lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Dundee Law

message: Law, Dundee
Dundee is an andesitic sill of Lower Devonian Age, not a volcanic plug as previously indicated.
:Could you please provide a source for this and cite it in the article. The current ones cited ie: the boards actually at the summit of the law clearly show it as a basalt plug.  YDAM TALK 17:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I think the panoramic view image is due an update if an appropriate image can be found as the image is at least 10 years old, what do you think? Bagpiper88 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panoramic view image update?
Talk:Balboa Island Ferry

message: I've heard from relatives and area old-timers about a fourth or earlier car ferry, the Joker. Would this be another name for the "Fat Ferry"? knoodelhed (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joker 

message: The Chappaquiddick Island ferry system uses vessels mechanically and structurally similar to the Balboa fleet. 99.40.197.2 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vessel type
Talk:Balboa Park Gardens

message: Is "Balboa Park Gardens" an official name? If this article is about the gardens within Balboa Park in general, would Balboa Park gardens be more appropriate? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title? 
Talk:Baldwin Village, Los Angeles

message: Is this a legit citation for the Black P Stones gang sentence:
http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/2004/061704target.html
?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecnassianer (talk • contribs) 07:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BPS reference 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles, California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 05:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bunker Hill, Los Angeles, California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 06:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: * This article says Baldwin Village is part of Crenshaw, Los Angeles
* Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles says Baldwin Village is part of Baldwin Hills.
* Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, Los Angeles says it contains Baldwin Hills, Crenshaw, and Baldwin Village as separate entities.
Does anyone have any good sources or local knowledge? -- Beland (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, the LA Times map lists Baldwin Village separately as a part of Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, but doesn't mention Crenshaw. -- Beland (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  says Baldwin Village is "in the Crenshaw area" and definitely not part of Baldwin Hills. (Formerly "The Jungle".) -- Beland (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

text: The area can be "claimed" by several jurisdictions, and all claims should be noted, if they are found in Reliable sources and not simply on somebody's or some group's blog. I am not sure what the problem is to simply note the claims and the sources, if we have any. Also, the claims can vary depending on the era in which they were made. Perhaps User:Beland can explain what the problem is, for which I would thank this user. As for "local knowledge," that is not a Reliable source.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Google Maps is crowd-sourced and not acceptable as a source. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no problem listing competing claims; the problem is finding reliable sources. Which is why I was asking if anyone knew any. Local knowledge might be helpful in suggesting keywords or a place to look for reliable sourcing. Any pointers? -- Beland (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of which?
Talk:Party admission

message: Dear fellow editors: I made some minor edits to the article. The article as previously written was not necessarily incorrect, as I have seen at least one legal scholar use the term "exception" in referring to the Rule 801(d) categories of "statements which are not hearsay." Indeed, the article as written was careful to make the distinction. I just think it's less confusing to use the terms "exemption" or "exclusion" to refer to the 801(d) items, and to use "exception" to refer to all the categories of statements which are hearsay but which may nevertheless be admissible. Hair-splitting! Yours, Famspear 16:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exemption, exclusion, exception

message: UK law has hearsay rules that are dramatically different in the civil and criminal contexts. It would be great to have a section on those rules as applied to party admissions. And if other countries, especially civil-law countries, treat these admissions differently, the article would be vastly improved by discussing their approaches. Yitzhak1995 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize
Talk:Ballona Creek Bike Path

message: Hello, I don’t know who to ask about this but the coordinates template for this article is extremely not correct. I’m inclined to delete but I would prefer to fix or update. Can anyone help or suggest where to ask for help?
jengod (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinates

message: This article is in need of cleanup.  All of the information must be verifiable and reliable sources should be cited.  Some of the article is written in the second person and should be rewritten as an encyclopedia article instead of as a guide. Khatru2 06:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article not having been cleaned up since the above was written, I deleted most of it and expanded information about a link where the reader can actually find up-to-date information. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: OK Yelp and Reddit are replaced with an actual BOOK. I also made “improvements” (mostly) narrative, added usage info and did some other revisions. I also created a small problem for myself by adding coordinates for some (but not all!) of the gates. Working on the rest shortly.  jengod (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know nomination

message: With so many great pictures, would they not be better as a gallery at the end of the article? — Xenophore; talk 02:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures
Talk:Ballona Wetlands

message: I've added some external links, and am looking at some potential references, which will improve the page, if anyone has anything, let me know here or add it to the article.--Kip Kip 22:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Information for article

message: There are probably two (or more) sides to this. Many people favor development in this area, not least the folks who now live there thanks to the recent changes in the environment. Also, I don't see much attention paid to the steps taken to preserve wildlife, etc. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oodles of sides.... Meanwhile with NPOV goal:  Perhaps the 'benefits of the development & its housing' article expansion belong in the Playa Vista, Los Angeles, California article, where those amenities are to be enjoyed?  This is an 'open space preserve article' with natural history & the human history to preserve its existence - as a guide to what fits in?----Look2See1 (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are probably two (or more) sides to this 
Talk:Bangor, California

message: Hey all, I'm the WikiProject Cities assessor of this article. If feedback is what you want and need, come to my talk page and give me a holler! --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 17:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

message: I noticed the unreferenced template on the Bangor Ghost section, so I added a couple of references and deleted a statement that was not supported by those references.  I also changed the section title to "Bangor Firehouse Ghost" since none of the articles I found referred to it as the Bangor Ghost.  I will remove the citation needed template. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Bangor Ghost section
Talk:555 California Street

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support as nominator. Rai-me 02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Does anybody know why this building is called "Germania Bank" in the german version of SimCity??
A bad joke?Johnny2323 (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this building called "Germania Bank" in SimCity 4?? 

message: Why is the importance for this building being downgraded to "Low" for WikiProject Skyscrapers? As the second-tallest building in a major city with a height of over , it should at least be Mid-importance. It was also assessed as "Mid-importance" in the project for nearly 6 years - what was the reason to suddenly change it? Cheers, Rai•me 16:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: it may be of more importance locally, but there's nothing particularly significant about it to the skyscraper project.  --emerson7 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely disagree. It was the tallest building in California (and east of the Mississippi overall) when it was completed, and is still the 6th tallest building on the West Coast. How precisely are you defining what is important to the skyscraper project? Cheers, Rai•me 01:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the tower, even when built, was really of no particular import in design or otherwise as far as skyscrapers go. it's really just another big building. i would, however, agree that it should rate higher on the WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area. --emerson7 01:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Its height is what makes it important as far as skyscrapers go - it was the tallest in the Western United States when it was built. Not having a groundbreaking design is a good reason for it to be ranked as Low-importance for WP:ARCH, but it should at least be ranked as "Mid-importance" for WP:SKY given its height and history. I'm not suggesting that we rank it as High or Top importance - changing it to "Mid" does not mean that it ranks among the most important skyscrapers in the world, only that it is of more significance than your average city high-rise. Cheers, Rai•me 02:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:SKY Importance Assessment 

message: Building was also featured in the Dwayne Johnson movie "San Andreas"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:A280:EC60:94F7:6115:BF86:3D06 (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Andreas
Talk:Bank of America (1904-1998)

message: The article had stated, without source, that Giannini merged the Bank of Italy with Bank of American in 1929.  The NRHP document states that the Bank of Italy was renamed into Bank of America, so I edited the article to reflect that instead.  Perhaps the name Bank of America did come from an acquisition or merger, however.  A source would be helpful. doncram (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger or rename into Bank of America
Talk:Bankers Hill, San Diego

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Allied Gardens, San Diego, California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 19:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: I'm new to Wikipedia editing and wanted to add a blurb from a local real estate article on why Bankers Hill is a great place to live. It would be a recent article of San Diego Real Estate Hunter https://www.sandiegorealestatehunter.com/blog/5-reasons-bankers-hill-san-diego-great-place-live/  I believe linking an article from this year would help bring the page up to date by mentioning the demand is up for people who want to live in the neighborhood. Mgolingan (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would not be suitable. Equine-man (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a blurb to the Bankers Hill page
Talk:Barney's Beanery

message: I used to know someone who was involved in the protests against Barney's infamous sign. His version of it was "No Dogs or Faggots Allowed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.227.58 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Notorious Sign

message: The link referenced in the article points to a parked domain, so apparently whatever site had it no longer maintained or active. 68.229.185.85 (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to the Sign Invalid
Talk:Barnsdall Art Park

message: Hollyhock is an NHL which is notable in itself.  Barnsdall art park is on the nrhp which is also notable in itself.   Since they are notable by themselves, they should not be merged.  dm (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, it's notable in its own right. Mfield (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a week with no additional comments, so I'm closng this out. dm (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Holyhock house with Barnsdall Art Park 

message: Neutrality has been questioned since April 2008?  Unless someone speaks up, I'll remove the tag... dm (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * I had 30 minutes so I ripped the article apart a bit, it needs a lot of work, with references if nothing else. dm (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removing the tag dm (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 
Talk:Bass Lake (Madera County, California)

message: I propose merging Bass_Lake, California into Bass_Lake_(Madera_County,_California). I think it makes more sense for the lake and the community that surrounds it to be a solitary entry to reduce confusion and present a better, consolidated summary. Guywelch2000 (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal
Talk:Bay Area Air Quality Management District

message: I edited the section about the 2008 law.  I personally agree with the sentiment of the previous author that the law is more than a little unrealistic, but the previous text was just not encyclopedic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.84.96 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008 law?

message: Some recent edits, particularly the "Suspect Data and it's Effect on Citizens" change and additional paragraph seem biased and not objective. I looked at the provided reference and the claim even seems non-factual.
As there does seem to be a portion of citizens that feel encumbered by BAAQMD rulings, it seems like a dedicated "Complaints and Dissenting viewpoints" area might be needed. Also, content is mostly in the historical context; it would be nice to write some expanded information on BAAQMD goals and methodologies. What are peoples' thoughts? Jgurtz (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Edits and General Need of Cleanup
Talk:Bay Area Open Space Council

message: I am a communications intern for the Open Space Council and I am editing the page to reflect the actual goals and update information about the Council. Cguerra829 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bay Area Open Space Council

message: I have been cleaning up the disambiguous links project for Open space, and I found this article: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.  Unfortunately, I am not familiar with San Francisco, but could these articles be merged?  Are they the same thing? Joshfinnie (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combining Articles 
Talk:Bay Area Reporter

message: This article is only positive about BAR's early response to AIDS. Many sources talk about the nadir of that time being BAR editor Paul Lorch's response to the disease, especially his list of opponents he kept in his desk, crossing a line through the name of the ones that died of AIDS. Lorch, a strong activist for gay liberation, opposed the closing of the bathhouses; the "traitors" were gay men who worked to get the bathhouses closed. The BAR and the San Francisco Sentinel were beholden to their advertisers, says Alexandra Chasin, many of whom were bathhouses and bars.
*Alexandra Chasin. Selling Out: The Gay and Lesbian Movement Goes to Market. Palgrave Macmillan, 2001, p. 72
*Randy Shilts. And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic. New York: Penguin Books, 1987, pp. 445-446
*http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt6580067h;NAAN=13030&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=d0e6402&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e6402&brand=oac4
*http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt7b69n8jn;NAAN=13030&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=d0e5781&toc.id=0&brand=oac4
*http://books.google.com/books?id=dAI7nOe1KfYC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77
*Lorch stalled publishing AIDS sexual transmission information for six weeks
Some kind of balance should be struck, describing the friction between Lorch and others. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Lorch's Traitors' List 
Talk:Bay Farm Island, Alameda, California

message: I removed Tony Blair and Christian Bale from the list of BFI natives.  It doesn't sound plausible and I think there should be a source provided.
--Kenji Yamada 07:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gone native 

message: I removed the mention of the Ashtray, stated as being a "popular youth hangout". I've lived here for fifteen years (most of that time spent as a youth) and I've never heard ANY mention of this "ashtray". Most places don't list all of their "popular youth hangouts"; neither should this.
: I know its called the ashtray, but no one actually hangs out there.Skhatri2005 17:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashtray 

message: I added a section explaining what "Harbor Bay Isle" is in relation to Bay Farm Island, and referenced the HBI Homeowner's Association website. Mark94502 (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bay Farm Island vs. Harbor Bay Isle 

message: I added back the distinction between Harbor Bay Isle and Bay Farm Island. Someone took it out and gave no reason for doing so. Mark94502 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added it back
Talk:Baywood-Los Osos, California

message: I've said this before on other talk pages of unincorporated areas, but I disagree with the usage of "census-designated place" as the title or identifier of any settlement, regardless of size or status. No one ever says "I live in the census-designated place" of X. Since under California law there are only incorporated cities and unincorporated areas, the usage of terms like town or village would be inappropriate, so if something is not an incorporated city, we should refer to it as an unincorporated x, where x can be area, community, town, or whatever--we don't need to split hairs over that, as long as the word unincorporated is used. However, I think any use of "census-designated place" is inappropriate unless we're actually talking about Census data. I feel like other editors may be getting too hung-up on the bean-counting technicalities being produced by the US Census Bureau when it comes to placenames (on which, by the way, the Census Bureau is not the authority anyway--that rests with local government, and where that fails, with the United States Board on Geographic Names). 
Things were especially confused on this article, since, before I changed it, the lead appeared to talk about Baywood-Los Osos as if its whole existence had hinged upon it being a combined CDP, and when that went away for the 2010 Census, everything was referred to as "the former" CDP of Baywood-Los Osos. This seemed a bit silly to me, since the community is still there and still referred to by this combined name. Darkest tree (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the nomenclature, this is absolutely true. But we need SOURCES, darn it! GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unincorporated Area vs. "Census-designated place" 
Talk:Beach Cities

message: I think having this article called "Beach Cities" is pretty vague. This grouping isn't notable enough to be colloquially known as "Beach Cities" by people outside of the Los Angeles region. Perhaps the title could be changed to "Beach Cities, Los Angeles" or "Beach Cities, Los Angeles County" with "Beach Cities" becoming a redirect to the Beach City disambiguation page, or simply a redirect to the new title? Sewageboy (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article name? 

message: I don't understand what Look2See has been doing with his/her edits over the past year.  As a lifelong resident of California, I have never heard the term Beach Cities used to refer to the entire group of cities fronting on Santa Monica Bay.  The term is consistently used to refer only to the three Beach Cities: Manhattan, Hermosa, and Redondo.  I plan to fix this mess soon.  Any objections?  --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes no sense to me either and it's all unsourced.  I took it all out.  Those three are the beach cities.  Not even El Segundo gets on the list. I'll put sources in soon.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting for those sources. Beach Cities appears to be an urban legend kept alive by the cognoscenti.  Fettlemap (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess 

message: The map only highlights Redondo Beach rather than all three.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.39.27 (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've uploaded a new map highlighting all three of the Beach Cities. 08OceanBeachS.D. 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map
Talk:Beachwood Canyon, Los Angeles

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles, California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 05:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bunker Hill, Los Angeles, California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 06:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Bear Creek High School (California)

message: Supply the references!! Victuallers 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

message: This concerns POV tag cleanup.  Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it.  This permits discussion and consensus among editors.  From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.  Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements.  This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags.  No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 
Talk:Anjouan sparrowhawk

message: I have moved the page 'Anjouan Island Sparrow Hawk' to 'Anjouan Island Sparrowhawk' because the use of 'sparrowhawk' rather than 'sparrow hawk' is now the standard usage when referring to small Accipiter species. Maias 05:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Bird subspecies stubs are usually merged into the species article. Should most likely be the case here too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge