lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Planned unit development

message: A PUD is an additional Zoning provision applied as an Overlay to an existing Zoning Classification, which allows residential or commercial units to be built closer together than normally allowed by the original zoning classification, provided that a certain amount of land is designated as Common Use for occupants of the entire tract. The percentage of Open Space for Common Use must be specified in the Zoning Ordinance.  Lots are usually allowed to be reduced in size to less than the area required by the underlying zone in order to create space for the Common Use area. The space between buildings or from street Right of Ways (Setbacks) can still be maintained or reduced according to language of the overlying PUD. Provisions are usually found in city or county Zoning Ordinances.2602:306:B867:C830:28C7:165C:2F9:C6B8 (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  PUD (Planned Unit Development) definition:
Talk:Placemaking

message: First sentences were slilted and also clearly written by an advocate. Wikified the tone a bit and put into better EnglishBrosi 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first sentences 

message: This article reads as if the information came off of a blog. In addition, there are only a dozen or so sources and they aren't being used properly. There are also likely many more sources out there to incorporate here. Buffaboy t and c 08:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay like 

message: Interesting (to me at least) that the word 'regeneration' does not come up, and what the connections and differences are between placemaking and regeneration  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.152.152 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Regeneration
Talk:Pier (architecture)

message: I propose merging Pier (bridge structure) into Pier (architecture). I think the content in Pier (bridge structure) can easily be explained in the context of Pier (architecture), and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Pier (architecture).PhilKnight (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose but there is far too much about bridges in the architecture one - the pics especially. That should be moved over.  Really the bridge piers are sufficiently distinct to deserve their own article.  Compound pier could well be moved into Pier (architecture) too.  In this one, the distinction (or lack of one) between columns and pilasters and piers could also be better explained. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Piazza

message: I think this page needs disambiguation. Batintherain 12:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is, because of the pronunciation. And because of the way you write it. :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.69.147 (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

message: We have an article - Plaza , which is the same ting as a Piazza, in Spanish talking countries. Boeing720 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats wrong ?
Talk:Peristyle

message: This article states a peristyle is just columns surrounding a courtyard. I though it ALSO could be used to describe columns all the way around a building eg: the Parthenon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustin Pearson (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: peripteros: the peri component does signify "around". --Wetman 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just inside?
Talk:Pendentive

message: Thinking of the Wikipedia reader, I ask whether a pendentive can really be usefully treated separately from dome? I am setting all this information at dome; aren't pendentives and squinches essential elements in a dome system? could they exist without a dome? could a dome exist on a rectangular structure without pendentives? shouldn't this be a redirect? --Wetman 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently created an article on Muqarna - but on reflection redirected it to a subsection of Corbel. I'm inclined to agree with Wetman on this one - subsections of dome to incorporate, squinch, pendentive etc. Alternatively, there's probably an entire article examining the history and solutions to the dome on a rectangular base problem. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Pavers (flooring)

message: Paver (flooring) now says, quite correctly and with a reference, that a "paver" is a paving-stone, linking to Pavement (architecture). Paving stone (flooring) is a redirect to Paver (flooring). There's no substantial content there to justify a separate article, both should redirect to Pavement (architecture). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. I agree the topic is small enough to be merged and the article expanded with references. Jim Derby (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Paver (flooring)]] 

message: I see the german page has links to 12 languages, plus english:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pflaster_%28Belag%29
I tried to add language links, but the editor is somehow different from the german Wiki. Right at the beginning the huge neverending languages list made me give up. Besides I don't know if the new item would be a language link or who knows what.
So please insert the links to the other languages, and do something about the languages editor, make it more user friendly.
178.2.123.225 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages
Talk:Parvise

message: according to: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 2006...the definition of the room over the porch is incorrect:
"parvis.   Originally the court in front of a cathedral or other large church, the word came also to be used of the portico of a church porch. It is sometimes erroneously applied to the room over such a porch."
Can anyone else find a different ref that shows it correct or should I delete that def? Legotech (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an example of the disputed usage in action - and which dates from 1900 - It is certainly what I understand a parvise to be - I say leave the definition and add a note to this page about your concerns  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 13:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess it's an example of the definition changing with usage, thats the problem with a living language, the people keep changing it! :)  Thanks for the pointer! Legotech (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you're right! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 12:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Room over the porch
Talk:The Hero's Journey

message: My intent is to begin clean-up of the following four over-lapping Joseph Campbell-related articles:
* The Hero with a Thousand Faces: An article which I understand to be a discussion of Campbell's seminal 1949 book, which applied the term monomyth to the underlying structure of the Hero's journey.
* Monomyth: An article which appears to be focused on the application of the monomyth structure in modern movies and other writing.
* The Hero' s journey (phrase): An article which is very similar to the Monomyth article - that is, a discussion of the Hero's journey concept outlined by Campbell.
* The Hero's Journey (note different capitalization and spacing): An article limited to a discussion of a separate book and documentary with that title about the life of Joseph Campbell.
The first step was to try to clean-up and re-focus the The Hero with a Thousand Faces article and the Monomyth article (only).  There was modern application material in the The Hero with a Thousand Faces article that looked like it belonged in the Monomyth article, and explanatory material in the Monomyth article that looked like it belonged in the The Hero with a Thousand Faces article.  Hence, the first step was to duplicate the material into what looked like the "proper" article.  
The intended next step will be to then clean-up both articles - by deleting and summarizing material to better focus those two articles on their two subjects (book vs. modern application).  
The following step after that will be to start a discussion about merging the Monomyth article and the The Hero' s journey (phrase) articles.  Those two terms are usually used synonymously; I'm not sure that the confusion caused by two articles with almost identical topics is worth whatever benefit might be derived (but that's two steps down the road here).
So, to summarize - This is a proposal about cleaning-up these four Campbell-related articles, with the first step being cleaning up The Hero with a Thousand Faces article and the Monomyth article.  (I'm going to post parts of this in all four articles). NorCalHistory 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up proposal
Talk:Palm house

message: Anyone have a clue who Nicole Burton was and if this fact is correct?
Whatsthatpicture (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

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: not moved.  Reason for moving is invalidated by later findings. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Palm house →  – Correct capitalisation, as the building is known as Palm House or The Palm House. As per own website, World Heritage, Telegraph. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 March 2021 

message: As per the above discussion, there seems to be a broad consensus that the article should be split, as it's currently a merge/article hijack from a general topic to information about the Kew Gardens place specificially. The Kew Gardens stuff should probably be moved to separate article Palm House, Kew or Palm House, London, unless anyone objects? I don't have enough subject knowledge to do the split myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split
Talk:Ontario Heritage Act

message: Are there many properties designated under the OHA of provincial significance?  In other words, designated by the province? Or is the list limited to Ontario Heritage Trust properties and/or other properties owned by the provincial government?  The reason I am asking is I am wondering if it merits doing a list of such properties.  A list of municipally-designated properties would not be feasible (I see someone took a stab at doing a list of such properties in Ottawa, which remains incomplete), but depending on the state of the designations, a list of provincially-significant ones may be interesting.  --Ontario Max (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designated properties of provincial significance
Talk:Oculus (architecture)

message: "Pliny in his Natural history call counters also oculus, oculi."
I wanted to fix this, but I'm not quite certain what it's trying to say.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archon Shiva (talk • contribs) 06:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this certainly needs re-wording.Fconaway (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deleted it until someone wants to restore something sensical. While I was at it, I took out the absurd claim that the incredibly rare summer rain in Rome (<20mm in June and July) was a significant source of cooling the Pantheon.--Eponymous-Archon (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The air flow no doubt is cooling, but we hardly need to say that here. "incredibly rare summer rain in Rome " - no, but whatever. The building is rather impressive in a thunderstorm, certainly. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to stick with calling 19mm of rain in July "incredibly rare", but let's agree to disagree. :-) --Eponymous-Archon (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical sentence? 
Talk:Norman architecture

message: I have removed the photo of the so-called Norman roof truss from the Gallery. The truss in question is in a house in Louisiana dating from 1740 and therefore well outside the historic period (and geographic area!) under disussion. The term "Norman Truss" refers to a construction method introduced to America from Normandy, not by the Normans. As it was also common in other parts of NW France it is something of a misnomer. See . SiGarb | Talk 22:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Norman truss
Talk:List of non-building structure types

message: The Control tower leads by saying that "A control tower, or more specifically an air traffic control tower, is the name of the airport building ..." suggesting that these towers are buildings. I would wager that most control towers are inhabited more frequently than my office, which would again suggest that they are not nonbuildings, so to speak. There are no sources for this article so not sure where to head next.
Thoughts, anyone? -Bigger digger (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air traffic control towers? 

message: It seems that infrastructure such as roads, rail, pipelines, sewers etc., are not included. If anyone has a decent reference for this, could it be stated in the article? ghouston (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But then architectural structure claims to include infrastructure, and refers to this article for more detail. ghouston (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps I should read "and/or part of infrastructure systems" as things like electricity pylons, and not roads. ghouston (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  infrastructure 

message: "Non-building structure" seems preferable. ghouston (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? #2 

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 (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonbuilding structure →  – I’ve spent many hours searching, and I’m convinced it isn’t possible to write a proper, prosaic article on this subject based on RS. All RS discuss either give a dictionary definition, a list, or go extremely minute detail as to what “non-building structure” means as a term of art as part of a broader classification scheme; compare to the more lively semantic discussion at building. Mach61 (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Comment: It isn't a list of non-building structures, it's a list of types of non-building structures. I would expect a page with that title to list specific structures (which is probably not feasible). If RS don't support this concept I might suggest outright deletion. WPscatter t/c 13:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough on the former part; I’ll use the title someone BOLDly moved the page to in 2018. I do think that this hypothetical list would past LISTN; there are many reliable (albeit usually primary or tertiary) sources that list example examples of what is categorized. as a non-building, even outside of a specific classification schema. Mach61 (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 October 2023
Talk:Newel

message: re: the comment `but never the ones at the landings...`
ummm, why not ?
and furthermore, why wouldn`t one automatically think to include reasoning behind such a bold, doom & gloom statement. Natural human reaction to being spoken to as such would normally be one of defiance & stubbornness.
i would think the author, in order to have readers stay in harmony with the articles intention, would see to the inclusion such an explanation, so as to avoid any unnecessary confusion with the matter.
the statement in question currently reads more like a challenge than informative, and certainly does nothing to support and promote Wikipedia, nor does it serve to elevate Wikipedias creditability to any degree.
this may, at first, seem to be a bit of an stretch, but as an example of what i mean here, check out Wikipedias talk page guidelines (see the link above), and the first point under the how-to-use section.
How to use article talk pages
    * Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you, and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Explaining an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus.
'''
thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.55.241 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Neighborhood planning

message: This article is about practice in the United States.  Though there is a mention of the UK, it is a single sentence which is factually badly wrong, and says nothing about the major initiative launched in England by the Cameron government in the Localism Act 2011, which introduced neighbourhood forums in urban areas to mirror the planning roles of parish councils in rural areas.  That sentence needs to be omitted and the article retitled "Neighborhood planning in the United States".  Deipnosophista (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  US practice
Talk:Mullion

message: A picture may be useful here.Zigzig20s 01:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: I removed the following text from the article because it doesn't fit. If anyone would like to integrate it into Mullion, Cornwall it's included here, but I think the relevant parts are already there.
Mullion is the largest village on the Lizard Peninsular in Cornwall and has shops, inns, cafes and restaurants, craft shops and art galleries. In the centre of the village, the 15th century church of St Mellanus is renowned for its richly-carved oak bench-ends depicting biblical scenes, including that of Jonah and the Whale.
Mullion Cove has a pretty working harbour, protected from the winter gales that rage across Mount's Bay by two stout sea walls. The harbour was completed in 1895 and financed by Lord Robartes of Lanhydrock as a recompense to the fishermen for several disastrous pilchard seasons. You can still see the old pilchard cellar and net store. There are plenty of smuggling tales too. In 1801, the King's Pardon was offered to any smuggler giving information on the Mullion musket men involved in a gunfight with the crew of HM Gun Vessel Hecate.
The cove had a lifeboat station from 1867 -1909, and with good reason: in the six years up to 1873 there were nine wrecks under Mullion cliffs along a mile-and-a-half stretch of coastline. Inland are the remains of Wheal Unity copper mine, which operated from the early 18th century to 1919. A large copper boulder from the mine is in the Natural History Museum, London.
Nearby Poldhu Cove is an ideal and easily accessible family beach. In December 1901, on the cliffs above Poldhu, Guglielmo Marconi conducted his famous experiment in trans-Atlantic radio communications. The beach at Polurrian, popular with surfers, is approached by an attractive walk along the cliffs or through a valley, and is well worth the effort.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.216.173 (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed this section:
Talk:Mixed-use development

message: I am taking a stab at restructuring and rewriting this article. Several major issues that are apparent include:
* No references for the vast majority of content here
* No distinction or explanation of the difference between "mixed use development" in the generic sense of zoning (or lack thereof), versus "a development" that is, a project or (the UK term) "scheme" which is planned as mixed-use
* Grouping of the material into sections.
Some of the changes I have made:
* Added explanation of the difference between "mixed-use development" in the generic sense of zoning (or lack thereof), versus "a development" that is, a project or scheme which is planned as mixed-use
* Moved the section about Asia into the list of mixed-use development projects
* Split the list of examples of mixed-use development into those that are purely zoning versus those that are projects/schemes
- Keizers (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great steps taken there! Thanks (even though belated). -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to echo user:Horst-schlaemma, I wish there were more editors here with an interest in the topic. Ottawahitech (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring and editing this article 

message: ... but this is how wikipedia creates vicious cycles of information sourcing, by keeping unreferenced original essays  for years and infesting the internets with them. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry for massive deletion 

message: what does a pointless single-use tourist attraction have to do with mixed-use?!
reference to the vessel should be removed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.17.134 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  inappropriate
Talk:Misericord

message: You know that italicized thing at the top of some pages that tells you where to look elsewhere for something with the same name? How about putting one up saying that the type of knife known as a misericord is on the page Mercygiver? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.172.233.90 (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Would you mind mentioning?

message: Are the shelfs on the folding seats of commuting train and underground waggons also called "misericords"?
They have a similar use, to allow resting when passengers have to stand because of congestion.
--84.20.17.84 10:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In trains 

message: I couldn't find the answer with Google or Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffkw (talk • contribs) 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the references section. -- Arwel (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "Remnant's 1969 catalogue"?
Talk:Karamay

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
 Karamay, China - should be 45.5994, 84.869
—Steve hoge (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the coordinates a smidge, but the ones you've given above are very near the ones that were already in the article. You can't really get nearer the center of the city expressing them in just degrees and minutes. Deor (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error 