lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Decatur

message: Hood's Army of Tennessee was not at full strength at Decatur therefore lets loose this 39,000 number. He split his army up earlier along the trail sending most of his wagon train and two thirds of his artillery along a slightly more southernly rout when traveling to Tennessee. He likely did this simply to cover more ground more rapidly. Forage for horses may have been a factor too since forage was sparse that time of year. His army was no longer being pursued and he kept his battle ready portion of the army in between the enemy and the wagon train. Further research will show how much of his infantry actually accompanied the wagon/artillery train but there should be no question some did accompany this group. This portion of the Army of Tennessee was no closer than 8 to 10 miles away and could hear the bombardment but were not involved. Several diaries mention this but one good source is the "Confederate Diary of Wesley Olin Connor of Cave Spring, Georgia". This is available free on the Internet. Rjr1960 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Confederate troop strength at Decatur

message: The redirect Battle of Muscle Shoals 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.  Mdewman6 (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Battle of Muscle Shoals]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Battle of Dardanellia

message: The current article, Naval Battle of Dardanelles and Naval Battle of Elli, are all about the same battle. All three are stubs, but the most well-known and 'correct' is "Naval Battle of Elli", as the battle is known in Greece. Before actually undertaking the merger, however, I'd like to notify so as to have any objections/observations voiced in time... Cplakidas 19:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article merger
Talk:Battle of Dandanaqan

message: Nothing on the link source indicates that the Kakuyids were present at Dandanaqan with any amount of troops. There is enough information to prove Abu Mansur Faramarz was at Dandanaqan, but I do not see anything in the source that indicates Faramarz was instrumental or had brought Kakuyid troops which influenced the outcome of the battle to allow "Kakuyid" in the victory result. I will therefore be removing Kakuyid from the belligerents and result sections of the infobox.
*" The loss of Khorasan by the Ghaznavids after the battle of Dandāqān in 432/1041 meant that the Kakuyids faced a serious threat from the Saljuqs."
*"After quelling the rebellion of another brother, who had sought the help of the Buyid amir of Fārs, Abū Kālīǰār ʿEmād-al-dīn, he had to face the menace of the Saljuqs. Toḡrïl had made Ray in northern Persia his capital, and Abū Manṣūr Farāmarz’s relations with him now assumed paramount importance. He had already had some contact with the Saljuqs during his father’s lifetime in circumstances which are rather mysterious; according to the Ghaznavid historian Bayhaqī, he was present with the Saljuq forces at Dandāqān." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if the king of the Kakuyid dynasty aided the Seljuqs wouldn't it count that that his kingdom helped the Seljuqs? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you see the word aided in the source? I see the word "present". I do not see any mention of Kakuyid troops. Faramurz was not king in 1040, his father Muhammad ibn Rustam Dushmanziyar was king until Sept 1041. From the way it sounds in the Encyclopaedia of Islam;"His eldest son, Zahir al-Din Shams al-Muluk Abu Mansur Faramurz had already discerned the trend of events; he was present with Toghrll on the battlefield of Dandankan in 431/1040, when the victorious Saldjuk leader granted to him Rayy and Isfahan.", Faramurz was there for "personal" reasons. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kakuyid victory?
Talk:Battle of Dallas

message: when I was reading this article I got confused in many ways I think you should make a small summary for kids about what ever the article is about or even make a WIKIPEDIA for kids  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.28.85 (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You could take a look at Simple English Wikipedia. You won't find as many articles but there are now quite a few and most are written more like summaries and in simpler style. Donner60 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dallas 

message: I find the normally accurate Bodart casualty figures to be way off (2,400 Union, 3,000 Confederate). The battles of New Hope Church (1,665) and Pickett's Mill (1,600) alone cost the Union Army almost 3,300 casualties, not including the losses at Dallas (379). Confederate losses were 400 at New Hope Church, 448 at Pickett's Mill, and over 1,000 at Dallas. Djmaschek (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bodart casualty figures
Talk:Battle of Călugăreni

message: This article is horribly pro-turkish and need to be re-written. In the first stage of the battle the full 100.000 turkish army was visible in front of micai and his army. Then Sinan split his army into 3 parts and tried to encircle Micai and left in front of him around 40.000. One part of his forces was stopped by Albert Kiraly. In any case the turks failed miserably to encircle the Romanians in time, since they were defeated in main battle.
I have some problems with this article: 1. The Hungarian Kingdom did not existed. 2. Albert Kiraly was a mercenary Captain. 3, I provided sources but they keep being deleted. AlexanderXVI (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hungarian Kingdom was exist, because the Austrian Grand Prince was king of Hungary and Croatia. The foreign states admit the autonomus Hungarian Kingdom in the Habsburg Monarchy, in the same way also Bohemia. The Holy Legua asked for help the Cossack, and Cossack Army attack to the Tatar and Ottoman territorys. The Serbs and Bulgarians also rebel to in 1594, and seize an relevant Ottoman Fort in Bulgaria and numbers join in the Austrian, Hungarian and Wallachian army. Nor yet few thousand Cossack cavalry was come up Hungary, Transylvania and Wallachia battle to againts the Ottomans.  Doncseczznánje 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of Cyzicus

message: I think the battle diagram is misleading and needs to be deleted or redrawn. The sizes of the fleets seem to be misrepresented. The Athenians were actually numerically stronger with 86 triremes, while the Peloponnesians had 60-80.Xenophon says the Spartans had 60 (Hellenica, 1.1.11-13, 16) but Diodorus (the weaker source) says 80 (13.50.2). But the main problem is that the squadrons of Theramenes and Thrasybulus didn't come out from opposite directions behind the Spartans, as suggested in the diagram. It is true that they had been lured out by a small decoy Athenian fleet of 20 ships.Diodorus Siculus, 13.50.2. But Theramenes and Thrasybulus had been hiding together behind a single promontory and came out together. Alcibiades had also placed troops on land under cover of darkness. The promontory where the bulk of the Athenian fleet (66 ships) had been hiding was the one between Cyzicus and Artace on the west coast.Frontinus, Str. ii.5.44. See D. H. Kelly, Xenophon’s Hellenika: a Commentary (ed. J. McDonald), vol. 1, Amsterdam, 2019, p. 83. Neither Diodorus nor Xenophon say that Thrasybulus and Theramenes came from opposite directions.Xenophon, Hellenica, 1.1.17; Diodorus Siculus, 13.50-1-3.
--MPCR (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion re: the map
Talk:Battle of Custoza (1848)

message: The number of troops as state on here also differs from the detailed description from July 22 to 27 and aftermath on Custoza battle on German wiki especially it included an reinforcement of 25000 Sardinian troops arrived on July 25 in the flank of an Austrian brigade of 6000 and attacked the latter from behind. It’s not included in this site. 184.68.79.86 (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of number of troops and casualties are vague and unclear 

message: So I was reading about the battle and I came across this. Did Radetzky really say this?
https://www.google.ca/books/edition/A_Political_and_Military_History_of_the/RSLeSLcMGucC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=radetzky+battle+july+24th+walter+james+wyatt&pg=PA194&printsec=frontcover
96.52.16.187 (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: Micheal Embree had published his Radetzky's Marches: The Campaigns of 1848 and 1849 in Upper Italy recently in 2013, well-researched with extensive bibliography from both Austrian and Italian sources, neutral and without taking side. His book was used as direct sources in some campaigns such as Battle of Goito here, it would be really helpful if someone use his book for Custoza and Novara. 2604:3D09:D07F:E580:0:0:0:766E (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micheal Embree's book should be added
Talk:Gender issues

message: Gender Issues is not Gender identity  
Gender Issues is the state of confusion between being male, female, or neuter. This genetic disease causes it's members to act in the opposite of their chromosone determined gender with some individuals becoming homosexual. WritersCramp 15:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to review WritersCramp's user page for an explanation.  Exploding Boy 18:04, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
* research quoted on WritersCramp's user page links to a work the sums up two main pieces of research. Careful reading of this shows that the author acknowledges more than twice that it may not be 'on the target'. I would have expected to see any acknowledged research on this matter in the New Scientist, the original article I was looking for promoted an impirical view that is not justified, the re-direct to the article I later found seems more correct for the title Gender issues. Thanks. Alf melmac 18:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender Identity
Talk:USNS Ponchatoula (T-AO-148)

message: Was she floating until 1999 or 1992? The article is ambiguous. Doovinator 15:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the ship was floating up until 2007 as of last report. Lay up means in the Reserve fleet. -MBK004 05:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Power semiconductor device

message: The parameters named in this section are indeed power semicoductor's parameters, but the On-resistance is only accurately defined for MOSFET transistor. BJT as well as IGBT have a non-resistive behaviour, beacuse a voltage drop independent of the flowing current is always present. Thus i suggest to change the "on-resistance" parameter for a "voltage drop" kind parameter
--Iruando (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameters of power semiconductor devices 

message: I know (but have no immediate reference) that germanium diodes were in use in the late 1940s; I had a 1948 CZ 125cc motorcycle with a germanium rectifier. LorenzoB (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanium diode 

message: I believe the first paragraph is misleading to say most power semis are switches or rectifiers. Power transistors or ICs are used extensively in all but the smallest amplifiers for example and they are linear (analogue), not digital.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.95.175 (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading first paragraph? 

message: I believe the statement "As frequencies increase the losses increase as well, making BJTs more attractive" is misleading; my understanding is that BJTs tend to have higher switching losses than MOSFETs at high frequencies, because they are slow to switch off. I would suggest deleting this sentence.81.145.137.170 (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power MOSFET entry in table: 

message: As an electrical engineer, we use schematic symbols for all documents and circuit drawings, the omission of these symbols does a huge disservice to those learning electronics and electrical circuits. 
192.174.37.51 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this isn't a drafters' manual? Schematic symbols have very restricted utility in a general coverage article. Somewhere we've got a list of schematic symbols, with the obligatory ceaseless wrangling over IEC and ANSI variants. --Wtshymanski (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there no device schematic symbols?
Talk:Conisbrough Castle

message: I've deleted the sentence starting: "The Saxon-Norman divide has been overplayed in Ivanhoe". See  and  for support for the opinion that Scott was right about Norman subjugation of the Anglo-Saxons.--Mabzilla (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conisbrough Castle in Fiction

message: The British Library has uploaded some PD plans of the castle, available here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/tags/sysnum003418130. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans.... 

message: I've gone through and expanded the article; it's not yet covering the literature up to FA standard, but should be covering the bases now. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion... 

message: I might be heading to Conisbrough Castle in July. I don't know how much of an opportunity I'll get to take photos, but if I do are there any particular areas which could do with coverage? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo wishlist? 

message: At the moment I'm looking up . I'm looking for examples where mottes have been truncated so that stone towes can be built, but on page 61 Brindle says
I can work on some wording for the article later, but I think we might need to include the view that there may not have been a motte. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for not replying sooner Richard - yes, seems a sensible suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The question of the motte
Talk:Arlington Road

message: True, the protagonist discovers the antagonists' name change, but the FBI agent frend tells him that it was a legal and documented change.Kdammers (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change 
Talk:Battle of Falkirk Muir

message: General Hawley was an ancestor of my husband. They have always said in the family that he lost the Battle of Falkirk because he was totally drunk that day and ineffective as a leader. Is there any evidence to support this?--Alicejenny 07:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: I have no idea if he was drunk or not but he certainly lost the battle because of a serious misconception.  As a young subaltern he had been present at the Battle of Sheriffmuir in 1715, where he witnessed the effect of cavalry on some of the Highland troops.  He formed the lasting-and mistaken-impression that Highlanders were afraid of horsemen.  At Falkirk the charge of the dragoons was his one great gamble.  When this failed he had nothing to fall back on.
Rcpaterson 01:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawley at Falkirk
Talk:Battle of Eckmühl

message: The leading sources on this period, such as Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon and Rottenberg's Napoleon's Great Adversary and Emperor's Last Victory, treat the fighting from April 19 - 24, 1809, as a single, continuous series of engagements, all of which comprise the "Battle of Eckmuhl".  Given the existing structure of the "War of the Fifth Coalition" articles, adopting that position is perhaps too radical a change, but at a minimum the article needs to be expanded to incorporate the 21st.
The thrust of the original "Strategic Situation" focused solely on the fact that the battle led to the evacuation of Bavaria by the Austrians.  Though a positive outcome from the French perspective, that was a purely secondary outcome.  The Austrians had caught the French with their pants down around their ankles when they began the war on April 9.  This initial surprise was compounded by further errors on both the German and Italian fronts forcing Napoleon to be constantly reacting to Austrian initiatives.  The crucial importance of Eck was that, thereafter, Napoleon regained the strategic initiative.  The war was far from over, but after Eckmuhl the battles occurred where and when Napoleon chose, on grounds of HIS choosing.
I began this at the office, where I don't have my books to hand, so I limited my initial edit to the "Strategic Situation" section that I can do from memory.  Tonight I'll start revising the description of the battle itself with all my sources at hand.
Paco Palomo 21:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I changed Ratisbon to Regensburg throughout. Ratisbon fell out of use decades ago as the English name for Regensburg. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratisbon -> Regensburg
Talk:Battle of Eccles Hill

message: The article as it now reads is poorly-written and cited, which stems from edits on 11 April.  There have been some attempts to clarify the text, but I think we would be better served by reverting to the version of last January and working off that.  Are there any objections?  Kablammo (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revert
Talk:Battle of Dunkeld

message: It may very well be that the winner likes to change history to their favor, but sources state that it were the Jacobites who were ordered to stay and hold their positions in the houses until further notice. When the Cameronians broke out of their retreat, they burnt the houses down. There are several sources that state so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EilidhG (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who burnt whom 

message: "The Colonel, William Cleland, only 27 years old but already a veteran hero of the Covenanter cause, died heroically in the first hour of battle"
This statement is clearly POV. "Hero" and "heroically" are very loaded terms that have no place in this article. I will be removing them to make this statement more balanced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.15.68 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Numbers and casualties for the Cameronians updated from Historic Scotland; 800, not 1,200 (400 men had been despatched to Lorn and Kintyre) and deaths 20-50 (per source material and datasheet). Also Henderson succeeded Cleland (even if only for a short while) so should be included in Leaders.
Robinvp11 (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to Infobox
Talk:Battle of Drewry's Bluff

message: Drewry's Bluff is one of the locations listed as part of Richmond National Battlefield Park. Do they have a visitor centre, guided tours, interactive maps and hotel/restaurant facilities? Valetude (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visitor centre?
Talk:Battle of Fraustadt

message: As it stands, the Battle section makes very little sense. I would rewrite it myself, but I do not know how the battle played out, and so I am resonably sure that if I do change things around, then it will be inaccurate. If someone who actually knows how the battle went could rewrite the section, it would be splendid. Ourai т с 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to help, as a Swede I have access to quit a lot information on the battle. Carl Logan 18:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The battle

message: In 1706, when the battle took place, the city was a part of Poland, polish name should be more appropriate then.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.238.231.33 (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fraustadt seems to be the most common name in historigraphy. Frost here actually uses it as an example, and prefers the F name to W, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraustadt or Wschowa?

message: I've reviewed this for WP:POLAND and I don't believe it is important enough to be included under that project. Milhist Polish task force is enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: WP Note
Talk:Battle of Foulksmills

message: Hi,
First, thanks to anyone who worked on this.
I'm not trying to be a plank, but is this really the correct name? I realise that it may have been referred to the Battle of Foulksmills in one book, but my understanding is that it was traditionally referred in historical writing as the battle of Goffsbridge first, as that is where the first engagement happened - it never entered into what is now referred to as Foulksmills, and my understanding is that this was not really in existence then.
I should also point out that in the locality, there is fierce possessiveness about this! It is referred to as the Battle of Horetown (a townsland on which much of the fighting occurred), or of Goffsbridge, depending on which side of the Parish you live! But, it is never referred to as the Battle of Foulksmills by anyone around here.
That's my annoying two cents for you (I won't even start about the spelling of Foulksmills/Foulksmill/Foulkesmill...)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.130.189 (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Battle
Talk:Battle of Frankenhausen

message: The second sentence of this entry is wrong according to the entry it links to!  The sentence claims: "It was the final act of the German Peasants' War."  Yet if you follow the link to the page on the German Peasants' War, you'll see that the Battle of Frankenhausen, which took place in May, was -- according to that page -- hardly the final act of the war, which went on at least through the summer.
Delavagus (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final act
Talk:Battle of Fort Stevens

message: This article reads, "...and the only time in American history a sitting president was under fire in combat." If I'm not mistaken, Madison came under fire during the War of 1812. The article on Fort Stevens (not the battle, the fort), mentioned Madison as well as Lincoln. I have no sources available to correct this, but if one does, please add it. Thanks! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Problematic. Madison was nearly captured in the Battle of Bladensburg in 1814, but was apparently never fired upon in so doing. He had ridden out to a position which had already been overrun and barely escaped. 74.251.200.217 (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either one entry's right or the other one is, but they can't both be.  I don't have a good library near me that I can check.  Anyone have access to a reliable primary or secondary resource on the Battle of Bladensberg that they can check and see whether Madison was actually fired upon? Hzoi (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: President under fire

message: - An original, contemporaneous map of the forces.
A not-particularly-well-scanned, but otherwise useful contemporaneous newspaper engraving. 
Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful image resources
Talk:Battle of Fort Niagara

message: Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of the Thousand Islands/archive1
:I Just finished up the main body of this article on a relitivly small engagemet of the French and Indian War. I'm hopeing a peer review will bring some suggestions on how the article can be improved and hopfully bring some more info on the subject. I'd like to see more info on some of the personalities that don't have they're own page to link to, and some more detail on how the battle developed... Any input would be very much appreciated! Mike McGregor (Can) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for peer review, Battle of the Thousand islands