This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on July 20, 2020. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[1] Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 18:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed or integrated the sections "Canceled skyscrapers" and "Demolished buildings" as they are not sections found on "List of tallest buildings in x city" pages. All of the featured list of this style are found at [ [2]] and none of them have said sections. I have kept the layout inline with the most liberal of the FL's, List of tallest buildings in Boston where under construction and proposed structures are still listed. Early in this entry it is stated that for the purposes of this list the cut off is 300'. Buildings under that height are not notable enough for this list. I picked 20 stories for ones that don't yet have a height enumerated, since that seems to be the cut off in the main list of tallest buildings. To keep this as a featured list we need to rigorously defend the structure of the page and only include items that fit the description. -- Found5dollar ( talk) 16:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I saw this listed at 3O and want to throw something into the discussion mix without actually giving a 3O. I've left it listed at 3O in case someone else cares to do so. The arguments based upon what other articles do and what some WikiProject says are not controlling. As to the "other articles" argument, it is a well-established wiki-principle that every article stands on its own except to the degree that material must be included or excluded by policy or guidelines (see the discussion at OTHERSTUFF for some background and links on that principle). That brings us to the WikiProject issue. The CONLIMITED section of the Consensus policy says that WikiProjects cannot set rules for articles: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." The PROJPAGE section of the WikiProject Council guideline fleshes this out:
However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several members of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional {{ essay}}.
None of that is to say that those two sources aren't good sources for reasoning to be used in this discussion, it's just to say that they're not in any sense or to any degree binding on what should happen in this article. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify and make sure we are discussion the same things, it seems we are at an impasse on 3 points:
1) the 300' minimum for inclusion on this page
2) weather a list of canceled skyscrapers should be in this article
3) weather the list of demolished buildings warrants inclusion. (this may hinge on the 300' minimum as the only 2 buildings above that height are already mentioned in the timeline of tallest buildings and noted as demolished)
Marketdiamond, could you please clarify your position on the first of these. Do you think that 300' is an inappropriate cut off height? If so, what height do you suggest? I just can't seem to find an if you have stated an alternative to, or just an opposition to, the height currently in the article.--
Found5dollar (
talk) 20:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Since you agree with the 300'limit I have removed structures under that mark. enumerating our diferences is a way to try to understand each other and figure out a way beyond the impasse we have. Now since there are only 2 buildings in the "Tallest Destroyed" section and they are already listed in other sections as being destroyed, do you agree this information is redundant?-- Found5dollar ( talk) 15:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion to try to reach a compromise is to write in the header something along the lines of "Pittsburgh had two buildings over 300' demolished, the First National Bank Building, and the Farmers Bank Building Building." and remove the "Tallest destroyed" section.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 01:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I missed your request for comment on my talk page, Found5dollar - I haven't been active on Wikipedia over the past year. But to chime in - I definitely agree that the "Canceled Skyscrapers" section should be removed. I figured that I'd post it here for discussion first before actually removing the information given that the conversation above took place several months ago. There is no precedent for a "Canceled Skyscrapers" in any other tallest building lists, but most importantly the section should be removed because it is unencyclopedic and fails several WP:FL standards. For one, the buildings listed are not notable (none of them have articles), and there is no height information for any of the 6 structures (and a building's height is what warrants its inclusion). In addition, most of the information listed - square footage and building cost, for example - is well beyond the scope of the list. Finally, the formatting is inconsistent with the rest of the list and the references are all improperly formatted. Buildings that were canceled in the 80s and early 90s are unencyclopedic - they are appropriate for a database like Emporis, but not a comprehensive listing of current and future Pittsbirgh skyscrapers.
I do, however, think that the "Tallest destroyed" list merits inclusion; the buildings meet the height cutoff, and there is precedent for a "Tallest destroyed" section being in articles (see List of tallest buildings in New York City). Cheers, Rai• me 14:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
To save time for myself, I won't go into any detail just yet, I know this was a fairly substantial revision, so please feel free to place any questions or requests for further improvement below. (please ping on reply)
𝒬 𝔔 23:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Please allow a few days for replies, I can usually respond within the week, thank you.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on July 20, 2020. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[1] Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 18:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I have removed or integrated the sections "Canceled skyscrapers" and "Demolished buildings" as they are not sections found on "List of tallest buildings in x city" pages. All of the featured list of this style are found at [ [2]] and none of them have said sections. I have kept the layout inline with the most liberal of the FL's, List of tallest buildings in Boston where under construction and proposed structures are still listed. Early in this entry it is stated that for the purposes of this list the cut off is 300'. Buildings under that height are not notable enough for this list. I picked 20 stories for ones that don't yet have a height enumerated, since that seems to be the cut off in the main list of tallest buildings. To keep this as a featured list we need to rigorously defend the structure of the page and only include items that fit the description. -- Found5dollar ( talk) 16:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I saw this listed at 3O and want to throw something into the discussion mix without actually giving a 3O. I've left it listed at 3O in case someone else cares to do so. The arguments based upon what other articles do and what some WikiProject says are not controlling. As to the "other articles" argument, it is a well-established wiki-principle that every article stands on its own except to the degree that material must be included or excluded by policy or guidelines (see the discussion at OTHERSTUFF for some background and links on that principle). That brings us to the WikiProject issue. The CONLIMITED section of the Consensus policy says that WikiProjects cannot set rules for articles: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." The PROJPAGE section of the WikiProject Council guideline fleshes this out:
However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several members of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional {{ essay}}.
None of that is to say that those two sources aren't good sources for reasoning to be used in this discussion, it's just to say that they're not in any sense or to any degree binding on what should happen in this article. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify and make sure we are discussion the same things, it seems we are at an impasse on 3 points:
1) the 300' minimum for inclusion on this page
2) weather a list of canceled skyscrapers should be in this article
3) weather the list of demolished buildings warrants inclusion. (this may hinge on the 300' minimum as the only 2 buildings above that height are already mentioned in the timeline of tallest buildings and noted as demolished)
Marketdiamond, could you please clarify your position on the first of these. Do you think that 300' is an inappropriate cut off height? If so, what height do you suggest? I just can't seem to find an if you have stated an alternative to, or just an opposition to, the height currently in the article.--
Found5dollar (
talk) 20:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Since you agree with the 300'limit I have removed structures under that mark. enumerating our diferences is a way to try to understand each other and figure out a way beyond the impasse we have. Now since there are only 2 buildings in the "Tallest Destroyed" section and they are already listed in other sections as being destroyed, do you agree this information is redundant?-- Found5dollar ( talk) 15:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion to try to reach a compromise is to write in the header something along the lines of "Pittsburgh had two buildings over 300' demolished, the First National Bank Building, and the Farmers Bank Building Building." and remove the "Tallest destroyed" section.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 01:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I missed your request for comment on my talk page, Found5dollar - I haven't been active on Wikipedia over the past year. But to chime in - I definitely agree that the "Canceled Skyscrapers" section should be removed. I figured that I'd post it here for discussion first before actually removing the information given that the conversation above took place several months ago. There is no precedent for a "Canceled Skyscrapers" in any other tallest building lists, but most importantly the section should be removed because it is unencyclopedic and fails several WP:FL standards. For one, the buildings listed are not notable (none of them have articles), and there is no height information for any of the 6 structures (and a building's height is what warrants its inclusion). In addition, most of the information listed - square footage and building cost, for example - is well beyond the scope of the list. Finally, the formatting is inconsistent with the rest of the list and the references are all improperly formatted. Buildings that were canceled in the 80s and early 90s are unencyclopedic - they are appropriate for a database like Emporis, but not a comprehensive listing of current and future Pittsbirgh skyscrapers.
I do, however, think that the "Tallest destroyed" list merits inclusion; the buildings meet the height cutoff, and there is precedent for a "Tallest destroyed" section being in articles (see List of tallest buildings in New York City). Cheers, Rai• me 14:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
To save time for myself, I won't go into any detail just yet, I know this was a fairly substantial revision, so please feel free to place any questions or requests for further improvement below. (please ping on reply)
𝒬 𝔔 23:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Please allow a few days for replies, I can usually respond within the week, thank you.