lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Singer Building

message: I changed the word voluntarily to legally, because the World Trade Center was demolished in a deliberate act (whether or not the collapse was intended by the hijackers). The word legally better reflects the difference. --BOARshevik 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voluntarily vs. legally 

message: I got to this article from the article on the Park Row Building, which is listed as a tallest building in the world surpassed by the Singer building. Going backwards from the Park Row Building doesn't lead to any cathedrals, but rather leads ultimately back to the Home Insurance building in Chicago, considered the first skyscraper in the world. This line of tallest buildings seems to be based on the data from http://www.emporis.com .
Is a 'cathedral' a building? Seems to be the issue.Ryoung122 00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two previous tallest 

message: The article makes the claim, unrelated to the Singer Building itself, that "It was the first modern building after the Eiffel Tower (which took the title away from the Great Pyramid of Giza when constructed in 1889) to hold the record for world's tallest and also was the first secular building to hold this honor."
This contradicts information found in Washington Monument, which is taller than the Great Pyramid of Giza, shorter than the Eiffel Tower, and completed in 1884.  
I'm removing this claim from the article.  -- Heath 128.173.42.61 19:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eiffel Tower / Pyramid of Giza claim 

message: http://skyscrapercenter.com/cartagena/torre-de-la-escollera/1561/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torre_de_la_Escollera
This as an unfinished steel skeleton was taller than the Singer Building when it had to be demolished due to storm damage.  So does it count as a "demolished building" or just a demolished steel skeleton?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.8.156.52 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torre de la Escollera 

message: It is noted that "In 1921, the Singer Company placed the building for sale at an asking price of $10 million.[141] The building was sold in 1925 to a buyer representing the Utilities Power and Light Corporation, a holding company for several states' power companies. The transaction involved a cash deal of $8.5 million.
Further along in the article, it states: "In 1961, Singer announced that it would sell the building and move to Rockefeller Center."
So which is it? Did Singer buy the building back somewhere in the intervening years?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sale of building
Talk:Left-handed specialist

message: I took this list out. It's inherently OR, and many of the pitchers on it do or did pitch to righties frequently enough to escape this tag. A few have been closers and some even starters, both of whom would have a very tough time pitching to just lefties. Nosleep1234 10:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure when or how this was added back. While the entries are sourced, it is unclear what is the criteria for a "notable" pitcher.  Either the criteria needs to be stated upfront, or prose should be added for the entries to convey their significance.—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some history on increased usage on lefty specialists, and mentioned Candelaria and added info on Orosco.  The list was indiscriminate, with the majority of entries only mentioning the player is a lefty specialist, and has been removed. Feel free to add back individual entries with supporting text regarding their significance.—Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notable left handed specialists" 

message: I'd prefer not to have a list of pitchers, as they usually end up being an indiscriminate list of drive-by additions of people's favorites.  If they are notable, we should mention their significance in prose.  See existing mentions of John Candelaria and Jesse Orosco for LOOGY as examples.—Bagumba (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROOGY list
Talk:Lens (disambiguation)

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

message: "Kamera lens (biology)" was moved down under "Lens (hydrology)", but why is it supposed to be in that order; don't we start by comparing the first letters (K and L)? —Kri (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Order of entries. Disambiguation pages should generally not be in alphabetical order. The general goal is to make the most likely intended meanings the easiest to find. --Srleffler (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thank you. —Kri (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort order 
Talk:Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty

message: Now we have: "In Japanese Colonial Period, the Japanese moved the Odae-san copy to Tokyo University, but the copy was soon lost in the Great Kantō earthquake of 1923." But this  (Asahi.com) news story says: "many volumes in the annals were destroyed by fire during the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. Only 74 volumes that had been taken out of the library survived. Of that number, 27 volumes were moved to Keijo Imperial University, in what is now Seoul, in 1932 when it was still under Japanese control." Also, a KBS story  says: "The University of Tokyo says the return of Joseon Dynasty royal records to South Korea will take a long time. In a meeting with visiting members of a South Korean committee for the annals' return, the university's library said Monday that considerable time is needed for a decision on the return of 47 volumes of the annals." Whogue 00:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy destroyed by Kanto earthquake

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Annals of joseon dynasty. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annals of joseon dynasty listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Gave most of the article a revision, with particular focus on proper sourcing. It's still missing tons of information; please feel free to add (just with reliable sourcing please; don't need a repeat of the previous situation). 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision
Talk:Battle of the Yalu River (1894)

message: The two Chinese battleships are rated as having different speeds (12 and 15knots respectively), yet they were sister-ships. Can anyone suggest a reason for this?
:Other sources suggest the speed of both as 14 knots. There are perfectly good reasons (different engines, grounding incidents) why two otherwise  identical ships might have different speed ratings. I'd just like to know if this is the case or if it's merely sloppy editing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.170 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed?

message: On September 2016 this article was tagged as needing more citations. I had no prior involvement with this article before this tagging. A few weeks ago I added a new source with 20+ inline citations for it. I am not necessarily saying it is time to remove the tag, but I wanted to note that since the tag was placed, there has been significant progress in the article having more citations. (talk) user:Al83tito  22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs additional citations -- there is progress
Talk:Battle of Sarhū

message: Why would it be compared to the battle of Nagashino, a battle where the cavalry famously lost and were destroyed by guns. In this case the cavalry won, surely its the complete opposite of Nagashino?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.34.51 (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nagashino 

message: I think the page should move to "Battle of Sarhū". The Manchu word "sarhū" means "food-shelf"in English.(A Classified Dictionary of Spoken Manchu by Kengo Yamamoto 1969)
--Lijiahao0410 (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving
Talk:Bulgogi

message: Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC I think there's some uncertainty as to whether we should italicize "bulgogi". This seems to suggest that "bulgogi" is gradually becoming a word in the English language, but I think it's still leaning towards a niche culinary Korean loanword. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicize?
Talk:Celadon

message: :Korean Celadon is considered one of the seven wonders of the Asian world.
Anon contribution moved here for discussion.  Considered by whom?  For what period?  Source or attribution?  Is the comment relevant to the article at large?  WBardwin 05:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven Wonders? 

message: Isn't celadon same thing as porcelain? (Wikimachine 17:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No ------ celadon is a glaze family/technique and, by extension, a category of finished ware.  Of Korean invention, it became an Asian artform.  Definitions on ceramic and pottery related articles is a long term Wiki problem.  I actively encourage a discussion of vocabulary on this and other articles.  WBardwin 17:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of terms

message: The duck doesn't represent any of the classic shapes and styles of Asian celadon, thus is not worthy of pride of place at the beginning of the article. --Iwanafish 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE DUCK 

message: I think this needs to be a couple of sentences meatier....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I cannot find any contemporary instances of celadon pottery being referred to as greenware. There is no citation in the article, and furthermore “greenware” already carries a different meaning in terms of ceramics. I removed a section from the introduction which contained this information. It should not be replaced until there is adequate citation that “Greenware” can refer to both unfired clay as well as celadon, but even if there is basis for it, the term seems to be archaic. Dr. Bepsi (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire, Docteur - see this basic search or this one.  You should be more cautious. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: yea I also cant find the copyright dates because I am doing a research project... 2600:1700:A3E0:BBE0:650B:3119:3AAC:CF84 (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenware?
Talk:Changbai Mountains

message: Oppose Merge Mt. Paektu, or Baekdu, or Baekdusan, or whatever you prefer to call it, deserves its own article.  The very fact that its naming is controversial, that Chinese and Koreans have interest in claims to the mountain, it's outstanding status as the highest mountain in the chain, its large crater lake, and the fact that its eruption may have precipitated the downfall of the kingdom of Balhae all argue strongly that it must stand as a unique article. zadignose 13:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: zdignose is a liar 
Oppose merge. I agree with all the above points by Zadignose. I believe any of them would be a good reason to have a separate article on the mountain; together, they seem insurmountable. (I will also copy my comment to the other talk page.) -- Avenue 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't even want to make a big deal out of this, but I'm just going to say this and get out. Changbai Mountains is the name only used by non-Korean Wikipedians, Korean uses Baekdu Mountain to describe the mountain that is part of the Changbai Mountain Range but is not a mountain range itself. (Wikimachine 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Merge 

message: The Manju Nikan Inggiri Gisun i Buleku Bithe gives šanggan alin, not golmin šanggiyan alin which can be seen in the painting from the Veritable Records. Has šanggan alin replaced golmin šanggiyan alin only as the name of this range? And how are the two forms related? Is šanggiyan simply the older form of the word “white” that was gradually shortened to šanggan as its 20th century form? Wikipeditor (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both golmin šanggiyan alin and šanggiyan alin are the Manchu name of Changbai Mountains. Golmin šanggiyan alin is its full name, and corresponds its Chinese name changbai shan. In the book Manju i Yargiyan Kooli, both names are used.Obonggi (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchu name 

message: Shouldn't the name of this article be changed to the Changbai Mountain Range? It's a cause for confusion especially as Changbai Mountains can also refer to the local Chinese name for Baekdu Mountain which is the peak of the Changbai Mountain Range. --DandanxD (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it is still ambiguous. Moving the page to "Changbai Mountain Ranges" is would clear up any confusion with Baekdu Mountain (also known locally as 'Changbai Mountain' in China) which is the peak of the Changbai Mountain Range. --DandanxD (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Name Change
Talk:Cheongju

message: I have removed the following sentence:
::After the Gyeongbu Railroad was completed in 1905, the town became a hub for modern transportation. 
It's true that the Gyeongbu Line was completed in 1905, but it doesn't go to Cheongju and I can't find any evidence that it ever did.  The Chungbuk Line was built in 1920, the Jungang line around 1939.  So it doesn't seem like the above sentence was factual.  -- Visviva 11:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railroads 
Talk:David Yonggi Cho

message: This article is incomprehensible in spots.  It needs an editor who can read Korean and write English.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional issue: the very first citation in the "Early Life" section is to what looks like it might be a blog in Korean. Is it just a blog? Is it something more? Alephb (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs editor fluent in English and Korean 

message: The article currently ends with: <<In June 2016, this incident became a non-prosecution because "no suspicion".[7]>>
Could some Wikipedian who reads Korean read the source and tell us a bit more exactly what this means? Alephb (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no suspicion" 

message: Why is this so incomplete, and focusing primarily on the negative? No accomplishments, awards, nothing. Misty MH (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this so incomplete, focusing on the negative? 

message: The Embezzlement controversy section is misleading. See the church article for details. Misty MH (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embezzlement controversy misleading
Talk:Choe Sejin

message: I found some relevant sources to expand on the biography of Choe Sejin. Most of the sources are in Korean, but I was able to find a short excerpt in English from a book titled "Treasures of the Yenching". Below are some sources I can go through to expand this wikipedia article, especially since the only source referenced in the article is now outdated and does not exist anymore. Yerimj (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Chongjin

message: Isn't the Korea Bay on the Yellow Sea side of Korea? Not the Sea of Japan (EAst Sea) side? Are there two Korea Bays? I don't have time right now, but later tonight I will look into this a little closer. Masterhatch
:Right you are.  See Korea Bay.  I pulled it out of the article. -- Visviva 10:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but there's no reason why the Russian consulate would have to take them.  They'd be turned away. --Reuben 09:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So Russia is not keen on accepting political and economic refugees? They're a democracy now, so why don't they? --Shultz 10:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm not sure if there ARE any other sources for this, but it looks like there is a massive and almost certainly notable chinese style megacity from scratch project going on here as per this and this. The website is paywalled, but you should be able to read these if you haven't yet reached the monthly limit of 4 free articles. The only reason I didn't make a section myself in the article was because i'm not sure if this can be considered a reliable source. The actual satelite photos are compelling, though... --Free Wales Now! what did I screw up?  14:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese inspired redevelopment 
Talk:Chuncheon

message: Insert formula here
The map is just about useless for all but Korean specialists and residents.  It must be related to an over-all Korean map. Kdammers (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is inadequate 

message: The article says the land was first settled about 1000 years ago, but gives city names in 600 and 700 AD. That's 1300 years ago.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.246.44 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settlement Time 

message: One reference says that east Asians visit a lot, but the reference doesn't say that at all - it just mentions some dam!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.60.30 (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference problem 

message: – AndyFielding (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "County" or "county"?
Talk:Chuncheon-shi

message: This page was a duplicate and has been merged with Chuncheon.
:Kokiri, we usually don't deleted such pages, but leave them as a redirect. Helps avoid (accidental) re-creation, and also satisfies authorship attribution requirements of the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Duplicate_pages#Help with the clean-up. Lupo 18:10, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Chungcheong Province

message: should this article have some mention of roh's attempt to relocate the capital in this area? it's fairly high-up on the roh moo-hyun page and this article probably gets a large amount of directs from there. just a thought 72.145.205.131 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Telecommunications in North Korea

message: Look, I'm no fan of the Kim dynasty, but bias is bias, and it's got no place in an encyclopedia. Take the following statement:
"Broadcasting in North Korea is tightly controlled by the state and is used as a propaganda arm of the ruling Korean Workers' Party."
I could swap "the United States" for "North Korea," and "corporate elites" for "Korean Workers' Party," and it would be every bit as factually accurate, but it wouldn't last 30 seconds in Communications in the United States or Media of the United States or any similar article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just swap out nouns and expect the statements be factually accurate. The Reason it says that Broadcasting is tightly controlled by the state (Korean Workers' Party) is because it is. Look at Media of North Korea, It quotes the North Korean Constitution on the role of the press is to "serve the aims of strengthening the dictatorship of the proletariat, bolstering the political unity and ideological conformity of the people and rallying them behind the Party and the Great Leader in the cause of revolution." If that doesn't sound like the definition of a press that is designed only to propagate propaganda then I don't know what is. Soimless (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Citation 1 (https://www..google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ibEty2mMXqIy3bSmsoDHwZHucyAQ?docId=CNG.0e047bc83b96aca9b131f057f9a2dd13.3c1) is an invalid link. The article would be improved if the correct link was inserted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielShields50 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid citation link
Talk:Democratic Labor Party (South Korea)

message: Why do you think two different tendencies can't belong in one party? In many countries, lots of leftist parties has different factions in the party. In the case of South Korea, DLP was originally formed by PD faction and later NL faction was joined in the party. after the dissolution of the DLP, PD faction is now in the Justice Party and Labor Party, and NL faction is now in the Progressive Party. The root of these parties is same, from DLP. 125.142.0.116 (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer
Talk:Demographics of North Korea

message: The article says, "As of 2008, 8.86% of the population older than 5 years old have attained academic degrees." No source is cited for this, but more importantly, why would one measure the percentage of the population with academic degrees by looking at people over age 5? You don't see any 6-year-olds with bachelor's degrees either in North Korea or elsewhere in the world. I would think that we would want to know the percentage of the population over (for example) age 25 or thereabouts with academic degrees, because few people earn their degrees before age 21. Compare List of countries by tertiary education attainment, where the relevant population is people between ages 25 and 64. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic degrees?
Talk:Donghae, Gangwon

message: the picture is of a dude in super junior-GET RID OF IT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.245.25.210 (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Donghae City →  – Not sure about protocol for this or what it should be titled. There's not many Korean city articles with "City" in the title like this. I know of Sejong City and Jeju City, but those are the WP:COMMONNAMEs in English of those places I think. Other places like Gumi, North Gyeongsang instead use the province in the name, but could that be for a name collision reason? For this article, the use of "city" seems to be for disambiguation reasons, so perhaps "Donghae (city)"? toobigtokale (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 December 2023