This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WikiProject Skyscrapers and building lists

As you might have noticed, a member of our project has gone out and created articles for just about everything listed on List of tallest buildings in Dubai. However, he seems to be running intro trouble with an admin and the deletion team, as evidenced by the Afd posts on the Skyscraper Project talk page. What should we do? Talk to him about notability? I notified him about the Afd discussion for the Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai) article but he did nothing in response. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 05:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be several lists out there that can be nominated for FL now. Should we do it (even if there are redlinks)? Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 23:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am still opposed to expanding down to 500 feet. With this issue we've been having with notability, we are guaranteed to have redlinks in the list of we go down to 500 feet and this might make promoting the NYC list to Fl-status a bit hard. One thing is for certain, a list with nearly 200 entries will be a high-maintainance list (especially during updating and addition of new projects). Adding one entry (such as a new 1,200 foot highrise) will mean that we will have to adjust the ranks of at least a 180 entries. I'd say, we go down to 180 m at most. Unless we have a dedicated task force to maintain these lists, I'm opposed to expanding. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 07:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Once again, the height of Crown Las Vegas has changed. It is now at 1,064 ft (324 m), which has been approved by the Clark County Planning Commission. Floor count is pending. ( Click here). Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} - _{Trance addict} 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

LIST UPDATE: Apparently OneTen was canceled and so I have removed the OneTen image in the Providence list, but let me know if you disagree. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am finally done with final examinations. Did anything important happen while I wasn't here? Cheers. _{Trance addict} 19:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dubai building list passed Fl-review, so here's a barnstar and high five....

		The Original Barnstar
		For great work on the Dubai list!

Cheers. _{Trance addict} 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As noted here, there are several articles up for Afd discussion. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the street address should be moved into the infobox of the corresponding article. I haven't expanded down to 500 feet yet for the completed skyscrapers. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 00:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm largely done with the tallest buildings section, so I will be working on the tallest U/C, approved, proposed section. You can work on the intro or basically the first half of the list while I add entries and references to the second half. From now on, I think it would be a good idea to explicitly state which section we are working on and that will avoid any edit conflicts. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 01:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say delete the list of tallest buildings in suburbs section. The highrises listed there are not concentrated in one city, as in the New York-Jersey City list. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment: A realistic goal right now is to get all building lists about the big three skylines of the world, that is NYC, Chicago, and Hong Kong, into (at least) Fl-review by the end of the year. How does that sound? Cheers. _{Trance addict} 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you try a Google search for the entries in the timeline section that don't have references? Cheers. _{Trance addict} 20:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Building lists

Just thought I'd move this here... Rai- me 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

LOTD under way

Thanks for submitting a list to WP:LOTD. January nominations are closed and February nominations are open. The January nominee commenting has begun. Feel free to participate in the commentary.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 16:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

List requests

When are you going to make a list for St. Louis? That is the only major city I have lived in that you have not done yet. Also, do you have any interest in taking the Chicago list to WP:FLC?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:LOTD) 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Raime, I want to congratulate you on your great work on the Detroit list. It is evident that your tireless work is worth all the energy. Good job!! -- Leitmanp ( talk | contributions) 05:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Great job as well! Note, in about six days, I will be done with college for this year, so maybe it should be time to mass-create-upgrade-nominate building lists for FL-status. There are at least three lists out there that won't take too much work (Dubai, HK, New York, etc.) to bring it to FL, so on 12/14/07, let's put some finishing touches on those lists and nominate. Cheers. _HI - _{Trance addict} 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydrogen Iodide ( talk • contribs)

For Dubai and NYC, I think the cutoff should be at 180 m or 592 feet. For the Dubai List, any project/building that doesn't have a height listed should not be included, due to the massive Manhattanization wave there. Cheers. _{Trance addict} 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was thinking that the list was getting a little too long. Having a cutoff would be a good idea. The only thing that I would say against the cutoff is that we have already put so much energy into the buildings shorter than 180m (i.e. Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai)). It would feel like a waste of time and energy. Is it possible we can create a List of tallest buildings in Dubai Part 2? -- Leitmanp ( talk | contributions) 21:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Raime, your proposal is a great idea. This is the best way to keep the articles, but still not have them on the list. Good thinking. -- Leitmanp ( talk | contributions) 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazing Work

Raime, wow! You really worked hard on the Dubai list. I cannot express all my appreciation for this. Thank you for your great effort (and time). -- Leitmanp ( talk | contributions) 19:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is just one thing that I think should be changed. I noticed you wrote that the Burj Al Alam is on-hold. Can you provide a source for this. I did a search, but cannot find any information about it being on hold; except for this. While the title says "ON HOLD," the discussion and pictures show that it is not on-hold. -- Leitmanp ( talk | contributions) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

You are the nominator of a WP:FL that was promoted in the last month. I am inviting you to participate in nominations and voting in a List of the Day experiment I am conducting at WP:LOTD.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The current state of WP:LOTD is puzzling me. No one who has nominated an article has voted. If I had made voting mandatory by nominators, would you have still nominated your articles?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for voting. I hope the effort was worth it to you. I kind of enjoyed looking through all the lists.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Port image

Raime, the image was taken as the ship was entering Port Rashid. I have gone ahead and changed the caption myself. If you feel that it needs rewording, or some change, please feel free to change it yourself. Leitmanp ( talk | contributions) 05:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Rose Tower‎ ... per row limit on galleries

<gallery caption="The building" perrow="3"> I did not know that Gallery took those attributes. Awesome, thanks very much for improving my change which was just a quick hack to fix the pics bleeding into the info box. Learn something every day, you can, if you follow around your own edits to see how people improve them. Happy editing and thanks! ++ Lar: t/ c 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the Dubai building articles contain oversized image galleries. Perhaps we should create a subpage to host the pictures, like what I did here, which houses about 265 pictures. For stub articles, I think there should be a four image limit and eight for medium articles and maybe up to 16 for long articles with text. What do you think? Cheers. _{Trance addict} 06:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Most of the articles that have all the images are my fault. I get too carried away and put all the images there. I do not know if it because I like to see the progress of construction or that I love Dubai too much. I would be glad to help organize/remove them. Leitmanp ( talk | contributions) 06:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your expertise needed

Raime, I am not sure if you watch the list of tallest buildings and structures in the world, but I will notify you anyway. Recently, a user added two "things" to the list (a launch loop and a space elevator). It was removed and added several times before a discussion about them began on the talk page. The debate seems to be going nowhere. After working with you for a while, I have realized that you are very well educated in the skyscrapers/tall buildings field. I would like you to have a look at the ongoing discussion and comment on what you feel is the correct way to deal with such structures. Thank you very much. Leitmanp ( talk | contributions) 06:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

LOTD congratulations

Congratulations!!! List of tallest buildings in Miami has been chosen in the inaugural class of January 2008 LOTDs. I hope you will continue to participate in the WP:LOTD process. If you have a date preference get back to me by the end of 2007-12-23 UTC.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 06:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply and comments

First, thank you for the barnstar. And welcome back from your absence. As for the image situation, I have removed many images from the Dubai pages after first providing a link to their respective Commons pages. If you see any articles that you feel need more trimming down, just let me know.

And yes, I have thought about a WikiProject Dubai. The problem is I do not know where to start and I think it would take too much effort and time to put together and then maintain. But if you feel like helping me, I would be so grateful.

On another note, I noticed you have begun major works on the Houston and Chicago lists. I put my name on the Featured Topic Drive, but feel that I cannot contribute. When I worked on the Dubai list it was so much work, especially the references. I would like to help but I am not as experienced as you and Hydrogen Iodide are. I have noticed how much work you both do in such a short amount of time. I know I cannot achieve that level of expertise any time soon in order to help you out, but I would like to do something. Just let me know how I can help.

Thank you. Leitmanp ( talk | contributions) 05:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:200 Greenwich Street (WTC 2).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:200 Greenwich Street (WTC 2).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry

You deleted my contribution to tallest structures where I had added Milad tower. A clear reason would be appreciated. And another question as why there are three different listings for taipei 101, as the same triple measurement can be used for any other building and it would only clutter the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.65 ( talk) 05:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

South Station tower

Greetings, Raime, and thank you for providing up-to-date information on the South Station tower (and the other pending Boston projects). I had been watching for signs of construction at South Station as 2007 draws to a close, and now know for certain that groundbreaking has been postponed. You may want to take a look at the reference section, as there seems to be a formatting problem (not something I know how to fix). Please feel free to delete this message after reading it. Very best wishes. Hertz1888 ( talk) 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply - and all the hard work you do. I expect to be at South Station tomorrow, and will take another close look just to keep us honest. It may be "original research", but I don't care. I think you are safe in your assumptions. Hertz1888 ( talk) 02:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Chicago

Go Raime Go!!!!-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 16:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Liberty Towers

A tag has been placed on Liberty Towers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zginder ^{( talk) ( Contrib)} 02:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

UK names of skyscrapers

I believe you have acted inappropriately in the moving of the article names regarding 201 Bishopsgate, 110 bishopsgate, 25-33 canada square, 301/3 deansgate, and 1 Blackfriars. Some of these pages didn't even have discussions on them such as 110 bishopsgate, 1 Blackfriars and 301/3 Deansgate. The discussions need to be closed and reviewed by and admin as this is not a democracy the strength of each argument must be weighed up equally. Also please see the PROPOSED changes to the naming convention at UK Skyscraper names. It also appears you have not read some of the discussions on some of the pages. This is because at 25-33 Canada Square evidence has been provided stating the official names of the two buildings, being 25 Canada Square and 33 Canada Square, not Citigroup Centre. I also fear that America-centrism has been applied to you arguments. This is not something I believe malicious but should be avoided as we are not on about the ridiculously commercialised american business world, we are talking about buildings in the UK business world where commercialisation is not as big. I make this claim as your most recent edits appear to be on buildings in San Francisco, Tulsa, Miami, New Orleans etc. -- Lucy-marie ( talk) 13:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Lucy-marie, and thank you for contacting me. But, I would like to point out that it was you who moved each of the pages without any discussion to begin with, and moved pages against WP:NC. I simply "reverted" your undiscussed moves. Your proposal at User talk:Andrewa/systematic names is just that: a proposal. No action should have been taken by you until you had discussed on the talk pages to make sure that there was consensus to move the pages, which is clearly not the case from subsequent discussion. Next time, before undertaking drastic moves, please start discussions on the talk page. And please do not proceed to claim that my following of official Wikipedia policy per WP:NC is "American-centrism". What evidence do you have to support this besides the fact that I edit American articles? There is no different between "common names" of buildings in the U.S. and the U.K., and this has nothing to do with "commercialisation", as we are talking about common and not official names. I agree that the discussion on the Citigroup Centre page may have merit, but you need to discuss a move before, not after, you go through with it (If it were to move, it should be to 25 Canada Square, the actual address). I suggest you request a move now or in the future for this page, now that the page has moved back to its original name. Cheers, Rai- me 14:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you arguments are plain wrong, you are saying I should have initiated an move request maybe I should have, but i didn't. Discussion were on gong over the name of the articles and you ignored the discussions, by moving the articles. I say I was acting under WP:Bold, I have to claim though that you acted to make a point which is a violation of WP:POINT. The discussion had been initiated and were still open, Why didn't you wait until they had closed or call in some one independent to close the discussions.

I have made my comment regarding Amrecia-centrism, based on the lists you have recently worked on. The cultures of the US and the UK are worlds apart in some respects and this is one of them. In the UK naming buildings is done but people generally don't call it by the is name unless it is a hotel, for example. In the US 90% of buildings seem to be named after a famous person or a company. That is a generalisation I know but in my opinion generally accurate, there will always be exception to this. Why then have some buildings on UK skyscrapers use the postal address such as One Canada Square and others use an ambiguous "common name" or "brand name" such as Citigroup Centre. I believe article names for related subject matter should be standardised, which in this case is skyscrapers in the UK.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 14:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not maybe; you should have. There was clearly no consensus to move all building names to addresses. But oh well, you're right, that is in the past. There was one ongoing discussion (if you can call last edits on the 23 of December "ongoing" ...), at the Citigroup Centre page. I now see the qualms you have about the Citigroup Centre, but I completely agree with other users that moving the page to an address would not be wise. The article is not about one building, or even two; it is about the commercial complex, which should be at the common name of the company (I would personally think that perhaps two separate articles about the buildings in the complex may be warranted - in this case, names of addresses would be appropriate to use). The article clearly discusses the entire center over the separate buildings, and that therefore an address would be inappropriate. And I did not at all violate WP:POINT; I moved back buildings to the original names, for which there was clearly consensus: [1], [2]. And you are wrong about all buildings "needing" individual discussions; several page can be moved at once based on one discussion. It was pretty clear what the consensus was for all UK building based on the discussions at the Tower 42 and Shard London Bridge pages. I am going to AGF and trust that you really felt that you were doing the right think per policy in moving the pages under WP:BOLD, but please discuss radical moves in the future.

I really don't think you can claim I am "American-centric" or biased based on the pages I work on. I live in the U.S., and know more about U.S. buildings, so I do tend to work on them. That does not make me biased, however; see List of tallest buildings in Dubai, on which I recently collaborated with several editors to bring to FL-status, and List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong. I do not appreciate your rude, accusatory comments. Some UK buildings use the address as the name; this is no way means that all buildings need to use it. Many U.S. buildings also use their address. The bottom line is, there is already a naming convention for all akyscrapers - the common name. I think that you are clearly not in the majority in stating that UK article names need to be standardized. Cheers, Rai- me 16:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"... ridiculously commercialised american business world ..." - hmmm. I detect a whiff of bias. TunaSushi ( talk) 18:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

LOTD

Your text is 511 characters. Please cut it to 500 or less.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 22:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.