lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ġgantija

message: in keeping with other articles, i'd like to move this to Ġgantija Srl 02:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lenie Reedijk's 2018 book Sirius: The Star of the Maltese Temples, makes a very strong case based on archaeoastronomy, that their central axes orientations to the rising star of Sirius astronomically date Ggantija North to c. 5,350 BCE and Ggantija South to c. 4,250 BCE. Note, too, that of all the Maltese temples, only Mnajdra South (“the famous anomaly”) is oriented to 090 degrees, due east to the rising sun at the spring and autumnal equinoxes; no other is, including both Ggantija temples. Swiss2024 (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Good point, changed to reflect the proper age. Amazing to think they built all that with just stone and wood tools. - lars 02:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move page, historical age

message: How could Otto Bayer excavate Ggantija Temple in 1837 if he lived between 1902–1982?
Norum 03:15, 29 April 2006
It must be a different one. Maltesedog 11:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Otto Bayer 

message: There are court tombs, passage tombs, and various structures in France, Turkey, Spain and Ireland which predate this. Example: Tomb 7, Carrowmore, dated by Burenhult in the 1970's to approximately 6200 years old. What about Cathal Hoyuk in Turkey? Certainly there are buildings there, probably early Neolithic. Sytheston 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldest Free Standing Structures

message: The text has references to a citation, but it isn't there, did someone remove it?
HenrikOlsen (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite gone? 

message: Is this the English pronunciation? Regardless, where's the stress? kwami (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: Are there WMedia-compatible images of best-guess reconstructions, hopefully free of too much antichronistic neo-pagan influence, for this site? 71.82.157.201 (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do there exist any putative reconstructions, impressions, etc.? 

message: The map of the structure, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/English_map_of_Ggantija_temples.tif/lossy-page1-1024px-English_map_of_Ggantija_temples.tif.jpg
has the text "C expansion of the northern temple" but it shown as the southernmost part of the temple, connected with the southern, older part of the structure?
109.59.16.247 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is ambiguous
Talk:Doug Wickenheiser

message: I removed the See also section, since the list does not contain people who died young anymore, but during their playing career. Is it established that Wickenheiser had an ongoing career while being treated for his illness? I find it hard to tell from the current article text. Please add info if you have any. --Bamsefar75 (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that his playing career ended in 1994, so no, he was not an active player.Djob (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Died during playing career or not
Talk:Owlswick

message: The reason that Owlswick was not mentioned in Domesday Book is that it was part of the Manor of Monks Risborough and included under 'Risborough' in the lands of Archbishop Lanfranc.
The name is explained in the Place Names of Buckinghamshire (1925).
I would propose to re-write the article but I do not think it is of sufficient importance to have a heading of its own.  I would propose to re-direct it to an appropriate heading under Monks Risborough so that anybody searching for it would be taken straight there.  I would also re-direct there the other entries for small hamlets in the parish of Monks Risborough except perhaps for Whiteleaf which could be considered of more importance because of the Cross.
I will leave this for a week or two in case anyone feels very strongly about it, but I would comment that nobody has shown sufficient interest to re-write the article despite the fact that it has been completely inaccurate for a long time.
Waysider1925 (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on the present content of this article
Talk:1973 Pacific typhoon season

message: It needs at least a one sentence description of every storm to be a start.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo
Talk:1972 Pacific typhoon season

message: It needs at least a one sentence description of every storm to be a start.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo
Talk:Desiree Washington

message: "Mike was convicted of rape." --- this sentence is redundant, inarticulate, and generally unbecoming. 
67.170.238.239 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  (e • t • c) 21:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2015
Talk:Battle of Jerez

message: My opinion is that the PCG is not reliable in this instance. It has other rather improbable assertions, as it will become clear for anyone reading about the siege of Cordoba, assertions contradicted by more recent historians. Its "facts" (or more correctly, its interpretations thereof) have been copied by a great deal of books that did not consult the original chronicles. I think the trend with respect to which Alfonso took part at Jerez is clear, but I let both versions stand for now. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Julio González, who is usually skeptical about the most outlandish claims in the chronicles, point out that there are two passages, one which does say "brother" (p. 64f36), so it's less clear cut than I thought. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfonso 

message: The article before my edit currently says: "Alfonso X recounts that he was also impressed with the bloody execution of 500 captured prisoners, a task that he was put in charge of."
It quotes for this H. Salvador Martínez, with English translation by Odile Cisneros (2010) [Spanish edition: 2003]. Alfonso X, the Learned: a biography. BRILL. pp. 82–83. The exact quote from the English edition on pg 83 reads:
"Alfonso had to witness, for the first time in his life, the "beheading" of five hundred Moorish prisoners that don Alvar had entrust to him in the rearguard."
Further it gives a footnote which explicitly denies the claim that he was put in charge of this affair. "... don Alvar Perez, who was at the front, gave orders to have them decapitated, and they did."
Therefore I am deleting this from the page. If anyone has a source that validates or contracts this please add to the discussion.15:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  500 beheadings
Talk:Cynthia Breazeal

message: what do you do ? Cynthia is a robot designer
=== Add it in! ===
Just edit this page to add on facts about Cynthia Breazeal! It will be your way to shine. You can add your name.
hello^^  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.68.68.40 (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: Just edit this page to add on facts about Cynthia Breazeal! It will be your way to shine. You can add your name.
hello^^  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.68.68.40 (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add it in! 

message: I added the Bio template and preliminary assessments.  This really needs a photo--Wired nominated her for Sexy Geek of 2006.--Hjal (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wired did rightly so, she's totally hot! --White rotten rabbit (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment & to-do
Talk:Battle of Halmyros

message: In conjunction with conducting WPMILHIST assessment, here's a  
ghit resource for an editor who is interested in adding inline footnotes. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Cheeky little drive-by, added map, moved some cites to sentence ends, rm dupe wikilinks, changed isbn 10s to 13s rv a few archaisms. All suggestive, rv as desired.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE
Talk:Siege of Strasbourg

message: In the first paragraph it says: "The deliberate German targeting of civilian morale presaged the total wars of the 20th century". This framing is probably wrong, as Strassburg had been a German Free Imperial Town since the Middle Ages and despite some efforts of ethnic cleansing done in Alsace/Elsass by the French for quite a while, most of the population still had German native tongue. As French military declared the city a fortress, French troops might therefore have used civilians as a shield, as the Russians do today in Ukraine. 94.216.31.16 (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Framing?
Talk:Battle of Mons-en-Pévèle

message: The battle of Mons-en-Pévèle is described as "Decisive" French victory in the infobox but if we would believe the article it ended up in a draw, because both sides claimed victory. What is it now?? A victory or a stalemate?Tomaatje12 (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  French victory or draw? 

message: *"The battle confirmed what they had been witnessing for 2 years already: the Flemings and the French could not decisively defeat each other unless one side made a serious mistake. During most of the day there was a military stalemate and the heavy fighting in the evening did not do much to change that." --Verbruggen, page 230
Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything that supports said paragraph on page 230. Page 229 is about the battle of Thielt, 21 June 1128, and page 230 continues this narration. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable paragraph
Talk:Battle of Fariskur (1250)

message: Samsam, nice work on these crusade articles, but I am wondering if it is necessary to insert Arabic names into the text. Most people probably won't be able to read them anyway (even if they have the right fonts to see the text in the first place!).  If we should keep them in, I think it would be better to separate them with brackets, rather than simply insert them in the middle of a sentence. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've separated them with brackets for now, what do you think? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic names

message: There are cases where text is surrounded by >ref<  >/ref<  and therefore hidden. I fixed some. Others need to be fixed. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with ref
Talk:Battle of Faughart

message: Harbottle gives the date as October 5, whereas this article states it was 14 October. Is this just a mistake, or a difference between Old Style and New Style dates? If the latter we need to state whether the date is OS or NS, and (ideally) have this consistent with other battle articles. (Unfortunately I don't have any definitive sources to check.) Wally Tharg (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Which date system?

message: "While in some ways a failure, the Scottish adventure in Ireland did serve the purpose of Scotland's King Robert the Bruce, as never again were the English able to use a base in Ireland to mount an attack on  the western seaboard of Scotland" This is somewhat misleading; never again was Scotland able to deny the English access to the Isle of Man, so of course they weren't staging invasions of Scotland from Ireland anymore.71.63.160.210 (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading
Talk:Battle of La Rochelle

message: Isn't there supposed to be a "#" sign or something of the sort next to the Earl of Pembroke's name?--189.33.40.151 (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captured 

message: Tidied refs and citations, auto ed, cite scrub checked for dupe wikilinks. Used sfns as don't know harvnb system. Keith-264 (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE
Talk:Battle of Versinikia

message: Here is the reason for making some changes to what I think is a good article. The following could be a start for a useful discussion, in case someone disagrees with my edits:
Cities widely known in the scholarship with their medieval names should be mentioned as such. E.g. I changed numerous Odrin instances to Adrianople because the latter is how it was called by its (Byzantine) inhabitants and the primary sources (ok, it was actually called Adrianopolis but this wouldn't be very useful). Otherwise, why not calling it by its current Turkish name (Edirne) or why not calling medieval 'Constantinople as Istanbul? Same stands for Mesembria (Nesebar). See also Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars which uses the same name conventions I used here. Dipa1965 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edition was very useful, especially in correction my numerous mistakes thank you : ) --Gligan (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for changing city names
Talk:Battle of Roosebeke

message: This is a rather confused article. It lists no less than three "French commanders" in different places: Louis II of Flanders, King Charles IV and Clisson! Perhaps an explanation is in order. Djmaschek (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Hindmarsh Island

message: I've made corrections and additions on the Hindmarsh Island Affair. It is hard to summarise accurately because it had so many twists and so much heated debate. Perhaps it needs its own article, but on the other hand it was just an incident which obtained exaggerated importance at the time.  And the Hindmarsh Island needs a summary of the incident anyway...--Jack Upland 03:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a separate article has been created, I have tried to avoid unnecessary duplication here.--Jack Upland 00:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindmarsh Island Affair
Talk:Operation Collar (convoy)

message: Tidied the prose, ce, auto-edded, dupe wl scanned, added references, citations ready for expansion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than piecemeal edits I've decided to copy the article into a sandbox. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits
Talk:Battle of the Malacca Strait

message: I believe that "Battle off Penang" would be a better title for this article, since that appears to be the commonly used name for the battle that was a result of Operation Dukedom. Cla68 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally among historians its known as "The battle of the Malacca Strait" so in wiki terms, probably the best name would be "Battle of the Malacca Strait (1945)". Galloglass 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I support changing the article name to "Battle of the Malacca Strait (1945)."  I'll leave this open for further comment for awhile before I or someone else moves the article to the new name. Cla68 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, providing that the current name redirects (as it would normally). BTW, which historians? The alternative name I've seen is "Sinking of the Haguro". Folks at 137 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like several other battles in the Pacific War, this one doesn't seem to have a truly pervasive, generally accepted title.  "Battle of the Malacca Strait" or "Battle off Penang" seem like the best two options to me.  Because of Wikipedia's large influence on the Web, whatever title we choose may become the de facto title of the battle from here on out. Cla68 22:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Roskill refers to it as "The battle of the Malacca Strait" in 'The War at Sea, 1939-1945'. Can't give the page ref I'm afraid so if someone out there owns Vol 3 could they give it. Galloglass 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching around a little appears to indicate that "Battle off Penang" is the Japanese title for the battle and "Battle of the Malacca Strait" is a "Western" title (along with "Sinking of the Haguro").  If true, then I'm leaning towards going with the Battle of the Malacca Strait as the new name for the article. Cla68 23:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: While I don't doubt the number (hence no fact tag), I do wonder if it meant statute miles, seeing how it's written by an RN officer in a naval journal.... I would expect, in those circumstances, nautical miles, hence 34mi =63km. (This is, btw, a perennial complaint for me, due to writers not knowing the difference, or not drawing the distinction.) Can it be said more firmly which was intended?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  07:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Miles & miles & miles
Talk:Battle of Helsingborg (1362)

message: There is a move request that almost affects this page at Talk:Battle of Helsingborg (1710)#Move request -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Related move request
Talk:Battle of Ramla

message: September 7, 1101 may or may not be the date of the first battle of Ramla or Ramleh.  It may not be correct as an indicated death date for Stephen of Blois, however.
It certainly conflicts with the date of death indicated in Stephen II, Count of Blois (an article linked to by this one).
The first battle is typically indicated as a victory. Although the actual numbers may have been embellished, there are accounts of how, even though severely outnumbered, Baldwin and his small group carried the day.
The second battle is generally indicated to have been a disaster.  Baldwin was fortunate to have escaped with his life.  Few others did. Stephen of Blois, is indicated as having died in this second battle.  There is more to be found on the net by searching "Battle of Ramleh" and "Ramleh" .
I have seen dates of death for Stephen (and or the second battle) given as sometime in 1102, as May 17, May 19, 27 May, and as 13 Jul 1102.  I haven't found anyone offering 1101, however, or indicating that he died in the first battle of Ramla.
I think that when possible, conflicts between Wikipedia articles that are linked should be resolved. If they can't be resolved then an explanation that cites references should be offered.
In addition, I have an issue with the fourth paragraph.  The one that begins with "The second battle..." There is actually more in this paragraph regarding Jaffa and subsequent conflict there, than on the second battle of Ramla. The second battle of Ramla seems to be the subject of that particular paragraph and Ramla (not Jaffa, or even Baldwin) certainly is the subject of the article.
The Jaffa mention at least deserves another paragraph, and may be best presented as another article.
--Dogfish 00:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the deaths of Stephen of Blois and Hugh of Vermandois (which you noted a couple of days ago) are pretty confused. I think I was responsible for writing these so I am probably to blame; maybe the original sources are confused though, since they are kind of sparse after 1099. I'll check again when I can, but if you can solve these problems, you are welcome to do so. Adam Bishop 01:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battles of Ramla/Ramleh
Talk:Battle of Zonchio

message: removed bit about being the first battle in which cannons were mounted on ships. claim unsupported.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.62.146 (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: precedence

message: The three articles Battle of Zonchio, Kemal Reis, and Ottoman-Venetian Wars (1499-1503) share a lot of text verbatim.  This isn't good -- the three articles should cover the battle, the general, and the wars in general, with minimal overlap and appropriate cross-references. --Macrakis 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication

message: The Chinese were already mounting cannons on ships during the Battle of Lake Poyang in 1363.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.63.125 (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First cannons on ships? 
Talk:Battle of Cremona

message: I attempted to add the translation of the French ditty. It refused to allow me to put the translation beneath the poem and in stanza form. I left it there for editors more familiar (which means practically anyone at all) with the process. (Paleocon44 (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BATTLE OF CREMONA 
Talk:Battle of Visby

message: The 2nd sentence of the 1st paragraph reads:
"To save the city from sacking and in order to keep,..."
"keep" what? (Paleocon44 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFTERMATH 

message: It's unclear who exactly the Danes were fighting. The background mentions a division between the city of Visby and the country of Gotland as a whole. A tripartite conflict. Please clarify.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.125.127 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello guest with an IP number! Thank you for your comment. Since you seem more familiar with the facts than the rest of us, we would very much appreciate if you could write a bit more of exactly happened here on the talk page, along with where the facts were found (book or website for references) and I will help you put it in the text. Thanks, - W.carter (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear who Gotland participants were 
Wikipedia talk:New articles by topic

message: There are also new article boards in the Middle Ages project and Eastern Orthodoxy portal. Please add them here. --Ghirlandajo 03:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New

message: I would like to add an item  on the main page for :Category:Canadian law. Can someone please point me to a page that explains how to do it. Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I go about adding another category to this page? 

message: I'd like to see new pages for the dinosaur and paleontology projects, but not sure what to do? FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Perhaps more relevant in the science section? History is more about humans, I'd think. As for dinosaurs, how about this category? Here's the main stub-template: There are a bunch of sub-templates as well. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dinosaur new articles are available here. The list can be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs following these instructions. --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, will do! FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to add new subjects? 

message: I would need help creating two separate lists: New articles in Category:Politics of Ghana (including all its sub categories), and Recent changes to articles (including old ones) in Category:Politics of Ghana (including all its sub categories). Please! —M@sssly✉ 00:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a Ghana new articles list. Here is a Ghana recent changes list. --Bamyers99 (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we have specific lists for Category:Politics of Ghana? This is towards Wiki For Ghana Election 2016.—M@sssly✉ 06:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I am not in favor of creating short-term event new article lists. Maybe this category addition list for sub-categories of 'Politics of Ghana' will work. I do not know of any tools to get Recent changes for sub-categories. --Bamyers99 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:meta:User:Masssly/sandbox|Ghana Election 2016 drive]] 

message: Does anybody care if I add animals in the same section as birds?  White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals
Talk:To a Waterfowl

message: analysis of the poem to a waterfowl
Isn't this copyright infringment? What's the status of this poem, and a poetical analysis doesn't seem very Wikipedia-esque. WP:NOT Homestarmy 16:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no link to text of the poem.--Wetman (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)