User talk:Raime/Archive 5

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)

Backlog at WP:GAR
I have noticed that you are a frequent reviewer at that Good Articles project. good article reassessment is experiencing a considerable backlog problem. There are several articles dating from August that still have not generated enough discussion to close. Could you please take a look at the oldest articles and make some fresh comments on them? Please note that some of these have undergone signigicant changes since they first came to GA/R; please judge the article only on its merits as of its current version. If you reviewed an earlier version of any of these articles, please also consider re-reading them and either revise or endorse any earluer comments you have made. Thanks for your help with this! --Jayron32| talk | contribs 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tallest in Dallas
I love what you are doing to the Dallas tallest structures page. However there is one inaccuracy. The Southside on Lamar has never been a tallest building. Prior to the Adolphus, the Praetorin Tower, built in 1909 was the tallest. Also, after Republic I, the Adams Mark Center Tower was the tallest, followed by Republic II, followed by Elm Place. FoUTASportscaster 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This link comes from a local architect. http://www.dallasarchitecture.info/tall.htm, It is listed at 190 feet and built on 1909. As for spires, I generally like the idea of counting building to the tip, but since the world doesn't do this (hence the Sears Tower isn't the tallest) I generally follow that trend. I do like what you have done to the page and will let you do it, since it has vastly improved and looks fantastic.FoUTASportscaster 02:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal
You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham City F.C. seasons
Hi, you moved Birmingham City F.C. seasons to the featured list backlog, either because you thought it hadn't received 4 supports or because there were objections being dealt with. If you have another look at it (Featured list candidates/Birmingham City F.C. seasons) you'll see that there aren't any objections outstanding, and there are three indications of support, from users User:PeeJay2K3, User:Woodym555 and User:The Rambling Man, which added to my nomination makes the four required for promotion. cheers, Struway2 | Talk 22:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me. I moved the list to the backlog as it has been a candidate for over 10 days, and has not yet been promoted or failed. I now see that it has 4 supports, and am surprised it has not already been promoted by another editor. Anyways, I'll promote now, as there is clear consensus. Sorry for the mix-up. Cheers, Rai - me  23:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Electra I Miami.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Electra I Miami.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...
Sorry if I have made you a little disappointed. I put the word "other" because I thought that the word would "shield itself" from the minimum height capacity of "122 meters". All I wanted to do was post more smaller buildings, so that others who are looking at the article might think of Dallas in a hopefully better perspective. Like I said, sorry if I made you disappointed, but I did it for the sake of positive remarks about the city and it's suprising new developements. I wish that someone would at least tone the minimum height a bit down, so it could be easier to post the smaller high-rises without any restrictions, but that is unlikely to happen.

Dallasite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallasite12 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:100 Clarendon Street.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:100 Clarendon Street.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 13:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:80 South Street 3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:80 South Street 3.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 08:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:80 South Street 3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:80 South Street 3.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 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)