Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 23:50, 19 February 2008.

List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester
Self nomination - I am nominating this list as it is clear and concise with full references. Similar to the featured list List of tallest buildings and structures in London and brings useful information with links to the notable buildings and statistics for the ones not notable enough for an article. └and-rew ┘┌talk ┐ 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 82 King Street - As far as I can tell this is the 3 storey Former Bank of England Building do you actually mean the much larger Ship Canal House a couple of doors down ?Pit-yacker (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore me - there is another part behind the banking hall Pit-yacker (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - much better than when I first read an already good article. Good work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm a fan. Seegoon (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * comment Both this article and its model, London tallest buildings, should have their columns sortable. This is the defacto norm for such tables.  Hmains (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As you say, that is de facto, therefore not a fail in terms of FLC criteria. To make the table sortable, one would have to remove all style formatting on the table including the split column heading. This would make the table untidy and vulgar to look at. The table is already ordered by size and the only other ordering I think anyone would want to see is by year, as there are only 20 buildings on the list, the majority of people will be able to rank them in their head. └and-rew ┘┌talk ┐ 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. This isn't a codified policy as such, and thus in noway a reason to oppose the promotion to FL. However, I do note that it was just a comment anyway! -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also agree. It's not really necessary.  I think the tables currently look elegant and just making the sortable would wreck all that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - not worked much on it apart from a few edits, either way meets FLC criteria. Rudget . 13:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - A beautiful list (and article), meets the criteria, and improved through the FLC -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Numerous tallest building lists have been promoted following the format proposed herein. However, I am disappointed that so few of the buildings are represented by images.  Personally, I would prefer that all tallest building lists either used a format like say List of longest suspension bridge spans with as many images as possible represented or using double image or triple image along the right side.  I am sure many more than five of these buildings have good images.  Either of the latter two templates could accommodate many more images and for many cities almost all of the buildings have images and could be reformatted like the list above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Twenty images would be excessive in this case, in my opinion. The current images are a representative sample of the tallest in the list. The double or triple image templates would not work as there is not enough room at the side of the list especially for those using a smaller resolution and would cause overlapping onto the table. Thanks for your suggestions but I really don't feel it would be possible, others may have a different opinion though. └and-rew ┘┌talk ┐ 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Support I would like to see an historical tallest list as seem in the other tallest buildings lists. Besides making this page less repetitive than other lists that exist online already, the information is useful, interesting and makes the article closer to the tallest buildings lists that already exist.Medvedenko (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point us to a good example of this - for inspiration? -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the example List of tallest buildings in New York City but it seems a bit pointless as the tallest history is just Town Hall, CIS, Beetham so a mention in the lead could be more appropriate? └and-rew ┘┌talk ┐ 19:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Having learned this, I personally wouldn't make the change as the data is too banal here. It is probably worth doing in about 12 months or so when the approved towers are constructed???? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Four buildings in a timeline list equals the tallest buildings in Philadelphia and the tallest buildings in Dubai articles and is more than the tallest buildings in Providence article. Besides there might be information on what was the tallest building in the city before HMP Manchester Tower was built somewhere out there. Medvedenko (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I suppose the timeline lists were more relevant on the other articles because they limit buildings listed to nothing lower than 122 meters, which this list doesn't do becuase of the lack of buildings that height. However, I'm still of a fan of the Timeline of the Tallest buildings section. Medvedenko (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC) ✅ Timeline done └and-rew ┘┌talk ┐ 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a great list (after seeing the blue tables, I am tempted to change all U.S. building lists to this method). But I have a few questions. Why are twenty tallest, etc., bolded at the beginning of a section? This is not needed. Also, has converting the list from a set number of entries to a height limit (50 m, perhaps) been considered? This is common for all building lists (see Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Boston). Also, is there a skyline image that can be added to the lead? This is also a standard for most building lists. Rai - me  15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, why is the section titled "Approved and under construction buildings" when there are proposed buildings on the list as well? "Tallest under construction, approved, and proposed" would be more appropriate and more consistent with other tallest building lists. Rai - me  20:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, until a height limit is added to this list. Also, per Trance addict's comment below, I agree that individual references to Emporis and/or SkyscraperPage in each entry would add to the list, and that the "Status" section is unnecessary for the completed buildings section. Finally, I also think that a timeline section should be added; as noted above, almost all building lists have them, even if they are only a few entries long. But the most pressing issue is the height limit. Cheers, Rai - me  02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already added the height limit to the list before you opposed, I will do a timeline now. I have also added a reference to every building on the list as requested. └and-rew ┘┌talk ┐ 02:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I didn't think to check the list again, as there were no replies here. My mistake! Overall, this is definitely a great list! Cheers, Rai - me  02:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but each entry in the building list needs a reference(s) to Emporis and/or SkyscraperPage, as per the tallest building-FLs. There also needs to be a section titled Notes for these references. A status column is unnecessary for the first two sections (tallest buildings and tallest structures), since all entries listed under "tallest buildings" are either nearing completion (topped out) or completed. The third section, Approved and under construction buildings, needs to be split up into two or three sections, as per List of tallest buildings in San Francisco. Good luck with this list! Cheers. <font color="indigo" face="Arial">Trance addict 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I can support now. Cheers. <font color="indigo" face="Arial">Trance addict 02:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both of your supports, I have done the timeline now too. └<font color="#0084C9">and-rew ┘┌<font color="#0084C9">talk ┐ 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments: Why do some of the buildings have links and others do not? I think that all buildings should be linked, even if no article exists.  This would create consistency with other tallest buildings lists.  Also, what is the purpose for having Salford Quays, Beetham Tower and Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester in the "See also" section?  They do not seem to relate directly to the tallest buildings and structures in Manchester.  I think they should be removed.  Third, I think the last template on the page, Manchester B&S, should be converted to a navbox so that it fits with the two other templates.  And last, I think the buildings need more sources.  Most of the featured tallest buildings lists have at least two sources for each building.  These sources are usually Emporis.com and SkyscraperPage.com.  Sometimes buildings are only listed on one database and not another.  By using information from multiple sources, you ensure that there are no missing structures.  Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that links to the Beetham Tower and Salford Quays should be removed, but I don't see a strong reason to remove Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, as both that page and this page cover information relating to Manchester buildings. Also, if you believe that a template transcluded onto a page should be changed, that should be brought up on the template discussion page; the template not being a navbox dosn't relate directly with the quality of this list. And I agree about the sources. Cheers, Rai - me  04:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sources. | ✅ See also. | I don't think there is any point creating masses of red links for no reason as many of the buildings are residential towers and will never be notable enough for an article. As already mentioned above, that template was created before the development of this article so a message on the talk page would be more appropriate and has nothing to do with this FLC. └<font color="#0084C9">and-rew ┘┌<font color="#0084C9">talk ┐ 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.