Talk:Taipei 101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTaipei 101 has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 3, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 2, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 3, 2024Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 17, 2004, October 17, 2005, October 17, 2006, December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, December 31, 2010, and December 31, 2014.
Current status: Good article

The Reply of 12:31, 21 April 2008 edit[edit]

The modification is clear and significant. I am adding the references, information, links, notes and corrections. If you need, please tell me that make a list of all corrections and causes of this modification. --118.166.134.119 (=140.111.99.123, the same user) 08:20, 19 may 2008 (UTC)

Looks way better than the last time I saw. Good work on citing sources!
Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Chronology section[edit]

the Chronology section needs to be cleaned up... for som reason i cant do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.116.27 (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dold[edit]

Damper Baby?[edit]

Should it be included in the article of the actual name of the damper? I was able to go to Taipei 101 in 2006 or 2007, and it has a clearly stated name of Damper Baby, along with height, weight, likes and the such. Apparently, we view it as a personification. Should this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.228.24.66 (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Artemis Fowl[edit]

Taipei 101 was mentioned in the fifth Artemis Fowl book. Should we mention this? --Buritanii (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POJ[edit]

Tai-pak yat-leng-yat is Cantonese, not POJ. Someone should correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.14.195 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths during construction[edit]

No mention of the 5 civilian deaths caused by cranes falling off during construction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.168.132 (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y I added 臺北101[edit]

Hello there: the same way the ROC article has a country infobox showing the name in english, then, its local name in the appliable script (traditional), or the Red cross of the ROC article, in its NGO infobox, I have added it, for what it seems like the policy of the site...

I DO NOT SUPPORT ADDING 台北101 TO THE SKYCRAPPER INFOBOX, BECAUSE THE CITY OF TAIBEI, LIKE THE CITY OF TAIZHONG, BOTH USE THE FORM 臺, NOT 台.

linguistics include both variants (thats y its a linguistics box)Gumuhua (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 臺 and 台 are both acceptable and are both used in the city names. Personally, I think if there's one character that should be purged from the Chinese language, it is 臺. It's utterly useless, as 台 is already both a traditional and a simplified character. 61.224.44.12 (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

Taipei is in Tiawan not China. Why is it stated as located in China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.248.75 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure when it was changed. Taipei 101 is in Taiwan. Taiwan is currently governed by the Republic of China (note: not the People's Republic of China, which governs China). The location should be given as "Taiwan". If there is a need to state the government, it should be "Republic of China". If this were an article about politics and the jurisdiction were a key characteristic of the subject, it would be important to mention the Republic of China government. However Taipei 101 is a commercial building. If you want to find it, you go to Taiwan. That's the location. Readin (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

Someone changed it back so i changed it myself. same as before.Sorry spelled it wrong.

Definition of Building[edit]

I disagree with the following statement, and think it would be worth mentioning a reputable source for this definition in the article:

"international architectural standards define a "building" as a structure capable of being fully occupied."

If this were truly the qualification for a "Building" then that would suggest that an office tower that is fire damaged on one floor or an apartment complex that is flooded in the basement or a house that has had its water shut-off ceases to be a building because they cannot safely and legally sustain full occupancy in accordance with city building codes (at least in the United States). Obviously, that is completely counter-intuitive.

For sake of example, when the Empire State Building was hit by a B-52 bomber in 1945, was it temporarily not a building while ongoing repairs were being conducted to the upper floors? --RKrause (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References and Citations should be reviewed to avoid false or exaggerated claims...[edit]

I believe we should review the citations in this article to make it more credible.

It's dangerous and unacceptable to cite another wiki without going directly to the sources of information.

This is pretty much how rumors got started. And rumor is not what wikipedia is about.

Please help clean up this article and improve its quality and credibility.

Skyline68 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Suggest Removal[edit]

Richie Wiki[edit]

This article here claims that Taipei 101 was "constructed by Samsung Engineering and Construction and KTRT Joint Venture." But it failed to offer source of reference. In the article's reference section, none of the cited reference mentioned Samsung. In fact, the video "Discovery Channel, Man Made Marvels: Taipei 101", which majority of the article is based, mentioned neither Samsung nor KTRT JV. This only proves that this RitchieWikie article doesn't qualify as reliable source of reference.

New Year's Eve fireworks[edit]

Hey, does anyone have a source for this: "2009-2010: There will no longer be fireworks this year due to the rejection of foreign company sponsors such as Sony." I'm just a bit curious about why there aren't going to be fireworks this year. 128.255.150.46 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there WAS fireworks for 2010, together with the slogan "Taiwan UP". So wherever this came from, it wasn't correct in the end.Grottenolm42 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CN Tower reference?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a reference to the CN tower somewhere on the page, and how much taller this tower is than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.21.205 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei 101 was not the first building in the world taller than 500m[edit]

The following claim is incorrect, despite the reference: "Taipei 101 was the first building in the world to break the half-kilometer mark in height[4]." In the CN Tower article there is a contradiction: "Standing 553.3 metres (1,815 ft) tall,[2] it was completed in 1976." I am much more certain about the validity of the latter claim. --Silentrebel (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference here is between "tower" and "building". There are plenty of towers that were taller than Taipei 101 (see List of tallest structures in the world). But yes, the CN Tower was the tallest "freestanding structure" for quite some time. :) Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Very good point. In such a case, the claim in the text is not wrong, but could be misleading. It seems to me that not everyone would clearly see the difference between and building and a tower. Perhaps this distinction should be clearly made. --Silentrebel (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not think it would be necessary, but perhaps a wikilink for "building" that links to the list of tallest buildings, which in turn has links to the lists of structures, towers, etc.? Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVE SAMSUNG ENGINEERING[edit]

Samsung's involvement in Taipei 101 is rather insignificant. There're hundreds of subcontractors and Samsung is just one of them. Samsung's task was public space finishing. That's a far cry from constructor!!!!

Reference: page 78 of a book titled "亞洲新建築 New Asia Regionalism In Global Context" (ISBN(10):9789579226196) lists over 100 parties involved. Samsung is listed way down the list and is responsible for public area finishing. (more info on the book: http://archbook.com.tw/book-detail.asp?BookNumber=80158 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.243.121.193 (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

height[edit]

Hello. This article refers solely to this building's emporis page for its height (509.2 m). But numerous other webpages refer to it as being 508 meters tall (bbc article, (in French) lemoniteur.fr article ...). I don't think emporis height should be the only one to be used in the article. Freewol (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat explained in Talk:Taipei 101/Archive 1#GA Review and Talk:Taipei 101/Archive 1#Exact height of Taipei 101. Both explain that the building is constructed on a 1.2 m high concrete platform. The builders didn't include the platform in their height so 508 m got propagated to a lot of places. It seems the CTBUH, who officially decide such things for the purpose of declaring records, originally included the platform and got 509.2 m. However, they have now changed it to 508 m (see here). Who is right, I'm not sure; I have a feeling we should include the platform because it projects above the ground and was built so that the skyscraper could be built on top of it, but the CTBUH has a good record when it comes to such things and Wikipedia often uses their figures as a reliable source. The prior consensus may have been based on the CTBUH's earlier inclusion of the platform, but that may change now. Astronaut (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no access at all[edit]

floors higher than 92 aren't accessible at all. let alone wheelchair / handicap accessible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.127.243 (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be bacause those floors house communications equipment and are therefore not open to the public. Astronaut (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know the occupancy rate of Taipei 101?[edit]

When I visited the building last week, it seemed that many of the floors were empty. I also heard commentary that the rent was exorbitant. Does someone know the occupancy rate? --Alvestrand (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Taipei 101/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

On hold for 7 days. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. The cleanup tag is valid. This article reads like an advertisement. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Fails WP:WTW. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. A number of dead links exist, according to the WP:CHECKLINKS tool. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I see many sources with questionable reliability. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. Many statements are unsourced. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Major aspects are missing. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). In my opinion, this article has too much WP:CRUFT. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. This article is written like an advertisement. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Nothing problematic. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images from Commons. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Way too many images. sst✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment.
  • @SSTflyer: Thank you for your review. Are there any specific examples that need fixing? I'll look it over myself, but it may take a few days. Epic Genius (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. I think, in its current state, the article would need substantial rewriting or even TNTing for this to return to GA standard. sst✈ 05:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am currently working on finding sources. If it needs to be blown up and restarted from scratch, I could do it, but it may take a couple of months. Epic Genius (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you have done some cleanup with the article. You certainly do not have any obligation to improve this article; I am only asking if you may want to take a look at this article or potentially save this from delisting. Do you actually want to work on this article? If not, I will delist this article. sst✈ 11:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

台北101, the only official Chinese name[edit]

‘台北101’ is the only trademark and official name in Chinese, and ‘臺北101’ is never used. The Chinese name of MRT Taipei 101/World Trade Center Station was also changed from 臺北101/世貿站 to 台北101/世貿站 for following the official Chinese name of Taipei 101. Please do not follow some IP accounts’ false information. 🐱💬 18:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damper Discussion Repeat[edit]

Do we really need to be discussing the tuned mass damper a second time? It's well covered in the section on structural design, but is discussed again in the section on the interior. Uaiazr Jxhiosh (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uaiazr Jxhiosh: Ah, it was a good idea to check the talk page. I saw a few other duplicates and was tagging them, but I missed this duplicate. Thank you for noticing this and mentioning it. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2022[edit]

Change Mechancial to Mechanical (in Floor Plan, 50) Skovtur (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Taipei 101/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • The last paragraph in the lead does not really fit with the rest. And it was already mentioned that it opened in 2004. Maybe incorporate that information into the first paragraph?
  • In 1997, led by developer Harace Lin, the Taipei Financial Center Corporation, a team – "a team led by"
  • It displaced the Bank of America Tower – "replaced"?
  • What is LEED? Link/Explain
    According to the guidelines, everything that is already linked in the lead section should be linked in the main text again. This is why I didn't even look for a link in the lead. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It displaced the Bank of America Tower in Manhattan as the world's tallest and highest-use green building in addition to the Environmental Protection Agency building in Florida as the world's largest green building. – I do not really understand that sentence. What does "highest-use" mean? How can it replace two world's tallest buildings at once?
  • The history section is confusing. The "Development" is talking about several things happening after construction. I think it should be structured in chronological order, first planning, construction, and then later development. This needs some major rework I think.
  • Development section is written in present tense, but it should clearly be past tense?
  • The last paragraph in "Development", I am not sure what this has to do with "develoment"?
  • Link of source 38 is dead.
  • Taipei 101 Run Up – There were only two such run-ups? Why did they stop doing this? And mentioning the winners each time seems like excessive detail.
  • A few noteworthy dates since the tower's opening include these below – The last entry here is from 2014. Needs update?
  • on huge panels displays – panel displays
  • 2015–2016: It is the fourth time Groupe F designed the firework show for Taipei 101, with a green theme "Nature is Future" this year. – "this year"? What year? 2015 or 2016?
  • New Year's Eve fireworks displays – Several paragraphs here without inline citation.
    • It is really hard to find info on the displays. What should I do? Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 20:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • All information has to be sourced, which is an non-negotiable GA criterion. If no sources can be found, it might indicate that the information is not very relevant, or at least not super important. However, removing just the year entries without source while leaving the others is not possible because the list would be incomplete. I recommend to move the whole list of yearly entries to the article Taipei New Year's Eve Party. If you can, try to get some general sentences in that are not year-specific; e.g. how long the fireworks last in general, and everything that seems relevant. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
         Done Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 18:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Knowledgegatherer23: I just saw the content including the firework display introduction. It was not releated to this article. I think the firework history contents should move to "Taipei 101 New Yaer Fireworks" instead. Also, I recommend the article "Taipei New Year's Eve Party" to be translated from Chinese Wikipedia since it includes the introduction, history, and TV broadcast summary of the event. (It was re-written by myself.) Sinsyuan loves Taiwan’s Ozone 02:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Sinsyuan I think it is relevant because the fireworks are part of the New Year's party, correct? If not feel free to change it. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 21:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also gained attention on YouTube, where viewers noticed an apparent "UFO" in the seconds before the fireworks started, later determined to be a radio-controlled glider with lights.[51] – Is this significant enough? In any case, it should be supported with a reliable source, not with a youtube link.
  • "New Year's Eve fireworks displays" section needs a lot of wikilinks.
  • As of 18 April 2019, it is still the world's largest and tallest green building. – Any update?
  • "Height" section has a structure problem. It first is about height, then about tallest buildings, then about height again, then about tallest buildings again. Some information is given twice.
  • Taipei 101 is currently – What is "currently", and can this be updated with a newer source?
  • 60 meters per second (197 ft/s), (216 km/h or 134 mph), – typography off here.
    Elevator? The Taipei 101 one is not that speed. It is 1010 meters per minute instead. Sinsyuan loves Taiwan’s Ozone 16:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, 60 meters per second sounds like a lot, and should be checked. But I was only referring to the typography (don't use two subsequent brackets; just combine into a single one). Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many one-sentence paragraphs present, for example the "Awards" section, which should be turned into a continuous text.
  • "Artworks" as the only section in "Other features" does not make sense; can it just be moved under "Architecture and design"?
  • More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • Much of the "New Year's Eve fireworks displays" section is without source.
  • Section "Events and celebrity appearances": I think that the events should be in chronological order. At the moment it seems a bit chaotic.
  • The structure incorporates many shapes of squares and circles to reach a balance between yin and yang. – source?
  • Section "Floor directory": Single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided whenever possible. The section currently reads like a random assemblage of information, but should be a congruent text.
  • For 12 years it also had the fastest elevator, at 38 miles per hour. – Taiwan uses kilometers, not miles, right? So this should be in km/h, with conversion to miles.
  • There is an unresolved "citation needed" tag in the "Elevator" section.
  • Going onto the outdoor viewing platform requires safety equipment, such as a safety belt buckled to the railing. – Citation missing.
  • There are cite errors in the references.
  • I will continue reading shortly, expect a couple more comments maybe. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even more comments[edit]

I hope this will be the last round!

  • Taipei 101 is the first record-setting skyscraper to be constructed in the 21st century. – This is marketing blabla without any meaning, and does not seem to be encyclopedic. I suggest to either remove or specify what those records are (I think they are discussed elsewhere in the article already anyways).
  • The original 2004 fiber-optic and satellite Internet connections permitted transfer speeds up to a gigabit per second.[53] – This is an isolated piece of information that does not fit in. If you keep that information, then you should also mention what connections were implemented later (the sentence is in past tense, implying that the original internet connections are no longer in use).
  • ruyi – sometimes you have this in upper case, sometimes in lower case.
  • Sometimes you use "%", sometimes "percent"; sometimes "m", sometimes "meter". Should all be consistent.
  • There is a reply above that you did not responded to: Indeed, 60 meters per second sounds like a lot, and should be checked. – Did you check if this is correct? Is this point still outstanding?

Source comments[edit]

  • I can't access source 92, but maybe it is a temporal problem. Can you?
  • The link to source 86 does not work anymore, unfortunately. (Should have done a Internet archive rescue once it was still available)
  • Source 91 is supposed to cite the "VIP club". However, that article does not mention the club as far as I can see. Only the user comments below it mention it. And those are not high-quality sources.
  • Source #15: Is this behind a paywall? If so, should be tagged as closed source.
  • Source #17 has a cite error.
  • Source #19: Link does not work.
  • Source #23: does not lead to the desired information.
  • Source #24: not found
  • Source #25: not found
  • Source #32: I asked about this at the help desk, and they replied it is not an acceptable source, see Wikipedia:Help_desk#Publicly_posted_material_–_a_reliable_source?. Do you possibly know what this "posted material" is? A sign? Some paper on the blackboard?
  • @Knowledgegatherer23: Stopping here for now (I only checked 1/4 of the sources). We seem to have a serious issue with dead sources, since most had not been properly rescued using the wayback machine (internet archive). I should have checked this earlier. I fear that dead sources have to be replaced, or the information they support removed, but I am not sure and will be happy to ask how to best deal with such cases. Let me know what you think, first. The text itself looks fine for me now apart from the new points above; the sources seem to be the last deal breaker. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I'm not the prime editor here but I just went ahead and implemented some minor changes on my own boldly. Ping me back if I did anything erroneously. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments[edit]

@Knowledgegatherer23: I was able to fix the problem with all the dead links by following the instructions in WP:Link rot and using a bot. Many of my points above are solved now thanks to this. I here list the few last open issues, and then we can finally promote this one. You may ignore the comments above.

  • Taipei 101 claimed the official records for the world's tallest sundial and the world's largest New Year's Eve countdown clock. – Needs a source.
  • Regarding my comment on source 15 that is behind a paywall: Please note that we do not have to remove sources just because they are behind a paywall. That is completely fine. I was just asking for adding "|url-access=subscription" to the citation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack I don't think that was a reliable source. It didn't seem like I would have found the proper information there, nor could I figure out what subscription was required to get past the paywall. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 03:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 30 (Publicly posted material, Floor 89, Taipei 101. 17 August 2007) is not an acceptable source and needs to be removed or replaced (see my comment above)
Cool! We are finally there. I am promoting this now. Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taipei_101&oldid=1202831669"