Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Skyscrapers
 This project page is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, which aims to create, expand, and maintain pages that relate to skyscrapers, high-rises and towers. To participate, visit the WikiProject Skyscrapers project page for more information.
Shortcut:
WT:SKY
Archive
Archives
  1. 2007
  2. 2008
  • Current discussion


Contents

[edit] Deletion review and Afd debate

Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai) is up for deletion review. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are three opposes and three endorses. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 09:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Article is up for Afd discussion, which can be found here. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 08:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Result was no consensus, default to keep. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More stuff up for Afd

Executive Towers article deleted already. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And World Trade Centre Residence and Tamwell Tower for a second time (speedy deleted articles were recreated and put on Afd again. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)
Result was no consensus. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 07:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Several more buildings in Dubai for deletion

Result was keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result was keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result was keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result was keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Result was keep. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List for deletion

*The Fort Collins list is up for deletion. Cheers. Trance addict 03:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC) List deleted. Cheers. Trance addict 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London skyscrapers naming convention

THere is a dispute of the naming conventions for article titles on skyscrapers in London. Some such as 30 St Mary Axe use the postal address others use the "common" name such a V building I think the article titles should be stadardised to the postal address as over time the "common" name will change but the postal address will not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is common practice for the design architects to use the postal address. Perhaps Wikipedia should use the postal address, with the common name being a redirect. Astronaut (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia should use the common name to readers, per WP:NC. This is sometimes, but certainly not always, the postal address. Also, I really wouldn't consider it a common practice for design architects to use the postal address - see these links for example, which all use the common name: [1], [2], [3]. Cheers, Rai-me 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
So long as readers can find a building by either method, it's probably not that important. Astronaut (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Class and importance of Kansas City list

User:Angcr added {{Skyscrapers}} to Talk:List of tallest buildings in Kansas City. Angcr labelled its class as "NA" and its importance as "High." I feel as though both of these are incorrect. Can someone please have a look at this and change the class and importance to the appropriate classification? Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You are definitely correct. I have changed it to class=List (other than FLs and lists being ranked for purposes relating to the featured topic drive, list class seems appropriate for building lists) and importance=Mid, as the city is not home to a great number of tall and/or notable skyscrapers. Thanks for bringing this up. Cheers, Rai-me 00:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skyscraper FL-Class Articles

I have noticed that there is no category for FL-Class Skyscraper articles (Category:FL-Class Skyscraper articles). All Featured lists are put into the Featured article category (Category:FA-Class Skyscraper articles), even though they are classified as "Featured Lists." Should a new category be created and the class be changed on the lists' talk pages? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created the category, and will now change the rating on the lists' talk pages. The FL-class addition to the quality scale is a fairly new development; thanks for bringing it up. Cheers, Rai-me 00:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears that per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index, "FL-class" articles will not appear on automatically generated worklists such as Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Skyscraper articles by quality statistics, at least for now (the worklist has not been updated since retagging all FLs, so it may still lists 14 FAs/FLs at this time). I think we may want to consider reverting all of the lists back to FA-class; especially with the FTD going on, it is important to note and keep track of which lists are featured, and this is facilitated by inclusion in the worklists with "FA-class" taggings. Comments? Cheers, Rai-me 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skyscraper naming guideline

Does any one else think we need to standardize skyscraper article titles? Right now, the majority of the articles who need disambiguation use the "NAME (CITY)" format, but a few (such as Citigroup Centre, London) use "NAME, CITY". As the majority use the former, I believe we should set up a guideline and move all pages that use the comma format to the parentheses format. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raime (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While editing in articles around wikipedia, I have generally followed a system whereby geographic locations, including buildings, are writtern in the "NAME, CITY" format, while concepts, organisations, etc, are writtern in "NAME (CITY)". For example, International Plaza, Singapore and Ministry of National Development (Singapore).--Huaiwei (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think a naming convention should be set and agree with User:Raime that the majority of existing articles seem to use the "NAME (CITY)" convention. I would support the "NAME (CITY)" convention. VerruckteDan (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Raime's proposal. I have seen more "NAME (CITY)" than "NAME, CITY". Also, the parentheses seem to be more reader friendly because they seperate the topic of the article from extra information used only to disambiguate it from others. By using the comma, it appears (with a quick glance) that the city name is apart of the title. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Not quite true. Physical locations are far more likely to be indicated by commas without naming confusions. Do parentheses appear in addresses? Not in mine. Everyone knows what New York, New York is, and that it is different from New York, Texas, without thinking the entire thing is one name. You will note, however, that non geographic disambiguations (New York (U2 song), New York (Ja Rule song), New York (Eskimo Joe song), etc) uses parentheses, which makes sense.--Huaiwei (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You made a good point, Huaiwei. I guess this discussion is not about the names of the articles for skyscrapers, but about whether to classify these articles as either about skyscrapers, or about their exact location. If we decide that the articles are about the exact buildings, then "NAME (CITY)" would be used. If we decide that the articles are not about the building specifically, but about its plot, then we would use "NAME, CITY".
But, I still am leaning toward "NAME (CITY)". We might say that the comma method is used when referring to a location of something in a broader scale or in geographical sense (i.e. New York, New York; Paris, France; Tibet, China) I do not think that skyscrapers fit into this geography category. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Leitmanp's assessment. I wouldn't really classify skyscapers themselves as geographic locations, and therefore "NAME (CITY)" may be more appropriate. Rai-me 03:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I would still humbly disagree, however. Is is unlikely that users will actually confused "BUILDING (CITY)" as in reference to the plot of land rather than the building. If so, World Trade Centre, Toronto would be a plot of land, while World Trade Centre (London) isnt? I would also like to draw attention to the fact that there are a greater likelyhood of building names which incorporates parentheses as part of their official names. I was looking at several schools, for example, which goes like Canadian International School (Singapore), Anglo-Chinese School (Independent) and Raffles Girls' School (Secondary). Would it not be clumsy if a disambiguation is needed assuming the exact same name in different cities, and would it not be confusing since it may no longer be clear if each of those words in parentheses are actually part of the building name? I have yet to come across any building with a comma as part of its official name, in comparison.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) I think the basis of the argument isn't that skyscrapers should not use the comma method because they are not geographic locations, and that ones that already use the comma method therefore are geographic locations; it is that skyscrapers aren't themselves geographic locations, and therefore the comma method is no more appropriate than the parentheses method. And, since the comma method is used more widely than the parentheses method to describe geographic locations, that the parentheses method may even be more appropriate. I think that very few schools incorporate parentheses into their official names (I could be wrong), so this is not a major issue, but no matter what disambiguation would be very clumsy - is "Raffles Girls' School (Secondary), Singapore" any less clumsy than "Raffles Girls' School (Secondary, Singapore)"? It is also very doubtful that such schools with parentheses in their official names are going to need disambiguation in the first place.

It appears that the vast majority of US, Dubai, Hong Kong, Canada, etc. skyscrapers use the "NAME (CITY)" method and the majority of Singapore, UK, etc. skyscrapers use the "NAME, CITY" method. Although not my original proposition, we could discuss separate naming conventions for individual countries at WP:NC; standardization/consistency is only required within countries, not for all articles about similar topics. Cheers, Rai-me 13:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If there may be some flexibility in allowing individual countries or cities to establish conventions on whether the comma or parentheses are used, then that will be much appreciated. One of my biggest concern is that some users may insist on all skyscrapers adopting the same convention, resulting in inconsistencies for cities where one form is already widely practised.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester

Hello, List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester is up for WP:FL status here. Thought the project might be interested! -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now WP:FL status! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 12:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking in building list image captions

Per this discussion at WP:LOTD, I believe we should consider adding wikiliks to image captions of tallest building lists. See List of tallest buildings in Boston as an example, which was recently changed as a part of its LOTD nomination. The reason for the removal of the linking in caption stems from old concerns brought up at WP:FLC that weren't even related to building lists. Since then, the concerns seem to have completely subsided, as several image-filled FLs contain caption wikilinking (see List of the most populous counties in the United States and List of Buffalo Sabres players). Does anyone else agree that we should add links to building articles in captions? -- Rai-me 03:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with adding links to the captions. But, is it possible that certain articles will become overlinked? Several places in an article may mention Building A, but does that mean that we should but brackets around each "Building A" when it is a caption for an image? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean if a building is depicted in more than one image, as well as in the list and at other points in the article? I would say that it needs to be linked only once in captions (so if the building is shown in a second image, then it would not need to be linked again), but generally buildings are only linked once per section and at most once in the lead, so I really don't think that there would a be a problem with overlinking. Cheers, Rai-me 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Tallest suburbs" sections in tallest building lists

Can we come to a decision on whether "Tallest buildings in CITY NAME's suburbs" sections are suitable for placement in tallest building lists? At present, guidelines for including such sections are not specified at Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists. I have in the past removed/hid the tallest suburb section of List of tallest buildings in Detroit, using the basis that the suburbs are not a part of the city, that the list is already long enough, and that such a topic may warrant its own individual page, but it has since been reinstated by User:Thomas Paine1776. Also, similar sections have been removed from List of tallest buildings in Chicago and List of tallest buildings in New York City. I am interested in other editors' thoughts on this matter. If we were to accept "tallest suburbs" section in building lists, then we should re-add the appropriate sections to the NYC and Chicago lists, create new sections for any other city that warrants it, and add guideline information to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists. However, if not, then the information should be removed from the Detroit list. Also, if we are to include such sections, can a better word then "suburbs" be used? Cheers, Rai-me 02:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say if a suburban city and / or suburbs in general contain significant numbers of buildings completed, U/C, proposed, etc., then it's best to start a new building list for the suburbs. (Examples: Jersey City and New York, Oakland and San Francisco, Seattle and Bellevue). However, if the suburbs don't contain enough buildings to warrant a separate list (e.g. less than 30-40 buildings over 130 feet / 40 m), then it's best to add a tallest buildings in the ... suburbs section onto the main city building list. Cheers. Trance addict 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
But what do we do for cities who have several buildings in one suburban city, but them several outside of that city as well? Take this old revision of the NYC list, for example. Only half of the surburban buildings are in Jersey City; when the Jersey City list was created, the information for all buildings in other cities was lost. Does this mean that we transclude part of the Jersey City list onto the NYC list? The same goes for Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma. Rai-me 03:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The "lost" information should be placed on the Jersey City building list under a title of tallest buildings in other NYC suburbs. They can also go under the main suburban city building list, as with the Oakland list, where the tallest building in Foster City and Emeryville are included for comparison. I don't think we should transclude part of the Jersey City list onto the NYC list. Cheers. Trance addict 04:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that a "tallest buildings in other NYC suburbs" should be added to the Jersey City list. It would make much more sense to have a separate Tallest buildings in New York City's suburbs article. Rai-me 04:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm alright with a tallest buildings in suburbia list, but getting that list to FL-status may be very difficult per prior experiences. Cheers. Trance addict 04:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a tallest buildings in the suburbs section is a good idea. Since the suburbs are technically a part of the city they are connected to, they should be included. But, when there are so many buildings in the suburbs, and they have significant heights, they should be put in their own article. And we should only have one list for the suburbs (there should not be a list in the main city's list and another for a large suburb). As an example, List of tallest buildings in Jersey City should me renamed List of tallest buildings in New York City's suburbs. That new article would include buildings in New Jersey, New Rochelle, White Plains and others. And for an alternative to "suburbs," we can use "satellite cities and towns" or "periphery cities and town." Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I basically agree with Leitmanp's sentiments, except for moving the Jersey City list. As the 14th-largest skyline in the country, it certainly qualifies for its own list. This leaves the question: what to do for New York City's suburban high-rises? We could have a list entitled List of tallest buildings in New York City's satellite cities, and state that Jersey City buildings are left out of the list, with a prominent link to List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. Anyway, I think that "satellite cities and towns" is much better wording. Cheers, Rai-me 05:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Should we start archiving old threads like what was done to the Engineering project talk page? Some of the threads here are over three months old and the page is getting a bit long. Cheers. Trance addict 03:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; using MiszaBot II to archive this page would be a good idea. Cheers, Rai-me 03:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link maintenance work

It seems like all SkyscraperPage diagram links don't work anymore on the building lists. This is because SkyscraperPage underwent a major overhaul of their site and changed servers. Therefore, all links to SkyscraperPage diagrams need to be fixed. Cheers. Trance addict 07:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List at FLC

List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon is a featured list candidate. Please comment here. Cheers. Trance addict 08:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

List promoted. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page cleanup request

Could someone clean up and add to Hearst Tower, Bank of America Plaza (Charlotte), Wachovia Corporate Center, and One Wachovia Center (Charlotte). Also if someone could add some pictures. Alaskan assassin (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of building architects in tallest building lists

User:Susanlesch has recently opposed the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis based on the fact that the list does not list the architcets of the buildings. This topic hasn't ever really been brought up; List of tallest buildings in Toronto, now an FL, listed the architects of the 10 tallest buildings for a short time, but they have since been removed. My question is, do other editors believe that architects need to be listed?

My opinion on the matter is that architects shouldn't be listed for a number of reasons:

  • First and foremost, architects, while very suitable to list in articles pertaining to architecture in a city or just lists of buildings in general, are not relevant to list in lists of tallest buildings. In these lists, height is all that matters; that makes floor counts relevant for obvious reasons, years of completion relevant to show general trends in high-rise construction, and limited notes pertaining only to height relevant. Any additional information not pertaining directly to height, including architects, should not be included and should be saved for individual building articles.
  • In many cases, recently brought to light with the construction of the Freedom Tower, the final plans are changed drastically from the original vision of the architect. In many, if not most, cases, the developer(s) plays a far more significant role in the building process. Does this mean we would also have to list developers in the tables?
  • As noted above, the addition of the inclusion of architects would lead to a plethora of new possibilities for lists - developer, owner, use, cost, etc., all of which are irrelevant to building height and should be saved for infoboxes and prose in individual building articles.
  • For many shorter, less well-known buildings, there is little to no information about the architects of buildings that can be found - this is a problem I have run into while creating building articles for past FLs. However, as all buildings have architects, having this lack of information in some cases would heard the completeness and comprehensiveness of the list, both of which are FL criteria.
  • Many buildings are jointly designed by several architectural firms. Would we need to list all of them? Again, such information is much better suited for articles than tables.

Well, that is the basis of my thoughts. I hope that other project members and editors in general will express their opinions. Obviously, if there is consensus to add architects to building lists, then we would need to find a way to include this information in all 17 tallest building lists without "crunching" the tables. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raime (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 April 2008

Raime, thank you. I admire how you handled this request. For the list of Minneapolis buildings I gave a tentative oppose. The article itself is excellent and I would like to support it becoming featured. But as I said there, a list of buildings without architects is like a list of paintings without artists. If consensus is reached that architects don't matter I'd be stunned. Emporis would likely have enough information to make this pretty easy. A nested table or two or even threes per table row might do the trick. Thank you for the pointer here so I could give my opinion. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the view of Raime concerning this issue. But, I also agree with Susanlesch on the claim that "it would be like a list of paintings without their artists." Still, these lists are not "List of buildings in CITY" but "List of tallest buildings in CITY" where the height is the most important piece of information. The only time I can think of when an architect would be noteworthy to include in these tallest buildings lists is if the building in question is the tallest building by that architect. I also agree with Raime about not having enough room. By including another column to the lists, they would be crunched and more difficult to read. If we do come to the conclusion that they should be included, then the only place to put the architects would be in the "Notes" section. Susanlesch, I believe the architects are important for any building. But when it comes to an entire city, the architect is no longer noteworthy to be mentioned. If someone wants to know who the architect is, they can click on the link to the article or go to the sources. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that architects should be listed in the individual articles on buildings and not as part of the of the "tallest buildings" lists per Raime's reasoning. VerruckteDan (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks so much for listening. I will change my vote for Minneapolis in a second here as promised. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supertall

One recent edit to the Burj Dubai article suggested that the term "supertall" should not be used. I've never been comfortable with that specific term so tend to agree with the assessment that it is made-up word that has worked it way into common usage. What does the project think? Should we go on a hunt to remove "supertall" from all articles and templates covered by the project? Astronaut (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary linked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supertall as evidence, but i do not see there any strong consensus (in fact no consensus) about that. So my opinion is to keep status quo. --Jklamo (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image mapping

Hi all. I've just added my name to the list of participants. I don't know enough about skyscrapers to create lists or articles, but I am willing to do image mapping of lead images, such as that on List of tallest buildings in Jersey City. I understand this has been discussed before but it hasn't occurred yet because no-one knows exactly how to do it.

If anyone knows of any articles with images that need mapping, let me know on my talk page and make it clear which buildings need doing. For example the image in the above article, you could just say something like, "The big glass one in between the green building and the tall building at the right of the picture." Anything that is equally simple for me to understand will be good! Just don't give me the names of the buildings, because obviously I'm not likely to know what they are! Also let me know if there are any structures on the image that are part of the skyscrapers, but are not very high, such as the 9-storey building of the Liberty View Towers as I wouldn't want to leave any part of it out by mistake. Thanks, guys! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion of proposed buildings or structures

Hi. I have seen a lot of articles about proposed buildings that does not seem notable. Many of these are not built. What is the criteria for having such articles? Rettetast (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now, there are no defined criteria for future buildings. It has been requested before, but editors at WP:N replied that no new criterion was necessary, as the same universal notability guideline was true: if it is the subject of several reliable, indepdendent sources, the subject is notable. This usually means that taller future buildings, especially over 500 ft / 150 m and ones that are alreadty under construction, are notable, as these buildings tend to receive a good amount of media attention. Cheers, Rai•me 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You may also want to read this and this. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 06:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese names in building lists

Quick question, is it really necessary to have the Chinese name of every skyscraper listed in building lists? See List of tallest buildings in Shanghai and List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong. While I'm generally against linguistic ignorance, this is the English Wikipedia, and the Chinese names provide no useful information to most readers. Plus the the table is very cramped on lower resolutions, and the Chinese name is available on the skyscraper's article. --Joowwww (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good point. The Chinese names do provide no value to English-only speaking readers. The Chinese names may be similar to building architects, discussed above; while good information to include in individual building articles, they are not necessary to place in tables in lists of tallest buildings, and serve to make the tables harder to read due to "column crunching". It would support removing the names if there is consensus to do so. Cheers, Rai•me 23:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you think we should put it under the building name? (Using </br>.) Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 06:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both Joowwww and Raime. As for Hydrogen Iodide's suggestion, I tried it out by previewing it. I think it is not a good idea because it looks (at least for me) really crowded and busy with English and Chinese within just one box. But, it is a solution to the situation described by Joowwww. So, I am actually undecided as both provide some sort of remedy. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should reserve the Chinese names for individual articles. I agree with Leitmanp; the column would become too "cramped" and crowded. If we are going to exclude street addresses, architects, etc from tallest building lists on the basis of the tables becoming too crushed with an extra column, then I think we should also exclude foriegn language names; as Joowwww stated above, this is the English language Wikipedia. Cheers, Rai•me 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Changed the policy for tallest buildings list to exclude foreign names. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 05:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skyscraper Wiki

IF POSSIBLE CAN EVERYONE IN THE PORTAL SUPPORT THE SKYSCRAPER WIKIA @ [4] Houstontowers (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the link doesn't work; it takes you to an error message. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 06:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the correct link. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki was Accepted!!!!!!!!!! Link:skyscrapers.wikia.com Houstontowers (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1000 Second Avenue

Hey, User:Keeper76 has kindly started offloading some of the completely unwatched pages on Wikipedia to me, and I wondered if someone could look after this one - seems to be the right Wikiproject for it! :) Easy either way, but I'm looking at taking loads of these things on, and it'd be good if people interested in the subjects claimed them (like a lost and found!) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am now watching the article. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As am I. Unfortunately, I am afraid that there must be hundreds of unwatched skyscraper stubs out there... Cheers, Rai•me 21:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. In about a week or so I'm going to ask Keeper if he can help by continuing the offloading of the articles to me, which I will then watchlist. If he or another admin is agreeable, and I come across more of "your" articles, can I come back here and tout them for watchlisting/inclusion in your project? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be great. Many of these stubs could use a good "cleaning", and would greatly benefit from being watchlisted. Cheers, Rai•me 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Fabulous - I'll let you know what I dig up Fritzpoll (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Two extra ones have cropped up: 1001 Fourth Avenue Plaza and 101 Independence Center. This'll be it for a bit, hopefully there'll be a few more within a couple of weeks. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - both watchlisted. I'll especially work on expanding/improving the one-sentence stub 1001 Fourth Avenue Plaza when I get the time. Cheers, Rai•me 00:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maps in infoboxes

I don't know if you are familiar with http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapbrowse-tbl/ I just created my first maps from the service this week. One is at Historic Michigan Boulevard District and another is at Trump International Hotel & Tower (Chicago). A better example is Image:Rush Street via tiger.census.gov.gif, which is at a scale to show street detail. I think it might make sense to reformat some of the infoboxes to accommodate maps as well as images. The TIGER maps above just need latitude and longitude and then scaling parameter. I think all buildings should have maps. I think WP:SKY, WP:NRHP and WP:WPARCH should probably get involved because we would need to goose some infobox templates to make room for maps. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think they should be added. Most infoboxes have a coordinates parameter. If the coordinates are put there, then a link appears at the top right corner of the page. By selecting this link, one can find maps (from multiple services) in different views (road or satellite). I see no point to add maps when they are already available. But of course, if you and others want to add it, then go ahead. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Leitmanp Alaskan assassin (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tony. Adding maps to articles would provide encyclopedic value to them. Yes, the coordinates are there, but providing a simple map on the pages of well known buildings would make it much easier for readers. Of course, the option to look at different maps will still be present. Adding maps doesn't detract from an article's quality in any way; rather, it only makes it easier for readers to understand where a building is in a city without having to leave Wikipedia. Cheers, Rai•me 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I still think that the maps are not needed, but do you think they might look better somwhere else besides the infobox? Alaskan assassin (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think maps should be "necessary" on all building articles, but they would be nice additions to more famous structures such as the Empire State Building and Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). The latter already has a map, and I think that it works very well in the infobox under the main image. Of course, maps would probably not be appropriate for stubs and buildings that have no main images; in the latter situation. Still, I think that adding a map parameter to {{Infobox Skyscraper}} as an optional parameter for editors would be a good idea. To answer your question, I do feel that the infobox would be the best location for a map; however, as evident from Roanoke Building, map placement in text may also be a good option. Cheers, Rai•me 21:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waldorf-Astoria Hotel and Residence Tower

There has been some unsourced information added to Waldorf-Astoria Hotel and Residence Tower. However, the link to the sourced information it has replaced has died. Feel free to help if you can.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done -- Rai•me 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed disambiguation rule

I redirected Bank One Building to Bank One Center and created Regions Bank building, and I would like to propose a convention:

  • "X building" is a generic term - the disambiguation is always at that title.
  • "X Tower", "X Center", etc, redirect to the disambiguation only if there are multiple buildings named that.

Any thoughts? --Random832 (contribs) 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible new scope for the Featured Topic Drive

I know is is a little late in teh game to be discussing a reworking of the FTD, but as we get closer and closer to the 24th featured list, I am becoming worried that our "skyline ranking" system of number of buildings over 500 feet / 152 m, while interesting info to include in list leads, will not hold up at WP:FTC. So, I have thought of a new possible scope:

Comments? Cheers, Rai•me 04:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is really interesting, but I have no clue what to do. You say that you do not think the skyline ranking will "hold up" at featured topic candidacy due to the "arbitrary height." But then, you say that we should go by cities that have buildings over 700 feet. To me, this sounds like the same kind of arbitrary height. What makes cities with buildings over 700 feet any different from cities ranked by the number of buildings over 500 feet? To me, it appears like a different method of doing a similar form of ranking. So, either scope would be fine with me. But, if you have concerns over the FTC, is it possible to ask an editor that is well knowledged in featured topics about if either method would pass the candidacy? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 05:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps "arbitrary" was a poor choice of word. However, I was not stating that the skyline ranking system will not hold up due to an arbitrary height; rather, the entire system is a little to OR-ish to base an entire FT on. The thing that makes 700 feet "better" than 500 feet is that List of tallest buildings in the United States, our main list of the proposed FT, uses that as a cutoff. And it should; 107 completed buildings is very suitable for a country with so many skyscrapers. The problem with 500 feet is that the lists being ranked are supposed to include the "tallest buildings in the United States", but some of the buildings listed at List of tallest buildings in the United States, such as the RSA Battle House Tower and the Chase Tower (Indianapolis), are not represented in the FT. In order for the United States tallest building list to be the main list of the topic, all of its entries would need to be represented. Cheers, Rai•me 14:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I have no problem with changing the scope of the Featured Topic Drive. It would probably be better to have every city with a building in the United States list a part of the featured topic. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAR debate on buildings under construction

Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1

[edit] FLRC

The FL List of tallest buildings and structures in London has been nominated for removal. The nom can be found here. -- Scorpion0422 03:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)