User talk:Raime/Archive 9

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply, questions, and comment
Changing the "FL" rating to "FA" is okay with me. But I am a little confused with what you wrote on my talk page. Did you mean to say that we should change WP:SKY lists to FA, but keep WP:DUBAI as FL? Sorry, but your wording confused me.

On another topic: The current discussion about establishing a naming guideline for skyscraper articles made me think of The Index (skyscraper). Should I change the name to "The Index (Dubai)," or is it okay with its current name? Also, recently an editor moved Al Burj from the Proposed section to the Under construction section in List of tallest buildings in Dubai. Do you know when a building can be classified as "under construction?" A company arrived at the construction site for piling. Is this considered construction? And last, I disagree with the category you have for Template:User Dubai. I brought up my concerns on its talk page. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would support your proposed changes to the article titles. It is better if everything is consistent instead of having a large spectrum of titles.  But, should we wait for the outcome of the discussion about the naming guidelines?  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, should we propose a new naming conventon for buildings at WP:NC, and wait for the outcome before we rename those articles? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One North LaSalle
There is much debate over which buildings was the tallest in Chicago from 1930 to the mid 60s. If you look at One North LaSalle and its talk page, Pittsfield Building, Chicago Board of Trade Building and a few others referenced at One North LaSalle. As our resident expert on tall buildings, you might be able clarify any problematic contributions I have made to the project trying to clear up this concern with my minimal knowledge of the subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How precise is the scale of those depictions? It is hard to say exactly where  building ranks with confidence without knowing this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For fixing any mistake I made to that template. I am trying a new area of interest. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

south florida metro area
Why did you revert my edit to south florida, and why did you call it vandalism? 66.99.216.2 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So then, you really believe that low/average income people can really live well in the South Florida Metro area? 66.99.216.2 (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Al Burj
I heard this 1 km skyscraper began construction not too long ago. I was about to move the Al Burj entry in the Dubai building list, but I decided to confirm its status with you. Is Al Burj really under construction, or are they still doing soil testing / prep work? Thanks. Cheers. Trance addict 06:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Question
There seems to be some dispute over which city in the world has the most skyscrapers over 500 feet. It appears that if one counts skyscrapers nominally (like Emporis does), Hong Kong has the most with 197 skyscrapers, while New York City has 189 skyscrapers. However, many HK skyscrapers, as you can see here, share a common podium, so a five skyscraper building complex (as in the example) is equivalent to only one freestanding skyscraper. This means NYC comes in with the most freestanding skyscrapers. But how can we verify that all 189 skyscrapers in NYC are all free standing and which measure should we use (free standing skyscraper or just skyscraper) when the building list mentions the number of skyscrapers a city contains? An as a note, I suspect many skyscrapers in Chinese cities share a common podium. Cheers. Trance addict 05:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sortable lists and ?
I think its time to reformat the UK building lists so that they are sortable or rewrite the code that generates the list. Right now when that parameter sortable is added to a UK list, it screws up the entire list whenever one clicks on the sort button. (Copy the code for the list into your sandbox and add sortable to see for yourself.) I remember you mentioned something about this a while ago. Also, do you think we should add a use column to the existing lists? Cheers. Trance addict 03:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester is a FL, should we just 'unlink' all redlinks (or buildings without articles) on the tallest buildings lists. As you can see, the Manchester list passed FL despite the fact many buildings or entries didn't have an article. From the same FL discussion, it appears that the article existence requirement has been cut back a bit. If so, this saves us a lot of work and verbosity at WP:N. It also brings many building lists closer to FL-level. Cheers. Trance addict 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Park Avenue West Tower
I think this project is 515 feet tall, since the Portland list includes spires. 476 feet is only up to the rooftop of the building, but 39 foot spire(s) on top extends the building to 515 feet. Cheers. Trance addict 18:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Skyline rankings
First of all, I think we should just consolidate everything in that user page (currently) into one list mentioning the tallest building in each city that is listed. We should also fix / change the broken SkyscraperPage Diagram links into SkyscraperPage City links. I think the City sections are more reader friendly than the diagrams. Also, as you may have noticed, the skyline article is basically one massive image gallery. Perhaps we could add a picture column and add a picture of each city's skyline in there. We could also include a picture of the tallest building, but I don't think its necessary. This skyline ranking list should be referenced to several sites out there (Emporis, Homepages).

However, I have some comments about the skyline rankings. The same skyline article that is now an image gallery used to have a section ranking skylines using three different criteria: Breath + height, aesthetics, and height alone. Click here to see. However, I think some editors expressed concern that this was POVish and the article was a mess and so they wiped out the best skyline section. We might come across some editors who consider skyline rankings as POV. Second, from the same older version of the skyline article, there are more ways to ranks skylines than just the number of skyscrapers along (breath of skyline). Emporis uses floor counts, but this is misleading in my opinion. Just look at their skyline ranking page and Sao Paulo is like the 6th best skyline even though the city doesn't contain a single building over 200 m! Height alone isn't a good measure, as a city with a few supertall skyscrapers would rank higher than one that had a lot of relatively short (e.g. 180 m) skyscrapers. So I think we should consider breath and height along with aesthetics and give equal weight to each of the three categories.

Thanks anyway for cleaning up the Portland list! Cheers. Trance addict 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For aesthetics, I think we should give some 'points' if a city's skyline is located close to a body of water, mountains, any other interesting topography and misc, like light shows (e.g. A Symphony of Lights).


 * Yea, I guess its very hard to include this factor in. It says on DiSerio's website that this factor is quite subjective.

Some more comments. I think it would be best to do a world skyline ranking instead of just the US. I have a feeling some editors might consider a Best Skylines of China, Best of USA, etc. to be excessive and fragmented. They would probably favor a single skyline ranking list with a country column. In that way, you could still see the skyline rankings of each individual country as well as worldwide. However, we should limit this ranking page to only cities that contain more than 300 completed highrises (Emporis, > 115 feet / 35 m) buildings, 50 completed highrises (Council of Urban Habitat, > 295 feet / 90 m), and 15 skyscrapers (> 492 feet / 150 m, since most of the world uses metric units). Keep in mind that a city needs to exceed only one of these three criteria for listing (just like Emporis's definition of highrise).

Another note. There seems to be a dispute over which city in the world has the best skyline and most skyscrapers / highrises: Hong Kong and New York. Just about every source that I read says Hong Kong has more buildings and skyscrapers than New York and thus (aesthetics plays a role here) Hong Kong has a better skyline than NYC. Emporis really exaggerates this difference by making New York rank a distant second to Hong Kong (over 122,000 points compared to about 37,000 for NYC). The same goes for highrises, HK has about 2,000 more buildings than New York. As for the number of skyscrapers, NY is said to have more freestanding skyscrapers, but I don't think that is a good way to count skyscrapers. I've only seen one website that counts skyscrapers like that. However, there are some forumers in Wired New York that consider New York to be better. There's even some bashing of HK's skyline as well, which isn't very convincing that New York is better (bad pathos); so I suspect there may be edit wars over the ranking of NY and HK. Cheers. Trance addict 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I redid the skyline ranking page. Basically, I replaced the tallest building column with an image column and added two building counts to the list (highrises over 115 feet and 295 feet). Since we have three categories to judge skylines, I propose that we rank these skylines based on the sum of all three figures under a separate 'points column'. For example, take Miami with 36 skyscrapers > 500 ft, 115 highrises > 295 ft, and 255 buildings > 115 feet; the number of points Miami gets is 36 + 115 + 255 = 406. What do you think? Cheers. Trance addict 00:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

HQ Power system
Anyway, do you mind if you could do a review on Hydro-Québec's electricity transmission system. Are there any major issues with the article? As you can see, I haven't received much in the way in feedback from a peer review and a GA-reviewer who passed the article. As for the pictures of the transmission lines, I think a map of the 735 kV system is more important in order for the article to pass FA-review, so its alright. I think my friend nominated the article too early. Cheers. Trance addict 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review the long article.


 * I think Québec should be used throughout the article, so I will try to change "Quebec" into Québec.
 * The reason why I repeat C$ many times is because this power system has extensions into the United States. I didn't want to confuse the reader by putting just $. Although I didn't mention a cost figure in USD when writing the article, there could be a time in the future where I have to mention a cost in USD.
 * I think the lead could use some expansion, but which points should I expand upon? The Ice Storm? 735 kV lines? Power generation?
 * Yes, I used ";" as a section header since the TOC seemed cluttered using the normal format.
 * Yea, that will probably make the sections a bit more reader friendly.
 * I had numerous footnotes under "Manic-Outardes power stations" because I couldn't find a single page grouping these power stations together and stating the overall output. 10,500 MW is derived from the sum of the power outputs mentioned in each of the thirteen references (the 14th ref, the Ha! Ha! power station is not connected to the main grid). I prefer a line of footnotes rather than the alternative: a mess of links under a single reference.


 * I will try to add serial commas, but I probably need some help.
 * I don't think a see also section is necessary, since the HVDC +/- 450 line is already linked.
 * Should I just removed the external links stated in the note? They are the same links as the ones in references.
 * I don't think a breaking space is necessary and I think leaving "Ice Storm" the way it is now is alright.
 * I don't think a breaking space is necessary and I think leaving "Ice Storm" the way it is now is alright.

Cheers. Trance addict 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Floor count and height problems with the Biscayne Wall skyscrapers, especially 900 Biscayne Bay
The height and floor count of this Miami skyscraper is dubious and I think you should take a look at this, although you're on a WikiBreak. According to the article 900 Biscayne Bay and Emporis, the building is 712 feet (217 m) tall with 65 floors. However, I count only 60 floors from the and Emporis (use the hole). From this of the Biscayne Wall, you can see 900 Biscayne Bay is not much taller than the 615 ft (187 m) Marina Blue (a 100 foot (30 m) height difference should be larger than that), and the 679 foot (206 m) Marquis Miami is clearly taller than 900 Biscayne Bay! In addition, I am also dubious about the stated 585 m (178 m) height of Ten Museum Park. If Marina Blue is actually 615 feet tall, then the top of Ten Museum Park should be much closer the top of Marina Blue, heightwise. I don't think a 30 foot height difference translates into a 5-7 floor difference in Marina Blue. Cheers. Trance addict 08:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You may also want to look at this. Cheers. Trance addict 08:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fighting vandalism
This tool will make fighting vandalism a lot faster and easier. Cheers. Trance addict 08:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello Raime, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Acalamari 02:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Taunton & "otheruses" template
Hi, I noted your changes to the "otheruses" template on Taunton has been reverted again & have started a discussion on Talk:Taunton to try to arrive at some consensus on this. Would you be kind enough to give your rationale for including the US link as well as the general disambiguation page so that we can all agree the best way forward?&mdash; Rod talk 13:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD
I see you have actively discussed the nominees, but have not voted. Is everyone waiting for everyone else to vote. We need voters for the system to work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Boston Skyscrapers
A tag has been placed on Template:Boston Skyscrapers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<tt>&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude></tt>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD
Congratulations. List of tallest buildings in Boston was among the leading votegetters at WP:LOTD and will be recognized as list of the day twice. If you have any date preferences get back to me by the 26th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Tulsa Tallest Buildings list
It's a little late, but I just found out about it! Great work!!!! Okiefromokla questions? 21:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)