of these fields be made optional)
My view on optional tags -- Motto, Enrollment, Faculty, Mascot (I think to be verifiable a school needs a website which should contain the other details at a minimum)
61.88.2.177 07:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: Here is a screencapture of the infobox being used. Left is before my revert. Right is after my revert. LuckyPanda 23:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Revert

message: Interesting. I'll see what I did wrong. —Larry V. 23:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the image and motto aren't spanning over two columns and that the labels are centered instead of right-aligned. Thanks for the effort, the template does need some cleaning up. LuckyPanda 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the name of the article that you made the screenshots from? I can't seem to find it =) —Larry V. 20:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ursuline Academy of Dallas. LuckyPanda 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: I'm currently working on the infobox, so if you notice that it is broken at all, please DO NOT revert it; I will repair it later, since extraneous circumstances are not allowing me to finish it now. —Larry V. 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on it 

message: would it be at all possible to add a president field similar to the headmaster field? pres_name & pres PaulC/T+ 17:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added another "head" field so that you could list both a president and a headmaster using the two "head" fields. LuckyPanda 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot! Works great.  PaulC/T+ 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President 

message: In accordance with Wikipedia:HiddenStructure, I have replaced all CSS hiddenStructure constructions from this template with ParserFunctions, the preferred method for conditionally showing/hiding information in templates. Let me know if any bugs show up. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 20:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to ParserFunctions 

message: Is it possible to make the "state" field optional: that is really only appropriate for the US, Germany and 1 or 2 other countries? --Mais oui! 09:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 02:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-US schools
Talk:Battle of the Yellow Ford

message: What date in August was the battle? Presumably there will be at least the Gregorian date, which Ó Néill etal were at the time using, and the Julian date which the English were still using. But when was the battle? 86.42.101.51 (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date?

message: Is that not a bit contrived? Can anybody show the authority of the English crown in, say, Yellow Ford Armagh at this time? It was, ironically, the English who were "rebelling" against the established order here. How about 'Irish' or even 'confederates'? There were plenty of English fighting with the Irish. 86.44.16.11 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebels?

message: It looks like at least a couple of users have messed with the page in a mischievous way, making one section "Poos and Pees" and one bullet point as "Penus". These changes appear to have been made in late June and/or early July 2017. I would fix the problems but I am inexperienced with making any more than very minor changes to articles, and I also don't know how to address the actions of the users involved in making these inappropriate changes. History (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! Shtove (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mischief done to the article
Talk:Siege of Toulon (1793)

message: I translated this page! Hopefully it makes sense and I didn't do anything like miss something and grossly change history. One thing that could be changed: Near the end it is noted that Napoleon was injured in the haunch. He was injured by the pointy thing that soldiers used to stick on the end of their rifles, but I forgot what it's called, so anyone who remembers can just stick that in there. User:Joomba (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2005‎
:The name of that "thing" is "bayonet" or, if you prefer, "baionette" in français  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.57.189.227 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No title 

message: The French language wikipedia gives 32.000 French vs 22.000 allied troops. 
In your article however is given 60.000 (!) for the French.
It looks to me like somebody sexed up the numbers.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C21:3060:68CD:C121:C000:F983 (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forces 

message: I don't understand this: 
:The allies then decided to evacuate by their maritime route. Commodore Sydney Smith was instructed by Hood to have the delivery fleet and the arsenal burnt; this has been described as the "most crippling blow to the French navy in the second half of the 18th century".[5]
From the first part, I thought this described the allies (English & others) burning their own ships that they couldn't take with them. But this wouldn't be a blow to the French.
If they burnt French ships - how did they have access to them? They'd been left in Toulon harbor all that time? In that case, surely they should have been considered lost from the time Toulon was taken by the allies? --Chriswaterguy talk 20:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree about this. The Royalist seizure of Toulon was a preceding event who may be covered in detail, but after the siege the French Navy didn't lack anything they lacked before, the British and Royalists scuttled their own fleet, even if those were prize ships, those were not on French hands during the Siege of Toulon Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ships burnt 

message: While the article correctly lists Napoleon Bonaparte as a Captain, the caption under the painting "Napoleon à Toulon (1793) par Edouard Detaille" erroneously lists him as a General.
Can we safely change this? Or does someone else have more information to add?Farkeld (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleon's Rank
Talk:Battle of St. Quentin (1557)

message: Why so much talking about England in the article? England had little to do with this battle. The article was probably written by an Englishman.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.82.223.109 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Commenting 9 years on - I was baffled there is a footnote about England entering the war earlier in the summer but nothing in the article connecting the battle with England. English volunteer troops were present at the battle, as Lord Herbert of Cherbury recalled in later years meeting Anne de Montmorency and being told the latter remembered 'my [Herbert's] grandfather at St Quentin". There deserves therefore to be some mention of the English contribution. These contingents would have been in sizeable groups under their own officers. It was fairly commonplace for major powers to hire troops from smaller countries whose alliance they could count on.Cloptonson (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  England? 

message: Why did the Duchy of Savoy got deleted off the page, when the main leader was the Duke of Savoy?  Grav-Leo02 (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the strength of the Savoyard forces in this battle? I find it odd that the duchy was able to provide troops for this battle against France knowing that it was under the control of France at the time...but I might be wrong and always willing to learn new stuff. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're in part right, the major part of the Duchy was occupied by the French, but important strongholds like Cuneo and cities near the Lombard border were still resisting the french forces, i know that the army that entered into France was formed by german and italian mercenaries, spanish soldiers and savoyard units were supposed to be there. I'm going to add sources for the participation of the Duchy in the battle  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grav-Leo02 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are adding things to the article without having the details and sources? This is against policy because everything here has to be WP:VERIFIABLE. I would ask you to autorevert until you do have the sources. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  as per WP:NONENG please provide an extract of the source that you have provided with the figures for the Savoyard forces. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Striking through earlier edits of another sock of the same masteer. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Savoy 

message: It seems that no Savoyard troops participated in the battle so isn't it misleading to include them? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Savoy be included as belligerent when it was just their Duke who Participated?
Talk:Battle of Shrewsbury

message: The numbers given regarding the size of the army and extent of casualties are impossibly high.  I've added a quick note to try and combat this, but the article really needs an overhaul.  It reads more like a chronicle than an analysis of battle. Perhaps one day I'll have time to come back to it.  Anyone else interested in the meantime should check out the Barker and Prestwich books referenced, and other reputable historians.  Gwinva 03:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: The King's forces sustained much greater losses than the rebels, in fact Henry IV very nearly lost both his life and his throne.
This contradicts the Casualties and losses summary which shows 10,000 rebel losses v 5,000 royal losses. I will use the English Heritage figures. JRPG (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self contradiction
Talk:Battle of Sedgemoor

message: In the "Background section it refers to "The royalist troops, led by Louis de Duras, 2nd Earl of Feversham, and Colonel John Churchill". However in the "Royalist force" section Churchill is listed as a General. It stated later that Churchill was promoted to Major General after the Monmouth Rebellion. Thus he could have still been a Colonel, but I know in at least one dramatic adaptation he is shown to be appointed Brigadier General at the start of the campaign (ie before the Battle of Sedgemore), so it could be this is the case. I think that it would be good if somebody could conclusively establish his rank and then make sure it is consistent throughout the article.  Dunarc (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in rank of John Churchill
Talk:Battle of Rathmines

message: According to the book To Hell or Barbados by Sean O'Callaghan the battle actually occurred on 22 July 1649, the article says 2 August but has no source. I'll change if no-one finds a contradictory source.GiollaUidir (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Battle

message: I should point out that the number of Royalists/Irish killed in the battle is not clear; in their respective books on the period Scott-Wheeler states it was over 2,000 but O'Siorchu claims it was perhaps as low as 600. Perhaps there needs to be a note this effect in the article. Inchiquin (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties
Talk:Radcot Bridge

message: I realize this is an article primarily about the bridge, and secondarily about the battle. That said, I believe in the use of the Military conflict infobox on all battle articles. I wonder if this article should perhaps be split? It would be easier (and more appropriate) then to properly categorize it and all that good stuff. LordAmeth 09:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment

message: Can you give us some history about the castle, and its connection with Matilda? (I can't immediately see anything about it on Matilda's wiki-page). Valetude (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matilda's Castle
Talk:Sieges of Boulogne (1544–1546)

message: Siege of Boulogne (1544-1550). It was a single action of investment of a town and harbour by the English army, with varying degrees of resistance from the French over six years of interrupted continuous duration.Unoquha (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that I would characterize it as a single action—we're still talking about three (four?) separate sieges, spanning several wars and intervening peace treaties—but I agree that clustering the entire series of sieges into a single article would probably make sense, given the relative brevity of the material we have and the similarities between the sieges. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed name change
Talk:Apollo Bridge

message: I would remove this "stub" sign. Why should any more info be added about a simple bridge?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerwind7 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Talk:WCWN

message: Will the re-affiliation with the CW Network cause the station to get a new call sign? I've been wondering for a while... --Kuroki Mio 2006 04:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was just wondering... 
Talk:Pedro Rosa Nales

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 22:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: Disturbingly few googles.  We need dome references. RJFJR 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: There is a reference in the AFD to material on the Spanish wikipedia; I was unable to establish a link to it and the person who made the comment at AFD can no longer find the article. RJFJR 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish wiki
Talk:Interstate 475 (Georgia)

message: I just noted in the main article that I-475 is primarilly six lanes (three in each direction). I'm not sure when the highway was widened. However, on my last two visits to Georgia (after 2002), the highway was already six lanes. An exact date as to when I-475 was widened would be appreciated. Wslupecki 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all 6 lanes, except for the southern approach to I-75 which is 4 lanes (currently being widened). I don't know why I-475 isn't the I-75 mainline (with I-16 for the northern leg of the Macon through route, and some spur number like I-175 for the downtown section and southern leg). CrazyC83 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

message: Does anyone have a source saying how much mileage is saved by traveling on Interstate 475 bypassing Macon?  --Mjrmtg (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance saved
Talk:Battle of Ravenna (1512)

message: This page lists the states and condottieri fighiting in the battle. Chiesa is Papal States. At least 2,000 infantry Italian troops were presents under the "Spanish" army, 5,000 in the "French" one.
Here is a table of the losses listed on the page:
Source      	Spanish losses               	French losses
Guicciardini	7,000                        	3,000
Giovio      	20,000                       	20,000
Sanudo      	18,000                       	18,000
Prato       	8,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry	6,000 infantry, <BR>2,000 cavalry
:Working from primary sources is somewhat dangerous; Guicciardini's numbers, for example, are famously unreliable.  The numbers currently there are from one of the secondary works (Taylor, if I recall correctly) that does a comparison of the various available statistics (including the French & German sources). 
:(And it need not be said, I think, that random websites are not exactly the kind of source appropriate for this sort of article, regardless of whether or not they're accurate.)
:It should be pointed out, though, that the article is in a fairly rudimentary state, having been something I threw together, mainly from Taylor, when I first started editing.  I've been meaning to rewrite it using all the sources I have (and with exhaustive footnoting, this time) for quite a while now; I'll try to do so in the near future, since these questions have come up. Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of states and condottieri

message: Looking through the sources I have, I can't find any mention of an official Florentine or Venetian presence at the battle.  There were plenty of Italians in both armies, of course, but they seem to be described as simply mercenary soldiers (in French and Papal employ, mainly) rather than forces organized by Florence or Venice.  (There's also mention of a Venetian force operating between Ravenna and Ferarra, but it obviously didn't make it to this battle.)
Do you have any (published) sources for the presence of Venetian and Florentine forces (as opposed to Italian mercenaries in another state's employ) here? Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written up a halfway-decent summary of the troop breakdowns and dispositions, taken from several quite reputable sources.  There's a lot of "Italian" troops mentioned, but I can't find anything specific referring to a Florentine or Venetian presence here.  Any assistance with finding a reputable source for such would be appreciated; as it is, I'm uncomfortable with using details that seem to only appear on websites, rather than in published historical works. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants
Talk:Battle of Ivry

message: Is it appropriate to refer to him as "Henry of Navarre, and future Henry IV of France" in this article?  Henry nominally became King of France upon the death of Henry III in 1589 - a year before this battle took place. Funnyhat 19:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry's title 

message: Henry so defeated Mayenne at Ivry that he became the only credible claimant to the throne of France
:Is that really true?  As I understand it, what Ivry did was force direct Spanish intervention.  Had Parma not dies, who knows if the Spanish might not have succeeded in imposing, say, the young Duke of Guise and Infanta Isabella as co-rulers?  It seems to me that even before Ivry, Henry was more or less the only credible claimant - that was the whole problem with the Catholic League's position throughout - they had no decent pretender.  The Cardinal de Bourbon was elderly, celibate, under Henry's control, and had, at any rate, was obviously not too long for this world by the time of Ivry (he died less than two months later).  The Prince of Condé was a baby, and probably protestant.  The Prince of Conti was Catholic, but recognized Henry.  The Guises were not Capetians, and had no particular genealogical claim (they descended, I suppose, from René of Anjou, but I'm not sure what good that does them).  Infanta Isabella was not only Spanish, but a direct abandonment of the Salic Law.  At any rate, the claim seems somewhat misleading. john k 12:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judgments 

message: What is meant by "under Appenzell" ? This sounds as if Appenzell were a military commander, but to my knowledge Appenzell is a Swiss canton (well, two half-cantons, but never mind), and were already part of Switzerland in 1590. Does it mean that the troops were from Appenzell? Tjunier (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing the main page entry, I came here with the same question. Is this a rewriting of Lord Macaulay's reference to " Appenzell's stout infantry," in his poem "The Battle of Ivry?" "Led by the contingent from Appenzell" might be the correct intention. I know of no Appenzell title. Are we right? --Wetman (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "under Appenzell" ? 

message: * Ensured that the article is: within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. 
* Recommendations: section expansion (Prelude; Aftermath); in-text citations; additional references. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]]
Talk:Siege of Maastricht (1673)

message: I do not understand the part of: </br>
The siege is now chiefly remembered for the introduction of the 'siege parallel' by French military engineer Vauban, a concept that remained in use until the middle of the twentieth century, the death of Charles de Batz de Castelmore d'Artagnan, the hero of The Three Musketeers, and the English contingent including its commander the Duke of Monmouth and John Churchill (the future Duke of Marlborough).
* Hopefully makes more sense now? Robinvp11 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with language
Category talk:France geography stubs

message: There is currently a bot (fr:Utilisateur:DasBot) on the French Wikipedia creating lots of France geography stubs see fr:Catégorie:Wikipédia:ébauche commune française. Some of these could be useful for expanding some stubs on the English Wikipedia. NSR (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of Nedao

message: The article states that: "...defeated in 469. After that point, Huns cease to exist in European history." - which is false. The most of them retreated to the Pontic steppes which is still Europe (today Southern Ukraine), so if we only take them as Huns, they didn't disappear from Europe. And we shouldn't forget their remnants who stayed where they were in Pannonia and Transylvania, Bessarabia, and the Balkan. Secondly, they never disappeared, but after their retreat to eastern Europe, they started to be called bulgars, onogurs, akatzirs, khazars, kutrigurs, utrigurs, magyars, alans, then tartars, timurids, seljuks, etc. The first fragments of them came back to western Europe with the Avars only 100 years after Attila, and then their migration towards west was continous until and even after the Hungarian Conquest. It is ridiculous to state that they 'ceased to exist in Europeam history'. They disappeared only for 100 years and only from western Europe, but when they came back under the names of Avars and Magyars, they defeated the whole European company and definitely had some serious impact on European, even on western European history. 178.48.177.1 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement is only partially correct, however, you've proven the article's statement - the Huns did disappear from history in Europe - the coalition led by whatever the original "tribe" was had completely fallen apart.  There is no evidence whatsoever that the Magyars were Hunnic, by the way.50.111.57.100 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huns didn't disappear from Europe after Nedao