lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Eastbank Esplanade

message: Would a certain infobox help here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox?
Talk:MAX Yellow Line

message: :Template:MAX Yellow Line Good map, but does anybody object if I reorder it to go North-South? -Pete (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make more sense to me too. I think it was made that way to correspond to the table in the article; should that be changed too? Is there a requirement to start at the city center and move outward for these types of articles? --Esprqii (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map -- order north-south? 

message: Quick question about the planning process for the Yellow Line: was an alternative in the Interstate 5 right-of-way proposed during the EIS process? The FTA's Annual Report on Funding Recommendation for 2005 seems to show an I-5 alignment (p. 79), but I think it could be a simple mapping error on their part. SounderBruce 22:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's wrong. The I-5 alignment was considered during studies for the second or third iteration of the South–North project (which both failed). The Interstate MAX project chose Interstate Avenue from the get go. --Truflip99 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alignment in planning 

message: I'm not sure how I'll fit it into this article or if I even will, but here's an interesting read about the history of the neighborhood surrounding the Interstate MAX published by TriMet. Saving it here for potential use. Intersections: TriMet Interstate MAX Light Rail Community History Project --Truflip99 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Intersections'' 

message: While looking for something else, I came across published info. giving the Yellow Line's full length – including the section that had already existed for the Blue and Red Lines – when it opened, in 2004. But for now, I have not added it to the article, since it differs from the line's current overall length, following its 2009 route change that move it onto the Portland Transit Mall. The source gives an overall length of 11.6 km (7.2 miles), "of which" (sources states) 9.3 km (5.8 miles) was "new construction". SJ Morg (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full length of line 2004–2009 

message: * https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/7549/browse?type=subject&value=Light+rail
** https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/6222
truflip99 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:Douro DOC

message: I propose that Douro DOC and Alto Douro (region) be merged. They are the same thing, and they have the same UNESCO World Heritage site template. --Manduco (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Boeing XB-39 Superfortress

message: The performance numbers listed for the B-39 are so much greater than for the the basic B-29 as to be unbelievable, especially considering that the -39 engines are less powerful (2,100 vs. 2,200). Since there is no source listed, it is not presently possible to verity or disprove the data.Lowerunit (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications need to be corrected or verified
Talk:Nakayama Hakudō

message: Anyone have a photo to add to this page?Joseph Svinth 08:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got several photos of Hakudo, problem is I dont have any copyrights on them..Nor do I even remember where I first found them. For better or worse, Wikipedia is strict on photo-copyright. Ach..I'll do some digging and see if I can find any good pics. Fred26 06:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo? 

message: Interesting man. A few points to consider that may help it approach B-class:
* In the first line it says he was born 1869, further down its's "ca 1873".
* Needs an Infobox.
* What did he do after WWII?
* Did he have any famous students?
* Where and how did he die?
Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WPJ Assessment Commentary
Talk:Klickitat Street

message: In sources, the street name is often prefixed with "NE".  I suppose that's the district of Portland but I'm not sure.  Can we explain this usage in the article please? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a note, currently showing [3].  I don't think it deserves much more explanation in the mainline.  —EncMstr (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NE prefix
Talk:Antonov An-218

message: The development is not cancelled, it's on-hold  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.176.156 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable source? - BilCat (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not cancelled 

message: Some discussion is needed on the topic of Antonov's bankruptcy, especially as documented by reliable sources.  Antonov has been merged into Ukraine's UKROBORONPROM State Concern and production of all aircraft by Antonov, including the disaster-prone An-70, has ended. Antonov's remnants such as trolley buses and ultralights have been dispersed to other companies, and UKROBORONPROM will handle spares and servicing to existing owners. Russia's Ilyushin (VORONEZH Aircraft Production Association), which produced 70% of the An-148 before Antonov's bankruptcy, has taken over production of the An-148 and has been the de facto sole-source of the 148 for the last 2 years. As can be expected, there will be hot feelings over this topic, and even some denial, but discussion is still needed to ensure that the information is properly documented. Santamoly (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antonov bankruptcy 
Talk:Pioneer Place

message: Please edit any reference to Brookfield Properties Retail or Brookfield Properties Retail Group to Brookfield Properties. Claudiailagan (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume this is in relation to this category move discussion, as the only reference I could find to "Brookfield Properties Retail Group" was the category. This category should not be edited until the discussion has finished, therefore im marking this edit request as . If I'm mistaken, please correct me, but I couldn't find any other references. Aidan9382 (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Aidan9382you are correct, this is under discussion. Claudiailagan (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2022
Talk:Armstrong Whitworth Ensign

message: This article mentions a forced Landing by G-ADSU Euterpe at "Bonnington Airfield, Warwickshire" - Does anyone have any idea where this is? - There seems to be no place name of Bonnington anywhere in Warwickshire. There is a modern private landing ground at Bonnington in Kent near Ashford, but I doubt that could be the same place. The information from the article seems to come from an article in Fight magazine (15 Feb 1957) where it says the incident was a "Bonnington airfield near Leamington Spa" - https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1957/1957%20-%200204.PDF  There were numerous airfields that could be said to be near Leamington Spa, none called Bonnington. - However, the one nearest to Leamington (near Bishops Tachbrook and Whitnash) was known as Bonniksen's airfield. - I wonder if that could be it? https://www.ourwarwickshire.org.uk/content/catalogue_her/leamington-spa-bishops-tachbrook-airfield, Of course, the main Armstrong Whitworth factory was at Baginton on the outskirts of Coventry, but also close to Leamington Spa.
Addition to above - It would seem that the reference to "Bonnington" may be completely wrong. - An article "Cookoo in the Nest" in Air Enthusiast Magazine ( No 51 May/June 1997) by Ray Bonser and Ken Ellis says G-ADSU Euterpe force landed at Chipping Warden (Northamptonshire) and was returned to Hamble in January 1940 "not under its own power".  "Cuckoo in the Nest" article in Air Enthusiast (quarterly) magazine No 51 May/June 1997  The Wikipedia article lists both "incidents" to the same aircraft, in the same month. I think it is inconceivable that such a large aircraft could be damaged in two different incidents in the same month. It's purely conjecture but I think it is possible that the initial accident happened at Chipping Warden. The aircraft was then recovered in pieces to the Armstrong Whitworth airfield at Baginton on the outskirts of Coventry (not that far from Leamington Spa) or "Bonniksen's Airfield" and from there to the AW Ensign assembly site at Hamble near Southampton. Someone saw the "crashed" Ensign at either Baginton or "Bonniksens" while it was there and assumed it had crashed there. Then when the "Flight" article was written nearly two decades later the location was misremembered as this fictitious "Bonnington".
:Clearly something wrong and as I would agree it probably only crashed once! - have a look at "Leamington Spa (Bishops Tachbrook) Airfield" which was "A private airfield, or landing ground, opened and managed by a Major J E Bonniksen after WW1. Known locally as Bonniksen’s Airfield, it continued as a private airfield until WW2", it became "RAF Leamington Spa" a RLG during the war. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonnington Airfield? 

message: Is cited as a reference, but isn't present in the bibliography so it isn't clear what it is.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ricco 2017
Talk:Armstrong Whitworth Whitley

message: The Whitley was most certainly NOT the first aircraft to fly with variable pitch propellors. The Douglas DC-2, which first flew on May 11, 1934 (two years before the Whitley), had them. Douglas DC-2 Jdoniach (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The source cited for that statement says "...was the first aircraft to fly with de Havilland tree-bladed two-position variable-pitch airscrews." which suggests that the claim is specifically restricted to de Havilland vp-props rather than those by other companies - experiments were made with variable-pitch propellers as far back as WW1.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First aircraft with variable-pitch propellors?
Talk:Avia B-534

message: First paragraph
"It is considered one of the last planes built with a classic biplane design" Can anyone elaborate on what that exactly is supposed to mean, 'classic biplane design'? Biplanes were continued to be built and developped long after the last B-534 was built as well (e.g. Fairey Albacore).Dirk P Broer 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Avia B-534 even happens to be a sesquiplane design, in that the lower wing had a shorter wingspan than the upper. So in my eyes it is not a classic biplane design, where both wings have the same wingspan.Dirk P Broer12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find that a sesqui-plane is where the shorter span wing is half the span of the other, or less.Petebutt (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Design

message: The Operational History section states "This was at once the first aerial victory for the Uprising and the last recorded biplane air-to-air victory" when describing an engagement on 2 September 1944 against a LuftwaffeJu52.
The entry for the Fiat Cr42 also claims the last biplane air-to-air victory, for a claimed Luftwaffe victory over USAAF P-38 Lightnings on 8 February 1945.
Hopefully someone who is more of a student of WW2 aviation can clear things up for the rest of us.Darkstar8799 (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Biplane Air-to-Air Victory 
Talk:Avro 707

message: I have tried to separate development and history. 
I don't believe that the 707 was only 30.5 feet long, as Jackson says, having stared at photos of the variants; yes, it was shorter than the later variants but not by 12'.  Maybe it was 40.5' long?
Another little puzzle is that WZ736 seems to be in use as spares for the 707C by May 1962 at the latest and that WZ744 itself was s.o.c in Feb 1967, probably last flying in Sept 1966.  However a pair of photos http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=Avro%20707&distinct_entry=true of both machines shows them out on the tarmac at Finningley in September 1969.  Were they statics, or is the photo date wrong? 
Any thoughts?TSRL (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled
Talk:Avro 730

message: "a tail-first aircraft".  Is that subtly different from a canard design?  Midgley (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The two other sets of unsupported references (621671747 and 621673992) either side of this from the same IP addition were reverted. I've done the same for this. 80.90.193.161 (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 
Talk:Napoléon (1955 film)

message: I've incorporated into the article all I was able to find, and I mean all. A few things are sourced directly from the film's credits. I didn't want to go too far on so few sources, though. Surely there have been things published on the film both at the time and since, but none of those things are online that I can locate. There may be a little more in French, but my French isn't so good anymore. 
Just so you know that expanding this will take more than a quick google ...--Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI
Talk:Avro York

message: I've removed the statement that Churchill flew in an Avro York to the Yalta Conference because the official biography by Martin Gilbert states that he flew to this conference in a Skymaster (vol. vii of 'Winston S. Churchill').  If anyone has a citation for him having been flown in the York, I would be interested to know about it as I have tried to verify this without success.Churchill Archives Centre 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill and the Avro York 

message: Listing every and any accident and incident is not necessary and makes the list a completely overwrought affair. If no one objects, I will prune the list to only hull-losses and fatal accidents. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The guide for inclusion allows fatal accidents and hull losses and I suspect nearly all of these are hull losses so really should be included. Perhaps just list the fatal accidents and split the rest into a sub-article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I have trimmed the list to the 30 fatal accidents for now, still looking at a daughter article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks great right now, still very convoluted style of repeating citations which is not necessary. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I defer to you expertise on citations I just try and leave enough information not to cause trouble in the future if it ever goes for a ga review etc. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Accidents and Incidents section

message: re: "South African leader Jan Smuts also used a York as personal transport." I've heard that this particular York was sold to a private operator "Trek Airways" in the early fifties. Elper (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 
Talk:Master of Physical Therapy

message: Another article for English Wikipedia.  You're welcome.  ProfessorPaul 06:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Created this article for Wikipedia
Talk:Aga Khan School, Dhaka

message: "The school upholds its name as a well established school, only because of the hard work, and effort of the students.The Aga Khan School is a strong place, with a lot of life, many battles between teachers and students, in order to make the school a cool one, or a quality one."
That is NOT the way to write an encyclopaedia article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.188.253.116 (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatant Non-neutral POV

message: "Great care on the part of the administration has led to higher quality teaching and academic standards, and the infrastructure is well developed" - What does "Great Care" mean in this context. Plus, who decides that the "infrastructure is well developed". There is no accreditation of the school by an independent body, only approval by the British Council regarding the availability of a Physics/Chemistry lab and Computing facilities for O level candidates.
The article badly needs pictures, otherwise, it can't even be proven that the school actually exists (as no other sources/citations are given). Someone also needs to put the school logo in, who cares that the AKES holds its copyright, they should be only to gland to allow its use for Wikipedia.203.188.253.115 (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROVE IT. PLUS THE ARTICLE NEEDS PICTURES.
Talk:BAC Jet Provost

message: According to this page, the first flight was made on 16, not 26 June 1954. Drutt (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First flight 

message: You have a photo of our jet Provost XW324 on the bottom right of this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_Jet_Provost
Is it possible to have an external link to our site here http://www.heritageaviation.co.uk/page6.html
Thanks
79.72.168.228 (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External site link 

message: There's one outdoors (touchable from the road) at Quackers soft play centre, Disserth, just South of Llandrindod Wells.  The outer shell seems complete, but there don't seem to be any seats etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another survivor 

message: Anyone knows it better? How many Jet Provost could be armed? In RAF service there were atleat provision for this or it was only for export?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I remember the Jet Provost was never armed in RAF Service or had a provision to be. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Provost was always armable from the outset, but it had to be requested by the customer, or became standard on the later models. AFAIK, all the RAF Provosts were unarmed. There was a version from the outset called the 'Armed Provost', even before the Strikemaster, although I don't think any were built. This was to have the built-in MGs of the Strikemaster, rather than the hardpoint pods, but it didn't have the Strikemaster wing and the heavier capacity. Arming the Provost was mostly useful for ground attack training, or potentially counter insurgency (ie some junior officer wanting to be the people's republic's top banana). As the RAF had little interest in either, they used it purely as a trainer. Weapons training would have been in a Hunter, later a Jaguar T2.   Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Armed version?
Talk:Cherriots

message: Has anything happened with the streetcar since the feasibility study in February, 2005. --Psjoding 08:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Salem Streetcar

message: Started a new section.  After talking to other passengers today who complained of similar experiences, I'm fairly sure this section could be expanded quickly and accurately.  BalooUrsidae (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid, there really should not be a seperate criticisms section. As such the section has been removed, but the first sentence was moved to the main body. The second appeared more as WP:OR. The first sentence has had its source removed and tagged as needing a citation. Blogs do not pass the reliable source test, thus that is why the reference was removed. If this is a widespread problem, there is likely a newspaper article about the problem, and that would likely pass WP:RS. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I am requesting that the article be reverted to this edit, prior to the content dispute and reverts. The current version includes an original research violation, namely in the fleet section, that is at the source of the dispute. SounderBruce 06:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the Content disputes section of the Protection policy, the article needs to be reverted to a version without policy-violating content. The current version includes an original research violation, which should not be allowed to stay up while the dispute is discussed. SounderBruce 03:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging . ToThAc (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than pinging me, it would be helpful if you could confirm if you support the requested edit. Then you will be one step closer to establishing a consensus. The OR violation (if it exists) is not so blatant that I could consider taking unilateral action. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected edit request, 17 January 2018
Talk:Sandy Area Metro

message: :Image:Samlogo.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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
— Save_Us_229 01:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Samlogo.jpg
Talk:Bell D-188A

message: While the F-109 designation was never officially assigned by the USAF, the F-101B interceptor version of the Voodoo and the Bell supersonic VTOL were likely candidates.
208.28.38.134 12:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

message: Angellucci (The American Fighter, page 57) calls this aircraft the Bell XF-109 (Model D-188A). He does not say whether this is official or unofficial. XF3L is not mentioned but the US Navy request is. Evidence anyway of the designation at least relating to this aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Designation
Talk:Hood River Bridge

message: If the IP address person has not gotten the point that this info doesn't belong, here is why:
*First it is unsourced, see WP:CITE & WP:OR
*It is very biased, see WP:NPOV
Lastly, adding it again will violate WP:3RR. Please only added encyclopdic info. See WP:WWIN about soapbox. Aboutmovies 22:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions