User talk:Raime/Archive 4

Building list collaboration/Barnstar
After looking at your recent contributions to building lists, I decided it was time to end the unsynchronised nature of our work by collaborating our efforts in improving building lists. But first, I will like to award you a....

That said, I think now would be great time to take a moment to smooth out places where we have different editing/contribution styles. More importantly, I would also like to better organize our contributions (e.g. what lists to improve/expand, what should be included, etc). For now, I just want to get things sorted out before we continue on with the lists. However, please note that I will be taking a short weekend wikibreak after a month heavy editing, but I will get back to editing lists probably by Monday. Happy contributing. =) Hydrogen Iodide 07:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * After surfing through skyscraperpage.com, I decided to say these things before I head off.

First, I have identified the following cities that need a wiki building list:

In addition, even though it might be redundant, I think there should be a separate list for Dallas and Houston skyscrapers. As for the current lists, the NYC Building list really needs expansion and clean up. For a city that has the most buildings in the Western Hemisphere, the list is weak-start class at best. The intro is very brief, there are no pictures of the skyline/buildings (!) and the second table (Approved/Proposed/Under Construction) is a mess, much like the Miami list before I cleaned it up. I think we should round up and finish "listing" the mid-to-large-skyline cities in USA before we go international (i.e. returning the Paris List back to FL-status). BTW, I finished major initial construction on this new List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque created by another Wikipedian. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide 03:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I think some bot or user messed up the unit conversion template Unit m for the Dubai list and there are a lot of bule links there instead of numbers. I've tried fixing it, but I didn't succeed. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck on the Las Vegas list tomorrow! However, I think that list might contain a lot of redlinks, so message me if you need me. I can create hordes of new articles in a short amount of time (Evidence). BTW, they are not all building/list of buildings articles. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide 05:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have split the SF list apart. However, what should we do with the List of tallest buildings in San Francisco and the greater Bay Area page? Tag delete? Hydrogen Iodide 05:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you delete the page, then the entire edit history will be lost. I'd say redirect it to the San Francisco page, a sthat is likely by far the primary usage over the Oakland list. Raime 05:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets create lists for every USA city listed on the Polish Wiki, click here. And BTW, the Dallas list seems to be broken. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

List standards
I decided to cut short my Wikibreak such that I could develop a list standard with you and smooth out our contributing differences (Nevermind my prior comment). This may save us a lot of work later on.

Alright: I agree that every list look like (using a 400 feet standard example)....

This list of tallest buildings in ABC ranks skyscrapers in the city of ABC, 123 state by height. The tallest building in the city is currently the XYZ Building, which rises 1000 ft in ABC's Financial District (if known). Blah blah ...........

Tallest buildings
This lists ranks ABC skyscrapers that stand at least 400 feet (122 meters) tall, based on standard height measurement. This includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts. Existing structures are included for ranking purposes based on present height. This list includes under construction buildings that have already been topped out.

Under construction
This lists buildings that are under construction in ABC and are planned to rise at least 400 feet (122 meters). Under construction buildings that have already been topped out are also included.

Approved
This lists buildings that are approved in ABC and are planned to rise at least 400 feet (122 meters).

Proposed
This lists buildings that are proposed in ABC and are planned to rise at least 400 feet (122 meters).

Canceled
This lists buildings that have been canceled in ABC and were planned to rise at least 400 feet (122 meters).

Reference
(Emporis.com, SkyscraperPage.com)
 * General
 * Specific

{again, Emporis.com, etc.)

(City buildings template) (US building lists)

Discussion
So, what do you think? And also, I did some prep work on the Las Vegas list to make up for my abscence later today and tomorrow. '''Please reply here for these comments. Cheers!''' Hydrogen Iodide 17:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey HI. I can't talk much now, as I am leaving in a few minutes, but I'll respond to everything throroughly tonight. I've been working on the LV building list for a few hours, hopefully will be done by toinight. And thanks for the prep work! It made it a whole lot easier. Do you think we can get LV, Miami, and SF nominated at WP:FLC by sometime next week? That would be great, but all 3 lists still need some work. Anyway, the only prblem I have is that some of the column titles seem very lengthy, and look cramped next to lengthy Notes sections. Perhaps Year (est.) , Floors (est.) , etc. would work better? Wouldn't Rank and Name also be less redundant than Height Rank and Building Name? And I think Notes as a heading is fine; as Notes and references are often coinsidered one in the same, Notes/References seems redundant. I really like the "Cancelled" section; I'll add one to the Boston and Providence FLs as soon as possibe. One last thing; I think wes hould separate the buildings into three distinct headings, not five sub-headings; "Tallest buildings" as one, "Tallest under construction, proposed, and approved" as another (with 3 sub-headings where appropriate, and 0 if there are not enough new buildings to split into three different categories), and "Cancelled projects" as a third. For smaller cities with fewer buildings (i.e. Providence, Oakland, etc.), I don't think we should instate a 400 ft height limit - that only seems appropriate for the large cities, such as Miami, LV, SF. Also, due to an overwhelming number of buildings, I think 500 ft is appropriate for NYC and Chicago. Ok, I'll be on in a few hours to clarify anything, finish the LV list, and talk more. Great job with all this work! Thanks, Raime 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I have started a page pertaining to how a building list should be made. Feel free to change it if you want. Also, I want to move and merge our comments (located here and on my usertalk page) into the discussion page User talk:Hydrogen Iodide/Building lists. In addition, after doing some prep work on the LV list, it doesn't look like we will have to create a lot of articles, since many of the buildings are located in large complexes or centers (e.g. Project CityCenter). Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide 22:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me start off by saying WOW. :)


 * Now, here are my more detailed comments. First, I think there should be a break between Year and (est.), to prevent oversizing of columns. I think (proj.) is more appropriate than (est.) for Floors and Height, as "estimate" is a little far-fetched, considering those are the amounts that have been specified by the developer and, in some cases, approved by the city, and are not nearly as likely to change as Year. Personally, IMO I don't think any extra note is necessary. There also should discussion about how the city skyline is shaped (location of highrises), and how that skyline impacts the city's character seems a little too opinion-based to include as a requirement for a lead. Mostly just info about tallest buildings, the largest new developments, and skyline rankings if applicable should be included. I think vision should be completely excluded, as this category is far too broad for a list that is specifically meant to indicate tallest buildings. On Hold should be included with proposed, not Cancelled, as they are still officially in the proposal stage. For the USA list, it should be included that the template   needs to be updated and included ofr every US list. Also, it should be stated that a template that lists all city skyscrapers mentioned in the list is preferred for inclusion/creation. Also, if the city contains several buildings over 500 feet, then    should be included. The fact that feet should be placed in front of meters for US buildings lists should be explicitly stated. Also, I would suggest using the FEET / METERS method insstead of the FEET (METERS) method, as it looks neater IMO. Also, ft and m should not be included in each entry, as this is redundant when the format is already explicitly stated in the column title. I think (the lower limit of a skyscraper) needs to be removed, as this is just an opinion. I also think better guidelines should be given for the use of 115 ft, 400 ft, and 500 ft limits. (i.e., less than 10 buildings over 400 ft, use 115 ft as cutoff). 115 also seems a little low to me - the Emporis definition isn't necessarily the actual definition, and that limit includes a lot of buildings. Perhaps 150 ft? If the city contains several skyscrapers that once held city records, I think it should be added that a Timeline of tallest buildings is a recommended section to include. Sorry that I'm being so nit-picky! :)


 * My strongest opinion is that Rank should not be included in proposed / approved / UC / Cancelled lists. This is very confusing to readers - does it mean future rank when completed? This is not at all necessary to include in these sections.


 * Overall, I am amazed. Your work on this has been fantastic! Great job, and thanks for all of your effort. Also, on another good note, List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia reached FL-status today, bringing the total count up to 4 Faetured tallest building lists! Raime 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey there! Nice work on the Las Vegas list. However, I have to dig a huge hole for gardening work and I will be unavailable for much of this week. Keep up the good work and just notify me on my talkpage if you start any new lists. Thanks. Cheers Hydrogen Iodide 06:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ARCH question
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - The answer is of course, please just add them to WikiProject Architecture/FAC. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Building Lists
Hey Raime, I was wondering if you would be interested in starting (co-founding) a new WikiProject focusing on improving and creating building lists. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, my college/gardening work has cooled down and I am not busy for the next week. I think it would be best to concentrate on the building lists first before starting the new WikiProjects. Winter break in December would be the best time to start the two projects. I believe three months is long enough rack up some support for the two WikiProjects. Anyway, it's time to resume work! Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide 03:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. Just let me know when you're ready. Did you already formally propose the two WikiProjects, or do you want to hold off on that for awhile as well? Raime 03:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears Tbo 157 has started a temporary page for WikiProject Engineering. I haven't formally proposed WikiProject Skyscrapers yet, but I think it would be beneficial to look around Wikipedia to rally up support. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide 16:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the Engineering project has already started, do you think it might be a good idea to go ahead and start the skyscraper project? It would only be a proposal, but we can use the time to gather members, create a page, etc. I think it would make more sense to this before we work on the building lists, so we can have a page to concentrate all of our efforts on. On a completely different note, great new sig! Hope you don't mind that I copied your idea and customized my own :) Rai - me  02:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Raime
Thanks for adding your concerns to the Jack Adams FLC. I've been on a WikiBreak, and I'll try to fix everything within the next few days. Sorry for the delay.  Maxim (talk)  23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem. These trophy lists are all great, just some need a little tweaking, and I am happy to help them reach FL-status. Great job with all of your work on these lists; I can't wait to see it as a Featured topic. Rai - me  21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All done. Can you do me a favor by looking at the King Clancy Memorial Trophy; it's another FLC authored by me, but it hasn't really been reviewed, and I'm having some trouble communicating with User:Ludahai over the FLC... Take a look, do what you want, you don't have to review it. :-P  Maxim (talk)  22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My priorities for tomorrow (it's still Thursday for me :) ) will be to review your article and to carry out the necessary fixes. This is most likely my last edit for Thursday, as I've learned through experience that if I contribute late in the evening, my decision making is impaired, which has made me loose my cool, act uncivilly, etc. Cheers!  Maxim (talk)  01:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of skyscrapers and structures (completed, under construction, approved, proposed, canceled, ...)
I have noticed several stub-articles like The Orion (which is a NYC residential skyscraper), have been PRODDED and deleted by admins because of notability reasons. I think we may run into this problem when we create a lot of stub articles about future and current skyscrapers. I've had a speedy-delete tag placed on a stub-building article before for notability reasons (later overturned and kept). I believe a way to address this issue is to post a message on Wikipedia talk:Notability and have other editors/admins share their thoughts on this matter. If a consensus is reached, I guess it would be advisable to start a guideline page titled: Notability (Buildings and structures). Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 18:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's time to address this issue. I've seen canceled supertall skyscraper articles with references deleted, while a one-line unreferenced supertall skyscraper stub was kept. Any thoughts? Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 04:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am writing a post on the notability talk page and I will be done in a few minutes. Please share your thoughts there. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 04:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, click here to go to the discussion. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 04:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I think we will really run into this problem when we create articles for buildings listed on List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque and I don't think we should remove the short 115 - 200 foot highrise buildings there. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 02:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One note, I don't think notability will be a problem for short buildings (which were San Francisco's tallest buildings a 100 years ago) listed under the Timeline of tallest buildings section of the SF list. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Brickell Station.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Brickell Station.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 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 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 05:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:WTC 5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WTC 5.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 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 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 05:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GA/R re-review?
Since your initial GA/R of Bringin' on the Heartbreak, significant strides have been made in the article, and as the original nominator, I believe the article is now up to GA standards. So, I'd appreciate it if you could re-review the article real quick and change your vote if you feel it's up to par. Thanks! Drewcifer 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Bellevue and other stuff
Hey there, it would be appropriate to split apart the tallest U/C, approved and proposed buildings in Bellevue since the city does have 15 U/C buildings, 9 proposed, and 5 approved even though the city is not too big (evidence). Combining the three subsections will result in a mess, I think. Anyway, great job on the FL-status of the Miami List! Although I cleaned up the Miami list a while ago, I think you deserve most of the credit for bringing the list to FL-status. BTW, I think it would be reasonable to put the SF list to FL-review by next week. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake. The city has much more buildings than I had expected. I'll split it. I am a little wary of listing some of Emporis' bildings, however. Buildings without heights generally should not be included in a list that ranks by height and has a height minimum. And I was thinking we probably should raise the height limit to about 150 ft; 115 is very low, and Emporis' definition of a high-rise is not necessarily what we should use.


 * As for the San Francisco list, that sounds great. I'm going to work on some last minute lead work and note trimming, But other than that I think it is almost ready. And thank you about the Miami list! You deserve plenty of credit for it as well; it looked great before I even started on it. Rai - me  23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have removed any building or project under 150 feet in the Bellevue list, since the city contains a significant amount of buildings and projects taller than 250 feet (over 20). However, I don't think we should go with the 150 feet standard for the Albuquerque list since the city only contains about four buildings and projects taller than 250 feet. So, what do you think? Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 04:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, great work there on the list and on the new Treasure Island article. Perhaps we could also clean up San Francisco Transbay development also? Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 04:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like the San Francisco Transbay development is not as easy to find references for. This is because a lot of information in that article is based on sfcityscape.com, which has now become a shadow of its former self. They had a comprehensive SF building rundown list and a highrise building section before Jan 2007, when they changed the site to a forum and kept the U/C, approved, and proposed list. Now it's all gone (this is why the SF building list had a forum reference). I'd say if something is not verifiable in the Transbay development, just remove it. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 17:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have finished clean up of the Transbay development article and doing referencing work. I guess the next stop (article): One Rincon Hill. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 04:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have a question for you. Do you think this section is a bit unencyclopedic? Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 19:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, One Rincon Hill is done. Looking around the building lists, it appears the Oakland list is the next list we could improve to FL-status in the least amount of time. Shall we go for it? (I start college this Friday). Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What cities to include in the US tallest lists template
After doing some research on Emporis, it appears both the Fort Collins, CO and Laredo, TX lists should not be included in the template. Both cities have only a minuscule number of highrises over 12 stories, which translates into a very short (and maybe pointless) building list. In addition, the Hartford list was KO'ed recently because it was a copyright of Emporis and so I removed it from the template. Besides that, it seems like you can ask User:Loodog to help support the Skyscraper WikiProject, since he seems to be a major contributor to skyscraper-related content, such as the FL-Providence buildings list.

Anyway, as you noticed, I have been too busy with college (crazy stuff such as ʃʃʃρ²sin(Φ)dρdΦdθ, wave equation, matrices, coordination numbers and $$\frac{ \partial y}{\partial x}$$ (ugh)) to really contribute much. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * After thinking about the Hartford list, I think it would be appropriate to request deletion review, since I think the list just needed some clean up, not deletion. What do you think? Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Brief reply: I think 555 California Street is a better and correct name for the building, so go ahead with the move. As for the San Francisco list, well, I think the reason why the list didn't get many support votes is that the SF list had one or more redlinks in most of the subsections. I think the Miami, Boston, Philly list got FL-status because all the links were blue (at FL-nomination time). If we are going to create articles for the redlinked-buildings and projects, we are going to run into notability problems, in spite of the discussion at WP:Notability. Just look at the Miami list now, there's a (red)-link to a deleted article due to notability reasons: 1490 Biscayne Boulevard. Perhaps we should leave a note on the talk page of these 'non-notable' saying that the article is there because it's a requirement for FL. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 20:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Solution to PRODing: Well, it appears to me if we add an infobox and in-line citations + ==References== + reflist to a future building article that might be enough to stop other editors from PRODing those articles. I guess this is partly implied by the statement: Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. which appears when anyone creates a new article. We should stop labeling the External links section as external links if the links they contain are references to an article. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide  (HI!) 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Question
Should we include completed buildings with floor counts, but no heights under the tallest buildings section? Or should we omit them altogether. I am undecided on this matter. Cheers. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Center of India Tower
Looking over the Center of India Tower edit history, it was you who edited the article in saying it was simply a vision, based on "new information." This "information" was not properly added and cited as per Verifiability standards. Given your experience, I'm guessing this was just a slip-up. If you still have this information (I know it's about a year since, but still), please add and cite it into the article. Otherwise, I will revert the edits to "proposed," since I haven't been able to find other information to suggest otherwise. Brokenwit 06:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your post. I did mean to reference Emporis and SkyscraperPage when I made that edit, but I obviously failed to do so. My mistake. Well, I've referenced it now, so hopefully everything is all set. But, as far as I can tell, it seems to me that reverting this to proposed would also be in violation of WP:V. The references given are several years old, and on one this particular tower has been removed from the list of proposed buildings. From what I have seen, this project has been inactive for several years now, so dubbing it "proposed" with no longer reliable references would also be inappropriate. But anyway, thanks again. Cheers! Rai - me  21:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Keep up the good work, fellow Rhode Islander. ;) Brokenwit 07:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too :) Rai - me  01:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)