lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of tallest buildings in Boston

message: Is the South Bay Tower legitimate? I can't seem to find anything on it. Hiberniantears 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The South Bay Tower is legitimate; it is also being called the "Gateway Center", and has been proposed to be constructed on a 10-acre area of land that has opened up due to the Big Dig. Its link on Emporis.com can be found here: . There is alo an entry on SkyscraperPage.
Raime 01:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: South Bay Tower

message: I was listening to WBCN in Boston, they said in calculating "Elevation above sea level + Building height", the top of the Pru is slightly higher than the top of the Hancock building.  Is this true? --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation: Hancock and Prudential 

message: The images featured in this list are missing ALT text that has recently become one of the points of the Featured list criteria. The list therefore fails 5b of the Featured list criteria and should have ALT text added to keep its status.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALT text missing 

message: I would think it would be in the good name of Wikipedia if we added as much information as possible. Could someone make a page for The Alcott tower. Thank you Okay flow 356 (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Alcott tower
Talk:List of tallest buildings in Edmonton

message: What this page really needs is some sources for the heights.  Without it it's not worth much. Kevlar67 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added emporis reference. The page contains links to detailed pages about each building. --Qyd 09:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw it, good work! Kevlar67 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed 

message: Epcor building height
You keep reverting the edit regarding the building height.
structural height is 137.30 m per the standard in the article of structural height not height with antennas.
http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&lng=3&id=155115
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/Flagpoles+will+make+Epcor+Tower+tallest/3153851/story.html
""We will be the tallest building -- with our flagpoles," said Bob Walker, vice-president of contractor Ledcor Construction Ltd.
"Without our flagpoles, we will be just a little under Manulife.""
Information about the structures Height on skyscraper page is incorrect at 149.4 m being spire, should read antenna  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.36.97.26 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank-you for providing a source. 117Avenue (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epcor building height 

message: Is each building's address necessary in the tallest buildings table? I noticed the Vancouver and Toronto lists, do not list the addresses. Now that the coordinates have been added, the address seems redundant. Thoughts? Thankyoubaby (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the addresses are important, definitely less than coordinates. And some of them actually have multiple addresses. But I have received opposition to my interpretation of WP:NOTDIR that Wikipedia is not an address book. 117Avenue (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addresses
Talk:List of tallest buildings in Finland

message: this list is pretty silly, as the definition of 'building' seems to be very arbitrary. churches, observation towers and mining towers are all missing, and it seems the list hasn't been updated for 2017. could a consensus be found on what a building is? I will update for 2017 with building types already listed, but I don't see why what I listed is not counted (with the possible exception of mining towers, though the linked wiki article for Building states a building is any "structure with a roof and walls standing more or less permanently in one place", so I don't see why it wouldn't count).
– Ashela (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: so what exactly is a building?

message: Niittyhuippu is 90m tall, so it is the tallest residential building in Finland. Merimiesei (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niittyhuippu
Talk:The Best Man (1999 film)

message: This is a notice that there is a draft for The Best Man: The Final Chapters at Draft:The Best Man: The Final Chapters until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. — YoungForever(talk)  00:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft article for the TV series 

message: I’m confused why this amazing series is not being bored spoken about with social media! 2600:1700:1A20:C6B0:D5DE:651:DEB5:93D9 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best man, final chapters
Talk:List of tallest buildings in Montreal

message: I am placing this list here from List of oldest buildings and structures in Montreal because it does not meet the scope of that article. Perhaps there would be a way to integrate it into this article?
This list of old Montreal buildings lists skyscrapers, churches, and other buildings found in Montreal, Canada and built between 1809 and 1939, along with their heights and date of completion. 
When a building's height is given as an estimate, its estimated height is based on the following factors:
* Number of floors
* Comparison with its neighbours
* Estimation from books and other documentation
An asterisk indicates that the building no longer exists.
# Sun Life Building: 122 m, 24 floors (1931)
# Tour de la Banque Royale: 121 m, 22 floors (1928)
# Aldred Building: 97 m, 23 floors (1931)
# Bell Telephone Building: 96 m,  22 floors (1929)
# Notre-Dame Basilica: 75 m (1829)
# Mary Queen of the World Cathedral: 71 m (1886)
# Christ Church Cathedral: 70 m (1859)
# St. Patrick’s Basilica: 69 m (1847)
# Architects Building: 68 m [est], 17 floors (1932)*
# Windsor Station: 60 m [est], 15 floors (1916)
# 1 Avenue du Port: 58 m, 14 floors (1922)
# University Tower: 57 m, 15 floors (1930)
# Le Chateau Apartments: 54 m, 15 floors (1926)
# New York Life Insurance Building, Montreal: 50 m, 11 floors (1888)
# Dominion Square Building: 48 m [est], 12 floors (1929)
# 1425 René-Lévesque Boulevard: 48 m [est], 12 floors (1934)
# Édifice Montréal Star: 45 m, 12 floors (1930)
# Marché Bonsecours: 45 m, 5 floors (1829)
# Montreal Clock Tower: 45 m (1922)
# Insurance Exchange Building: 44 m, 11 floors (1924)
# Old Canadian Bank of Commerce Building, Montreal: 5 floors (1906-1909)
# Old Montreal Stock Exchange Building: 1903
# Royal Trust Building, Montreal: 1911
--MTLskyline (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Montreal Skyline, 1939

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Tallest montreal. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Tallest montreal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Regards, SONIC678 16:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tallest montreal" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Olfactory receptor

message: See title. As demonstrated by Benton et al 2006 (Atypical Membrane Topology and Heteromeric Function of Drosophila Odorant Receptors In Vivo), and restated in a large number of review articles on the molecular biology insect olfaction insect ORs arose independently from vertebrate IRs (see also recent publications by Benton and other labs on evolution of olfaction in insects/arthropods). Accordingly, some statements in the text that are correct for vertebrate ORs should not be readily connected to insect ORs. I'd suggest as the easiest correction to remove mention of insects as it currently is in the article (in "Expression"), and adding a sentence at the start to point out the distinction. Since I am a) working (and have published) in the field and b) unfamiliar with editing Wikipedia I will limit myself to suggesting these changes, and not actually change anything.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.20.126 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insects ORs and vertebrate ORs are independent Families 

message: :Rather than binding to specific ligands like most receptors, olfactory receptors bind to structures on odor molecules.
I think this is a confusing statement... Perhaps it would be better to define odorants as molecules that bind to olfactory receptors (as ligands do) eliciting a response? In that case, they would be agonists of ORs, too... -- dockingmanTalk 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur (at least that's we say in the field anyway). Changed 20070620. Cowbert 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ligand/odorants?
Template talk:Localist

message: Looks good!  Thanks for the quick turnaround.  My own question is about the "category parameter"?  Could you supply some sample usage? Thanks.  :) --Elonka 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template I cloned this from had an optional category parameter, so I left the option in.  Can't think of a use for it atm, but who knows, maybe there will be in the future.  JYolkowski // talk 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New template

message: I think that this template should be split into two:  and a generalized version called .
Here's what cleanup-verifiability would look like:
207.6.121.132 (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: The limitation of this template and its category to "places" is undesirable. The issue reported by the template often affects other local-interest material, e.g. local politicians and other "figures", events, amateur sports teams, businesses, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broaden scope - should not be limited to "places" 

message: This template is throwing stuff at the wall, and not even waiting to see if anything sticks.  Deletion seems in order, although there was a suggestion above to do some kind of a split.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unactionable template
Talk:List of tallest buildings in Winnipeg

message: This list can certainly not be correct. What about the Radisson (formerly Northstar) Hotel and 7 Evergreen Place. They should be on this list. Also Fort Garry Place is 31 storeys and it's not included.
"It is the tallest building between Toronto and Calgary." This statement is incorrect based on the list of tallest buildings in canada. Mississauga ON has a higher building, and is geographically west of Toronto.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.192.49 (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I don't see 220 Portage Ave. (Royal Bank bldg. of 1966). According to the diagrams web page on SkyscraperPage.com (http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=6185) it's 223 ft. tall. I feel it should be included in the list. Jimj wpg (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  220 Portage Ave. 

message: Please move 300 main to 1st and also put 8 completed buildings  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.59.141 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  300 main is complete per cbuth and Skyscraper page
Talk:Nuwaubic

message: I'd be interested to see a table of this alphabet which didn't require me to install the Macromedia Flash plugin to view it (something which I have no intention of doing).  Maybe such a table could be added to the article? AnonMoos 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Has absolutely nothing to do with Nuwaubic and would be better suited on your expose styled Nuwaubianism page.  If I'm to add to this page then this section must be deleted or moved.  Nuwaubic is a sacred language and I will not disgrace it by aligning it with small minded rhetoric created by those who are obviously understudied in the subject and/or misinformed.  Nuwaubian Hotep 02:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this has only tangential relation to Nuwaubic. Perhaps we need a new "Sound Right Reasoning" page to discuss how Nuwaubians find hidden meanings in words in this way. -Moorlock 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Presumed English etymologies
Talk:Tilly Witch

message: Space Witch could not have been a sequel to Tilly Witch if the latter was originally published in 1969.  I remember enjoying Space Witch as a child around 1960-61.  A recent reference to a used copy offered at Alibris.com indicates 
Space Witch may have had an original copyright date of 1959, ten years before Tilly Witch. —QuicksilverT @ 03:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel?
Talk:Lumber room

message: In my experience the term "lumber room" was used is a similar way to that described in the article but more for the common people and not used for the storage of expensive furniture but rather miscellaneous bits and pieces. Possibly also could have stored wood for a wood stove. As a child I lived in a type of house now commonly known as a "Queenslander" which had a very small room attached to the back, this being the lumber room. It was more of a protrusion from the house than a fully fledged room as it wasn't supported by stumps at its far end and its roof wasn't flat but was made of curved corregated iron. In dimension it was probably about 2 metres x 2 metres. 59.167.157.158 (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage in Queensland, Australia
Talk:SITD

message: I think futrepop and aggortech are both very poor labels for this band. They don't scream at all, and their music is slow and heavy, so it's definitely not aggrotech. And futurepop, I always think of being more... you know... poppy. The article on it says it incorporates elements of uplifting trance. Well, these guys aren't very uplifting.
Industrial is a good label. EBM is too. I'm going to change their genres to those. If anyone takes issue with this, let me know.
Stormchaser (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Genres
Talk:Campo, Cameroon

message: It is hard to tell from the map, but is this town located on the Ntem River?
:On my maps, it looks like it's just north of it. It's within walking distance, though; when I visited Campo, some friends hopped over the border while a friend and I had a couple of beers. — BrianSmithson 09:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ntem RIver 

message: This article now has two maps.  The original black and white map which shows provincial and international borders, and a newer colour map showing contours.  They are not yet to the same scale.  But if you try to show too much on a single map, the result can be unreadable clutter.    Tabletop 04:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both Kind of Maps Please. 

message: What is population of Campo? ----MountVic127 (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population?
Talk:Mechanical room

message: The JCI and Dean Mechanical references are a commercial sales websites. Adding these as a reference is a form of spamming because it promotes one vendor.  Moreover, there is nothing on these webpage that actually supports the statement it references ("Often, the control system hardware is located in the mechanical room and monitored or accessed remotely."). Per WP:VENDOR: "Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available." Dozens (if not hundreds) of academic text books on HVAC systems are available that will be much better sources. In an article on JCI Building Automation, yes, one would expect this reference, but in a generic article like this one, it is WP:REFSPAM, WP:LINKSPAM, and WP:PROMO. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:REFSPAM
Talk:Mercury City Tower

message: Some websites (e.g. http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=45047) say this will be completed in 2010; if so, and if the Federation Tower is completed in 2009, this will never be the tallest in Europe.
BTW, There's some renderings at http://www.archfwa.com/default.aspx?page=5&type=99&project=319&focus=4, but the license is unspecified. --Bobbozzo (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Schedule

message: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9648603/Moscow-reclaims-Europes-tallest-building-title-from-Londons-Shard.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyb123321 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower Now topped out (1st Nov 2012) 

message: To remind everyone again: We must use reliable sources.  That does not include forums such as skyscrapercity.com nor does it include  photos from a random website no matter how "obvious" photographic evidence might seem.  While claims that the building was initially planned to be shorter are interesting, we cannot state this as fact based solely on posts at skyscrapercity.com; I have therefore replaced these references with a  tag, amongst a wider rewrite of the lead paragraphs to reflect the recent topping-out.  
Also, if you modify the wording or referencing, check that it still makes sense and is correctly referenced.  I had to remove th sentence starting "According to Hamburg-based researcher Emporis...", since Emporis says no such thing.  Astronaut (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: The article claims the building is under construction, while the infobox says it is complete. Which is correct? MichaelCaricofe (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete, or not? 
Talk:MGM Grand Detroit

message: Somebody needs to research and add some updated financial information on whether the city is collecting casino taxes as was projected years back.  The city is in bankrupcy, and a modest amount of casino taxes would keep some basic city services running.   What is the reality of the casino tax situation in Detroit?  Marc S., Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 2013 updates to this article
Talk:MGM Macau

message: Both articles look to me as the same, I would recommend to unite both articles.
Tt100 talk  10:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the difference between this article and the [[MGM Macau]]?
Talk:Millennium Green

message: I am a trustee of New Southgate Millennium Green in North London and I have been in on this since 1999. 
IceDragon64 20:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Data

message: There are pix on the english Wikipedia of Millennium Greens, but everything has changed here and I can't figure out how to upload them.  New Houghton Millennium Green is one.
IceDragon64 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pix 

message: As there are 245 different Millennium Greens, I really don't think links to any one of them are Notable enough to include here, so I have removed one.  All MM Greens have a Page on the Wiki for Millennium Greens anyway.
IceDragon64 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Links
Talk:Millennium Point, Birmingham

message: Feel free to expand upon this - I have only added brief details and a link for the 2009 stampede... Willdow (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Events

message: Is "Holy Trinity Arts And Mieda Collage" a misspelling of something?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.25.237 (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Trinity Arts And Mieda Collage 

message: Perhaps this incident can be spun off into a new article. If there are no objections, I will do it. Epic Genius (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 Birmingham Millennium Point incident 
Talk:Millennium Village

message: "Millennium Village" is a term much more often is used in connection to a initiative by Jeffrey Sachs. I don't think that the existing article about "Millennium Village" is much more than advertising by or for Disney.
:It's not advertisements... its facts and information about a past attraction at Walt Disney World that is no longer open... not sure how you can advertise something that's no longer around. --Napnet 01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement

message: Was the simulator, from the Israel section, not used in another themepark in another lifetime?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel

message: Article seems to entirely lack reliable sources. All sources are currently the Disney Wiki which, like Wikipedia, is user created. Sionk (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Talk:List of national monuments of Portugal

message: move as uncontested. (Note, I actually moved it to National monuments of Portugal since the M in monuments need not be capitalized.  --regentspark (comment) 18:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request
Talk:Who Done It? (1942 film)

message: I found :Image:A&cvolume1dvd.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the  tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as  or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unspecified source for [[:Image:A&cvolume1dvd.jpg]]

message: :Image:A&cvolume1dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:A&cvolume1dvd.jpg